I was thinking of this as I read thru many of my gajillion OSR rulebooks. I've bragged that I've never played official D&D before. Some of the rules I like, mainly how the six ability scores work, but that's about it. I blame having a system called Palladium Books for creating a fanboy that revelled in liking the "other" game more. What teenager do you know doesn't like to be contrarian and refuses the most popular thing just because it's popular?
THAC0 and descending armor class made no sense. Like, none. That convinced me to stick with Palladium. Even official D&D and most OSR have ditched it as well.
Vancian magic is weird, as well as acquiring ludicrous amounts of hit points.
But, and this may surprise people, but the least favorite bit of D&D/OSR rules are savings throws. Yup. That. Yes, it's weird, maybe. I just don't see their need. Your abilities scores can cover this.
I think some OSR games exist purely to "fix" D&D to the author's preference and are just their house rules made into actual rules. More power to them I say.
So what is your thing?
Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 12, 2022, 06:43:15 PM
So what is your thing?
My biggest issue is the "zero to hero" aspect of leveling. Over just a year or two in-game, D&D characters go from being schlubs barely better than average minions to being world-changing powerhouses. That should really come across as incredibly weird to anyone in the game-world, like "Why the hell are we getting so powerful so quickly?" It really messes with my suspension of disbelief.
Characters gain experience in other games, but the difference is usually far less. An experienced Call of Cthulhu investigator can be much more competent, but they're still just regular humans and easily killed. Superhero PCs can gain a lot of power, but they already started out as superheroes.
I've been thinking a lot about this lately. Might (re)write my own clone.
This is what I want and don't get from B/X, but I find in modern D&D.
- Backgrounds
- Race separated from class.
- Critical hits.
- Streamlined saves.
- Unified XP.
- Streamlined skills (I like using 1d20, but you can use 1d6 etc.)
- Feats*.
- Weapon details (especially 3e/4e), without going overboard (AD&D).
- I like "metaclasses" from 2e (warrior includes fighters, paladins, etc.)
- The 4e warlord.
- Vancian Magic replaced by spell points or spell rolls.
I've been tackling each one of these aspects with my blog and books:
Feats:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/407233/Old-School-Feats-OSR?src=newest
Alternate Magic:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/397412/Alternate-Magic-OSR
Spell points:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/spell-points-for-bx-and-osr-systems.html
Critical hits:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-simplest-critical-hit-table-osr-etc.html#comment-form
Might have been easier to just tone down 5e, but for some reason I find adding stuff to B/X much more enjoyable.
Palladium was my game of choice for many reasons, but the big one, by a country mile, was the diversity of settings. I almost think of Palladium as one of the first truly universal systems. Rifts, RoboTech, Heroes Unlimited, and Palladium Fantasy are my main four games.
The core rules of combat using opposed D20 rolls of Strike vs Parry or Dodge, percentile skills, and armor as extra hit points was a good system. Confusing at times, but a recent podcast with the writers enlighten us all a bit. It seems they wanted it that way. The odd and sometimes contradictory rules are on purpose. It is because the GM is there for a reason. Use the rules, or other rules. Just move on and don't sweat it.
However, these days I'm happier with rules light stuff that don't have holes in the explanations.
A lot of my reasons to play it are now reasons I dislike D&D rules. I think the only "savings throw" we roll on a regular basis were Horror Factor, which I think of more as a power that most creatures had, not an actual savings throw.
I'll second "zero to hero" with a grand helping of "Vancian Magic" and "ridiculously slow natural hit point recovery" (such that just about every group I ever played old D&D made someone play a pagan priest/cleric to actually recover at a reasonable rate) on top.
Taken in total the complaint could be boiled down to the system's utter inability to emulate the broader fantasy genre where protagonists grow, but not nearly so extremely, magic is almost never Vancian and priests are almost never a central member of the protagonists.
My least favorite bit of DnD rules?
Vancian magic.
After playing a slew of other TTRPGs, it is the Vancian magic I don't care for.
It could be done better and like others, I've made my own system (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kg6Sj-Wid9MkbOheQHa49K26th5ng86U/view?usp=sharing) to replace it.
These are all things that many OSR games fix. I like Dungeons and Delvers Dice Pool for all the reasons it's not like D&D.
1. No insane hit point bloat. A warrior starts with 5 hit points, and maxes out with 8.
2. Very skills based. Like D6 Star Wars, everyone has attribute + skill to do pretty much everything, including attacking. In this game you have all the skills. Many may only be 1D4 + 1D4 and roll a 5 is easy difficulty, but you have them.
3. No savings throws. Stuff like being poisoned is called a status effect and typically are negatives to skill rolls, of which attacking is a common one.
4. Armor doesn't raise your defense target number, what D&D calls Armor Class. It's just 1-3 more hit points per fight. In fact, you have three different defense numbers. Parry, dodge, mind.
5. No Vancian magic. Again, this games uses attribute + skill, in this case Intellect + Arcana skill. Even non magic users have Arcana, but they just the use it to recognize magic, or "remember" lore about magic related stuff. A wizard isn't OP as their damage is on par with warriors. Archers may use up ammo a wizard doesn't bother with, but archers out damage them.
It's my favorite fantasy game right now.
I don't like Descending Armor Class, Thaco, etc.
I don't like Psionics, but I can't tell you why.
I don't like Sorcerers, as Player Characters. Sorcerers are too "super hero", for my medieval fantasy D&D taste. The Wizard has to work for it. The Warlock has to make a deal for it. The Sorcerer was born with a silver spoon in their mouth.
Zero to Hero: Leveling out of adventure types. We used to have fun clearing the nearby critter infestation, but now we have to hunt monsters of the week for any meaningful gain. I do not like it when something that was a fun challenge stops being a challenge at all, nor do I like chasing the next boost whether it's item or level like I'm playing WoW and it's all about the numbers to get better numbers. It also makes for a strange world when leveling to super human demigod is that easy, but you never see other high level adventures existing organically.
Non unified mechanics: Roll on a table is a unified mechanic to me, but it is much harder to come up with a new, agreeable, table for something not coded into the game where as d20 + relevant stat mod + relevant skill if any + situational mod vs DC is easy to make up on the fly.
Primary Stat: Melee combatants hit with strength, ranged combatants hit with dexterity, caster hit with caster stat. How about DEX to hit and STR for damage and CON for multi attack due to fatigue.
Mixed High and Low Rolls: High damage roll good, high roll on roll under test bad. One or the other, and I don't care which, please.
Deterministic Magic: You always know how many uses/or tries to cast you have. I want some uncertainty, so magic feels like magic and not special ammunition.
Non relative weapons and armor: Weapon effectiveness is relative to an arbitrary standard instead of situational. Daggers may be least powerful edged weapon, but a dagger to the back, though the eye slit, or a sliced throat is terminal and easier done with a dagger than a claymore.
Mine would be secret doors and the n in 6 chance of detecting one. Roll to proceed. Fail? Don't proceed. I hack it by giving clues and letting the players reason it out. I use the n in 6 chance as a passive, sometimes.
Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 12, 2022, 06:43:15 PM
But, and this may surprise people, but the least favorite bit of D&D/OSR rules are savings throws. Yup. That. Yes, it's weird, maybe. I just don't see their need. Your abilities scores can cover this.
I used to hate saves but now I like them. Think of them as ancillary ability scores. I also like the weird traditional saves over the more modern Fort, Reflex, and Will saves. The traditional save say something about the setting. Ability scores point from the character outward to the setting. Trad saves point from the setting to the character. The setting will try to kill you in these specific ways.
I can see that I'm going to be the odd one out again. :P
- I like the main idea of Vancian magic but not its exact execution in B/X or AD&D 1E, and what I dislike about it generally gets worse with later editions--4E excluded for obvious reasons.
- I don't mind race as class terribly at first, but I don't think it translates well into the mid levels, unless you do what ACKS does with multiple racial classes, and that's not my favorite either.
- I'd rather have ascending AC, but it's not that big a deal to me either way. I'll play whatever is in the rules I'm using and not bother to change it.
- My own D&D-like system has a unified XP track, but that was more for other reasons, listed below.
- I like saving throws in D&D, even if every implementation of it, in just about every versions, seems a bit off to me. B/X saves are the closest to what I like if you think about the five categories as something else.
- I like escalating hit points, zero to hero, and on and on, though maybe not the exact way they are done.
All that to say, what I dislike the most are where the fault lines are. It's a lot of little things that were probably done for good reasons at the time, but the reasoning isn't always clear, and it doesn't translate well when you try to change it. Early D&D is at once the easiest thing to modify ever--new classes, new spells, new equipment, etc, and also the hardest thing to modify ever, because things that seem arbitrary aren't, and vice versa. Examples:
- Paladin too close in concept to the Cleric for my taste.
- Rangers with spells so they can heal so that they can be Aragon.
- The six ability scores seem like a weird mix to me, and I'm always working around it. Most of the problems with skills stem from the ability score choices.
- That weapon restrictions seem more arbitrary the more you add on. (They kind of make sense in B/X.)
- Racial level limits that don't change when the game expands.
- Hit points scaling like crazy early then practically stopping.
- Many spells are off by a level.
- The level progression in general is whacked, and the variable XP charts are a reflection of that, not the cause.
No one piece of that is all that big a deal. If you liked everything but one or two of those, you'd house rule it and move on. Which is what I more or less did for a long time, when I bothered. When I run it, I can just play it as is, no house rules, and that's better than changing it, and then when the little things start to annoy too much, play something else.
In my own system, I've touched almost everything, but the roots are recognizable in most cases. I've got a streamlined XP chart because I've completely tweaked the level progression and changed what "class" means in my version. I've left the option for variable XP charts in the design, just haven't needed them yet.
Least favourite bit of pre-3e/OSR for me is having to look up saving throw tables with non-intuitive categories like "wand" being different from "spell". Conversely I really really like the Swords & Wizardry unified save number, which handily also gives me a unified task resolution mechanism by default.
My least favorite aspects of D&D5E currently are:
-Concentration. Its too easy to remove a spell effect from play. I've home ruled that any spell disrupted by concentration can only take place after the 2nd round the spell has been cast. So at least the caster can have some effect in game.
-Counter spell. Horribly implemented. I use a DC15 + the spell level for an arcana check that the counter speller has to pass to counter spell the spell. If they can't identify the spell and level, they can't counter.
-Dogpiling of skill roll buffs. My God, WTF did WotC do to skill rolls? Oh you need a guidance (1d4), here you go. Oh you want a bardic inspiration (1d10) we'll throw that on too. Oh fuck, you want bless (1d4), sure as fuck we'll give you that as well. Oh, you got a druid circle of stars, he got Weal (1d6), we'll throw that too. So, a player doing a medium task (d10) gets a bonus 2d8 + 1d10 + 1d6 average of +16 to their roles. Thank you WotC for setting up this clusterfuck of bonuses, all pretty damn likely in a party with a party having a paladin, bard, druid.
-Paladin save aura. Oh God, lets add that +5 to your saves as well. It does have a 10' radius which does cluster the players, however that charisma bonus is going to give the players half damage more times than not for AE damage. Honestly, I would have rather WotC put that on proficiency bonus use per long rest meaning you can use it for 1 minute per long rest per use of a proficiency point. It will still be on, but not perma on. Or if they changed it to damage reduction or bonus AC. That +5 to saves most players push all points into charisma helps to trivialize spells with saving throws. When I see a player doing that, I just look at the monsters and their spell line up is now on save half damage and move on for their damaging type spells and forget about their control spells.
For a lot of these that I used to dislike, I have come to appreciate them over time and actual use with comparison to other systems.
I think one of the last that still bugs me is critical hit on a 20. I am perfectly OK with some enemies being so AC'ed that they do not need Damage Reduction to convey Teflon status. It is useful for some Mythical-style puzzle-bosses, like video games Legacy of Kain Soul Reaver, or Greek Mythos like Medusa, Achilles, Talos, etc. Thankfully it is a trivially easy thing to houserule, and TSR D&D already gave optional methods to drop 20s crit and still somehow hit 'too high' AC puzzle bosses.
Least favorite? Thief abilities—specifically the low percentages. Bad design. Makes me wonder how many yes men stared at their feet and said nothing after Gary pitched it.
Least favorite: Linear fighter/quadratic wizard and everything that derives from it. Completely contrary to the bulk of the Appendix N sources. Also has a distasteful "revenge of the nerds" flavor.
I think D&D is most important in initiating the whole hobby, but I don't like the rules at all. It's quicker to list what I do like; the 3D6 stats were a good idea that many others have copied.
Quote from: Trond on October 13, 2022, 10:59:37 AM
I think D&D is most important in initiating the whole hobby, but I don't like the rules at all. It's quicker to list what I do like; the 3D6 stats were a good idea that many others have copied.
That's pretty much my take on it. Palladium is messed up because only high stats of 16+ matter. Below that and they all just sort of don't do anything, ever.
Dungeons &Delvers Dice Pool Edition even gets rid of that, however. I'm actually Ok with that change. Instead the game just gives you three sets of stats at character creation, and you pick the one you like. It makes sense in that game. It uses dice for stats, not numbers. D4 through D12. With only five integers between min and max a random roll would be too much. You just get your prime stat as a D8 and two D6's, and one D4 (delvers only uses five stats).
I actually use a 3d6/3-18 ability score range as a base for the sake of tradition and to avoid confusing casuals, but D&D score range fall into the category of pointless things I hate about the game, even going back to the old days, when I played mostly 2e, and Basic once upon a time.
The only thing that matters about Ability Scores is their modifier. The only real exception to this is weight carry, but every other score gives you nothing except for the modifier. And frankly I don't see the point of keeping an ability score range with a bunch of empty values that give you nothing just for the sake of weight carry granularity, like keeping track of encumbrance isn't already boring enough. Ability "Score" should just be the modifier.
The only other reason you might want to keep ability scores is roll under mechanics, like in AD&D. But that has its own set of problems. Roll Under Score means that if you get lucky and roll an 18 during creation, you have 90% chance to succeed at anything based on that score right out of the gate. Meanwhile a character that rolled 10 is stuck at 50% for life. And since Proficiencies were tied to ability scores (at least in 2e) this meant that unless you rolled high in a parent score you would never be good in that skill, cuz all you get is a measley +1 per extra proficiency slot you waste on the same proficiency.
