The "real" reason the game has changed.

[pemerton]

4th you design some character with all the bells and whistles, but then get constrained in what story you can tell via magical non-magic overnight healing, and though never stealing a thing you get better at stealing things.

In AD&D I get better at fighting things even if I never fight but only cast spells.

In 3E I get better at not being killed by swordblows even if all I do is level up as a blacksmith.

In Rolemaster or Runequest or Traveller I don't get better at anything automatically. It's all comparable to the allocation of skill points in 3E, even hit points (in RM) or combat ability (in RM and RQ).

These are just mechanical devices used to generate a certain sort of game experience. Some like one approach to character build, some another. But there's no radical difference of kind in the way the character build rules constrain play.

As for the healing rules, as I've posted repeatedly in another thread, just change the extend rest rules to delay the recovery of healing surges. This will have no effect on the mechanical balance of the game, except to change the pacing of adventures (that is, there will be a longer resting time after every four or so combat encounters).

This is a trivial change compared (for example) to introducing a new class into AD&D which is a sword-wielding wizard (to borrow Ariosto's example upthread).

What is being said is where you get to tell the story.

Pre-4th you get to tell the story AS you play, while with 4th you have to piece a story together AFTER you have played something out.

Well, I haven't had this experience at all. The story of combat unfolds as combat is played - who moved where, who attacked what, who delivered the kill!, etc. The story of a skill challenge unfolds as it is resolved - who says or does what, what results from it, who responds in what way to that response, etc. The story of exploration unfolds as the gameworld is explored - who is lifting up what rock, what are they finding under it, do the feel any magic eminating from it, etc.

And I don't think I'm playing it wrong. In the example of exploration in the PHB (pp 10-11), it shows the story being told as the game is played. In the example skill challenge in the Rules Compendium (pp 162-163) it shows the story being told as the game is played. Likewise the example skill challenge in the DMG (p 77).

So I really don't get what it is that you have in mind here.

 

[Ariosto]

Pre-4th you get to tell the story AS you play, while with 4th you have to piece a story together AFTER you have played something out.

I think you are probably accurate in terms of the designers' intent, and definitely on the mark with what I have seen in actual play.

It is, to be sure, not an absolute binary difference but rather (as are most phenomena in this world that is not the realm of Platonic Forms) a matter of degree. We can count on certain parties to make much of that, maybe more even than it actually means to them.

It's not much of a role-playing game, to my mind, just to make up stories after the fact about results in an abstract game of dice or cards. It's not much of a game at all when all I get to do is listen to the DM tell me what my character does.

What 4e has done is put the cart very prominently before the horse. "Dice first, ask questions later (if ever)" is just plain backwards. "Skill challenges" don't challenge skill; they challenge one's affection for arbitrarily interminable dice-tossing and effectively meaningless blather. A computer can do that drudgery, so what am I as a 'player' here for?

 

[Hussar]

Just to add to the Fighter/MU example and how the player is being constrained by mechanics. Pemerton is correct that the PC's stats are required by the rules, so, depending on what class he takes first, he'll need at least one 17 and one 15.

Note, that during the changeover, he cannot access his previous class abilities without sacrificing all experience gained for at least that encounter (and I believe it's for the entire adventure, but, that's fuzzy memory) until such time as his second class advances one level higher than his first.

Additionally, once I switch classes, I cannot EVER advance in the first class again. No matter what. I can take fighter first, switch to MU, level up so that I gain access to both classes and fight with a sword exclusively for an entire level and can only gain levels as a MU.

Add to this the pace of xp and level advancement which has been talked about at great length as being much slower than 3e or 4e. Let's ballpark level advancement as pretty quick and say it's 5 sessions/level. That means I have to go at least 15 sessions before I can actually play my sword wielding wizard because I need to be at least a 1st level fighter/2nd level wizard. Presuming 1/week play, that I exclusively play this character and not another from my stable of characters and I don't die during this period, it will be almost four months of real time that I am forced by the mechanics to play a character that I don't want to play. Or, to put it another way, four months before I get to play the character that I do want to play.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hussar, I applaud your actually looking up the rules in this instance!

IMHO, it is absolutely true that AD&D 1e took pains to make each class distinct, and that certainly means that players are discouraged within the RAW from character concepts that make the classes less distinct.

If you want to cast spells and use a sword, you can always consider playing an elf.

OTOH, there is a lot to be said for that level of class distinction as supplying different routes toward dealing with the game's challenges. Because, whether some here like it or not, in AD&D 1e, combat is only one of the game's challenges, and it is not always the most important one.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

So I can't play a story in which my wizard wields a sword, wears armour, and is younger than 41 (the age at which stat penalties kick in). What is the point of this?

