Quote from: EOTB;1108972Of course if DMs get philosophically bothered by not everyone getting the same XP for the same activity, and put their thumbs on the scale to award equal XP to everyone, they're distorting the intended effect in the cause of their personal preferences.

What's being forgotten here is two things.

The first is that in AD&D1e, once you hit the xp required to reach the next level, you can't earn any more xp, and must take out several weeks and spend thousands of GP to level up. In practice the party will usually level up together, and stay about the same level.

In a generous campaign, everyone hits their XP cap quickly, and everyone levels up together. The thief gets 2,000GP of treasure and 600xp from monster killing, thus 2,600xp - but only gets to keep 1,250 of that xp. Meanwhile the magic-user with the same share has just enough to level up.

In a stingy campaign, those needing less XP will level up first - provided the others are willing to wait around for them to do so. But maybe they don't want to wait, and while the thief's spending a month levelling up, the fighter and magic-user go off on another adventure - after which they're ready to level up. Will the thief go out alone? Less likely. So in practice they level up together.

The second is that the party works as a team. A 1st level magic-user on their own will really struggle compared to a 3rd level magic-user - but a 1st level magic-user hanging out with a 3rd level fighter can do pretty well. This is why NPCs become henchmen, their opportunities of advancement while working with other higher-level characters are greater than on their own. So even if among PCs there are some level differences it doesn't matter much.

I know this second one well since it's always been my practice that any new player at my open game table comes in with a 1st level character, and any player who's been away comes back with the same character even as the others have advanced. This last week I've been on the player side of that; we were all at 3rd level, I was away for a month and came back to find the other two players at 5th, but my 3rd level character was fine. We worked as a team, more or less.

Thus, this is yet another example of how things which look like issues when reading the rules and crunching numbers are not actually issues in play. And that is why AD&D1e is the best game ever.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108979I'd go with bug.  If you're trying to balance the classes in terms of combat ability by having some with smaller hit dice than others, it doesn't make sense to then give that smaller HD more levels.  If Fighters are supposed to be the best at fighting, you shouldn't have a point where a Thief is a better fighter at the same amount of XP.  

.

I really don't think such a point exists in 2e.

Per a conversation I had with Kyle, this is a better distillation of my thoughts on differing XP charts:

Another point people forget or look over or whatever, even if they are thinking in terms of teamwork, hell, especially in terms of teamwork, is that different people are going to take different lessons away from the same situation.  Put together an electrical engineer, a computer programmer, an information security specialist and a PC hardware guy and ask them to fix a computer.  They all can assist but the takeaway for each of them is going to be completely different and applied completely differently.  When the fighter, the magic-user, the cleric and the thief attack the dragon, the magic-user hits the dragon with a lightning bolt, the fighter slashes with his sword, the cleric blesses everyone and heals those he can, the thief goes all sneaky and tries to backstab the beast: everyone will apply the knowledge they learned on how to defeat a dragon in the future, differently.  Saying the magic-user and the fighter both advance a level because they both got 2000 XP makes no sense.

Quote from: Doom;1109006I really don't think such a point exists in 2e.

Or 1e, at all, really.

Another aspect is that in any rules system, the finest level of abstraction is absurd, the question is whether when you step back things make sense in play.

In the old board game Fortress Europa, as best I recall, the smallest unit was generally a division, and the division had only three states: okay, damaged and destroyed (removed from the map). In fact entire divisions are rarely destroyed down to the last man, even if captured en masse, well the victor has to deal with the PWs slowing them down and taking up food and water and shelter, and so on. At the finest level of abstraction the game made no sense.

But when you played it out, you ended up with a France-wide war map which made sense, with front lines going back and forth and looking very much like a real war. So even though the finest level of abstraction was nonsensical, when you stepped back and looked at it all in play, it worked.