The only thing that 3d6 is arguably good for is randomly determining your ability modifiers, if you're into that. But I would just give everyone X amount of points (maybe 8 or so) to distribute as actual modifiers, with an extra +1 per -1 you take, and cap the modifiers at -4 to +4, or something like that.
Beyond that there's a ton of other things I hate about old D&D rules, the most commonly mentioned being Vancian magic. But I solved that by ignoring spell memorization in my games and treating spell slots as simply the number of spells of each level you could cast per day. I hate almost everything everyone else has already mentioned, specially arbitrary Save categories based on specific special attacks (Breath, poison, etc.) rather than broad categories like those covered by Fortitude, Reflexes and Will, or maybe just basing them on Scores directly.
I don't hate Zero to Hero, though, but I do have some issues with it's implementation, specially HP progression, which starts out way too low, then effectively doubles pet level, turning it into a huge bloat by level 10+. But I think that the idea of heroic progression, and even of progressing in "levels" in general, is one of the most enduring features that have made D&D so successful and the idea of level-based progression perhaps the most imitated feature in other RPGs, particularly video games.
More granular, skill-based progression is something that I think attracts more a particular type of player that tends to be more invested on character details and mechanical components in RPGs. But casual players and people who're not invested in fine-tuning details tend to be more attracted to level-based progression, which is typically simpler and invokes a sense of "growing" more effectively.
Took me a while to decide what I really dislike.
1. Thieves - there is a lot wrong here, some of which AD&D fixed relative to Greyhawk and B/X, but the skills are poorly defined and useless at lower levels leading to poor niche protection/archetype representation, and the hit points are lousy (D6 in AD&D helped a bit) making them too fragile in combat. Having The Complete Warlock just to sub out its much better thief class is worthwhile.
2. Hit Point ranges - I don't mind zero to hero, but in HP even for a fighter it goes from "killed with one swipe by a black cat" to "more hit points than a dragon". Even a magic-user, with lucky rolls, can out do weaker dragons.
3. Spell's memorize range - Again similar to HPs. I like Vancian magic, but the spread of "just one spell" at first level to the huge range at higher levels.
I guess on 2 & 3 I'm disliking zero to hero and wanting closer to trained private to hero. Also, classic D&D is less zero to hero and more zero to demigod.
Quote from: FingerRod on October 13, 2022, 07:34:27 AM
Least favorite? Thief abilities—specifically the low percentages. Bad design. Makes me wonder how many yes men stared at their feet and said nothing after Gary pitched it.
I don't think Gary had to pitch ideas. He just wrote whatever he felt like.
But if you look at the write up of the pre-Gygax thief it works a bit different. In the original rules, a first level thief could have a 50% chance to pick locks at first level and a 90% chance at 5th level. The big difference, was that you had to pick skills from a list so a first level thief might not even be able to pick a lock at all.
I guess Gygax took away the choice and just game every thief a small increase in every possible skill as they leveled up. But in the original rules, higher level thieves could chose from a wide variety of special skills such as evaluate treasure, escape from being tied up, concoct antidotes to poisons, mimic other people's voices, break codes, track enemies etc.
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 13, 2022, 11:59:46 AMThe only thing that matters about Ability Scores is their modifier. The only real exception to this is weight carry, but every other score gives you nothing except for the modifier. And frankly I don't see the point of keeping an ability score range with a bunch of empty values that give you nothing just for the sake of weight carry granularity, like keeping track of encumbrance isn't already boring enough. Ability "Score" should just be the modifier.
Using only the modifiers is actually much more useful mechanically. As a normal value is 0, you can write a character out by simply listing only the exceptional abilities. For example, your orc boss might be written as:
Orc Boss, 3 hd, hp 12, Str+2, Cha+1
This means you can easily give ability scores to monsters or NPCs and these characters can quickly become playable characters if you need to replace losses.
QuoteI don't hate Zero to Hero, though, but I do have some issues with it's implementation, specially HP progression, which starts out way too low, then effectively doubles pet level, turning it into a huge bloat by level 10+.
I've found that one of the biggest contributor to hit point bloat at high levels is bonus hit points at first level. I solved this problem by having characters reroll their hit points every level but only using the new number if it is higher than the current number. This way, you can hand out bonus hit point to low level characters, such as letting them start with hit points equal to CON, but they won't have any more hit points than normal at 10th level.
Constitution bonuses are also a big factor but that can be solved by reigning in ultra-high ability scores during character creation.
Back when I used to play AD&D, the first things we ditched were 60-second combat rounds, and rolling initiative for each side and having the entire side act as one.
We adopted the 10-second combat round from B/X, and individual initiative.
We also ignored: weapon vs. armor type modifiers from the Player's Handbook.
I feel like this is an endless topic. Here's what I'll say:
D&D isn't a very good tactical wargame most of the time, aside from 4E. So if your goal is cool mechanical combat, then you're better off sticking with 4E.
It's also only a passable system for roleplaying.
Improvements in either of these areas are good.
I'm perfectly happy with 1E. I don't know that I could name a least favorite part. Unless you want to go with something silly and trivial. Like merfolk hit probability with grappling hooks against ships does not vary with the size and speed of the vessel, and nor does the number required to sink the ship vary.
But what I can do is go through some of the things I LOVE about 1E that were changed.
1) Illusions can hurt you. The common story you hear about this is, there was no real vision on how illusions worked initially. But then the best minds in all of D&Ddom converged to hash out the logical underpinnings, you can see it happening in dragon magazine, and while still during the 1E era, illusions had evolved into the form that was later used in 2E.
One small problem with that theory. Gary later wrote the Lejendary Adventure RPG, and in that game went back to illusions that could actually hurt you. Now first be aware that some people had made arguments that 1E phantasmal force technically never said it can physically hurt you. It could do damage to your hit points, but Gary had also allowed for the possibility that hit points need not be physical. And so it was easy to reconcile that Phantasmal Force explicitly could cause hit point loss while still arguing it wasn't physical damage. But in Lejendary Adventure, the wording Gary used was less malleable. It specified that wounds will open up spontaneously "as stigmata do."
It was intentional. It was not illogical. And it was way more badass.
2) Lower AC is better. The hit tables for 0th level humans requires a 20 to hit AC 1. Which is a 1 in 20 chance. That means a 19 to hit AC 2, or a 2 in 20 chance, 18 to hit AC 3, or a 3 in 20 chance. You see the pattern? This makes large scale combat a LOT easier to manage in 1E. For every 20 0th level fighting men in mass melee, the defender's AC is the number of hits they score. Or if a PC in a fit of heroism has to run through a hail of crossbow fire for some reason, whatever that character's AC is, that's how many hits you take per 20 crossbowmen per round. AC 3, 1 round of fire, 20 men? 3d4 damage.
Now technically you could go back into BECMI D&D or 2E AD&D and recalibrate the hit tables for ordinary fighting men to produce this result. You could tweak it. But it absolutely requires that low AC be better. Otherwise the AC could never be the stand-in for how many hits per 20 attacks lands.
3) The 1st Edition Monk. From a rules perspective, this class seemed to almost be piloting different takes and rules tweaks that tinkering DMs are likely to have. Should attacks have effects other than just depleting hit points? Monk attacks can stun. How about critical hits? Monks have an autokill percentage with their open hand attacks. How fine-grain should we get with number of attacks. I mean we have 3 attacks every 2 rounds. How about 5 every 4? Should characters deal more damage as they become more experienced? Let's take that idea for a spin on the monk class. Should characters be better at defending themselves as they level? Hey, monks get better AC as they level.
From a "flavor text" perspective, it's commonly panned as not being appropriate to western style campaigns. Well, first, let's point out that the origin of paladins and assassins are also confined to a specific cultural space. But the classes are written in such a way there's no reason they couldn't be used in any culture. And I'll go to bat for the appropriateness of the monks in the western campaign. William of Gellone. He was a monk. Born in 755 in northern France. Venerated in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Canonized by a pope. In the legends, he was able to smite enemies with his strong hands.
In defense of Vancian magic, I can understand why people don't like it, but froma metagaming standpoint, who wants to wait for the party's one magic user to flip through the spells section of the phb for ten minutes because he didn't think of what spell to use before hand.
Quote from: Tasty_Wind on October 13, 2022, 01:10:14 PM
In defense of Vancian magic, I can understand why people don't like it, but froma metagaming standpoint, who wants to wait for the party's one magic user to flip through the spells section of the phb for ten minutes because he didn't think of what spell to use before hand.
FWIW in my favorite versions the MU usually has FEWER spells to choose from (currently using SP with one new spell per MU level).
Also, you don't have to wait for the MU to pick new spells every day while all the other PCs gain nothing except maybe recovering 1d3 HP.
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/spell-points-for-bx-and-osr-systems.html
Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 13, 2022, 11:33:28 AM
Quote from: Trond on October 13, 2022, 10:59:37 AM
I think D&D is most important in initiating the whole hobby, but I don't like the rules at all. It's quicker to list what I do like; the 3D6 stats were a good idea that many others have copied.
That's pretty much my take on it. Palladium is messed up because only high stats of 16+ matter. Below that and they all just sort of don't do anything, ever.
Dungeons &Delvers Dice Pool Edition even gets rid of that, however. I'm actually Ok with that change. Instead the game just gives you three sets of stats at character creation, and you pick the one you like. It makes sense in that game. It uses dice for stats, not numbers. D4 through D12. With only five integers between min and max a random roll would be too much. You just get your prime stat as a D8 and two D6's, and one D4 (delvers only uses five stats).
Many games have a sort of passive usage of stats, which I always found odd since I started with Drakar & Demoner which was based on Runequest rules. So I was used to stat rolls. I always wanted some sort of stat roll in Rolemaster too, so I tried houseruling that
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 12, 2022, 07:41:14 PM
I've been thinking a lot about this lately. Might (re)write my own clone.
I do not do things quite like your lists but you may find a lot to like with my Majestic Fantasy RPG.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/337515/The-Majestic-Fantasy-RPG-Basic-Rules
For a slightly older but free version with the players stuff and combat in it
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Majestic%20Fantasy%20Basic%20RPG%20Rev%2010.pdf
Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 12, 2022, 06:43:15 PM
I was thinking of this as I read thru many of my gajillion OSR rulebooks. I've bragged that I've never played official D&D before. Some of the rules I like, mainly how the six ability scores work, but that's about it.
See if this helps.
When to make a Ruling
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/When%20to%20make%20a%20Ruling.pdf
I recognize that no amount of explanation will make folks like how D&D works. But the above works as a practical explanation of how to make the stuff work 'as is' without house ruling it to hell and back.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 13, 2022, 12:46:55 PM
Using only the modifiers is actually much more useful mechanically. As a normal value is 0, you can write a character out by simply listing only the exceptional abilities. For example, your orc boss might be written as:
Orc Boss, 3 hd, hp 12, Str+2, Cha+1
This means you can easily give ability scores to monsters or NPCs and these characters can quickly become playable characters if you need to replace losses.
I find that the best reason for having ability scores and modifiers are when the modifiers are not on a regular scale with the scores and the scores can change over time. That's why I kept them. Because it makes explaining how an ability score increases work extremely simple for the players, even though the math for the bumps and the modifiers are putting a slow, steady penalty on improving the high ones. In other words, the point of having ability scores as a separate thing is to function as a specialized scale. If a system abstracts out all the reasons for the scale or makes it linear, then the ability score become a useless vestigial mechanic.
However, I also did my scale and modifiers very carefully to make +0 the default, for exactly the reason you give. I don't need the scale with monsters or most NPCs, because their progress is not being tracked. Any increase they get is GM fiat. In my monster listing, I don't even include the values, and just assume that a +1 is the minimum scale number to get that modifier, and so on. The only reason I'd even need to do that is if the creature joined the party and started getting experience.
Quote
I've found that one of the biggest contributor to hit point bloat at high levels is bonus hit points at first level. I solved this problem by having characters reroll their hit points every level but only using the new number if it is higher than the current number. This way, you can hand out bonus hit point to low level characters, such as letting them start with hit points equal to CON, but they won't have any more hit points than normal at 10th level.
Constitution bonuses are also a big factor but that can be solved by reigning in ultra-high ability scores during character creation.
I also do the reroll of hit points, for the same reasons. And directly on topic, that trick is one I wish I'd have thought of when I first started running D&D. I dropped Con out of my game entirely, and replaced it's boost hit points effect with a more limited one based on several minor boosts. My reward was last session when a dwarf (one minor boost) warrior (another minor boost) took a huge hit and kept fighting. There was this stunned pause when one player said, "How'd you take that? Oh, I forgot. You're a dwarf." And suddenly dwarves were cool again in our group.
The wrestling rules are... horrifying, lol.
Saving throws have no consistent logic behind them (see my dumb crap here http://www.dizzydragon.net/deconstructing_bx_dnd/start about halfway down the page for analysis). I think they were just chosen to try to "balance" the classes, but class balance is an illusion anyway imo.
Thieves are pretty b0rken, especially in BECMI/RC, where they stretched the (already crappy) 1-14 skill chart over 36 levels, making thieves even more worthles than they already were. 2e improved upon this a good bit with the point buy dealio, so you could min-max a little and actually contribute to the party a little. But they were still pretty bad even in 2e, heh.
Women having the same physical strength score as men is ridiculous. Even in 1e they tended to be the same, because it was only the upper limit that was capped, but the stat was still generated the same for both. If we had to make it "fair", we could give women a charisma bonus instead, to reflect how society tends to treat women better than men. But I guess that's not unique to OSR stuff, and perhaps a can of worms that I ought not risk opening in the first place.
Quote from: FingerRod on October 13, 2022, 07:34:27 AM
Least favorite? Thief abilities—specifically the low percentages. Bad design. Makes me wonder how many yes men stared at their feet and said nothing after Gary pitched it.
