Diaglo is a real old-schooler: he's never posted here, but he's found at enworld and dragonsfoot and occasionally elsewhere. He plays OD&D.

In a famous thread he once said that D&D started to go south when the Thief class was introduced in the Greyhawk supplement. His reasoning, basically, was that once you have character specialization in skill-type stuff, there's a slow inexorable slide towards skill rules instead of ad hoc task resolution outside of combat (OD&D) or else the universal resolution system (first done in T&T, though largely forgotten by designers after this until James Bond 007). Once you have thieves and assassins and stuff, fighting heroes can't sneak any more, so you need special rules for barbarians and rangers, yadda yadda, and it becomes easy to see a game like AD&D as a poor man's Runequest (see Lev Lafayette's reviews of the AD&D books...actually, don't).

I've been spending a lot of time reworking OD&D for the last couple of years. I guess I've come to the conclusion that the real problem came in before that, when Clerics were added to Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign. For those of you who don't know, these were added for the sole reason that a PC vampire (Fang?) had become too powerful and they needed something to slow him down. (I think he was a PC, I got this info from Old Geezer at rpg.net. Anyone who wants to track down the links to that thread and the diaglo thread on Dragonsfoot will receive a +2 Katana, +4 vs. Demons with Multiple Eyes.)

Aside from the usual complaints that the original cleric was rooted in the medieval fighting priest, and that to this day in 3.5 those roots have not been exercised despite the default assumption of 'standard fantasy' polytheism, the Cleric also introduces Special Abilities into play, in the form of Turning Undead. And once again, a plethora of new classes (druid, monk, bard, etc.) with special abilities appears in play.

Now, special abilities that you get in play, from magical blessings, joining orders, unique items, etc. are something I enjoy. Special Abilities built into the basic framework of characters, well, some people like them, some people don't, but again, as with Thieves and Skills, it regiments this part of play. Suddenly your second level fighter shouldn't really get to be a werewolf or whatever because it's 'unbalancing'. 3.5 is a good attempt to regiment this part of play, but what if you don't want it there at all?

I think that the Warrior and the Wizard are more than sufficient, myself. Specialized magic based on the setting and Warrior-Wizard hybrid characters are OK, and one of those could easily be a Cleric, even with a Turn Undead spell, IF you wanted a medieval-type genre. But the game doesn't need that extra focus IMO unless the people want it, and I'd rather see it done through spell lists, etc., for the style of play I like.

So anyway, let a thousand flowers blossom, and I know a lot of people like more complicated character sheets, but for the basic paradigm I see in old D&D play (start as a newbie, loot tombs and magical places and weird crypts in big cities, become a Hero or a Magus, and - the part that needs more work even today - become a Leader of Men and eventually a Baron or King, transforming the setting, on the way to being a new kind of character), it's another false start in the direction I think those three brown books once took some of us.

So anyway, in my current OD&D rules you can be a Warrior or a Wizard, an Elf or Dwarf or Goblin or Troll, and you can be a Warrior-Wizard, but you can't be a cleric or a thief. Your attribute scores, class, and level help determine the difficulty of combat and noncombat rolls alike, but anyone can try anything. Special abilities are out there for the finding, maybe even at the start of play if we decide your character concept warrants it, but they aren't regulated by the rules. The game will be what I always wanted it to be, and what I got out of it back in the seventies, and again with Mentzer's boxed sets in the late eighties and early nineties: a vehicle for imaginary adventure.

If you don't like it, there are a thousand children of Runequest and Champions and Ars Magica/Vampire out there to let you paint your character with more precision. I've got no use for that stuff any more.

This sounds excellent Calithena, and is exactly the kind of freewheeling approach I've been hankering after myself lately.

Are you not basically reinventing Tunnels and Trolls there?

That's a good question, Balbinus.

No, because T&T combat is a genuinely unique and different approach, but in the end I'm happier with things being individual rather than collective.

Yes, in the sense that like T&T I'm narrowing the class options and have a defualt system for noncombat resolution (though ad hoc approaches are still welcome in particular cases).

No, because my current ruleset also has or will have stuff for playing at the army and kingdom level, which neither D&D nor T&T fully handled (though D&D had some stuff here and there in Underworld & Wilderness adventures).

But I will say that T&T profoundly influenced my understanding of D&D and what I want out of it, and my current house rules reflect that, including the stuff I'm talking about here.

How will you handle healing?

For me, D&D should have precisely seven classes as follows:

Fighter
Magic-User
Thief
Cleric
Dwarf
Elf
Hobbit

with Druid as an optional eigth.

After that, I start to lose interest a bit to be honest.  I like my classes archetypal.

Your approach is interesting though.  How will you differentiate characters?  By roleplaying?  Also, how will you give the party the flexibility to meet various challenges without a cleric or thief equivalent?

Edit:  Will you be posting these rules up anywhere?  Also, howcome trolls?

Cal, I agree with Diaglo's point about the Thief being the start of the slippery slope.  (In fact I came to this conclusion independently.)  And at this point I don't disagree with your analysis of the cleric at all.  Fighting Men, Magic Users, and hybrids of the two are quite sufficient for the large portion of my fantasy adventure gaming needs.

Also, I'm not going to find the threads for you, but I remember mention of Fang as a PC as well.  (I'm dropping a +2 Katana, +4 vs. Demons with Multiple Eyes into my campaign anyway.)