In AD&D1e these fine abstractions are things like xp and hit points. Looked at closely they make no sense at all; in play, they work and give reasonable results. Much drama and many bad house rules and worse game systems have come about through people not understanding this, and fussing over these fine abstractions.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1109010Much drama and many bad house rules and worse game systems have come about through people not understanding this, and fussing over these fine abstractions.

QFT.

"I don't just want it to be fun, I want it perfectly aligned with my abstract sensibilities" is the person joining the jeep club but never making it out to the wilderness because they're tinkering with the sound system in their garage every weekend.

Quote from: JeremyR;1108848My guess is that, as said, while it's something of a balancing mechanism, it was based on on Chainmail point values that said wizards were more valuable than fighters. In that, a hero was 20 points, a superhero 50 points.  But a Seer, the lowest Wizard in Chainmail was worth 50 points (and the best was 100).

Personally, I think it was a mistake. The thief is just a weak class. Even as it levels, it's still weak. A better thief class in the first place would be more playable and you wouldn't have the problems with different xps messing up multi-classing.

The thief was fixed with the Caltech version of D&D, Warlock, which included additional tables for thief skills and special abilities... One of  my favorite early edition supplements, and will allow Thieves as well as point-based Spellcaster from this, into any D&D Campaign.

Thievish Abilities


FIRST LEVEL ABILITIES
=================
Detect Evil
Detect Good
Detect Magic
Evaluate Treasure
Jimmy Portals
Pick Most Locks 2/3
Dagger +2
Short Sword +2
Sling +2
Sure Strike Dagger (x3)
Jam Portals
Move Silently +1/6
Detect Noise +1/6
Spot Hidden Items +1/6
Cheat at a Game of Skill
Sleight of Hand 80%
Pilfer from backpacks Saddlebags 50%
Lie Convincingly
Map Deciphering
Read 1 Extra Language
Start Fires
Tie Up with Ropes

SECOND LEVEL ABILITIES
===================
Note Poison Locks 90%
Pick All Locks 90%
Parry Bonus
Sure Strike Dagger (x4)
Throw Dagger +2
Throw Short Sword
Bump of Direction 50%
Disguise (Basic)
Move More Silently +1/3
See in Dark 50% Bonus
Spot Hidden Item +1/3
Tracking 50%
Game of Skill +1
Mechanical Trap Setting
Secret Panel Design
Sleight of Hand 90%
Ventrilqiusm 80%
Con
Escape from Ropes
Estimate Range +/- 10%
Estimate Volume +/- 20%
Map Memorization 75%
Pickpocket 2/3
Speak 1 Extra Language

THIRD LEVEL ABILITIES
=================
Circumvent Traps 50%
Find Likely Treasures
Note Secret Panels in Chests 90%
Note Traps in Chest 90%
Dagger +4
Extra Arrow (-4)
Short Sword +4
Sling +4
Sure Strike Dagger (x5)
Throw Short Sword +2
Hide in Shadows 90%
Spot Hidden Items +2/3
Cheat at Game of Skill +2
Jump & Run
Poison Trap Setting
Use Sleep Drugs
Ventriliquism 90%
Climb Rope
Con +1
Detect Slope 50%
Estimate Range +/- 5%
Estimate Volume +/- 10%
Pilfer from Backpacks/Saddlebags 90%
Tie up with ropes +1

...and so on. These thievish abilities may be learned more than once with the second and third times adding 1/2 of the listed bonus to any ability...

Spot Thievish Activity - This ability gives a thief a 50% chance of spotting thievish activity by a thief of his own level or the results of such activity.
Antidote to Poison
Alchemy
Double Dagger Throw...
Mimic Movement - This ability allows a thief to imitate the walk and physical gestures of anyone he has had a chance to observe, with a 90% chance that a normal observer will believe he is really the person being imitated.


There is plenty more. makes for great thieves!

Quote from: JeremyR;1108848But beyond that, as Roger Moore illustrated back in the day in Dragon in a series of articles analyzing class power at various XP totals, the math is really broken.