If I had to pick one thing? Thief skills need a complete rework.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 13, 2022, 12:39:40 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on October 13, 2022, 07:34:27 AM
Least favorite? Thief abilities—specifically the low percentages. Bad design. Makes me wonder how many yes men stared at their feet and said nothing after Gary pitched it.
I don't think Gary had to pitch ideas. He just wrote whatever he felt like.
But if you look at the write up of the pre-Gygax thief it works a bit different. In the original rules, a first level thief could have a 50% chance to pick locks at first level and a 90% chance at 5th level. The big difference, was that you had to pick skills from a list so a first level thief might not even be able to pick a lock at all.
I guess Gygax took away the choice and just game every thief a small increase in every possible skill as they leveled up. But in the original rules, higher level thieves could chose from a wide variety of special skills such as evaluate treasure, escape from being tied up, concoct antidotes to poisons, mimic other people's voices, break codes, track enemies etc.
You're talking about the Aero Hobbies thief right? I didn't know it was quite that high.
Another vote for Vancian Magic. It never seemed "believable" for me (meaning--it was just weird, didn't seem like a mechanic that made sense). TFT's "fatigue" made more sense.
AC as making one harder to hit, vs. damage reduction.
Artificial limits on weapon usage--I liked how TFT made iron interfere with the casting of magic (not offering protection from it, though), seemed like a more believable limitation.
Multiple kinds of resolution systems vs a unified system. It was a hot mess having descending AC, saving throws, thieves' abilities, etc. It seemed to me that they just wanted to use all the cool dice in multiple ways.
1st ed combat. Ugh. I don't think anyone could possibly say they used RAW.
I know this is heresy, but I have never liked random attributes and I especially hate randomized hit points. I would rather have point distribution and a simple number for hit point level increases.
I also don't like Vancian magic.
I'm not necessarily opposed to zero to hero in theory, but I'm just tired of it after playing D&D for years and years.
All of my issues can be fixed pretty easily and are common alternative or house rules.
Quote from: ShieldWife on October 14, 2022, 12:34:37 PM
I know this is heresy, but I have never liked random attributes and I especially hate randomized hit points.
This ain't heresy. That's just a fact many don't wanna hear: random attributes and (specially) HP are trash.
The only way I can even conceive anyone liking random HP is cuz it was that way in D&D from the get go, and once something in early D&D made it to print people just can't let it go. But the idea that one character is specially defined by having exactly one HP more than another due to random chance, and that this is something that should be preserved, is absurd.
Attributes are real defining character traits. HP are simply derived stats. Derived stats shouldn't be random, they should be based on attributes and/or other stats (like Character Level), cuz they're
derivative. Random attributes suck as well, but at least they're more justifiable, in that you could argue that some people are stronger or smarter (etc.) than others, and that these differences aren't always balanced IRL. But some people are hardier (i.e. have more HP) than others because their health attribute (Con) is higher and/or cuz their training (Class) made them tougher. Not through random chance that's disassociated from their training or natural abilities.
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 14, 2022, 03:47:07 PM
The only way I can even conceive anyone liking random HP is cuz it was that way in D&D from the get go, and once something in early D&D made it to print people just can't let it go. But the idea that one character is specially defined by having exactly one HP more than another due to random chance, and that this is something that should be preserved, is absurd.
Attributes are real defining character traits. HP are simply derived stats. Derived stats shouldn't be random, they should be based on attributes and/or other stats (like Character Level), cuz they're derivative. Random attributes suck as well, but at least they're more justifiable, in that you could argue that some people are stronger or smarter (etc.) than others, and that these differences aren't always balanced IRL. But some people are hardier (i.e. have more HP) than others because their health attribute (Con) is higher and/or cuz their training (Class) made them tougher. Not through random chance that's disassociated from their training or natural abilities.
You can dislike it all you want. It's a free world. Your reasoning is based on a flawed premise, and then compounds it with some unsupported logic. All you've shown for sure is that your truly don't understand why someone would like it. When you find yourself saying about someone else that they only like something because of X, there is a really good chance you have no clue what you are talking about.
This is probably not something that can be explained though, only experienced. Plus, it's coming from a view of games, simulation, fiction, and several other things that are probably not compatible with your perspective.
However, on the off chance that I'm wrong about that, I'll point out that there is a loose correlation in early D&D mechanics that moves back and forth between realistic simulation, game purposes, fantastical simulation, inspiration, and it is not deterministic. That's why, for example, it's so hard to pin down exactly what Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, and Cha represent, in a way that will satisfy all players. Sure, people can and do come up with an interpretation that they like well enough, if they keep playing at least. Some of them mistake that for the way everyone else views it, which has been the source of countless arguments since the game was launched.
I actually prefer my "hit points" random, but not quite so wildly random as they are at low levels in early D&D. Not speaking for anyone else, I really like players having to deal with whatever the world has handed them before play start, which requires some randomness. In fact, I prefer that there be more random elements so that it evens out more quickly. Ability scores at start and then only hit points being random after that is too constrained for my satisfaction.
Some stuff I've more or less accepted by now
-vancian magic, thematically can be cool but being always so starved for spells and not having enough payoff for what those spells do it's not worth it until higher levels. I'd prefer roll to cast system.
- armor class is based almost entirely off what you wear, I wish defense was more active like parry, block and dodge. Only makes sense if you consider hit points part of your defense skill but that breaks down when you get hit with things that you can't really defend against.
- hit points, see above. Characters end up too hard to take down as they level. Toss a grenade in a closed room you should have chunky salsa not hit point damage
Randomized character generation is definitely not an indicator of particularly well-tuned game design, even if the result might be desirable from other perspectives (e.g. verisimilitude, variety, etc).
Quote from: Ocule on October 14, 2022, 04:23:19 PM
Some stuff I've more or less accepted by now
-vancian magic, thematically can be cool but being always so starved for spells and not having enough payoff for what those spells do it's not worth it until higher levels. I'd prefer roll to cast system.
- armor class is based almost entirely off what you wear, I wish defense was more active like parry, block and dodge. Only makes sense if you consider hit points part of your defense skill but that breaks down when you get hit with things that you can't really defend against.
- hit points, see above. Characters end up too hard to take down as they level. Toss a grenade in a closed room you should have chunky salsa not hit point damage
Sounds like you should give Palladium Fantasy a try.
Or my new favorite. Dungeons and Delvers Dice Pool Edition.
Palladium uses strike vs parry/dodge in an opposed roll. Armor rating exists, but that only affects damage. Magic uses mana points to cast, called potential psychic energy (PPE). Classes are also more diverse with no such thing as a fighter. Instead there are mercs, soldiers, archers, and knights.
Delvers is more traditional and still uses armor class, called defense values. You just get three of them and they're not based on your choice of armor. They're from your stats, and are Block, Dodge, and Willpower. No savings throws, and hit points do go up as you level only a bit. Magic is a skill roll just like attacking with a sword, or sifting through a library to find information. A stat dice + skill dice + any dice from many talents, pick the best two dice to add up to be a target number or defense number.
Palladium is more crunchy. If you start with fantasy you can then expand out to other genres. D&D:DPE is much more rules lite and is my new favorite OSR game.
If you want to stick to traditional D&D style rules, then Star Adventurer is a good choice for Star Wars. It's still random stats and Armor Class is based on what you wear, but it's got low hit points and mystic powers are skill checks.
Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 14, 2022, 06:09:00 PM
Quote from: Ocule on October 14, 2022, 04:23:19 PM
Some stuff I've more or less accepted by now
-vancian magic, thematically can be cool but being always so starved for spells and not having enough payoff for what those spells do it's not worth it until higher levels. I'd prefer roll to cast system.
- armor class is based almost entirely off what you wear, I wish defense was more active like parry, block and dodge. Only makes sense if you consider hit points part of your defense skill but that breaks down when you get hit with things that you can't really defend against.
- hit points, see above. Characters end up too hard to take down as they level. Toss a grenade in a closed room you should have chunky salsa not hit point damage
Sounds like you should give Palladium Fantasy a try.
Or my new favorite. Dungeons and Delvers Dice Pool Edition.
Palladium uses strike vs parry/dodge in an opposed roll. Armor rating exists, but that only affects damage. Magic uses mana points to cast, called potential psychic energy (PPE). Classes are also more diverse with no such thing as a fighter. Instead there are mercs, soldiers, archers, and knights.
Delvers is more traditional and still uses armor class, called defense values. You just get three of them and they're not based on your choice of armor. They're from your stats, and are Block, Dodge, and Willpower. No savings throws, and hit points do go up as you level only a bit. Magic is a skill roll just like attacking with a sword, or sifting through a library to find information. A stat dice + skill dice + any dice from many talents, pick the best two dice to add up to be a target number or defense number.
Palladium is more crunchy. If you start with fantasy you can then expand out to other genres. D&D:DPE is much more rules lite and is my new favorite OSR game.
If you want to stick to traditional D&D style rules, then Star Adventurer is a good choice for Star Wars. It's still random stats and Armor Class is based on what you wear, but it's got low hit points and mystic powers are skill checks.
Ive heard palladium is a nightmare to actually play, but ive never actually played it. Dungeons and Delvers sounds interesting as a core game though its probably strictly fantasy from the sound of it.
Not sure what D&D: DPE is. Star Adventurer looked awesome but missing things like npcs, monsters and and stat blocks. I do like how it handles classes
Quote from: Ocule on October 14, 2022, 11:29:40 PM
Ive heard palladium is a nightmare to actually play, but ive never actually played it.
If you can play AD&D you can play Palladium Fantasy. My personal recommendation is pick up the first edition rather than second edition as everything is less complicated (it was before many of the things that actually make Palladium difficult to run were implemented).
Combat is opposed d20 rolls and, in 1e, warriors have a distinct advantage over non-warriors with their free parry (those without hand to hand training have to spend actions to parry attacks) and hand to hand and weapon proficiency bonuses (the fact that stat bonuses only come in at 16 or higher typically mean that your actual training matters way more than your attributes do; and if you do get something high enough, it's a nice advantage without typically being overwhelming).
Skills are percentiles (with the understanding that you only roll them if you're doing something hard enough to possibly fail).
1e has a number of very of distinct magic systems (2e unified everything into running on Potential Psychic Energy like their main flagship at the time of 2e; Rifts) that actually feel very different from each other.
Beyond that, it's basically just a matter of GM rulings when needed, typically involving either d20 checks for combat or percentiles for non-combat.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 15, 2022, 12:11:48 AM
Quote from: Ocule on October 14, 2022, 11:29:40 PM
Ive heard palladium is a nightmare to actually play, but ive never actually played it.
If you can play AD&D you can play Palladium Fantasy. ...
I ran a lot of Palladium Fantasy back in the day. It's way worse to run that B/X, but as you say probably only slightly worse than 1e btb (but did any of us actually play 1e btb?). There are more dice, and it's slower, but it's not quite *painfully* slow. There are more fiddly bits to keep track of, but once you work out a bookkeeping procedure and get it ingrained in your brain, it's not terrible.
It was when Rifts came out, with MD and more rules and taking 100 years to create a character and all that, that I got frustrated with the system. Don't get me wrong, I think Rifts as a setting is ABSOLUTELY AMAZING and one of my very favorites, but it's just so slow to run. Oof.
Also, Beyond the Supernatural. Amazing setting. All their settings are amazing. I just wish the rules were 33%-50% less heavy.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 15, 2022, 12:11:48 AM
Quote from: Ocule on October 14, 2022, 11:29:40 PM
Ive heard palladium is a nightmare to actually play, but ive never actually played it.
If you can play AD&D you can play Palladium Fantasy. My personal recommendation is pick up the first edition rather than second edition as everything is less complicated (it was before many of the things that actually make Palladium difficult to run were implemented).
Combat is opposed d20 rolls and, in 1e, warriors have a distinct advantage over non-warriors with their free parry (those without hand to hand training have to spend actions to parry attacks) and hand to hand and weapon proficiency bonuses (the fact that stat bonuses only come in at 16 or higher typically mean that your actual training matters way more than your attributes do; and if you do get something high enough, it's a nice advantage without typically being overwhelming).
Skills are percentiles (with the understanding that you only roll them if you're doing something hard enough to possibly fail).
1e has a number of very of distinct magic systems (2e unified everything into running on Potential Psychic Energy like their main flagship at the time of 2e; Rifts) that actually feel very different from each other.
Beyond that, it's basically just a matter of GM rulings when needed, typically involving either d20 checks for combat or percentiles for non-combat.
I agree. 1st edition is not complex like later games. It's actually quite a stable game and I prefer it to 2nd edition, and would use it to learn how to play Palladium system.
One thing that's different between 1E and 2E is magic. 1E restricts wizards with x-spells-per-day. 2E uses magic power points to be compatible with all other newer games they make.
Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 12, 2022, 08:36:33 PM
These are all things that many OSR games fix. I like Dungeons and Delvers Dice Pool for all the reasons it's not like D&D.
1. No insane hit point bloat. A warrior starts with 5 hit points, and maxes out with 8.
2. Very skills based. Like D6 Star Wars, everyone has attribute + skill to do pretty much everything, including attacking. In this game you have all the skills. Many may only be 1D4 + 1D4 and roll a 5 is easy difficulty, but you have them.
3. No savings throws. Stuff like being poisoned is called a status effect and typically are negatives to skill rolls, of which attacking is a common one.
4. Armor doesn't raise your defense target number, what D&D calls Armor Class. It's just 1-3 more hit points per fight. In fact, you have three different defense numbers. Parry, dodge, mind.
5. No Vancian magic. Again, this games uses attribute + skill, in this case Intellect + Arcana skill. Even non magic users have Arcana, but they just the use it to recognize magic, or "remember" lore about magic related stuff. A wizard isn't OP as their damage is on par with warriors. Archers may use up ammo a wizard doesn't bother with, but archers out damage them.
It's my favorite fantasy game right now.
You may have just sold me on this system. I have been curious about it.
Quote from: Greg Bruni on October 15, 2022, 08:11:00 PM
Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 12, 2022, 08:36:33 PM
These are all things that many OSR games fix. I like Dungeons and Delvers Dice Pool for all the reasons it's not like D&D.
