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

[Heathen72]

We used something else. I just can't remember what it was called.....

Hang on.....

It's coming back to me now....

Yes, we used something called "Imagination". I have no idea where we got it from, or where it has gone today, or just exactly how it was used, but it was definitely involved somehow.

We still use our imagination today, but in different ways.

Beforehand we explored the possibilities of the characters within the confines of the class structure. We could be as imaginative as we liked, within the few classes that there were. It was as if we strode an infinite, but straight line, and could go as far as we liked, but only on one axis* We ended up doing all sorts of interesting things with our characters to differentiate, say, our fighter, from all the other Joe Fighters out there. We came up with some really creative stuff, but it is probably fair to say we sometimes wished there were less restrictions on the classes to allow us to represent the abilities of our characters a little better.

Nowadays, we have many more options when it comes to create our characters. We can explore a vast multitude of possibilities that an expansive and open class system allows and often it is there that we express our creativity. There are all sorts of combinations to choose from. It's as if we have a multitude of branching paths to choose from, and it is easy to find a path that few people have trodden. The character's are differentiated from the others around them before we even give them a name. It's not difficult at all to come up with a really interesting combinations of prestige classes and feats, but it's probably fair to say that we sometimes get lost amongst all the options, or even that we're need to be less creative when fleshing out these already distinctive classes.

Funnily enough, people still wish that there were less restrictions on the classes to allow them to represent the abilities of their characters.


*It's an imperfect simile, but then, they always are.

 

[shilsen]

Very nicely put, spunkrat.

 

[Nomad4life]

We still use our imagination today, but in different ways.

Beforehand we explored the possibilities of the characters within the confines of the class structure. We could be as imaginative as we liked, within the few classes that there were. It was as if we strode an infinite, but straight line, and could go as far as we liked, but only on one axis.

Well said. I think that's a pretty honest assessment.

Funnily enough, people still wish that there were less restrictions on the classes to allow them to represent the abilities of their characters.

Which was one of the reasons we’ve switched to True20… But I’m not sure what’s funny about that?

 

[Steel_Wind]

We used something else. I just can't remember what it was called.....

Hang on.....

It's coming back to me now....

Yes, we used something called "Imagination".

You did, perhaps.

We used Rolemaster.

3E brought a lot of wayward sons back in to the fold - many who had left the game during 1st edition and simply sat the whole of 2E out while playing another system.

 

[WayneLigon]

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.

It depended on who your GM was. A lot used add-on systems from third-party 'unofficial' sources, either supplements or magazines. Skill systems were of course the most common. Feats are new; generally, something like that would have been handled as an additional class ability. Prestige classes are the same; unless you were a non-human, you couldn't multiclass, so such a thing was not used. I knew at least three or four campaigns where humans could, though; there was simply no other way to do certain concepts. Of course, they were derided and mocked as power gamers and munchkins.

Many of the various things we now use a system for were done with magic items. Can't sneak? Get some special boots. There's no swimming skill, so get a ring. Or make up a rules system to handle it.

Heroes from books were frequently statted out in Dragon. They were almost always impossible under the rules other PC's used. Most of the time they had multiple classes with special abilities on top of those, with some stats in the 20's.

What you did have were a plethora of 'NPC' classes meant for the GM to use - such customization was impossible in the rules as written, so you had this early kludge. Of course, many GM's saw those as and used them as player classes as well.

When a vacuum exists, people seek to fill it. People recognized the shortcomings of the ealy systems and devised huge numbers of house rules to use with D&D. It was rare for an issue of The Dragon and other magazines to pass without at least one article to fix or patch something or another. People frequently borrowed stuff from other game systems to add to D&D (usually some form of skill system or magic variant).

Again, it depended on who your DM was. Until a number of other systems were on the market, you were as likely to hear the refrain 'you can't do that' as 'I have a house system for that'.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

We used Rolemaster.

3E brought a lot of wayward sons back in to the fold - many who had left the game during 1st edition and simply sat the whole of 2E out while playing another system.

Heh, I was one of those (left when 2E came out, played a lot of RoleMaster and BECMI D&D, and came back to sample 3E). Never went for 3.5 (did go for AU/AE -- which I like a lot), and now I'm wandering away again...

 

[tzor]

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.

If you will follow me into the way back machine, I will describe what we used to do in First Edition (back in my day sonny we didn't have d10's and d20 only had 0-9 on them) and I will try not to make too many of those comments in the parathensis.

