The Return of the Player and the Man Beneath the Mask?

[Charles Dunwoody]

Oh man, the lack of mount rules has been bugging me forever.

Give me some mounts that level up with the character already.

I don't think we need a ride skill, but rules on using mounts and vehicles and 3D terrain and so forth are way, way too thin. I've been worried about this since they showed the old "3D" maps at PAX - I asked them if it would allow for a vertical axis and got (what felt like) a long, silent stare before they said no.

It really threw me off too. As you said, a ride skill may not be needed. The AD&D 1E DMG had only secondary skills but it included a section on mounted combat.

I think 4E was fine in some areas of combat but it felt like the designer at the time just cut out everything he didn't like--mounts, aerial combat, underwater combat, seiges etc. If I was brand new to RPGs and I played fantasy I'd expect Lord of the Rings. At the minimum melee, missile, magic, mounted, and massive combat.

 

[Umbran]

I have to politely disagree here. I just ran AD&D 1E. The rulebooks have many examples of what to do in combat including ambushes, two-weapon fighting, parrying (haven't seen that in a while), setting a weapon against a charge, charging, mounted combat, aerial combat, underwater combat, use of polearms or not in small melees, poison, fire, grenade like missiles, wrestling, punching, martial arts (one class only but deadly dangerous), assassination, and more.

Interesting you should raise this point.

The 1e PHB section on combat is a whopping 2 pages! It says, "participants in a melee can opt to attack, fall back, parry, or flee." In attack, it mentions weapons, bare handed, or grapple, but the rules for bare-handed and grapple are not presented. Using two weapons is not mentioned. Charging, setting to receive charge, mounted combat... most everything is not there.

Missile weapons are given *one sentence* in the combat section of the PHB (it amounts to, "You can fling a lot of different things at the enemy," and gives no rules for what the flung stuff does). You learn about the ability to charge, or set a weapon to receive a charge, by way of reading footnotes in the weapon tables. Some other bits could be inferred if you read (and absorbed) the entire text, but I'd hardly expect a new player to internalize it all.

And, come on, "underwater combat" does not count as a tactical choice for the player to make round to round! Aerial and underwater rules were in the DMG, under "The Adventure" - they were combat setting choices for the GM, not something the player generally got to pick.

Most of this stuff was in the DMG, which has 20+ pages on combat. However, the very first sentence of the book was, "What follows herein is strictly for the eyes of you, the campaign referee." Most of the rules for combat options were not supposed to be in the player's hands!

So, how is a player supposed to know that fighting with two weapons (which is "I attack... twice!") was an option? How is this not, "blue sky/what the GM supports or tells me about"?

Given this, does anyone wonder why they moved most of this stuff out to the PHB, and made it clear and explicit? 1e has much to recommend it, but its organization and presentation left much to be desired.

 

[Incenjucar]

It really threw me off too. As you said, a ride skill may not be needed. The AD&D 1E DMG had only secondary skills but it included a section on mounted combat.

I think 4E was fine in some areas of combat but it felt like the designer at the time just cut out everything he didn't like--mounts, aerial combat, underwater combat, seiges etc. If I was brand new to RPGs and I played fantasy I'd expect Lord of the Rings. At the minimum melee, missile, magic, mounted, and massive combat.

While I'll snicker at the idea of "4E is a video game" until the day I die, it's very possible that the game was designed specifically to be easily translated to a virtual table, and that may be why all the more exotic, and especially 3D, rules were pared back, because WotC never had any ambitions for a 3D environment. We've already seen evidence that this is true for the powers, but it may extend to the whole structure.

 

[Charles Dunwoody]

Interesting you should raise this point.

The 1e PHB section on combat is a whopping 2 pages! It says, "participants in a melee can opt to attack, fall back, parry, or flee." In attack, it mentions weapons, bare handed, or grapple, but the rules for bare-handed and grapple are not presented. Using two weapons is not mentioned. Charging, setting to receive charge, mounted combat... most everything is not there.

Missile weapons are given *one sentence* in the combat section of the PHB (it amounts to, "You can fling a lot of different things at the enemy," and gives no rules for what the flung stuff does). You learn about the ability to charge, or set a weapon to receive a charge, by way of reading footnotes in the weapon tables. Some other bits could be inferred if you read (and absorbed) the entire text, but I'd hardly expect a new player to internalize it all.