It's my favorite fantasy game right now.
You may have just sold me on this system. I have been curious about it.
I recommend it. Right now the dice pool version is sold on Big Geek Emporium. The author, David Guyll removed it from DriveThru RPG for some reason. His call I suppose. I like the Biggus Geekus guys, so supporting their new online store they made to protest Drivethru RPG censorship isn't a bad thing to me.
https://biggeekemporium.com/product/dungeons-delvers-dice-pool/ (https://biggeekemporium.com/product/dungeons-delvers-dice-pool/)
It runs on two simple premises. That dice progress from D4, to D6, D8, D10, and end up at D12. And that you roll an attribute dice and a skill dice, plus often a few other dice from character customization traits, and pick the best 2 results to add up. It's a lot like Star Wars D6, but far less math.
Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 16, 2022, 03:01:22 AM
It runs on two simple premises. That dice progress from D4, to D6, D8, D10, and end up at D12. And that you roll an attribute dice and a skill dice, plus often a few other dice from character customization traits, and pick the best 2 results to add up. It's a lot like Star Wars D6, but far less math.
The Sovereign Stone/Cortex mechanic. I'm interested. I've always wanted to see a good take on that mechanic as all the others feel like something is missing.
David Guyll was on the Legion of Myth podcast where he mentioned where he got the dice mechanic from. It was from some board game. Roll all the dice, pick the best two and add them up.
It's similar to Savage Worlds, but that game is your skill dice and a D6. I don't like SW for leaving the underlying attribute out of the typical roll
I like the Delvers system better. Like a Barbarian Dwarf with the Slayer and Soldier talents. You roll a D8 strength attribute, D6 melee weapon skill, a D4 for using a 2-handed weapon, and a D4 if it's a hammer or axe. My test roll just now resulted in a 3, 5, 4, & 1. So I get a 9 from weapon skill and because I'm a slayer. You can't roll past your maximum, but those extra dice often stop you from rolling badly.
It's an OSR game, but again, it fixed things I don't care for in D&D. Cookie cutter characters are not a thing as you get 15-20 talents at character creation, 3 from your race, and over 10+ from your class to customize your PC, and upgrade as you go as many talents have three ranks.
This whole thread was about OSR games, and other than those couple games that strictly recreate old White Box, B/X, BECMI, AD&D and AD&D 2E I think most OSR games are just people who house rules D&D to fix it, then turned that into a game you can buy thanks to digital PDF books and print on demand.
I'm honestly shocked that WotC are even still in business.
Quote from: Krugus on October 12, 2022, 08:29:40 PM
My least favorite bit of DnD rules?
Vancian magic.
After playing a slew of other TTRPGs, it is the Vancian magic I don't care for.
It could be done better and like others, I've made my own system (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kg6Sj-Wid9MkbOheQHa49K26th5ng86U/view?usp=sharing) to replace it.
I agree that Vancian Magic is bonkers. Amnesia should not be the side effect.
However, I have a weird house rule that keeps Vancian magic, but makes more sense. It also retains spell books.
Scroll reading magic. Everyone knows that if you read a magic spell scroll, you get to cast magic once, then the scroll becomes blank, drained, evaporates, etc. Its a one use consumable.
What if your typical wizard was somebody who can read a scroll, but it only becomes useless for 24 hours. They get their scrolls and bind them all up into a spell book. If you want to cast fireball three times, you better have three separate fireball scrolls in your book. You still only can cast X spells per day, but nobody is memorizing anything. In this universe magic spells are in writing.
Because I like 3.0 / 3.5 / Pathfinder 1 more than OSR, I'll answer for that first. My beef there is the way skills work. As written, they seem reasonable, but when played at the table, my players (several who have played these games for over a decade, on and off) are routinely surprised by the skill checks and DCs at least once or twice a night. There's also the much more common complaint about social skills being undefined in terms of what they do, and some tables basically playing them as mind control and others almost entirely ignoring an asked-for roll, leaving them ultimately as a houserule of varying efficacy that the PCs must for some reason give up combat acuity for in some fashion. I'd expect a big table of examples out of a skill system, so that anyone who wants can figure out some range of "how it should work", hopefully a much more narrow range than we actually see.
For OSR, I have a lot of minor complaints that I think later versions did better, but none so egregious as the decision to make humans have absolutely no extra powers whatsoever, and all the crap that followed from that. Humans are easier to roleplay, true, but without something like 3.X's 'bonus feat', everything must be interpreted as being worse than humans at something, which ended up with demihumans with like a level 8 cap or something. This cap is appropriate in a game that goes to 10th or 11th level- no higher, no lower. After all, the demihuman must pay for their early game competence, and their bonuses are likely worth around a level's worth of power, so a game that stops at 8th gives them no penalty, and a game that stops at 12th leaves them overpenalized for a built in flashlight and a +1 with bows or whatever. The demihuman cap in my games was always crashed into, and workarounds usually included wish spells or other quests, all just to play a fucking elf. Meanwhile, multiclassing was also a patch for this to some degree (the level caps were to encourage you to multiclass, and therefore look more like the old race*class combinations), which meant that multiclassing was ultimately cheesy garbage as well.
Not all OSR has this limitation, of course, and some lean into it in novel ways, such as ACKS, which has multiple things to pick from. Ultimately, the stuff ACKS has done and the stuff that 3.X did are the only ways around this that I have seen that work well.
Quote from: Krugus on October 12, 2022, 08:29:40 PM
My least favorite bit of DnD rules?
Vancian magic.
After playing a slew of other TTRPGs, it is the Vancian magic I don't care for.
It could be done better and like others, I've made my own system (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kg6Sj-Wid9MkbOheQHa49K26th5ng86U/view?usp=sharing) to replace it.
faserip did magic best imho.
Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 16, 2022, 06:04:12 PM
What if your typical wizard was somebody who can read a scroll, but it only becomes useless for 24 hours. They get their scrolls and bind them all up into a spell book. If you want to cast fireball three times, you better have three separate fireball scrolls in your book. You still only can cast X spells per day, but nobody is memorizing anything. In this universe magic spells are in writing.
More generally, moving the restoration requirements onto the
spell in some way is an interesting change. I've done something similar with demon-powered magic, where each demon empowers a single spell and requires a certain amount of rest between summonings.
The only downside we found with this approach was the need to track which spells were cast when, since they'd then be recovered at different times of the day. In practice, doing so was trivial, and no more difficult than dealing with the edge cases around rest requirements for the wizard.
Vancian casting has a lot of discussion here. I was exposed to D&D long before I had read anything by Jack Vance (I suspect that's the case with roughly half this forum, maybe even more). In the Dying Earth stuff, the method of casting spells is portrayed really great, and I understand why it seized so many minds immediately. It's completely and totally appropriate to that setting, and many others, a concept that can easily be placed into a lot of magical worlds.
But Vancian casting doesn't just mean jamming spell slots into your brain, it's also very much responsible for the type of spells we ended up with. Some, such as The Excellent Prismatic Spray, and Imprisonment/Freedom (along with the idea of reversability), are copied directly out of Vance's stories. Suspiciously intricate spells are the hallmark of dungeons and dragons- even the evocation favorite, Fireball, relies on a pea-sized bead shooting out and then creating the pressureless fireball. Simple cones like burning hands are designed in a magical fashion (as compared to red dragon breath, which seems much more primal).
The final thing that ties Vancian magic so tightly to OSR (and to a lesser extent, newer D&D versions) is the easy balance of it- once you understand about what a fourth level spell can do, making one is certainly possibly for both a player and a DM. Giving out spell slots, items that cast spells, etc., all becomes reasonably templatable and understandable. This rapidly fades if you move to a mana or magic points based system, and Gygax ranted against this multiple times.
And overall, I agree with him- adding MP or some other resource to D&D's Vancian spells really is an issue. But adding a resource like that to magic, in general, is not a problem at all.
The issue is that to add that stuff correctly requires a lot of creativity, to keep the magical powers being created distinct and interesting, while not making them into the same thing as the Vancian spells. I bet someone did that at some point.
Vancian magic has been popular just because the bookkeeping during play is primarily limited to crossing out a spell once you cast it. Downside is you get a huge bloated spell list your party wizard is constantly looking through.
Point systems tend to have more drag on actual play. No one wants to wait while the spellcaster figures out if he has enough points left to cast enlarged fireball, realizes his spell from last turn was undercast so he should have 2 more power points, etc...
Quote from: Zelen on October 18, 2022, 02:58:38 PM
Vancian magic has been popular just because the bookkeeping during play is primarily limited to crossing out a spell once you cast it. Downside is you get a huge bloated spell list your party wizard is constantly looking through.
Point systems tend to have more drag on actual play. No one wants to wait while the spellcaster figures out if he has enough points left to cast enlarged fireball, realizes his spell from last turn was undercast so he should have 2 more power points, etc...
Vancian magic also deals with structural/math issues that can happen with mana point systems that start to scale across many power levels. That your 3rd level slot can't be cannibalized into a 2nd level slot and vice versa is usually a feature not a bug, though there are exceptions. It's sometimes tricky to get those aspects in a mana point system right, and what works in one game can't just be blindly liifted into another. For example, the Power Points in the various RQ games work well enough, because the different types of magic are designed to work with that system. Trying to port it over straight into another game would likely fail. Plus RQ puts other limits on how power scales.
Of course, the more "buckets" you have, the more cumbersome any system gets, and Vancian magic is not immune to that anymore than point-based systems are. It's not an accident that those 3rd to 6th level spells coincide with what so many consider to be the most fun levels. I'd argue it's not just the presence of the higher levels,though, but also the tacking on of every increasing slots for the lower ones.
Quote from: Zelen on October 18, 2022, 02:58:38 PM
Vancian magic has been popular just because the bookkeeping during play is primarily limited to crossing out a spell once you cast it. Downside is you get a huge bloated spell list your party wizard is constantly looking through.
Point systems tend to have more drag on actual play. No one wants to wait while the spellcaster figures out if he has enough points left to cast enlarged fireball, realizes his spell from last turn was undercast so he should have 2 more power points, etc...
Again (sorry for the repetition), FWIW in my favorite versions the MU usually has FEWER spells to choose from (currently using SP with one new spell per MU level).
Also, you don't have to wait for the MU to pick new spells every day while all the other PCs gain nothing except maybe recovering 1d3 HP.
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/spell-points-for-bx-and-osr-systems.html
Of course, "enlarged fireball", "undercast" etc. makes things more complex.
Alignment languages.
Penalties for alignment change.
Missile attacks being equally likely to hit any adjacent creature.
What happened when you tried to jump a goblin sentry and wrestle him to the ground. No early D&D game came close to getting this right.
No rules for what happens when a magic-user puts on armor. There are no penalties. It's apparently just physically impossible.
See much mention of vancian magic, was thinking earlier in D6 fantasy it's magic system has vancian as a side effect, let me explain:
So you can design a spell with a long casting time, days even, and cast it as a charged ward awaiting the trigger you set...essentially memorizing the a number of times equal to the charges you set. By default in D6 Fantasy it would seem there is no restriction on the number of these charge-ward memorizations you could have hanging ready, nor upon the number of active ongoing magical effects one can maintain at once. You must tailor your toolkit systems mechanics in advance of the campaign, always, this fact is what partially provides incentive to purchase modules and accessories that can shorten or expedite that very process. Our current attempts at a campaign are a merging of some marvel faserip concepts with becmi/d20 materials atop D6 Fantasy as a core engine...in Krynn of all places, for example. There isn't much I won't cannibalize but i prefer becmi over 1e.
Small update: all the things I dislike in B/X with the house rules I'm using to fix them:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/my-favorite-bx-house-rules-changes-bits.html
Including:
Race separated from class.
Advantage/disadvantage.
Backgrounds.
Critical hits.
Streamlined saves.
Unified XP.
Streamlined skills.
Feats.
Weapon details (especially 3e/4e), without going overboard (AD&D).
I like "metaclasses" from 2e (warrior includes fighters, paladins, etc.), and also new classes such as the 4e warlord.
Alternatives to Vancian Magic (spell points or spell roll)
My least favorite bit. Attacks of Opportunity or Opportunity Attacks. It is so stupid. It is the least logical, most insipid and bogs the game down.
Quote from: Wiseblood on October 28, 2022, 09:49:53 PM
My least favorite bit. Attacks of Opportunity or Opportunity Attacks. It is so stupid. It is the least logical, most insipid and bogs the game down.
Yeah, that was a bad bit of New School design.
Quote from: S'mon on October 30, 2022, 04:32:55 AM
Quote from: Wiseblood on October 28, 2022, 09:49:53 PM
My least favorite bit. Attacks of Opportunity or Opportunity Attacks. It is so stupid. It is the least logical, most insipid and bogs the game down.
Yeah, that was a bad bit of New School design.
Players are devoted to them, too. I stripped them out of my game, with the single exception of when an enemy tries to run completely past you. My players still ask for one every time one of the NPCs moves away from them.
Quote from: ForgottenF on October 30, 2022, 08:07:52 AM
Quote from: S'mon on October 30, 2022, 04:32:55 AM
Quote from: Wiseblood on October 28, 2022, 09:49:53 PM
My least favorite bit. Attacks of Opportunity or Opportunity Attacks. It is so stupid. It is the least logical, most insipid and bogs the game down.
Yeah, that was a bad bit of New School design.
Players are devoted to them, too. I stripped them out of my game, with the single exception of when an enemy tries to run completely past you. My players still ask for one every time one of the NPCs moves away from them.
I put the "Fighting Withdrawal" and "Retreat" back in, much like in some of the early D&D. Free Attack only happens if someone retreats directly out of melee. I also put Morale back in. Only enemies that panic make the Retreat their first option.
Then I made sure the players understood how it works. They still love the free attack, but now they understand they have to work for it by inducing panic in the opposition at the right time. It's much more satisfying to them when they pull it off.
Sometimes you have to give players what they need, instead of what they want--or what they think they want.
