Tumble problems

[Water Bob]

Something tells me you use crit fumble tables as well.

No, not really. They end up hurting the heroes more so than helping them.

I am so very much personally against stuff that turns an evening of adventuring into "lol, roll to see how many GP fell out your pockets as you trip over a rake in the farmer's field."

I never said I did that. It's part of the GM's job to keep the game moving, exciting, interesting. I strive to keep it high on suspense and intrigue.

Ok, I get that you are detail oriented with gear. Thats fine. My DM is too. If its not on your sheet, you don't have it. Didn't include ink and parchment? No mapmaking for you.

Yup.

I, however, would be really pissed if the DM said something like "you know how you tied your sword to your backpack when you secured your gear 4 hours ago when you guys were climbing up the Cliffs of Sorrow? Yea, since you never said you untied it, its still there. It'll take you a move action to unsling your backpack, a full round action to untie the sword, and another move action to draw it.

Players in my game remember to make sure details like this don't slip. And, if its blatantly obvious, I won't try to "trick" the players. I might remind them by saying, "As you walk out of the foothills, your sword clanks, still tied to your backpack."

Or, I might have an NPC untie his sword.

If I've done that and the player still doesn't say his sword is no longer tied to his backpack, then his sword is still tied to his backpack.

Granted, there is a fair bit of hyperbole in there to prove the point, but I think you can kinda see what I'm getting at. The game is Dungeons and Dragons, not Accountants and Actuaries. I don't want to have to go down a checklist to make sure I properly dressed myself into the morning, or that I'm combat ready in an area where I expect combat, or whatever. THAT suspends MY disbelief.

I don't make people do that, but I do want to know what they're carrying.

If the players leave the city, I'm going to assume they unbond their weapons, because that's what makes sense.

I don't assume anything the players. It's up to them to communicate what they're doing.

*Note, as a recovering WoWaholic, I hate the game. I'd rather go back and play it than play a game like this. Thats how strong I feel about this.

Good thing you're not in my game, then!

 

[Water Bob]

Looks like Conan is going to do some of his own tumbling .

 

[Wyvernhand]

Good thing you're not in my game, then!

I have a job where I work 40-50 hours a week writing procedures and scopes of work that have to be precise and detailed. Its a lot of work, but I'm getting paid. If I screw up, I get repremanded. When I play, 3-4 hours every other week, I want to relax, pretend to be a kid in a dress who throws bat poo at people to make them explode. I don't want to be back at an unpayed job where a different boss repremands me for skipping steps or miswriting procedure. I play D&D cause its fun and escapist, not because it reminds me of what I do on the days I don't get to play.

So yea, thank god I don't play in your game.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Yeah, I read that back in the day. Are you aware that Gygax was trying to avoid being sued by the Tokien estate after the success of D&D?

I'm well aware of that, actually. I'm too lazy to argue the issue myself, but James Maliszewski has done a lot of really excellent historical research that I'll just slothfully point you in the direction of, beginning with this extremely on-point post: GROGNARDIA: Gygax on Tolkien (Again)

But don't stop there. Read the rest of Maliszewski's stuff about the actual roots of D&D. It's quite illuminating.

One side believe stuff like the article you cite. The other points at the game and lists the simularities.

Sure. For example, swords appear frequently in both D&D and LotR. Of course, they also appear in every other fantasy work, so that means absolutely nothing.

The number of things that are truly unique/original to Tolkien that were incorporated into early D&D are not insignificant, but they are clearly outweighed by sources like Jack Vance, Fritz Leiber, L. Sprague de Camp, Robert E. Howard, and other pulp "sword and sorcery" authors.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

i can't see your point really...

I can see that. *shrug* It's not something that matters overly much to me, so I won't bother pursuing it.

Nobody ever argued how D&D incorporated/was-influnced by other stuff year after year. We're talking about how it started and which is the PRIMARY and most SUBSTANTIAL influence... (even to this day, no matter the add ons) ..... which is Tolkien

a 51% is enough to rule a company ( and in our case it's a bit more than 51%)... so yes... it's only fair to say that D&D started out and still is a "tolkien-esque universe".

No, we're not talking about that. Water Bob said he didn't like the Tumble skill in a "tolkien-esque universe". I took and take exception to the notion that D&D is a "tolkien-esque universe", despite elements of tolkien being incorporated. There's just as many influences from other writings.

And really? You're going to turn around and claim D&D is a "tolkien-esque universe" and cite something like "51% to control a company" as justification for it?

"Tumble" is what's being discussed; it's a skill that's a part of the ruleset of D&D/d20 which has been around since 2000. That means D&D as it exists/existed then, not 30 years ago when it was barely more than a wargame.

for some good examples read my previous thread on the subject.

No thank you. As I've said before, I'm actually aware of D&D's history. I don't need to be convinced that tolkien was an element tossed into the melting pot. I also don't accept the contention that LotR was the _primary_ influence, so reading arguments about that being the case isn't actually going to do any good; it's not something debatable to me and therefore I don't have a mind to be changed. I've got an opinion which has served me well for decades and hasn't been in need of revision in this particular case.

I somehow see this as completely irrelevant....

In order for me to accept that something is a "tolkien-esque universe", it means I have to actually accept that tolkien could/would have written it. I don't see tolkien creating the sort of setting/mythology that we were given with 3.0 D&D.

ravenloft...spelljammer...... so?? these came afterwards and are nothing but a minority compared to the main core fantasy settings influenced by Tolkien

I've got no idea what you're referring to when you say "main core fantasy settings". I'm not talking about fantasy rpgs, I'm talking explicitly about D&D as a game. If you want to claim that Forgotten Realms is a "tolkien-esque" setting... well, I'm sure there's plenty of people willing to fight you on that; I won't bother going there.