You tell me. Once again, your claim is -- obviously, I should think -- factually false.

 

[Ariosto]

What is the point of trying to deny that the AD&D rules impose constraints on the sort of PC that can be introduced into the game, which constraints go beyond simply what logic or imagination or evey playability in the loose sense requires?

I have made no such attempt.

Neither have I -- or any other players of my acquaintance, and by evidence not the designer himself -- ever harbored the view that AD&D ought to be all things to all people.

 

[Hussar]

What 4e has done is put the cart very prominently before the horse. "Dice first, ask questions later (if ever)" is just plain backwards. "Skill challenges" don't challenge skill; they challenge one's affection for arbitrarily interminable dice-tossing and effectively meaningless blather. A computer can do that drudgery, so what am I as a 'player' here for?

How is this any different than the combat mechanics in any version of D&D? You roll your dice first and then describe what happens.

How is this different from skills in 3e? Until your roll the dice, you have no idea how far you jumped, how far you climbed or how persuasive you were.

In most RPG's any mechanically determined event must be resolved before it can be narrated. This is fundamental. You cannot narrate before you resolve the mechanics. I can claim to stab the bad guy in the toe until the cows come home, but, until the dice hit the table, nothing happens in the game world.

The primary difference is elements outside of combat in 1e and (to some degree) 2e were generally freeformed. They were not mechanically determined by and large. How far can I jump in banded mail with a 16 strength in 1e? As far as my DM says that I can. How believable am I when I'm bald faced lying to the NPC in 2e? As believable as the DM says that I am.

There's nothing whatsoever with doing it this way. It's one method of task resolution.

3e and 4e go a different direction though. These elements are no longer free formed. They have mechanics in place to determine the narrative in the game world. How far do I jump? The dice tell me. How believable am I? The dice tell me.

The only difference is that we've shift arbitration away from the DM to the dice. Whether that's a good or a bad thing is entirely a taste thing. For some, it's bad, for others, it's good. Depends on what you want out of the game.

 

[Ariosto]

pemerton: I see how I erred in writing "at any time other than first taking the class". For rhetorical purposes, it was of course easy for you to pretend that I somehow considered the stated requirements for taking a second class as not including the prime requisite for the first. Suffice to say that the rules as written are indeed to be taken as read, and as the intended and assumed context for my statements.

How is this any different than the combat mechanics in any version of D&D? You roll your dice first and then describe what happens.

Speak of "certain parties", and behold!

Chiefly, that a fight is over much more quickly. That becomes moot, of course, in a scenario that's nothing but fights concatenated effectively into a single slog. I don't fancy spending an hour or more at a stretch on combat in old D&D much more than in 3e or 4e.

Secondarily, that in fact we do choose courses of action before (maybe) rolling dice. That's how we know in the first place that the roll is "to hit" or "to save" or "to turn" rather than for reaction or morale or dexterity or whatnot.

In 4e, the apparent intent -- and definite practice, in my experience -- in a "skill challenge" is that a bunch of rolls are going to be made no matter what excuse it takes. The excuses don't affect the fundamental proceedings a jot. The optimal set of numbers on character sheets is what it was from the start.

The "listening to the DM tell me what my character does" also irritates the hell out of me, but it follows pretty naturally from the designers' philosophy that it should not matter what I say my character is doing when it comes to investigating places and things. There's a number on my character sheet, and either the DM picks a higher number or the DM does not -- and only the DM knows!

There really is nothing for me to do but let the DM tell me that I found thing X, and it's convenient enough for the DM to do that by telling me how. It might even be more effective at preserving the illusion of role-playing than it would be to make me serve as narrator of my "search" for what I already know is there because I have just been told.

 

[Hussar]

Instead of the snark Ariosto, could you answer the question?

At what point can the player narrate the resolution of a mechanically determined event?

 

[pemerton]

OTOH, there is a lot to be said for that level of class distinction as supplying different routes toward dealing with the game's challenges.

If it's Ok to respond to your reply to Hussar - I agree with this. Even when playing "classless" versions of Rolemaster - I don't think a classless version has ever been officially published, but there are various ideas floating around in the Guild Companion and other places as to how this can be done - there were still de facto classes, because of the differing suites of spell lists, and the fact that the development rules make it impossible to be expert at everything that an adventurer might hope to be expert in.

In my experience this feature of a character build system can help facilitate party play.

Just to reiterate - I'm not here to bag 1st ed AD&D. It - together with Moldvay/Cook and 4e - is one of the three versions of D&D I would ever have any interest in playing.

I'm just denying that 4e's character build rules are obnoxiously constraining on PC development in a way that marks a radical break from earlier versions of D&D.