I hate even the old school "free attack vs enemies breaking off melee rule". If that was really the case no one would ever flee from melee (in game or in real life if that was truly the way it works IRL) cuz they'd just be insta-killed (at least potentially) the moment they tried to run. So people would always fight to the death—specially if surrounded by multiple enemies—cuz death would be almost guaranteed regardless, so they might as well take their enemies with them if they can.
There's no incentive to run—or even the possibility of escape—if running from melee truly gave every enemy within reach a free attack. Yet somehow I was able to escape a couple of times when ganged up by bullies as a kid—and I was a fat kid, with flat feet, who could barely run. Yet somehow I managed to break away without being suddenly pummeled incessantly by everyone around me as D&D would have us believe.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 30, 2022, 08:33:54 AM
Quote from: ForgottenF on October 30, 2022, 08:07:52 AM
Quote from: S'mon on October 30, 2022, 04:32:55 AM
Quote from: Wiseblood on October 28, 2022, 09:49:53 PM
My least favorite bit. Attacks of Opportunity or Opportunity Attacks. It is so stupid. It is the least logical, most insipid and bogs the game down.
Yeah, that was a bad bit of New School design.
Players are devoted to them, too. I stripped them out of my game, with the single exception of when an enemy tries to run completely past you. My players still ask for one every time one of the NPCs moves away from them.
I put the "Fighting Withdrawal" and "Retreat" back in, much like in some of the early D&D. Free Attack only happens if someone retreats directly out of melee. I also put Morale back in. Only enemies that panic make the Retreat their first option.
Then I made sure the players understood how it works. They still love the free attack, but now they understand they have to work for it by inducing panic in the opposition at the right time. It's much more satisfying to them when they pull it off.
Sometimes you have to give players what they need, instead of what they want--or what they think they want.
Mostly I agree with VisionStorm's comment above, but I'll add a couple of things. As far as "fighting retreat" type rules go, it depends on how they're written, but they're usually pointless. For example, one of the old school games I'm playing in allows you to take the dodge action while retreating. All you get is a 2 point AC bonus, enemies still get their attack of opportunity, and you only get a half move. So.... that's a complete waste of your turn. I don't think it's been used once in the whole campaign. Most of the rules I've seen that allow you to forgo the attack of opportunity still only allow you a partial move, which means that the opponent just moves up the next round and attacks you again. (It occurs to me writing this that 3.x D&D's 5ft-step rule may have been an exception here, where you could take a full move after it. It's been a while though, so I'm not sure)
The idea that enemies only flee in a panic is fine if your NPCs are usually monsters (or berserk orcs or whatever). If like me, you run a game where most enemies are humans or at least think like humans, it's a bit of a problem. People run away from fights that aren't going their way, and unless their enemies are considerably faster than they are (for example, if they're on horseback), they usually can. The Youtuber Lindybeige did an extensive argument on this, which I will link below, but the short version is that it is pretty easy to pick your moment in a melee fight to turn and run. If anything, I would maybe do the rule so that you only get your attack against an enemy who is fleeing in panic, but not against one that is retreating on purpose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z078XzvFmY
Realism aside, attacks of opportunity just make for more boring combats, as they discourage hit-and-run tactics, running battles, defenders retreating to prepared positions, etc. You can't attack an enemy and then try and draw them into a trap. D&D combat has a bad reputation for devolving into characters just standing still and taking turns to whack each other, and retreat not being viable is a big part of that.
In fairness, having played the other way for a while now, I'll admit it brings a couple of issues of its own. It slightly biases the game towards ranged combat, and potentially allows characters with higher movement speed to "kite" slower melee enemies by moving back and attacking every round. The latter issue occurs because most RPG rules assume the transition from running back to fighting happens instantly. Tabletop wargames sometimes solve that by having facing movements, but those don't really make sense for a single character. I would argue that a person can turn on their heel and flee from combat almost instantly, but they should have to take an action to turn back and fight again, at least if using a ranged weapon.
EDIT: I suspect that one of the reasons why opportunity attacks have been a fixture of D&D for so long is that the game lacks any coherent pursuit rules. In most versions of the game, a character that takes no other action can move double their normal rate (or 4x in 3rd edition), so in order to catch someone and actually attack them, you need to have a considerably higher movement rate than them. This quickly gets ridiculous and frustrating, so I can see why they wanted to discourage fleeing. I ran into this problem for my game, and had to invent a "chase score" statistic to make opposed rolls on.
Well, the point is that the rules have to work together, and not just be this isolated thing in the system, that hasn't been thought through fully or isn't compatible with the rest of the game. Yes, evasion and pursuit should generally be handled outside of combat.
My take, is that you can't just go straight from melee to out of combat, though. So my Fighting Withdrawal is really that, not just a minor boost to AC. It's an attack with a penalty and a move backwards and an AC boost, which is how it discourages pursuit. It's good enough that you might do it when you have no intention of fleeing, just as a tactical repositioning. It's a great tactic, for example, for when a lone PC wants to "retreat" down a corridor holding off a greater force while his friends fight other enemies at the improved odds.
This puts the onus back on the opponent to follow up in melee or not in the face of you still being ready to hit them. This also encourages thought, in that characters that want to flee just need something to discourage the follow up melee. It can and has been anything, such as someone already out of melee using a spell or even flaming oil or a trap or a bottleneck or whatever. Even flipping a table over for momentary cover helps, when combined with the fighting withdrawal.
As for the "flee in panic" part, I think you misunderstood my statement. Flee in panic is relatively rare, and it is the only thing that gives free attacks in my system. I'll give an example. Had a simple intro adventure with some new players recently. It was a few monster fights but mostly bandits in a variety of situations. The players retreated a couple of times. The bandits likewise did an orderly retreat once, and surrendered another time. Then we had a big fight where the players had a great setup but blew their ambush chance horribly. It turned into a seesaw affair where no one, including me, had any idea how it was going to go. Both sides were making their morale checks and had reason to believe that they were winning. Then after losing initiative and barely staying up to the onslaught, the players had a lucky round followed by gaining initiative and another lucky round. Suddenly, the bandits went to everyone hurt, many incapacitated, and a couple killed outright with shocking critical hits. They had a narrow escape route that was closing. So when they blew their morale check, I gave them a 50/50 shot of fleeing or surrendering. It easily could go either way. Panic ensues, two more are cut down by free attacks, and then the remaindered surrendered with their escape cut--except one that tried to dive into the nearby river and swim underwater, but got shot in the back with an arrow.
That same group of players in the previous session had to flee from a group of skeletons and a possessed tree. The tree couldn't follow, but the skeletons could for half a mile or so. The players didn't know that. Disengaging was difficult, but they got out of range of the tree that was handing them their butts, did a withdrawal from the skeletons that knocked a few down and bought some space, got initiative, and ran for it. We went to pursuit rules. Because the players were having to drag along a couple of wounded comrades, they were slowed down to about the same speed as the skeletons, who were lagging behind but still crashing through the brush 50-60 yards back.. When they were almost out of range, the players decided to stand and fight. That's a fight they won pretty handily. The relative speeds affected the modifiers to successfully escape or not, but it wasn't impossible to outrun a faster foe or guaranteed to outrun a slower one.
It also helps greatly if the GM has a clue how to do this. The rules are there to help you adjudicate the players actions, not a strait-jacket. Determine what they are trying to do, and adjudicate from there.
'Free attacks' for running away just aren't a good idea IMO, and aren't part of the original game. If enemies are fleeing you should have to chase & catch them, to get an attack from the rear - with a nice bonus.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 30, 2022, 12:18:35 PM
Well, the point is that the rules have to work together, and not just be this isolated thing in the system, that hasn't been thought through fully or isn't compatible with the rest of the game. Yes, evasion and pursuit should generally be handled outside of combat.
My take, is that you can't just go straight from melee to out of combat, though. So my Fighting Withdrawal is really that, not just a minor boost to AC. It's an attack with a penalty and a move backwards and an AC boost, which is how it discourages pursuit. It's good enough that you might do it when you have no intention of fleeing, just as a tactical repositioning. It's a great tactic, for example, for when a lone PC wants to "retreat" down a corridor holding off a greater force while his friends fight other enemies at the improved odds.
This puts the onus back on the opponent to follow up in melee or not in the face of you still being ready to hit them. This also encourages thought, in that characters that want to flee just need something to discourage the follow up melee. It can and has been anything, such as someone already out of melee using a spell or even flaming oil or a trap or a bottleneck or whatever. Even flipping a table over for momentary cover helps, when combined with the fighting withdrawal.
As for the "flee in panic" part, I think you misunderstood my statement. Flee in panic is relatively rare, and it is the only thing that gives free attacks in my system. I'll give an example. Had a simple intro adventure with some new players recently. It was a few monster fights but mostly bandits in a variety of situations. The players retreated a couple of times. The bandits likewise did an orderly retreat once, and surrendered another time. Then we had a big fight where the players had a great setup but blew their ambush chance horribly. It turned into a seesaw affair where no one, including me, had any idea how it was going to go. Both sides were making their morale checks and had reason to believe that they were winning. Then after losing initiative and barely staying up to the onslaught, the players had a lucky round followed by gaining initiative and another lucky round. Suddenly, the bandits went to everyone hurt, many incapacitated, and a couple killed outright with shocking critical hits. They had a narrow escape route that was closing. So when they blew their morale check, I gave them a 50/50 shot of fleeing or surrendering. It easily could go either way. Panic ensues, two more are cut down by free attacks, and then the remaindered surrendered with their escape cut--except one that tried to dive into the nearby river and swim underwater, but got shot in the back with an arrow.
That same group of players in the previous session had to flee from a group of skeletons and a possessed tree. The tree couldn't follow, but the skeletons could for half a mile or so. The players didn't know that. Disengaging was difficult, but they got out of range of the tree that was handing them their butts, did a withdrawal from the skeletons that knocked a few down and bought some space, got initiative, and ran for it. We went to pursuit rules. Because the players were having to drag along a couple of wounded comrades, they were slowed down to about the same speed as the skeletons, who were lagging behind but still crashing through the brush 50-60 yards back.. When they were almost out of range, the players decided to stand and fight. That's a fight they won pretty handily. The relative speeds affected the modifiers to successfully escape or not, but it wasn't impossible to outrun a faster foe or guaranteed to outrun a slower one.
It also helps greatly if the GM has a clue how to do this. The rules are there to help you adjudicate the players actions, not a strait-jacket. Determine what they are trying to do, and adjudicate from there.
Yeah, I may have misunderstood your original comment a bit. Looks like we're actually thinking in much the same direction.
One rule I particularly hate is "confirming crits", from 3.x.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 12, 2022, 07:41:14 PM
I've been thinking a lot about this lately. Might (re)write my own clone.
This is what I want and don't get from B/X, but I find in modern D&D.
- Backgrounds
- Race separated from class.
- Critical hits.
- Streamlined saves.
- Unified XP.
- Streamlined skills (I like using 1d20, but you can use 1d6 etc.)
- Feats*.
- Weapon details (especially 3e/4e), without going overboard (AD&D).
- I like "metaclasses" from 2e (warrior includes fighters, paladins, etc.)
- The 4e warlord.
- Vancian Magic replaced by spell points or spell rolls.
I've been tackling each one of these aspects with my blog and books:
Feats:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/407233/Old-School-Feats-OSR?src=newest
Alternate Magic:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/397412/Alternate-Magic-OSR
Spell points:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/spell-points-for-bx-and-osr-systems.html
Critical hits:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-simplest-critical-hit-table-osr-etc.html#comment-form
Might have been easier to just tone down 5e, but for some reason I find adding stuff to B/X much more enjoyable.
- Backgrounds:
for what? Please be more specific. If you're talking about backgrounds for PCs, then that's just amateur community theater BS - Race separated from class:
then play AD&D. 'nuff said.- Critical hits:
power gaming BS- Streamlined saves:
yes, because reading a table is SOO FUCKING HARD. BOO HOO! - Unified XP:
dumbest idea ever. my fighter has different experiences than from the cleric or magic-user, therefore different experience levels. Also it should be more difficult to advance in experience for more educated/technically minded classes. A Unified XP table makes no logical sense.- Streamlined skills (I like using 1d20, but you can use 1d6 etc.):
What do you mean by streamlined? please be specific.- Feats*.
more power gaming bullshit- Weapon details (especially 3e/4e), without going overboard (AD&D).
doesn't affect the game therefore that's just a personal preference thing. - I like "metaclasses" from 2e (warrior includes fighters, paladins, etc.).
play AD&D then- The 4e warlord.
the fact that 4e is a flaming turd, I'll just let this one go- Vancian Magic replaced by spell points or spell rolls.
"oh, I hate Vancian magic" yeah, how fucking edgy. Some people say they don't like it because, and they'll NEVER admit it, is being a low level magic-user in a Vancian magic system is TOO HARD. OH BOO HOO! What? You have to rely on WITS to stay alive? OH no! What shall we do?
Quote from: blackstone on October 31, 2022, 11:01:32 AM
Backgrounds: for what? Please be more specific. If you're talking about backgrounds for PCs, then that's just amateur community theater BS
Or, it's a place to silo all the non-combat abilities of a PC so you can have more variety by mixing combat/non-combat features without massively increasing complexity.
I mean, sure, if you run nothing but sociopathic murderhobos who make no attempts to interact with others other than killing them, backgrounds are pretty worthless/unimportant, but if you come upon a forge, then knowing if one of the PCs used to be a blacksmith is handy, as is when you come upon a noble... it's good to know who's an outlander, whose a peasant and whose an aristocrat as the response from the noble should vary depending on which of those is addressing said noble.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 31, 2022, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: blackstone on October 31, 2022, 11:01:32 AM
Backgrounds: for what? Please be more specific. If you're talking about backgrounds for PCs, then that's just amateur community theater BS
Or, it's a place to silo all the non-combat abilities of a PC so you can have more variety by mixing combat/non-combat features without massively increasing complexity.
I mean, sure, if you run nothing but sociopathic murderhobos who make no attempts to interact with others other than killing them, backgrounds are pretty worthless/unimportant, but if you come upon a forge, then knowing if one of the PCs used to be a blacksmith is handy, as is when you come upon a noble... it's good to know who's an outlander, whose a peasant and whose an aristocrat as the response from the noble should vary depending on which of those is addressing said noble.