And, come on, "underwater combat" does not count as a tactical choice for the player to make round to round! Aerial and underwater rules were in the DMG, under "The Adventure" - they were combat setting choices for the GM, not something the player generally got to pick.

Most of this stuff was in the DMG, which has 20+ pages on combat. However, the very first sentence of the book was, "What follows herein is strictly for the eyes of you, the campaign referee." Most of the rules for combat options were not supposed to be in the player's hands!

So, how is a player supposed to know that fighting with two weapons (which is "I attack... twice!") was an option? How is this not, "blue sky/what the GM supports or tells me about"?

Given this, does anyone wonder why they moved most of this stuff out to the PHB, and made it clear and explicit? 1e has much to recommend it, but its organization and presentation left much to be desired.

You bring up a very good point. I think the default assumption for AD&D 1E is that a player, having read (or today watched) fantasy stories, would attempt to do all the things they knew about. Leap from above, charge violently, fight with torch and sword like Aragorn in the movie, charge on horseback etc.

The player also knew whether his character had a lance or a sword or a wand. I don't believe that the vast majority of players trying D&D for the first time couldn't figure out how to do things whether as simple as I swing my sword or try to block that attack or pull a rug out from under someone. Players didn't need a list of okay things to do. There are, in fact, too many choices to list everything and it would have limited the player's options. So the DM had some rule guidelines and a mandate to judge other situations fairly.

When a player first played AD&D he tried all of those things most likely and the DM explained what happened. If a player tried to charge on horseback and the DM had said you can't do that (no rules so no) it wouldn't have worked.

But the rules were there, in the DMG. So the player was encouraged to keep thinking in character in combat. He could look at his character sheet for inspiration (for example the ranger is a great ambusher and the monk can kill by punching something's lungs out) but if something was missing, the player would describe his action.

In turn, the DM learned how to apply the guidelines to more exotic requests. I've played D&D for over twenty years and the only things I've seen on both sides of the screen not be allowed were trying to make modern explosives and other modern devices. The rest of the table always sided with the DM on a judgment call like that. Otherwise, you did what you thought your hero would do or in a few cases could do based on class.

I played D&D next in Ft. Wayne and D&D had gone back to this style. I had a sword, I didn't need rules on how a hero uses one. The rules I did need were things that were unique to my character. Otherwise, I just told my DM (a complete stranger) what I wanted to do and he made a judgment call. It worked great and I had a blast. I didn't need rules to protect me from the DM. We were adults working together to tell a group story and enjoy some challenges. If the DM wasn't up to snuff I would have tried to encourage him to get better as his game.

D&D players/DMs really can help each other out and become more skilled. We don't need to be the players protected by rules protected from the mother-may-I DM meanie. At least not in my opinion or experience.

Again, though, I respect the rights of others who do want to game that way. Just not my thing.

 

[Charles Dunwoody]

I think my biggest concern with modern D&D design is that the more the game is designed to limit DM judgment calls the more it limits the player. If the player becomes used to looking up a rule to do something rather than just saying I do this it limits the player not just the DM.

I saw this when I ran AD&D for a 3E/4E player last Wed. He spent the game with his nose in the PH trying to figure out how to do things. I told him the rules were in the DMG, he could just say what he was doing, and we would make a judgment call. Despite our years of gaming together he didn't trust me to do that and he said the rules were stupid. Instead of doing any damn cool, crazy thing he could think of he hamstrung himself and didn't enjoy the game as much as he could have. And why? Because he didn't think I could do my job as DM? Or for another reason? I'm not entirely sure.

Again, his right to play that way, but why even have me DM if the player doesn't want both some challenges and some judgment calls? If I develop a golf course to challenge golfers I either succeed or don't suceed by how many golfers like my design and play on the course. Like it or hate it, if they come back they find the design a challenge and hopefully an enjoyment. D&D is the same way for me.

 

[Odhanan]

True, in 4e, you're mastering the rules of an exceptional and advanced tactical boardgame, thus becoming a better tactical 4e player.

In 1e, you're mastering everything that a person living in your particular setting could possibly do, thus becoming a better roleplayer.

This caricatured, obviously, but this is basically it, yes.