Wow, that takes me back. I know that exact article. I recall seeing it in Dragon magazine at the model train store. But I hated anything that even looked like math back then, so I skipped it.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1109010Another aspect is that in any rules system, the finest level of abstraction is absurd, the question is whether when you step back things make sense in play.

In the old board game Fortress Europa, as best I recall, the smallest unit was generally a division, and the division had only three states: okay, damaged and destroyed (removed from the map). In fact entire divisions are rarely destroyed down to the last man, even if captured en masse, well the victor has to deal with the PWs slowing them down and taking up food and water and shelter, and so on. At the finest level of abstraction the game made no sense.

But when you played it out, you ended up with a France-wide war map which made sense, with front lines going back and forth and looking very much like a real war. So even though the finest level of abstraction was nonsensical, when you stepped back and looked at it all in play, it worked.

In AD&D1e these fine abstractions are things like xp and hit points. Looked at closely they make no sense at all; in play, they work and give reasonable results. Much drama and many bad house rules and worse game systems have come about through people not understanding this, and fussing over these fine abstractions.

Howard Johnson is right!

And another mistake people make is discarding subsystems in AD&D without considering the consequences.  Then when things break they say "Oh this system doesn't work at all".  Well, what did you expect, you yanked out something that made those other systems work.  It's fine to rework rules into something that works better for you.  Consider it like this: "any" car part from "any" car can be made to work on another car even if it isn't considered a universal part (having grown up the son of an occasional shadetree mechanic, I know this to be true) but you have to be willing to modify it to get it to do so, or make modifications to other parts if you're going to omit that one entirely.  The same applies to RPGs.

Just because you threw the carburetor away and now your car doesn't run, doesn't mean that internal combustion engines are stupid and should be done away with.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1109010In AD&D1e these fine abstractions are things like xp and hit points. Looked at closely they make no sense at all; in play, they work and give reasonable results. Much drama and many bad house rules and worse game systems have come about through people not understanding this, and fussing over these fine abstractions.

Perhaps but my changes resulted from feedback from several players in different groups. There nothing in my reading of the origins of D&D and AD&D to suggest any particular reason for the progression for the original tables to be what they are other than it was an arbitrary decision. However there were ample anecdotes on why the classes had different rates of progression. So I was comfortable in rationalized the progression within each table as something that would not alter the fundamental nature of classic D&D. Furthermore I had a reason to work out additional xp progression because I designed additional classes to reflect how the Majestic Wilderlands worked using classic D&D. It wasn't a case where I thought classic D&D got it wrong.

I don't have an issue even with radical alteration of the rules as long as they are reasoned from the type of setting the referee wants to use. And tested and tweaked through cycles of actual play. It how OD&D itself was developed. Because of the number of groups and hobbyist playing it before it was published OD&D had a trial by fire that make the core concept far more robust then it does on first reading. And now because of the work done in researching the origins of the hobby, we have a better understanding of what the various mechanics represent. Which it useful when altering the system to suit one's setting.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;1109034Just because you threw the carburetor away and now your car doesn't run, doesn't mean that internal combustion engines are stupid and should be done away with.

But there are different carburetors that can work with a given engine each with their own tradeoff. What I found in the last ten year of writing material and trying them out in campaigns is that some changes are D&Dish and fit well with the system. While other are not. It somewhat subjective but it is there.

For example in Adventures in Middle Earth all the changes make it a very different experience than the core books of D&D 5e, however all the changes are quite 5Eish in that they fit well with the idea in the core book. That was the kind of change I was aiming for with my Majestic Wilderlands supplements and subsquent work. For example I long felt that giving fighter increased number of attacks as they level like AD&D does is not OD&Dish. Although several time players had pressured me to go beyond the NA = level versus 1 HD foes. The reason I feel it not OD&D is that it shift balence noticably as OD&D has low number of hit points even at higher level.

I am not talking about number crunching but things I noticed at the table while playing various editions of classic D&D.