Agreed. I think character backstories can help "flesh out" the motivations and goals for the character, and help provide a richer role-playing setting. Now, you don't necessarily need this for a good old fashioned dungeon crawl, but especially for a campaign that spans multiple adventures, it can create great story arcs--though this is heavily dependent on how competent a player is at role-playing. (And by competent I don't mean "can they make a convincing Scottish accent?" but rather "do they exhibit actions that are reflective of what they say their backstory is?")
The alternative to a reasonably fleshed out backstory is to turn everything into a metric--in your example, giving them a Smithing Skill and a Social Standing score (which might be handy to do anyway, but creating a backstory can help avoid a really random collection of attributes, stats, skills, and details.)
At any rate, I think it's overly reductive to just consider character backgrounds as "amateur community theater BS". It seems to me that yes, one can run an RPG as just a somewhat abstracted combat simulator, and if that's what everyone wants, fine...but it can also be something much more, if that's what the participants want. A good fantasy novel, for example, isn't just a string of fantasy combats that we read about...it has compelling, fleshed-out characters and backgrounds that explain why they're doing what they're doing. I think RPGs can use that model to create memorable adventures.
Quote from: Osman Gazi on October 31, 2022, 12:48:38 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 31, 2022, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: blackstone on October 31, 2022, 11:01:32 AM
Backgrounds: for what? Please be more specific. If you're talking about backgrounds for PCs, then that's just amateur community theater BS
Or, it's a place to silo all the non-combat abilities of a PC so you can have more variety by mixing combat/non-combat features without massively increasing complexity.
I mean, sure, if you run nothing but sociopathic murderhobos who make no attempts to interact with others other than killing them, backgrounds are pretty worthless/unimportant, but if you come upon a forge, then knowing if one of the PCs used to be a blacksmith is handy, as is when you come upon a noble... it's good to know who's an outlander, whose a peasant and whose an aristocrat as the response from the noble should vary depending on which of those is addressing said noble.
Agreed. I think character backstories can help "flesh out" the motivations and goals for the character, and help provide a richer role-playing setting. Now, you don't necessarily need this for a good old fashioned dungeon crawl, but especially for a campaign that spans multiple adventures, it can create great story arcs--though this is heavily dependent on how competent a player is at role-playing. (And by competent I don't mean "can they make a convincing Scottish accent?" but rather "do they exhibit actions that are reflective of what they say their backstory is?")
The alternative to a reasonably fleshed out backstory is to turn everything into a metric--in your example, giving them a Smithing Skill and a Social Standing score (which might be handy to do anyway, but creating a backstory can help avoid a really random collection of attributes, stats, skills, and details.)
At any rate, I think it's overly reductive to just consider character backgrounds as "amateur community theater BS". It seems to me that yes, one can run an RPG as just a somewhat abstracted combat simulator, and if that's what everyone wants, fine...but it can also be something much more, if that's what the participants want. A good fantasy novel, for example, isn't just a string of fantasy combats that we read about...it has compelling, fleshed-out characters and backgrounds that explain why they're doing what they're doing. I think RPGs can use that model to create memorable adventures.
...and all of that "back story" comes to a halt when the character dies from a failed save vs poison, or is run through with a spear by a pack of orcs from a random encounter.
I personally think a rich back story for a PC is players having the false assumption that the character is going to LIVE for a prolonged period of time.
if you want to put in a whole lotta effort to write up a 5 page back story for Jared the half-elf ranger, sure, fine..
But If Jared the the half-elf ranger has this awesome, rich back story and ON HIS FIRST ADVENTURE gets his head bashed in by an ogre, well you're just shit outta luck.
"but, but mah character. mah backstory..."
"tuff luck. roll up a new one.."
I'm not against the idea, but If you're writing a back story for your PC, anything longer than a PARAGRAPH is a waste IMHO.
Because (Drum roll please).....you're character is FIRST LEVEL. YOU HAVE NO BACK STORY.
Jared the half-elf ranger should have a back story with just a few things: who he is, where he came from, who his family is, how he came to be where he is, why he's adventuring, and a few things quirky/unique about him. That's it. Everything I summed up here could be said in maybe 6-8 sentences. anything more than a pragraph, you're writing fan-fic...and shitty fan-fic at that.
Quote from: blackstone on October 31, 2022, 01:15:24 PM
Quote from: Osman Gazi on October 31, 2022, 12:48:38 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 31, 2022, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: blackstone on October 31, 2022, 11:01:32 AM
Backgrounds: for what? Please be more specific. If you're talking about backgrounds for PCs, then that's just amateur community theater BS
Or, it's a place to silo all the non-combat abilities of a PC so you can have more variety by mixing combat/non-combat features without massively increasing complexity.
I mean, sure, if you run nothing but sociopathic murderhobos who make no attempts to interact with others other than killing them, backgrounds are pretty worthless/unimportant, but if you come upon a forge, then knowing if one of the PCs used to be a blacksmith is handy, as is when you come upon a noble... it's good to know who's an outlander, whose a peasant and whose an aristocrat as the response from the noble should vary depending on which of those is addressing said noble.
Agreed. I think character backstories can help "flesh out" the motivations and goals for the character, and help provide a richer role-playing setting. Now, you don't necessarily need this for a good old fashioned dungeon crawl, but especially for a campaign that spans multiple adventures, it can create great story arcs--though this is heavily dependent on how competent a player is at role-playing. (And by competent I don't mean "can they make a convincing Scottish accent?" but rather "do they exhibit actions that are reflective of what they say their backstory is?")
The alternative to a reasonably fleshed out backstory is to turn everything into a metric--in your example, giving them a Smithing Skill and a Social Standing score (which might be handy to do anyway, but creating a backstory can help avoid a really random collection of attributes, stats, skills, and details.)
At any rate, I think it's overly reductive to just consider character backgrounds as "amateur community theater BS". It seems to me that yes, one can run an RPG as just a somewhat abstracted combat simulator, and if that's what everyone wants, fine...but it can also be something much more, if that's what the participants want. A good fantasy novel, for example, isn't just a string of fantasy combats that we read about...it has compelling, fleshed-out characters and backgrounds that explain why they're doing what they're doing. I think RPGs can use that model to create memorable adventures.
...and all of that "back story" comes to a halt when the character dies from a failed save vs poison, or is run through with a spear by a pack of orcs from a random encounter.
I personally think a rich back story for a PC is players having the false assumption that the character is going to LIVE for a prolonged period of time.
if you want to put in a whole lotta effort to write up a 5 page back story for Jared the half-elf ranger, sure, fine..
But If Jared the the half-elf ranger has this awesome, rich back story and ON HIS FIRST ADVENTURE gets his head bashed in by an ogre, well you're just shit outta luck.
"but, but mah character. mah backstory..."
"tuff luck. roll up a new one.."
I'm not against the idea, but If you're writing a back story for your PC, anything longer than a PARAGRAPH is a waste IMHO.
Because (Drum roll please).....you're character is FIRST LEVEL. YOU HAVE NO BACK STORY.
Jared the half-elf ranger should have a back story with just a few things: who he is, where he came from, who his family is, how he came to be where he is, why he's adventuring, and a few things quirky/unique about him. That's it. Everything I summed up here could be said in maybe 6-8 sentences. anything more than a pragraph, you're writing fan-fic...and shitty fan-fic at that.
Well, I had fun with Classic Traveller, which created an interesting backstory--and you could die when creating it. Some days I would spend just creating characters--it was a mini-game in itself.
So yeah, getting too elaborate may not make much sense, and perhaps that background should be "revealed" as the character progresses so as to not invest too much time and effort in a 1st level character that might die off in the first level of a dungeon. But at least having some general idea of background--nothing too elaborate--can be fun.
I also don't think you're using "Fan Fiction" correctly here. Unless you're doing something like roleplaying the Onceler in a Dr. Sussesian world or a new Mary Sue companion to Dr. Who, it's not fan fiction. It's just fiction. And it can be shitty or it can be good--it depends on your talents.
Quote from: blackstone on October 31, 2022, 01:15:24 PM
Quote from: Osman Gazi on October 31, 2022, 12:48:38 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 31, 2022, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: blackstone on October 31, 2022, 11:01:32 AM
Backgrounds: for what? Please be more specific. If you're talking about backgrounds for PCs, then that's just amateur community theater BS
Or, it's a place to silo all the non-combat abilities of a PC so you can have more variety by mixing combat/non-combat features without massively increasing complexity.
I mean, sure, if you run nothing but sociopathic murderhobos who make no attempts to interact with others other than killing them, backgrounds are pretty worthless/unimportant, but if you come upon a forge, then knowing if one of the PCs used to be a blacksmith is handy, as is when you come upon a noble... it's good to know who's an outlander, whose a peasant and whose an aristocrat as the response from the noble should vary depending on which of those is addressing said noble.
Agreed. I think character backstories can help "flesh out" the motivations and goals for the character, and help provide a richer role-playing setting. Now, you don't necessarily need this for a good old fashioned dungeon crawl, but especially for a campaign that spans multiple adventures, it can create great story arcs--though this is heavily dependent on how competent a player is at role-playing. (And by competent I don't mean "can they make a convincing Scottish accent?" but rather "do they exhibit actions that are reflective of what they say their backstory is?")
The alternative to a reasonably fleshed out backstory is to turn everything into a metric--in your example, giving them a Smithing Skill and a Social Standing score (which might be handy to do anyway, but creating a backstory can help avoid a really random collection of attributes, stats, skills, and details.)
At any rate, I think it's overly reductive to just consider character backgrounds as "amateur community theater BS". It seems to me that yes, one can run an RPG as just a somewhat abstracted combat simulator, and if that's what everyone wants, fine...but it can also be something much more, if that's what the participants want. A good fantasy novel, for example, isn't just a string of fantasy combats that we read about...it has compelling, fleshed-out characters and backgrounds that explain why they're doing what they're doing. I think RPGs can use that model to create memorable adventures.
...and all of that "back story" comes to a halt when the character dies from a failed save vs poison, or is run through with a spear by a pack of orcs from a random encounter.
...
Because (Drum roll please).....you're character is FIRST LEVEL. YOU HAVE NO BACK STORY.
Note that I have been saying BACKGROUND and not back story.
Background: Blacksmith.
Class: Fighter.
Done.
There's nothing to halt there... it's just information that can be used to make informed decisions about what a character can and cannot do; particularly if you're using an OSR system that lacks a skill system.
It means when Bob the Blacksmith comes across a chain the party needs to break and the player says "I look for the best way to break it" the GM can say to themselves, "Bob's fighter knows about working with metal, he should have an easier time with that than Joe the Librarian's... I'll give him 3 in 6 instead of Joe's 1 in 6."
And if Bob gets poisoned or speared, the player can introduce Dave the Rogue Sailor (creation done) and the GM will know that if the party comes across something involving ropes, knots and climbing in wind and rain... Dave is probably going to be better at it than Joe.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 31, 2022, 03:31:19 PM
Quote from: blackstone on October 31, 2022, 01:15:24 PM
Quote from: Osman Gazi on October 31, 2022, 12:48:38 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 31, 2022, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: blackstone on October 31, 2022, 11:01:32 AM
Backgrounds: for what? Please be more specific. If you're talking about backgrounds for PCs, then that's just amateur community theater BS
Or, it's a place to silo all the non-combat abilities of a PC so you can have more variety by mixing combat/non-combat features without massively increasing complexity.
I mean, sure, if you run nothing but sociopathic murderhobos who make no attempts to interact with others other than killing them, backgrounds are pretty worthless/unimportant, but if you come upon a forge, then knowing if one of the PCs used to be a blacksmith is handy, as is when you come upon a noble... it's good to know who's an outlander, whose a peasant and whose an aristocrat as the response from the noble should vary depending on which of those is addressing said noble.
Agreed. I think character backstories can help "flesh out" the motivations and goals for the character, and help provide a richer role-playing setting. Now, you don't necessarily need this for a good old fashioned dungeon crawl, but especially for a campaign that spans multiple adventures, it can create great story arcs--though this is heavily dependent on how competent a player is at role-playing. (And by competent I don't mean "can they make a convincing Scottish accent?" but rather "do they exhibit actions that are reflective of what they say their backstory is?")
The alternative to a reasonably fleshed out backstory is to turn everything into a metric--in your example, giving them a Smithing Skill and a Social Standing score (which might be handy to do anyway, but creating a backstory can help avoid a really random collection of attributes, stats, skills, and details.)
At any rate, I think it's overly reductive to just consider character backgrounds as "amateur community theater BS". It seems to me that yes, one can run an RPG as just a somewhat abstracted combat simulator, and if that's what everyone wants, fine...but it can also be something much more, if that's what the participants want. A good fantasy novel, for example, isn't just a string of fantasy combats that we read about...it has compelling, fleshed-out characters and backgrounds that explain why they're doing what they're doing. I think RPGs can use that model to create memorable adventures.
...and all of that "back story" comes to a halt when the character dies from a failed save vs poison, or is run through with a spear by a pack of orcs from a random encounter.
...
Because (Drum roll please).....you're character is FIRST LEVEL. YOU HAVE NO BACK STORY.
Note that I have been saying BACKGROUND and not back story.
Background: Blacksmith.
Class: Fighter.
Done.
There's nothing to halt there... it's just information that can be used to make informed decisions about what a character can and cannot do; particularly if you're using an OSR system that lacks a skill system.
It means when Bob the Blacksmith comes across a chain the party needs to break and the player says "I look for the best way to break it" the GM can say to themselves, "Bob's fighter knows about working with metal, he should have an easier time with that than Joe the Librarian's... I'll give him 3 in 6 instead of Joe's 1 in 6."
And if Bob gets poisoned or speared, the player can introduce Dave the Rogue Sailor (creation done) and the GM will know that if the party comes across something involving ropes, knots and climbing in wind and rain... Dave is probably going to be better at it than Joe.
