D&D General TSR to WoTC shift--OR--the de-prioritization on Exploration spells/classes

[Nikosandros]

Now, I’ve never played AD&D myself, but I’ve read a bit of it, and some retroclones, and my understanding was that failing a climbing check meant you made it half way up and then fell. To my knowledge, nothing prevented you from trying again (apart from the fear of falling again and taking even more damage in the process). Is this perhaps one of those things that depended on who was DMing?

Yes, never heard of the prohibition on attempting again the climb. There is a limit on opening locks: if you fail, you can't attempt the same lock until you increase your level.

 

[James Gasik]

Now, I’ve never played AD&D myself, but I’ve read a bit of it, and some retroclones, and my understanding was that failing a climbing check meant you made it half way up and then fell. To my knowledge, nothing prevented you from trying again (apart from the fear of falling again and taking even more damage in the process). Is this perhaps one of those things that depended on who was DMing?

Oh no, it actually says this in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide-

 

[Nikosandros]

I had forgotten that passage from the DSG, which is book I haven't used in a while. Still, I'm not sure that this was the "standard" procedure in AD&D. I wonder if the question was ever discussed on Sage Advice on Dragon.

 

[Aldarc]

One of my biggest pet peeves with "modern" DnD design (4E and later) was the move away from spells as general utility. Yeah both editions do have utility spells, but nowhere near the emphasis as earlier editions.

4E made many utility spells into rituals which IMHO was fantastic.

 

[James Gasik]

I had forgotten that passage from the DSG, which is book I haven't used in a while. Still, I'm not sure that this was the "standard" procedure in AD&D. I wonder if the question was ever discussed on Sage Advice on Dragon.

I really couldn't say; I scoured the PHB and the DMG trying to find rules for how non-Thief characters could climb anything, and if it's there, I didn't find it. The DSG is the only place I could find rules for it.

What I imagined happened is that DM's just made their own house rules (likely using ability checks of some sort) and by the time the DSG came out, they weren't especially concerned with using the rules in it- if they even had access to the book at all!

 

[Alzrius]

I had forgotten that passage from the DSG, which is book I haven't used in a while. Still, I'm not sure that this was the "standard" procedure in AD&D. I wonder if the question was ever discussed on Sage Advice on Dragon.

It's not really helpful, but the closest I could find was in the "Sage Advice" column for Dragon #64, which is from August of 1982:

What is the chance for climbing walls, etc., for non-thieves?

The same chance thieves have of knowing spells or possessing 18/00 strength: none. (I can hear all the fighters saying, “But I can hide in the shadows: Watch this!” Even though the thief abilities have rather unimpressive, mundane names, they are indeed special abilities and can be successfully performed only by someone who has had, and continues to take, training in the thief profession.

In a standard AD&D campaign, there can be no deviation from this rule — and it is a fact of “life” as much as it is a rule of the game. Only thieves can employ abilities described as unique to that class, just as clerics can do only what clerics are described as being capable of. This is obvious, necessary (from a playability standpoint), and logical as well; it takes a great deal of introductory training — specialized training — for a character to attain adventurer status (first level), and continuous review and training in the chosen class(es) if one is to rise in levels. The practice of an adventuring profession is a serious matter, often even a vital one, and each profession demands of its adherents all the interest, energy, and effort they can muster. Any DM who settles for less than this attitude from player characters and still allows them to rise in experience levels as if nothing was amiss is doing the playing group and the game a disservice.

In extraordinary circumstances or for the sake of experimentation, non-thief characters with exceptionally high dexterity might be allowed a chance of successfully performing certain thief-like abilities. This mutates the adventure or campaign, and this fact should be understood by the DM and all the players: what they’re playing isn’t an AD&D game any longer. But it might be interesting if, for instance, any non-thief with a dexterity of at least 16 (and any monsters with the same trait) was given a small chance to use that dexterity similar to the way the ability benefits a thief. In this hypothetical system, the “dexterity benefit” would only apply to those thief abilities that allow bonuses for high dexterity: picking pockets, opening locks, locating/removing traps, moving silently, and hiding in shadows. The percentage chance of success for a non-thief to perform a certain function would be a constant, related only to the character’s dexterity and not to his or her level of experience. The percentage chance for success is the same as the number given as a bonus on Dexterity Table II (Players Handbook, page 12), and success is only possible when a number is given. Thus, a non-thief with 16 dexterity would have a 5% chance of using the opening locks ability, but no other thief-like abilities, and a non-thief would need 18 dexterity to have any chance of locating/removing traps.