However, I want to revisist the Thief for a second.  Re-read the Thief abilities and try interpreting them quite literally.  Anyone can attempt to sneak about, but only a trained thief may attempt to Move [absolutely] Silently.  Anyone can hide behind a crate or crouch next to a low wall, but only a trained thief can Hide in nothing but a Shadow.  Anyone can try to climb a tree or a mountain, but only a thief can Climb Sheer Surfaces.  Anyone can say "I cut the trip wire" and hope that disarms rather than sets off the trap, but only a thief can resolve that situation with a Remove Traps roll.

That's how I handle thief skills nowadays when running pre-3E D&D.

Jreints -

I think that approach is good, but it is a little klugey. It's sort of like: everyone can make a dex roll to sneak around, the thief can also make this other roll to sneak around even better, maybe he gets two rolls if he just needs to sneak normally. It's a good way to make the thief abilities shine but not very elegant. Elegance is overrated, granted, but I do sort of like to keep things to one roll where possible.

The Fang thread is quoted in the Gronan links on robert fisher's website. He was a monster PC - players played both sides in Arneson's games apparently.


Balbinus -

Healing - good question. Probably with healing potions and items, to be honest. Or if I have different spell lists I may put healing spells on some of them. Depends on the setting.

Class/Race - It's all kind of contingent. Hobbits and Clerics both focus things a lot. Elves and Dwarves do this also but to a lesser extent. Nothing's really essential to D&D from my point of view except Fighters and Magic-Users.

Differentiation - attribute scores, minimal input from setting elements ("my guy's a northern barbarian"), also your imagination. As play goes on, the NPCs you know, the special abilities you get, the history you grow into. You don't have to know all that stuff at the start of play.

I've got goblins and trolls because I'm going for a Broken Sword/northern fantasy feel instead of a Hobbit/Tolkienian fantasy feel. I'm leaving out clerics because I don't want religion to be a big deal for players, I want money and adventure politics and conquest to be the big deal instead. Religion is mostly there for stern, just tribal elders, humorless bigots, and swaying snake-priestesses - NPC stuff that sometimes helps and sometimes hurts. That said I do see how healers can be good PCs for some players and I would like to do something to accomodate that, I'm just not sure what.

When running things your way I've sometimes had Elves use the Druid and/or Illusionist spell list from AD&D to differentate them from both Magic-Users and Clerics.

Undead: well, they're scary monsters. No need for a special workaround. Maybe fewer ghouls in lower level adventures. Except, I like ghouls. So the players will just have to be smart about it...

Traps: I do this descriptively anyway. Roleplaying and/or Intelligence/Wisdom rolls to spot them, player ingenuity/roleplaying and/or Dexterity/Strength rolls to disable them or sneak by them. This is the only fun way to play traps that I've found, as extra die rolls they're just free shots for the DM against the players (at best) and boring time sinks (at worst).  

Post the rules? Man, that's work. Maybe I'll start a design thread or something if I type more of them up. The main thing I'm still figuring out is the rules for characters commanding armies and kingdoms, I've got most of it (it's a smooth transition to a simple hex-and-counter system) but how the attribute scores interface with the boardgame dimension still needs a little hammering.

Oh yeah:

I'm doing this as a way of focusing design. I want the stories ultimately to be about people who become Kings, Queens, movers and shakers in the setting, but are also Adventurers. (This is there in the old D&D books but has never been adequately supported by manageable rules: Birthright had some good ideas but it's way too complicated for my tastes.) Kull is perhaps the archetypal PC. Long term, players transform the world map through their play.

Which also gives you something to do with the 100,000 gold pieces you got out of the lich's tomb. Building a castle and hiring a couple mercenary armies will burn through that money quick. The massive sums don't just sit on your character sheet, but they also don't buy stupid magic items (there are no magic items for sale ever in any of my D&D worlds, save the occasional odd potion or scroll at unique locations and for high prices): they finance a path to glory!

There are other ways that I've integrated campaign play (kingdoms/armies) with scene play (traditional adventures) too, but I've got real work to do, so...

I probably wouldn't roll for the non-Thief versions, but I see your point.

And I totally agree that we need a good, intergrated system for 1st level characters to evolve into Warrior Kings and Wizard Lords.  This is, IMHO, one of the big places where 3E missed the boat.  I don't need Epic Level rules, I want rules for castles and kings.

Quote from: CalithenaDiaglo is a real old-schooler: he's never posted here, but he's found at enworld and dragonsfoot and occasionally elsewhere. He plays OD&D.

hiya.

sure i don't post here much. but i do lurk.

Well, sir, please let us know what you think of Cal's view of the cleric.

the cleric's real purpose wrt D&D is alignment.

a third element needed to drive possible plot hooks.

besides magic and brute force combat.

now you get religion and politics. alignment is all about both.

While you are re-inventing the wheel, have you looked over Savage Worlds?
"Trappings" sounds like just the thing for you.
=

in so much about turning.

clerics turned undead true. but they make that for special also as the ability was worked out. demons, devils, outsiders, etc...

heck, by the time supplement I Greyhawk was around awhile. NPCs were turning paladins.

Cal -

Do you think your idea of minimal classes to limit "skill creep" would work in other genres? Say space opera?

Looking at Star Wars, what are the archetypes if distilled to the their essence?

   Heroes/Villains - Bounty Hunters (Boba), Smuggler (Han), Senator (Leia), Hot Shot Pilot (Luke)
   Jedi - Obi-Wan, Darth, Luke (later)

Thanks!

Eric