I think "background" and/or "backstory" don't have to be a certain size. There can literally be a sentence or two to be a seed for that backstory--e.g., "Ugthor the Ugly was orphaned at an early age, but a gruff warrior who saw potential in the young Ugthor took him under his wing to learn his trade wielding a broadsword. After his patron was killed in a bar fight initiated by an ill-tempered Orc, the young Ugthor has now set off to seek his fortune plying his trade, and has a nasty habit of collecting the ears of all Orcs he slays in battle."
If someone goes on for several paragraphs--well, that can be fun for them, but as stated above, if the character dies quickly, all that work is lost. At any rate, it certainly isn't necessary.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 12, 2022, 07:41:14 PM
I've been thinking a lot about this lately. Might (re)write my own clone.
This is what I want and don't get from B/X, but I find in modern D&D.
- Backgrounds
- Race separated from class.
- Critical hits.
...
Quote from: blackstone on October 31, 2022, 01:15:24 PM
Jared the half-elf ranger should have a back story with just a few things: who he is, where he came from, who his family is, how he came to be where he is, why he's adventuring, and a few things quirky/unique about him. That's it. Everything I summed up here could be said in maybe 6-8 sentences. anything more than a pragraph, you're writing fan-fic...and shitty fan-fic at that.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 31, 2022, 03:31:19 PM
Note that I have been saying BACKGROUND and not back story.
Background: Blacksmith.
Class: Fighter.
Done.
Yeah. I think this is talking past each other. blackstone read "backgrounds" as if it meant multi-paragraph player-written text, when he was responding to Eric Diaz who meant modern D&D's one-word descriptor like "Criminal" or "Sailor".
Why are backgrounds even a system issue? What did you do before you became an adventurer is a question that can be asked in any system and its consequence adjudicated. "You were X from the town of Y, therefore you will be familiar with A, might know some B, and would never ever heard of C." Apply a system appropriate modifier if it makes sense and be done with it. A list of prescribed backgrounds and enumerated benefits is needlessly limited and of dubious value. I find it far more fun to discover the character as I encounter challenges and try to leverage presumed character history against it. "Could I know something about this because I was something or other back home?" Now some character background has been discovered and locked in, while being relevant to the adventure.
As for writing an expansive backstory, it is fan fiction if it was not played out. Backstory accomplishments are created by player fiat, not earned through gameplay. Stringing together a story out of a few roll on a background mini game is legitimate provided it is subdued compared to expected in game achievements. "I am hardy because I sent long days working the fields and know a little about racking and combat because we had problems with goblins raiding."
Quote from: blackstone on October 31, 2022, 11:01:32 AM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 12, 2022, 07:41:14 PM
I've been thinking a lot about this lately. Might (re)write my own clone.
This is what I want and don't get from B/X, but I find in modern D&D.
- Backgrounds
- Race separated from class.
- Critical hits.
- Streamlined saves.
- Unified XP.
- Streamlined skills (I like using 1d20, but you can use 1d6 etc.)
- Feats*.
- Weapon details (especially 3e/4e), without going overboard (AD&D).
- I like "metaclasses" from 2e (warrior includes fighters, paladins, etc.)
- The 4e warlord.
- Vancian Magic replaced by spell points or spell rolls.
I've been tackling each one of these aspects with my blog and books:
Feats:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/407233/Old-School-Feats-OSR?src=newest
Alternate Magic:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/397412/Alternate-Magic-OSR
Spell points:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/spell-points-for-bx-and-osr-systems.html
Critical hits:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-simplest-critical-hit-table-osr-etc.html#comment-form
Might have been easier to just tone down 5e, but for some reason I find adding stuff to B/X much more enjoyable.
- Backgrounds: for what? Please be more specific. If you're talking about backgrounds for PCs, then that's just amateur community theater BS
- Race separated from class: then play AD&D. 'nuff said.
- Critical hits: power gaming BS
- Streamlined saves: yes, because reading a table is SOO FUCKING HARD. BOO HOO!
- Unified XP: dumbest idea ever. my fighter has different experiences than from the cleric or magic-user, therefore different experience levels. Also it should be more difficult to advance in experience for more educated/technically minded classes. A Unified XP table makes no logical sense.
- Streamlined skills (I like using 1d20, but you can use 1d6 etc.): What do you mean by streamlined? please be specific.
- Feats*.more power gaming bullshit
- Weapon details (especially 3e/4e), without going overboard (AD&D). doesn't affect the game therefore that's just a personal preference thing.
- I like "metaclasses" from 2e (warrior includes fighters, paladins, etc.). play AD&D then
- The 4e warlord. the fact that 4e is a flaming turd, I'll just let this one go
- Vancian Magic replaced by spell points or spell rolls. "oh, I hate Vancian magic" yeah, how fucking edgy. Some people say they don't like it because, and they'll NEVER admit it, is being a low level magic-user in a Vancian magic system is TOO HARD. OH BOO HOO! What? You have to rely on WITS to stay alive? OH no! What shall we do?
I explained each one here.
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/my-favorite-bx-house-rules-changes-bits.html
But.
Let me try to reply in the same tone so we can have some fun.
AD&D is a mess. I love the DMG but the PHB is all over. B/X is a lot better but it lacks some details I enjoy. It is not hard to create an easier and better game than AD&D but simplifying the rules a little bit (which 2e mostly did, BTW).
That is why not even Gygax played AD&D as written.
Specifically:
- Backgrounds: something similar to AD&Ds professions (or another one-line description, picked randomly) is enough for me.
- Race separated from class: see above.
- Critical hits: so only MU are power power gaming at your table? 10d6 fireballs are okay, but 2d8 with a sword is too much?
- Streamlined saves: you like tables, fine, but the system is messy, confusing for new players, and unnecessarily fiddly. One save would suffice.
- Unified XP: I'll agree this one is a matter of taste, but why not nerf the MU a bit to let a 5th level MU be equivalent to a 5th level fighter? Maybe only MUs are power gaming at your table?
- Streamlined skills: roll 1d20 to hear noise, find traps, etc.
- Feats. I use feats to add some options from AD&D to B/X. Is simpler and more versatile. A 10th level fighter with three of four feats is still weaker than a MU with the same XP. Also, I do give away that many +5 swords because I dislike this kind of power gaming.
- Weapon details (especially 3e/4e), without going overboard (AD&D). So I guess you agree the exist AD&D tables are horrible?
- I like "metaclasses" from 2e (warrior includes fighters, paladins, etc.).
play AD&D then 1e doesn't have meta-classes, and the bard is still a mess. Same for the druid.
- The 4e warlord.
the fact that 4e is a flaming turd, I'll just let this one go. I think you're are a decade too late for 4e hate, but okay I guess.
- Vancian Magic replaced by spell points or spell rolls.
"oh, I hate Vancian magic" yeah, how fucking edgy. Some people say they don't like it because, and they'll NEVER admit it, is being a low level magic-user in a Vancian magic system is TOO HARD. OH BOO HOO! What? You have to rely on WITS to stay alive? OH no! What shall we do? 1st level MUs are identical using my spell points system, it just cuts the power gaming BS from higher level by giving MUs fewer spells options.
[BTW, there is lot of stuff about AD&D I like... just trying to keep the ball rolling]
ENERGY DRAIN.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 31, 2022, 09:42:13 PM
- The 4e warlord. the fact that 4e is a flaming turd, I'll just let this one go. I think you're are a decade too late for 4e hate, but okay I guess.
This is the thing that just confounds me.
The traditionalists won. 4E's last product (that didn't even have any mechanics in it) was released a literal decade ago (late 2012).
Normally after enough time passes and emotions have cooled its considered acceptable to look back through a commercial failure for any good ideas worth salvaging and repurposing.
Yet so many still can't stop shitting on 4E and reminding everyone how much they hate 4E like it's a perfomative cult ritual. No idea that was brought to prominence in 4E (ex. warlords, dragonborn and tieflings) is permitted to be explored in other systems lest those systems become impure. And this has gone on more than twice as long as the system was even active.
That is not a normal reaction to a set of books you dislike. No one died or had their house burned down by 4E existing. So why the continued venom for something that hasn't been supported in, again, a literal decade?
Quote from: Slipshot762 on November 01, 2022, 12:47:43 AM
ENERGY DRAIN.
I love energy drain in concept(especially since lost levels can be restored), but i feel it adds a lot of book keeping to remeber what spells to remove and how much HP they gained at every particular level.
And yet the turd still stinks as it burns. If it starts whispering to you or worse still making grandious proclaimations report to your local BADD inquisitor for re-education.
Quote from: Chris24601 on November 01, 2022, 09:40:58 AM
That is not a normal reaction to a set of books you dislike. No one died or had their house burned down by 4E existing. So why the continued venom for something that hasn't been supported in, again, a literal decade?
Because hating on it is fundamental to so many major branches of the hobby--OSR and derivatives, Pathfinder, and 5E--and is the one thing that can unite them, so that it serves as a common enemy to so many D&D fans?
I like 4E, but I have been more and more convinced that I'm not suited to any of the major spheres of D&D. :)
OSR is about homeless vagrants recruiting lost orphans to venture into deadly dungeons. That is a good premise but the mechanics suck.
so the perfect OSR game (to me) would have stunts (to fancy up your descriptions and give you an award), shift away from the wargame aspect (the idea is that mooks become useless because the most basic monsters, being supernatural, are too tough for even the strongest real world humans. The PCs are regarded as inhuman monsters due to being strong enough to stand a chance in a dungeon, but there are few of them so mass combat is nonexistent and hiring mooks does nothing), dial up focus on characters (their eroding psyche as they travel through dungeons. their ideology. Their skills.), more support for alternative magic systems (FF7 Materia, Xenogears Ether, DND Vancian, Exalted Essence, etc. Some days people want to play mentally ill wizards who delve through hell dungeons. Other days people want to play edgy anime boys with giant swords and magic rocks who lead an asaault on a space fortress guarded by dragons.)
Oh and also remove THAC0. I hate it.
Quote from: Chris24601 on November 01, 2022, 09:40:58 AM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 31, 2022, 09:42:13 PM
- The 4e warlord. the fact that 4e is a flaming turd, I'll just let this one go. I think you're are a decade too late for 4e hate, but okay I guess.
This is the thing that just confounds me.
The traditionalists won. 4E's last product (that didn't even have any mechanics in it) was released a literal decade ago (late 2012).
Normally after enough time passes and emotions have cooled its considered acceptable to look back through a commercial failure for any good ideas worth salvaging and repurposing.
Yet so many still can't stop shitting on 4E and reminding everyone how much they hate 4E like it's a perfomative cult ritual. No idea that was brought to prominence in 4E (ex. warlords, dragonborn and tieflings) is permitted to be explored in other systems lest those systems become impure. And this has gone on more than twice as long as the system was even active.
That is not a normal reaction to a set of books you dislike. No one died or had their house burned down by 4E existing. So why the continued venom for something that hasn't been supported in, again, a literal decade?
All I said was 4e is a flaming turd, because it is. 'nuff said.
Quote from: MeganovaStella on November 01, 2022, 11:13:29 AM
OSR is about homeless vagrants recruiting lost orphans to venture into deadly dungeons. That is a good premise but the mechanics suck.
so the perfect OSR game (to me) would have stunts (to fancy up your descriptions and give you an award), shift away from the wargame aspect (the idea is that mooks become useless because the most basic monsters, being supernatural, are too tough for even the strongest real world humans. The PCs are regarded as inhuman monsters due to being strong enough to stand a chance in a dungeon, but there are few of them so mass combat is nonexistent and hiring mooks does nothing), dial up focus on characters (their eroding psyche as they travel through dungeons. their ideology. Their skills.), more support for alternative magic systems (FF7 Materia, Xenogears Ether, DND Vancian, Exalted Essence, etc. Some days people want to play mentally ill wizards who delve through hell dungeons. Other days people want to play edgy anime boys with giant swords and magic rocks who lead an asaault on a space fortress guarded by dragons.)
Oh and also remove THAC0. I hate it.
So why in the hell are you here?
Quote from: blackstone on November 01, 2022, 01:55:12 PM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on November 01, 2022, 11:13:29 AM
OSR is about homeless vagrants recruiting lost orphans to venture into deadly dungeons. That is a good premise but the mechanics suck.
so the perfect OSR game (to me) would have stunts (to fancy up your descriptions and give you an award), shift away from the wargame aspect (the idea is that mooks become useless because the most basic monsters, being supernatural, are too tough for even the strongest real world humans. The PCs are regarded as inhuman monsters due to being strong enough to stand a chance in a dungeon, but there are few of them so mass combat is nonexistent and hiring mooks does nothing), dial up focus on characters (their eroding psyche as they travel through dungeons. their ideology. Their skills.), more support for alternative magic systems (FF7 Materia, Xenogears Ether, DND Vancian, Exalted Essence, etc. Some days people want to play mentally ill wizards who delve through hell dungeons. Other days people want to play edgy anime boys with giant swords and magic rocks who lead an asaault on a space fortress guarded by dragons.)
Oh and also remove THAC0. I hate it.
So why in the hell are you here?
Because I can and I have opinions on OSR because I played it
I think a lot of players find an issue with games that have loopholes that they've discovered in the rules, but the GM won't allow the game to go off the rails like that.
Playing rules as written presumes the rules are perfect. There is no such game.
A lot of my games I play now are rules light so my GM ability has fewer restrictions.
Quote from: weirdguy564 on November 01, 2022, 05:37:09 PM
I think a lot of players find an issue with games that have loopholes that they've discovered in the rules, but the GM won't allow the game to go off the rails like that.
Playing rules as written presumes the rules are perfect. There is no such game.
A lot of my games I play now are rules light so my GM ability has fewer restrictions.
The system I wrote has a specific written rule that declares "because there is no way to account for all the ways these rules could interact in unintended ways, if a result seems broken or nonsensical to the GM, then the GM should determine the outcome based on what they believe to be the intention of the rule."
In essence, playing "rules as intended" (as determined by the GM) is actually the "rules as written" for the system.
Quote from: Chris24601 on November 01, 2022, 09:10:41 PM
Quote from: weirdguy564 on November 01, 2022, 05:37:09 PM
I think a lot of players find an issue with games that have loopholes that they've discovered in the rules, but the GM won't allow the game to go off the rails like that.