 

[Umbran]

I don't believe that the vast majority of players trying D&D for the first time couldn't figure out how to do things whether as simple as I swing my sword or try to block that attack or pull a rug out from under someone. Players didn't need a list of okay things to do.

See my point above about "option paralysis".

When faced with several options, and lacking any particular way to discern one as better than another, human beings will often default to making no decision at all. This isn't about whether they know what happens in fantasy literature and movies, but instead about knowing what is appropriate at a given moment out of a huge number of options.

Until the player has mastered the GM's internal rules, he or she cannot reasonably judge the risk or chance of success of an action. Not knowing how viable other options are, they'll tend to rest on the known option ("I attack").

Layer on top of this the fact that player choices are dependent on the information they have, and GMs are often not nearly as complete in giving it as they think they are. One will generally not think to try to yank the rug out from under a bad guy, if the GM has neglected to mention that there is a rug to yank! Some games give the player agency to create the rug in the scene, but doing so is a learned behavior, not something everyone will think to do.

Old-time gamers may not see much option paralysis in RPG combat - they've played a lot, and have built up an internal model of what works and what doesn't. It may crop up again, however, if they switch to a game with a completely novel mechanic (say, a guy who's played D&D for decades, taking a turn at playing Nobilis - one player I saw in such a game suffered from just this kind of issue until he got the hang of it).

 

[Umbran]

Instead of doing any damn cool, crazy thing he could think of he hamstrung himself and didn't enjoy the game as much as he could have. And why? Because he didn't think I could do my job as DM? Or for another reason? I'm not entirely sure.

If I had to hazard a guess, it may well have been because he couldn't know how well/if it would work - it is only a damn cool, crazy thing if it works. If it fails, it was a stupid thing to do.

 

[Charles Dunwoody]

See my point above about "option paralysis".

When faced with several options, and lacking any particular way to discern one as better than another, human beings will often default to making no decision at all. This isn't about whether they know what happens in fantasy literature and movies, but instead about knowing what is appropriate at a given moment out of a huge number of options.

Until the player has mastered the GM's internal rules, he or she cannot reasonably judge the risk or chance of success of an action. Not knowing how viable other options are, they'll tend to rest on the known option ("I attack").

Old-time gamers may not see this much in RPG combat - they've played a lot, and have built up an internal model of what works and what doesn't. It may crop up again, however, if they switch to a game with a completely novel mechanic (say, a guy who's played D&D for decades, taking a turn at playing Nobilis).

I agree about option paralysis for untrained human beings. Why do police run toward danger or draw and fire a pistol when a civilian stands gawking? Training. Same reason a medic can save a life and a civilian may just stand staring at all the blood and mangles and scream a lot.

The PH 1E had pages and pages of training for new players and many of these pages have been stripped out of later PHs. Look at all the training: how to explore dungeons, how to fight, how to explore wilderness, etc. Not rules, but training. What to expect and advice on how to react to it.

Now, training only goes so far. A cop can freeze up, a medic can accidentally kill a patient. But at least with training they have a real chance to succeed instead of defaulting to option paralysis.

For AD&D 1E players, they were trained either by experienced players or by reading and studying those who adventured before them. Whether they remembered their training showed up at the table.

For me, having players reading rules in game would be like seeing a medic reading a first aid instruction manual while I'm bleeding out. It doesn't inspire confidence that they have adequately prepared themselves for their chosen task.

Now, I don't mind players looking up a spell or two. That's like a medic measuring correctly by looking at the CC lines--precision. But with all the advice of experienced players and the PH behind them (not to mention Dragon if they wanted it), reading rules at the table should be the exception not the norm.

Again, not that I don't respect other people who want that experience. But I want trained medics/players ready to explore, talk, and throw down and as a player I want a DM who learned under another good DM or took the time to read about his craft and is willing to work as a team.

AD&D 1E did this training and this practical experience very, very well which is why it was the most popular RPG. It fits with what people expect--the more you study and train the better you might do. The more you as trained actually do, the better you get. Not just the character gets training (1st level character rules) and experience (XP and new levels) but also the player gets training (PH and experienced player advice) and experience (actual table top play).

 

[Incenjucar]

A book on ad-libbing in character and combat would be quite nice for any edition, really. You don't need to put it in the PHB - plenty of people already know how - but it would be great for people new to RPGs.