In no case could it be justified for non-thieves to have the ability to climb walls using this same reasoning, however. First of all, the ability has no direct relationship to dexterity, or else it would be listed in Dexterity Table II. Second of all, climbing walls is a thief’s bread and butter, his claim to fame, the one thing even a first-level thief can do with a decent chance of success. It stands to reason that a large portion of the thief’s training goes into acquiring this ability in the first place; it isn’t something a fighter-type can pick up over a weekend of rigorous wall-clutching. Climbing walls is like riding a unicycle: It takes forever to learn how, and once you learn the basics you don’t ever get a whole lot better at it than you were when you started. Most people (except for thieves and diehard unicycle riders) will give up after taking a few spills, when it becomes apparent that the bumps aren’t worth the benefits.

After that, the best I can find is in Dragon #149 (September, 1989), for which the "Sage Advice" column is devoted to the recently-released AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Handbook:

According to Table 65 (page 122), unskilled characters have a base climbing chance of 40%. The same table notes that a character who spends one slot for the mountaineering proficiency also has a 40% climbing chance. Is this an error, or do characters have to spend two slots before they are better climbers than unskilled characters?

Yes, there is an error. The base climbing chance improves 10% for each slot spent on mountaineering; thus, a character with one proficiency slot in this skill has a 50% base climbing chance.


According to Table 67 (page 123), it is impossible to climb a "dry" ice wall, but a character can climb a slippery ice wall at one-fourth the normal climbing rate. Is this an error?

This is not really an error. All ice walls qualify as slippery surfaces, there are no dry or slightly slippery ice walls.

 

[payn]

I'm talking about human behavior in general. I've been a manager/supervisor for decades, and one common phrase that's been around for a while is, "You get what you measure/reward." I.e., we're all sort like a rat who learned that if we do X, we get a reward for it. Often times without consciously thinking about it. If the reward is XP (leveling up and more power) and treasure (a motivator for nearly every would-be hero! Especially in TSR era where the dependency on magic items was much greater than modern editions), we as people are naturally going to gravitate to those rewards. We were also actively discouraged to go in guns blazing because the system was so unforgiving. This is an edition where a housecat could kill a level 1 PC, a lot of monsters had save or die abilities, and you recovered resources (HP and spells) much slower.

That sounds a lot like X theory management. Which is very interesting to this discussion. X theory supposes that folks are naturally lazy and don't really want to work. So, you have to carrot and stick them into doing the things you want from them. I see XP systems and the attitudes around them match up to this philosophy. However, a Y theory of management dispenses with the micromanagement and tangible directives. The Y theory supposes that given to their own devices, people will find their own way to the goal and do so more proficiently.

I find theory X to be very much a self-fulfilling prophecy. You build in all these rewards and punishments and then you get exactly what you expect. That may be very desirable in a game where the activities are very specific in intention. However, I find it to be very limiting both in a game terms and imagination. Which is why a prefer a much more Y theory leaning milestone XP system. I dont care how the players pursue the rewards, I just want them to engage the material and self actualize in play.

So, to bring it back to the design changes from TSR to WotC, I do agree somewhat with the OP. I do think old school promoted exploration more, and some nu skool design moved away from it towards leaning into combat. However, I see a sharp interest returning to exploration and social pillars with the prevalence of milestone XP. Both players and designers seem to be flirting with how to do this. I see future design offering much more in the way of exploration and social to bring us back again like a pendulum towards some of the original gameplay, albeit with a modern take. YMMV.

 

[James Gasik]

It's not really helpful, but the closest I could find was in the "Sage Advice" column for Dragon #64, which is from August of 1982:



After that, the best I can find is in Dragon #149 (September, 1989), for which the "Sage Advice" column is devoted to the recently-released AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Handbook:

That Sage Advice is really interesting. It flat out says nobody can do what the Thief does (even though the DSG reverses this somewhat), and that while you could allow it, that would "mutate the adventure or campaign" and make it such that what you are playing "isn't an AD&D game any longer."

 

[Clint_L]

I do think old school promoted exploration more, and some nu skool design moved away from it towards leaning into combat.

All evidence to the contrary?

This discussion is fascinating in that the OP has a theory that does not conform to the actual facts. Again, I really encourage people to go and actually look at early D&D modules if you think that the game was less about combat than it is today.

That's why we have another active thread on the so-called "Hickman" revolution of the 80s which was about making the game more story and less combat oriented. Today, WotC publishes whole adventure books where combat is secondary, and often entirely optional. That's why old school adventuring is also sometimes referred to as a "dungeon crawl." Combat was the linchpin of the game, and it is just not the case that D&D in general was about avoiding it. That's absurd.

 

[payn]

That's why we have another active thread on the so-called "Hickman" revolution of the 80s which was about making the game more story and less combat oriented. Today, WotC publishes whole adventure books where combat is secondary, and often entirely optional. That's why old school adventuring is also sometimes referred to as a "dungeon crawl." Combat was the linchpin of the game, and it is just not the case that D&D in general was about avoiding it. That's absurd.

Wow, I'm not listening to your facts anymore.