What did we do before feats, skills, and prestige classes?

[BryonD]

In our games, character differentiation occured through in game actions. So Joe the fighter and Jack the fighter could have the same stats, but John was foolhardy and vain, whereas Jack was careful and manipulative. Originally cookie cutter characters evolved into complex personalities with quirks (and rarely special abilities) by participating in adventures.

We also adopted the proficiency system after a while, but the original way of doing things remained the more common method.

There is more to making characters be who they are than just personalities with quirks.

 

[The_Gneech]

Part of what honks me off about this whole "Oh WE used our imaginations!" attitude is that by that reasoning, why bother to have different classes at all? Just give everybody the exact same stats and let "imagination" do the rest.

"I am a mighty wizard! I don't know any spells, but by the power of my imagination, I can pretend my character is doing magic."

"I am a wily thief! There are no rules for sneaking, but because I say I'm being sneaky, that makes my character unique!"

"I am a powerful warrior! I have the same numbers to roll in combat as everybody else, don't do any more damage than anybody, and don't have any particular abilities. But I run up to my foes and whack 'em with my sword, that makes me a warrior!"

Bah, I say. You can roleplay a game of Monopoly if you want -- and I have a friend who does, much to everybody else's annoyance -- but I'm happy to have rules that support what I'm imagining, rather than working against it, thanks.

-The Gneech

 

[scourger]

Then, I played Basic D&D. It usually involved a keep on some borderlands.

Now, I run Savage Worlds. It really is fast, furious & fun.

In between, I enjoyed many different games. Some were D&D. A couple of those were Advanced. When the game got too complex & time-consuming, I went to something easier.

Tomorrow may take me right back to a basic game with The Keep on the Borderlands. Rule zero will be in full effect, too.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Part of what honks me off about this whole "Oh WE used our imaginations!" attitude is that by that reasoning, why bother to have different classes at all? Just give everybody the exact same stats and let "imagination" do the rest.

Heeee hee he he. . . yep, absolutely.

I'm happy to have rules that support what I'm imagining, rather than working against it, thanks.

Same here.


Well said.

 

[Nomad4life]

What did we do to make our archtypes, specific novel/movie characters, and new and usual characters before having feats, skills, and prestige classes? Back before we even had kits.
Quasqueton

We simply role-played the characters differently. And that seemed to work just fine.

 

[The Shaman]

Part of what honks me off about this whole "Oh WE used our imaginations!" attitude is that by that reasoning, why bother to have different classes at all? Just give everybody the exact same stats and let "imagination" do the rest.

When I was a kid, we called that "Cops 'n' Robbers," or "Cowboys 'n' Indians." All imagination, no stats, hours upon hours of fun.

I'm sorry, The_Gneech, but you've committed the reductive fallacy - by stripping away the meaningful details, you attempt to make the question sound absurd (reductio ad absurdum), when in fact it is perfectly valid.

The question is not about whether or not a roleplaying game must include mechanical differentiation of characters, but rather to what degree mechanical differentiation is important to gamers that frequent ENWorld.

As for me, I enjoyed playing Melee and Wizard way back in the day, which if I remember correctly had maybe three stats that described the character's personal attributes. Anything else we determined based on background - if a character's backstory indicated that s/he was a forester, s/he got a bonus to avoid gettting lost in the woods, or to find food, or survive in a blizzard. Simple.

 

[BryonD]

by stripping away the meaningful details, you attempt to make the question sound absurd (reductio ad absurdum), when in fact it is perfectly valid.

To the contrary, there have been several examples of people in this very thread embracing EXACTLY what he specifically referenced.

He did not reduce it one little bit.

 

[Deadguy]

One interesting thing is that many people who say they got by without mechanical details by making things up. They did well, then - effectively creating the ruleset they wanted. But I bet a great many people didn't, and a Fighter was a Fighter was a Fighter, in game after game. And these people drifted away to play other things where the game mechanics felt like the encouraged you to think wider whilst having a meaningful impact. I know, as I was one of them, and gamed with many others who were the same.

 

[diaglo]

Bah, I say. You can roleplay a game of Monopoly if you want -- and I have a friend who does,...

and i still do.

 

[Silver Moon]

Wow, what an interesting debate. Reminds me of the old "Edition Wars" forum that Dragonsfoot.org used to have. I'll say here what I said there, "It's all D&D to Me!"

Whether it's D&D 1E, 3E, 6,5E, whatever, it doesn't matter. I see the rules as different guidelines to help facilitate play, and the gaming group should choose whichever best fits how they want to play, but the basic ingredient regardless of the rules is still a table full of players with above average intelligence and overactive imaginations.