Ravenloft and Spelljammer are _part_ of the "mythos" of D&D and have shaped and influenced the development of the game, as well as the "implied setting" of D&D. If you can't see any relevance to that and the question as to whether or not 3.0/3.5 D&D is "tolkien-esque" then I don't see how we can have a conversation; you're coming at things from a perspective I just don't get.

Things do evolve and change, as they also mean different things to different people... Yes.
IMO this is not an argument as to how D&D was not "mainly" influenced by Tolkien.

Again, I'm not arguing about whether Tolkien was an influence; he was, so what? That has little bearing on whether D&D in the 3.0 rules is a "tolkien-esque universe".

Second, you completely missed the point I was making about complaining about the modern game relying on origins as somehow justifying a misstatement.

Again, I'll use superhero comicbooks to try and explain...

Superhero comics are an outgrowth of pulp stories. Superman literally used to jump... "able to leap tall buildings in a single bound". Batman was "the greatest detective".

Now, you can't look at an issue of modern superhero comics and say "I don't agree with Cyclops being able to shoot lasers from his eyes. It just doesn't work for me in a Lester Dent-esque universe".

To me, that's about the equivalent kind of statement. D&D is and has been about _far_ more than the initial bits of Tolkien inspiration that were tossed in.

Now, if you want to only focus on the Tolkien-esque elements of D&D? More power to you, it's your game; knock yourself out. But _don't_ claim that your personal preference is somehow an objective statement of fact regarding the nature of the game. Bits from Tolkien? Sure. Might as well have been written by Tolkien? No. And no, "51%" is A) Not enough to justify calling D&D "tolkien-esque" and B) I disagree with the asseration that Tolkien is that much a core of D&D; I honestly don't think it was back 30 years ago and I certainly don't see it in 3.0, which is the ruleset in question.

As much as i may (or not - a bit "too black and white" if you ask me...) like Tolkien's work...i'm not trying to stand up for him as a huge fun.
IMO... i'm merely pointing out the obvious...

I get the impression that people who don't like Tolkien... yet like D&D, try to look the other way, in respect to the fact that a game they love is primarily influenced by a writer the do not like....

*shrug*

I think some people go far out of their way to claim that D&D is Tolkien. D&D is a lot of other stuff mixed in, including Lovecraft, Leiber, Vance, and Howard. It's also an extremely strong part of historical fantasy patched together willy-nilly; I don't see people referring to D&D as a "historical" game though.

D&D's whole magic thing is based off Jack Vance and people frequently refer to the style of spell-casting used in D&D as "Vancian". It's a pretty core element of the rules, it's a pretty core element of D&D as an identity, but I don't see Water Bob complaining about how Tumble works in the Vance-esque universe.

At the end of the day, it's really simple from my perspective: I don't see myself budging here... D&D is not "tolkien-esque". Water Bob's objections to the Tumble skill have nothing to do with D&D's implied setting and rules and everything to do with his own personal preferences for what he likes in a game.

 

[Water Bob]

So yea, thank god I don't play in your game.

We're definitely in agreement there!

I'm well aware of that, actually. I'm too lazy to argue the issue myself....

Let me stop you right there. I don't care about the argument either and am not looking to derail this thread with that debate.

Hey, you don't think D&D is heavily influenced by Tolkien, then more power to ya. You might not believe that the sky is blue, too. It doesn't matter--I'm not really interested in putting energy into convincing you (or anybody else on the thread).

 

[Rhun]

You can cartwheel 30 feet with a sword tied to your waist, a dagger at your belt, your waterskin draped across your torso, a pouch with a few coins in it, another pouch with tinderboxl, flint, and steel, and maybe some leather armor on?

I personally cannot cartwheel 30 feet with a sword tied to my waist. What I am saying is that I can twirl by sword around like a baton in its scabbard, and the blade doesn't even budge. I can spin daggers through the air in their sheaths, and they don't come loose.

I HAVE taken a tumble down a mountainside without losing a single item from my backpack, my hydration belt, or any of my pockets. And that includes my flint and steel (actually, I carry firesteel, which is the modern take on it).

 

[Jimlock]

"Tumble" is what's being discussed;

Indeed. Yet you wrote an entire page on how D&D is not a "tolkien-esque universe".

Listen... I still DO believe that your arguments are completely flawed. I've attempted to counter them once, but i won't bother to try again because:

No thank you. As I've said before, I'm actually aware of D&D's history. I don't need to be convinced that tolkien was an element tossed into the melting pot. I also don't accept the contention that LotR was the _primary_ influence, so reading arguments about that being the case isn't actually going to do any good; it's not something debatable to me and therefore I don't have a mind to be changed. I've got an opinion which has served me well for decades and hasn't been in need of revision in this particular case.

And please, there is no need to reply.

Not because I don't have a mind to be changed, nor because I 've got an opinion which has served me well for decades and hasn't been in need of revision.

But because i don't see the point of arguing with people that don't.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Hey, you don't think D&D is heavily influenced by Tolkien, then more power to ya. You might not believe that the sky is blue, too. It doesn't matter--I'm not really interested in putting energy into convincing you (or anybody else on the thread).

But did you read the article? Are you open to being convinced?

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

But did you read the article? Are you open to being convinced?

People in the "D&D is based primarily on Tolkien" camp tend to also subscribe to the idea that Gary was lying about not really caring for Tolkien. As an opinion/belief, most people aren't really open to having it changed; that's the thing about opinions and beliefs in the first place; people gotta be willing to change them. It's why "discussions" about opinion/belief is pretty useless in my experience.

I say "opinion/belief", but I really mean "belief"; it's just that people often term their beliefs "opinions" as if they were open for debate, when in fact they're really not. That's one reason I try to make sure I identify which "opinions" I have as not being open for debate; it saves everyone time and grief.