First of all, with the exception of dual class and the bard progression, there were only classes. You were a class and that was it. Multi-class characters were a combination of classes and that was it. If you wanted a different paragram from the norm you needed a new class. Fortunately Dragon used to make a whole lot of them. Oddly enough the only one I remember the most was the one I hated the most - the Anti-Paladin. Dual classing, by the way, was a human only ability, but humans didn't get multi-class options. It also required stats so high that only cheaters could reasonably become dual class.

Skills were simulated minus the skill points. "Want to swim? Make a strength roll."

But in any case there is always the problem of the round peg in the square hole. There is only so much you can do to adapt a concept into the rule system as written. Any attempt to do more breaks the suspension of disbelief. Lankhmar was an excellent example of that. Don't get me wrong, I loved the Lankhmar campaign system, but the attempt to get a very low magic world out of the AD&D magic system threw everything out of balance.

 

[Odhanan]

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

Resign ourselves, just like we resign ourselves with some archetypes in the game right now. No rules set can represent faithfully all that imagination can come up with, because not everything will be fun for instance, because it wouldn't be "balanced" or wouldn't be useful in the game, and because there should be limits according to the inner consistency of the campaign, whatever and wherever you put the limits.

The difference today is that an archetype can be represented in a d20 game in a variety of ways which have a greater chance to satisfy a greater variety of individual players with different tastes and different reasons to play the same type of fantasy archetype. Some would like to play a "monk" for instance to play Cadfael, or some sort of undead hunter, or an Inquisitor like Bernado Guy, or a buddhist monk, and all these different takes on the topic are more likely to be feasible within the frame of d20, in my opinion. So that's all good.

 

[SteveC]

Ummn, I think we just had crazy houserules to handle what wasn't there, or just made something up on the spot.

For me, that's the biggest plus from the later editions, and why I don't really like games like castles and crusades. I can take the time to hand wave or write house rules to add in all of the stuff that I want in my game (skills and feats being two good examples) but I'd much prefer if I didn't have to.

That's not intended to a slam on C&C or other similar games . Just sayin' the approach comes from the other end of the game design spectrum.

--Steve

 

[Seeten]

Qft

You know, as much fun as it is for old-timers to heap scorn on a more detailed rules set, I've got to disagree. That attitude strikes me as intellectual elitism, and it gives nostalgia too heavy a weight for my own personal taste.

I use my imagination as much or more in 3e than I did in 1e. I very clearly remember making up a dwarven fighter in 1st edition, and being incredibly frustrated that mechanically he was like every other fighter out there. Sure, I had an elaborate backstory for him, just like I do for my characters nowadays, but I always had the nagging feeling of so much lost potential.

That's no longer true for me. Maybe its because I play with DMs who respect the rules without being shackled to them (as my favorite DMs always are), but I now can match my character's abilities to the intricate vision I have in my head. I love that about D&D nowadays.

This so completely captures my feelings on the subject. I switched to Rolemaster, because RM had "Background Options" which were incredibly similar to 3e Feats.

Two level 20 fighters were identical in AD&D. You can "Imagine" stuff all you want, but they are STILL the same level 20 fighter. Sorry. You might wear a cape, and I might wear a cowl, but we're the same guy, underneath. It didn't work for me, and I hated it. Which is why I stopped playing D&D in the 80's and did not start again until 3rd edition. In the meantime, I played World of Darkness stuff, I played Rolemaster, Champions, Gurps, and basically any game that let me create a hero that could ACTUALLY DO the things I imagined him/her doing.

Nothing is more frustrating than WANTING to be able to leap onto the back of the Mumak, but the DM says, "Let me see your sheet. Nope, sorry, leaping onto mumaks isnt on there, and you have no skills related to leaping. You can shoot him from the ground, if you can beat his -7 ac." But I could still pretend I could leap onto mumaks...unfortunately, the RULES did not allow it, so any DM could say yes, or no, regardless of all my imagining.

Nowadays, I can imagine characters, and I can imagine stuff they can do, and THEN I can actually go out and do it. You know why? I have the feat, skill, or ability on my sheet. I dont have a Sense of Wonder at all. You know the one. "I wonder if I will be allowed to jump onto the mumak?" I have a different Sense of Wonder now. When the DM says "Hey, lets make new characters for a new game!" I wonder what new and exciting ideas I can come up, which will actually work in the game.