Quote from: Tod13;1038072It was supposed to be. ;-)

The first group (player skills) would use the 10' pole approach. Depending on the group and edition, they might not even expect to roll for trap detection.

The second group (character skills) would use the "check for traps" skill, and maybe expect a bonus or penalty for having or lacking appropriate tools (the 10' pole).

The second group is playing a boardgame, though. Not that it's a bad thing (sometimes you do just want to roll dice and sort of mentally checkout), but I really wouldn't call it roleplaying.

To make what I mean clearer:

Player: I probe ahead for pit traps with my 10' pole.
DM: Okay, you poke along the floor and a expose a pit trap.

OR

Player: I roll my Traps skill.
DM: Make a DC 25 check.

The second case isn't even really treating the situation any differently than if the trap were a poison needle or teleportation trap. It's distilling literally billions of possibilities into a single die roll, which eliminates any roleplaying. At least in the first case the player has a nominal chance to find the trap, even if his character sheet says he's a terrible trap finder. The fact that the player is deciding to do something has precedence over whatever a flavorless die roll would dictate.

Quote from: Brad;1038080The second group is playing a boardgame, though. Not that it's a bad thing (sometimes you do just want to roll dice and sort of mentally checkout), but I really wouldn't call it roleplaying.

To make what I mean clearer:

Player: I probe ahead for pit traps with my 10' pole.
DM: Okay, you poke along the floor and a expose a pit trap.

OR

Player: I roll my Traps skill.
DM: Make a DC 25 check.

The second case isn't even really treating the situation any differently than if the trap were a poison needle or teleportation trap. It's distilling literally billions of possibilities into a single die roll, which eliminates any roleplaying. At least in the first case the player has a nominal chance to find the trap, even if his character sheet says he's a terrible trap finder. The fact that the player is deciding to do something has precedence over whatever a flavorless die roll would dictate.

I understand but I disagree--to me, both are playing an RPG. For us, role-playing is the character personalities, not the skills/knowledge. It is just a matter of where your interests are.

Hence, my description of the two groups. Both are playing RPGs. For your group, the "role" is dungeon adventurer with emphasis on tactics and action/skill knowledge. For my group, the role could be a somewhat selfish fairy with a riding wolf, who needs be bribed with armor for her wolf for her to go on a mission that otherwise doesn't offer immediate pay-off.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1038079It's these little things that New School introduced -- to wave away Maintenance -- that causes me the largest headache. That and they are intrinsically embedded within an interlaced framework -- leading to my oft complaint about minor houserules having cascading consequences. They've left a legacy of "I don't wanna be bothered! Please me already!" entitlement that I don't have in me as a GM to cater, yet with all the system landmines inside I must learn to excise carefully.

Which is why I stick with OD&D.  The more I hear about, and even play, the new, the less I like it.  Nostalgia my ass, new school games suck.

Quote from: Brad;1038041Why is "player skill" a dirty word when applied to rpgs? If you get your ass handed to you in chess or poker, the first thing someone will says is "learn to play better". Why does this not apply to D&D?

'Skill'? Define skill?  Problem solving?  Historic knowledge?

And at what point does characters actually matter then?  If you're 'problem solver' is the Fighter because they are that naturally intelligent, but they rolled a 6 for Int.  Then you have the charismatic fellow, the one that can get other players to go along with him, and is a pretty good team leader, but is the Mage with an Int of 18, but a Cha of 6.  What if you have a chemist (I do, he teaches it at a local high school, really cool guy, he also has a background in neuroscience) whose playing the Cleric, and suddenly Gunpowder is happening, evidence is disappearing because medieval historic period investigations won't be finding the bodies.

At what point point do the stats actually mean anything?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1038098Which is why I stick with OD&D.  The more I hear about, and even play, the new, the less I like it.  Nostalgia my ass, new school games suck.

At this point, I think it's more fear of change than nostalgia.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1037892Even D&D 4e?

I don't recall 4e being particularly difficult to play.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1038112'At this point, I think it's more fear of change than nostalgia.