What I am mulling over is possibly a damage reroll rule at higher levels for fighters. For example at 6h level you get to reroll damage every other round and take the higher and at 9th level you can reroll damage every round.

QuoteBut there are different carburetors that can work with a given engine each with their own tradeoff. What I found in the last ten year of writing material and trying them out in campaigns is that some changes are D&Dish and fit well with the system. While other are not. It somewhat subjective but it is there.

Which is exactly what I said.

Quote from: Aglondir;1109028Wow, that takes me back. I know that exact article. I recall seeing it in Dragon magazine at the model train store. But I hated anything that even looked like math back then, so I skipped it.

It's still a good article:  "Charting the Classes" in Dragon #69.  I use it regularly to create XP-balanced PCs for pregens for convention games.  

Allan.

Quote from: estar;1109038What I am mulling over is possibly a damage reroll rule at higher levels for fighters. For example at 6h level you get to reroll damage every other round and take the higher and at 9th level you can reroll damage every round.

Thus what Bill said. You change one bit because "this doesn't work!" and end up having to change half a dozen other things.

And then maybe you start to wonder if it was alright to begin with.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1109045Thus what Bill said. You change one bit because "this doesn't work!" and end up having to change half a dozen other things.

And then maybe you start to wonder if it was alright to begin with.

My criteria does this mechanics fit with how my setting works. Secondary does this fit with the rest of the system?

Te problem areas I found in tinkering with this stuff are changes that cause you to have to touch every item in the various list of "stuff" that make up a system. In D&D's case the list of spells, magic items, monsters, etc. That where it can spiral out of control as it is problematic to test that many changes especially if you doing this solely for fun as your hobby.

I also found that various editions of classic D&D are not delicate little flowers that fall apart once you start poking at them. The core concepts are quite solid and there is a lot one can do to make it fit a particular setting and still have the system be recognizably classic D&D. Still able to readily use material made for the unmodified system.

Not all changes are equal in terms of figuring out their impact. One change I made that proved to work out well is that fighter get their to-hit bonus to their initiative die. Likely monsters get 1/2 of HD rounded down to their initiative. If you don't use ascending AC then the to-hit bonus is the difference between what you need to-hit AC 9 or 10 at level 1 and what you need to hit AC 9 or 10 at your current level.

This change was simple, made sense in light of how I described fighters, and was well-received by the players. Where it wouldn't work if you don't use individual initiative. It would be also problematic to implements with AD&D initiative system (both interpretations).

I avoided for the most part wholesale changes to monster descriptions and spell lists. I did however added to the existing spell system a bonus effect to each spell because in the Majestic Wilderlands the ability to cast magic spells (not magic itself) is dependent on the nine chromatic crystals which focus and distributes the ambient mana in a form concentrated enough for spells. Each crystal imparts a "flavor" to mana that makes more useful for certain spells. Study of each individual crystal is considered on of the ten arts of magic. Tenth being the study of the original ambient mana.

This is an aspect of my setting that persisted across many campaigns and many rule systems. At first I figured that I would implement this in Swords & Wizardry by just giving a +1 caster level for certain spells magic users who focus on a specific art. Unfortunately unlike AD&D or 5th edition there are not many spells in Swords & Wizardry (or OD&D) that are effected by the caster level. So when it came time to write up my own take for my Majestic Fantasy rules, I added a bonus effects to each spell. Either a small increase in duration, area, or effect equivalent to adding +1d6 or +2d6 to a fireball.

OD&D is not broke because it didn't have this. This is me implementing OD&D for my setting which has it own take on fantasy. My experience is that if you have a consistent view of how your setting works, then the rules themselves will be consistent especially if you try them on several groups of players over several campaigns. And that you can do it in such a way that material made for the unmodified base RPG can still be useful and vice versa. But it not something everybody wants to do in the time they have for a hobby.

The key is to play your changes and play them often with different groups of players. Then be honest about the feedback.