Bullshit.  Newer games are less fun.  It may be different for other people, but I've played "new school" games and they stink worse than three feet up Jabba the Hutt's ass.  (Many Bothans died to bring us this information.)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1038125Bullshit.  Newer games are less fun.  It may be different for other people

Well, yeah. I know people for whom 4e D&D is the most fun. Some people even enjoy 3e/PF most. Personally I probably like an OSR-drifted 5e most as GM, with 1e & Classic as runners-up. As a player I think I've had the most fun with actual old school play (mostly Labyrinth Lord), primarily because it plays so fast in combat, but 5e is good too; even 4e can be good for a particular sort of experience.

Different people like different things, people who prefer OD&D and people who prefer Pathfinder just have different preferences, not false consciousness.

Meh. I don't find that there's really a common thread between all Old School games or all New School ones. 4e and 3e/PF are hugely different. oD&D and 1e* are different in complexity, focus, and even general advice about really important things like whether balance is a goal, whether deviating from the rules is bad or the norm, etc. etc. etc.
*mind you, huge swaths of the 1e-playing population back in the day skipped a bunch of that complexity, but that's another thread to unravel.

Really, the far boundaries of the game already occurred by 1979, the rest is just details. And even beyond that, you have to limit yourself to D&D to day that the extreme ends look like they are far apart. The character-building mini-game of 3e and 4e? Child's play compared to building starships in Traveller or Mechs in Battletech (yeah yeah, that's a wargame, but that just brings up the complexity of building armies in Chainmail). The rules complexity of 3e, 4e, or AD&D--flip through Aftermath. Being able to roll a find-traps skill instead of saying your character probes ahead with a 10' pole? Well, one D&D had that since '75 but also RQ and the like had skills which could replace most actual thinking again way back in the day. There's nothing new under the sun and most of the outer boundaries of what one can do with a TTRPG had been figured out within a half decade.

After that, it's just what do you personally like doing, what does a specific ruleset incentivize, and what tradeoffs (which there always are) are you most comfortable with.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1038125Bullshit.  Newer games are less fun.  It may be different for other people, but I've played "new school" games and they stink worse than three feet up Jabba the Hutt's ass.  (Many Bothans died to bring us this information.)

Bullshit.  You've already set your expectations based on the past and for the most part have not willingly tried to anything new.

I'm willing to try anything and I've liked most of what I tried.  But nothing in my experience is 'easier' than the other.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1038112And at what point does characters actually matter then?

I guess they don't, to be honest. We spend so much time and effort as players trying to decide how some fictional entity should act, all the while pretending our own biases and abilities play no role (or at least shouldn't play a role) into those decisions. Unless you're a robot, any character you play will be some sort of extension as yourself. Maybe we should stop pretending that's not the case.

Quote from: S'mon;1038157Well, yeah. I know people for whom 4e D&D is the most fun. Some people even enjoy 3e/PF most. Personally I probably like an OSR-drifted 5e most as GM, with 1e & Classic as runners-up. As a player I think I've had the most fun with actual old school play (mostly Labyrinth Lord), primarily because it plays so fast in combat, but 5e is good too; even 4e can be good for a particular sort of experience.

Different people like different things, people who prefer OD&D and people who prefer Pathfinder just have different preferences, not false consciousness.

Mortification of the Body is globally quite popular, too. So why not Mortification of the Mind/Spirit? Hence 3.PF & 4e.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1037892Even D&D 4e?

We're talking about D&D here. Not non-D&D products.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1038664We're talking about D&D here. Not non-D&D products.

Honestly if the system had come out with a different name, like 11th Age, it probably would have had lower sale, but been better received. My main issue was that it wasn't recognizable as D&D.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1038664We're talking about D&D here. Not non-D&D products.

LOL. It says so right on the cover. Stop living in a fantasy land.

Anyway, to contribute to this thread, I find the age of the system highly irrelevant. Most often who I am playing with matters more.

Quote from: Krimson;1038695Honestly if the system had come out with a different name, like 11th Age, it probably would have had lower sale, but been better received. My main issue was that it wasn't recognizable as D&D.

• Wizards using spellbooks to memorize spells
• Clerics turning away the undead and blasting foes with Radiant power
• Fighters cleaving through monsters galore with a big ol' battleaxe
• Ascending armor class
• Saving Throws
• Hit Points
• Attack rolls and damage rolls
• d8 Longswords
• Skills
• Feats
• XP reward system
• Magical items and Holy Avengers
• Beholders
• Mindflayers
• Terrasques

But the books interior design though.....and those stupid color coded "Powerz" boxes.....yeah I can't see the D&D in it at all.