Playing rules as written presumes the rules are perfect. There is no such game.
A lot of my games I play now are rules light so my GM ability has fewer restrictions.
The system I wrote has a specific written rule that declares "because there is no way to account for all the ways these rules could interact in unintended ways, if a result seems broken or nonsensical to the GM, then the GM should determine the outcome based on what they believe to be the intention of the rule."
In essence, playing "rules as intended" (as determined by the GM) is actually the "rules as written" for the system.
This has always been part of the goal with something like Rule 0.
The trick is that insofar as a game has rules, you want them well designed. A caveat like that shouldn't be a crutch for bad design (not saying it is, but it could be).
Quote from: Zelen on November 01, 2022, 09:17:44 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on November 01, 2022, 09:10:41 PM
Quote from: weirdguy564 on November 01, 2022, 05:37:09 PM
I think a lot of players find an issue with games that have loopholes that they've discovered in the rules, but the GM won't allow the game to go off the rails like that.
Playing rules as written presumes the rules are perfect. There is no such game.
A lot of my games I play now are rules light so my GM ability has fewer restrictions.
The system I wrote has a specific written rule that declares "because there is no way to account for all the ways these rules could interact in unintended ways, if a result seems broken or nonsensical to the GM, then the GM should determine the outcome based on what they believe to be the intention of the rule."
In essence, playing "rules as intended" (as determined by the GM) is actually the "rules as written" for the system.
This has always been part of the goal with something like Rule 0.
The trick is that insofar as a game has rules, you want them well designed. A caveat like that shouldn't be a crutch for bad design (not saying it is, but it could be).
Oh, its not. I just know how many potential moving pieces there are between various character and monster abilities and that some situations could involve the interaction of three or four or even more elements that could, in theory, produce some broken result. I just wanted to cover my bases in case something in the interactions that never got caught because the people I had test the system just never tried a hypothetical combo of multiple elements and resulted in some sort of thing that would be a nightmare or gamebreaking if allowed to stand.
I've seen enough bad rules lawyers attempt the "rules as written" argument on a new DM who's not sure of themselves and their rulings yet. This is mainly just to undercut that whole line entirely because its damnably annoying.
So many little rules from OD&D that I need to home rule
-Not crazy about Vancian magic, never was. I prefer spell points for M.U.s
-Wizards only using swords , Pfffttt!
-Hit points being so rando - got my own system for that.
I use some other home rules as well.
I tend to avoid over ruled systems as they break immersion IMHO. I did the whole arc from OD&D through other games and have realized OD&D hits the sweet spot for me.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 13, 2022, 12:39:40 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on October 13, 2022, 07:34:27 AM
Least favorite? Thief abilities—specifically the low percentages. Bad design. Makes me wonder how many yes men stared at their feet and said nothing after Gary pitched it.
I don't think Gary had to pitch ideas. He just wrote whatever he felt like.
But if you look at the write up of the pre-Gygax thief it works a bit different. In the original rules, a first level thief could have a 50% chance to pick locks at first level and a 90% chance at 5th level. The big difference, was that you had to pick skills from a list so a first level thief might not even be able to pick a lock at all.
I guess Gygax took away the choice and just game every thief a small increase in every possible skill as they leveled up. But in the original rules, higher level thieves could chose from a wide variety of special skills such as evaluate treasure, escape from being tied up, concoct antidotes to poisons, mimic other people's voices, break codes, track enemies etc.
Where could one look at the pre-Gygax thief? And to what are you referring? The California Thief? Or something from Arneson's game?
Race as class just straight up irritates me. I'm with Eric Diaz on that one.
The problems with Vancian casting are that:
One, at low levels you are SOL after casting your one or two spells for the day. The magic-user's anemic combat skills and weapon proficiencies mean even tossing sling stones or darts is going to be dull.
Two, at mid to high levels the book keeping is agonizing for everyone involved.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 03, 2022, 11:49:32 AM
Race as class just straight up irritates me. I'm with Eric Diaz on that one.
It would have been nice if they had a series of classes for each race.
For example a Ranger is an Elf fighter, illusionist is an Elf Wizard, and Druid is an Elf cleric. Of course more customized for Elves than those examples but they illustrate the point. That way Elves would all feel different and the class lists would be easier to manage because if you didn't have an Elf you could just ignore those classes. Also it would mean that if you want to create a new class like Tiefling you'd have to come up with some classes to go with it.
Quote from: Ruprecht on November 03, 2022, 01:38:14 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 03, 2022, 11:49:32 AM
Race as class just straight up irritates me. I'm with Eric Diaz on that one.
It would have been nice if they had a series of classes for each race.
For example a Ranger is an Elf fighter, illusionist is an Elf Wizard, and Druid is an Elf cleric. Of course more customized for Elves than those examples but they illustrate the point. That way Elves would all feel different and the class lists would be easier to manage because if you didn't have an Elf you could just ignore those classes. Also it would mean that if you want to create a new class like Tiefling you'd have to come up with some classes to go with it.
"ACKS already does that."
Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 03, 2022, 11:49:32 AM
Race as class just straight up irritates me. I'm with Eric Diaz on that one.
The problems with Vancian casting are that:
One, at low levels you are SOL after casting your one or two spells for the day. The magic-user's anemic combat skills and weapon proficiencies mean even tossing sling stones or darts is going to be dull.
Two, at mid to high levels the book keeping is agonizing for everyone involved.
In fairness, the issue of running out spell slots at low levels isn't inherent to Vancian magic. It's more about implementation, since you could still have Vancian magic and give the level 1 Magic User 25 spells per day. I do 100% agree with you that if you're going to give a wizard a small number of spells per day, they need to be a lot better at fighting.
I think D&D magic has a problem with its flavor not matching its implementation. In the fluff text D&D spells are complex formulae that require extensive preparation, complex gestures and components to perform. In practice, they're combat actions that have to be performed in three to six seconds, often while on the move or holding something in one hand. For my money, an MP system (or any system that allows more spells per day) is always going to fit battle magic better. The classic Vancian idea works better for a game where a single spell is more powerful, and magic is rarely used in the heat of battle. You could argue that's the intent in old D&D, but they fouled that by making magic the wizard's only viable combat option.
At low levels, the wizard in early D&D is not much of a tactical option, at least not with their memorized spells. Wands and scrolls are supposed to open up that window. Instead, the wizard is an operational asset for the party as a whole. I get that some players don't enjoy playing an operational asset, but that's more about a mismatch in expectations than a problem with the design as it was conceived.
Where it really went off the rails was the focus on smaller and smaller parties, dropping henchmen, etc. With 6, 7, 8 players, several henchmen, multiple hirelings, the player of a wizard has a lot more to do. Not coincidentally, there was also mapping going on, tracking equipment, etc. We usually found that in operational play, there was more than enough activity to go around. Typically, the wizard player would likely be the mapper (who is someone you don't want on the front line anyway) and run the toughest fighter henchmen or hireling.
So yeah, take all that stuff out, and it is not surprising that having a few operational spells is boring. Then consider the naive fix of tacking on more and more spells without adjusting how they work--also not surprising that it has its own problems.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 13, 2022, 03:40:09 AM
My least favorite aspects of D&D5E currently are:
-Concentration. Its too easy to remove a spell effect from play. I've home ruled that any spell disrupted by concentration can only take place after the 2nd round the spell has been cast. So at least the caster can have some effect in game.
-Counter spell. Horribly implemented. I use a DC15 + the spell level for an arcana check that the counter speller has to pass to counter spell the spell. If they can't identify the spell and level, they can't counter.
-Dogpiling of skill roll buffs. My God, WTF did WotC do to skill rolls? Oh you need a guidance (1d4), here you go. Oh you want a bardic inspiration (1d10) we'll throw that on too. Oh fuck, you want bless (1d4), sure as fuck we'll give you that as well. Oh, you got a druid circle of stars, he got Weal (1d6), we'll throw that too. So, a player doing a medium task (d10) gets a bonus 2d8 + 1d10 + 1d6 average of +16 to their roles. Thank you WotC for setting up this clusterfuck of bonuses, all pretty damn likely in a party with a party having a paladin, bard, druid.
-Paladin save aura. Oh God, lets add that +5 to your saves as well. It does have a 10' radius which does cluster the players, however that charisma bonus is going to give the players half damage more times than not for AE damage. Honestly, I would have rather WotC put that on proficiency bonus use per long rest meaning you can use it for 1 minute per long rest per use of a proficiency point. It will still be on, but not perma on. Or if they changed it to damage reduction or bonus AC. That +5 to saves most players push all points into charisma helps to trivialize spells with saving throws. When I see a player doing that, I just look at the monsters and their spell line up is now on save half damage and move on for their damaging type spells and forget about their control spells.
Agree with pretty much all of these. 5e has way too many auto success mechanics, that only serve to remove portions of the game rather than make a character specialized in that. Overland travel and exploration? Any ranger or Druid and you can toss overland right out the window.
As for concentration their entire spell list has been sacrificed for the sake of "balance" concentration is such a cop out. Raise dead doesn't work on anything except humanoids and concentration is there purely as a meta mechanic to limit spellcasters. Also spell effects and times have been neutered to the point of being in combat spells only for most of them.
Biggest peeve though is everyone is a spellcaster. Everyone has magic. And I swear if I see one more drow/Dragonborn paladin warlock I'm gonna scream. I was that asshole dm who made warlock patrons and active part of the campaign
A number of players have commented that 5E's concentration rules can be very jarring for someone used to layering buffs or debuffs.
Unarmed combat in AD&D. Can I get an AMEN. Grappling and Pummeling is hot garbage. I can't believe Gary thought that was useable. Close tie: rules for determining who gets hit when firing missiles into melee combat.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 04, 2022, 06:59:08 PM
A number of players have commented that 5E's concentration rules can be very jarring for someone used to layering buffs or debuffs.
I can see that. However, I found the stacking to be out of control, and concentration an elegant rule to limit it. The problems with 5E concentration are more in the spells, I think, than the mechanic.
I mentioned in the OP that savings throws were my least favorite rule in the game. I can say that learning to RP using other RPGs is what soured me to the D&D style rules.
I've also got issues with hit points that run out of control as you level up, but your defenses stay put. That's just upside down to me. Palladium you get more actions per round, and higher strike, parry/dodge bonuses. Yes, you get some hit points, but we're talking peanuts. You probably start with 10 HP & 30 SDC (the other hit points, just non-life threatening), and by max level you may have 20 HP & still just 30 SDC. What has happened is your strike and parry bonuses went from +3 to +8.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on November 04, 2022, 09:56:19 AM
At low levels, the wizard in early D&D is not much of a tactical option, at least not with their memorized spells. Wands and scrolls are supposed to open up that window. Instead, the wizard is an operational asset for the party as a whole. I get that some players don't enjoy playing an operational asset, but that's more about a mismatch in expectations than a problem with the design as it was conceived.
Where it really went off the rails was the focus on smaller and smaller parties, dropping henchmen, etc. With 6, 7, 8 players, several henchmen, multiple hirelings, the player of a wizard has a lot more to do. Not coincidentally, there was also mapping going on, tracking equipment, etc. We usually found that in operational play, there was more than enough activity to go around. Typically, the wizard player would likely be the mapper (who is someone you don't want on the front line anyway) and run the toughest fighter henchmen or hireling.
So yeah, take all that stuff out, and it is not surprising that having a few operational spells is boring. Then consider the naive fix of tacking on more and more spells without adjusting how they work--also not surprising that it has its own problems.
When the default mode of play changed, they really needed to take a top down look at the spell list and re-do it.
But because many of the current devs never played in the old style they do not really understand why they are having the issues that they do.
So instead of taking a step back and addressing the underlying issues, all we've gotten has been a series of 'patches'...
Quote from: weirdguy564 on November 07, 2022, 03:21:59 PM
I mentioned in the OP that savings throws were my least favorite rule in the game. I can say that learning to RP using other RPGs is what soured me to the D&D style rules.
I've also got issues with hit points that run out of control as you level up, but your defenses stay put. That's just upside down to me. Palladium you get more actions per round, and higher strike, parry/dodge bonuses. Yes, you get some hit points, but we're talking peanuts. You probably start with 10 HP & 30 SDC (the other hit points, just non-life threatening), and by max level you may have 20 HP & still just 30 SDC. What has happened is your strike and parry bonuses went from +3 to +8.
Mongoose d20 Conan did something similar.
They had dodge and parry "AC's". With armor as damage reduction.
A PC's ability to attack and defend themselves went up as they gained experience. Which was good - but then they had to mess up the works by having HP go up every level too...
They more I read the rules of different D&D editions, I'm convinced that continual HP bloat is a just bad game design.
Quote from: Jaeger on November 08, 2022, 05:02:40 PM
When the default mode of play changed, they really needed to take a top down look at the spell list and re-do it.
But because many of the current devs never played in the old style they do not really understand why they are having the issues that they do.
So instead of taking a step back and addressing the underlying issues, all we've gotten has been a series of 'patches'...
Well, 4E tried ... and the backlash they caught from that is probably why 5E fled back to the monstrous bloat of the spell lists as fast as it could.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on November 08, 2022, 07:32:24 PM
Quote from: Jaeger on November 08, 2022, 05:02:40 PM
When the default mode of play changed, they really needed to take a top down look at the spell list and re-do it.
But because many of the current devs never played in the old style they do not really understand why they are having the issues that they do.
So instead of taking a step back and addressing the underlying issues, all we've gotten has been a series of 'patches'...
Well, 4E tried ... and the backlash they caught from that is probably why 5E fled back to the monstrous bloat of the spell lists as fast as it could.
I was just going to comment something like this. Whatever 4e's flaws in execution, I suspect that it had the right idea about the way most of the players had been approaching the game since at least 2nd edition.
Quote from: Jaeger on November 08, 2022, 05:02:40 PMQuote from: weirdguy564 on November 07, 2022, 03:21:59 PM
I mentioned in the OP that savings throws were my least favorite rule in the game. I can say that learning to RP using other RPGs is what soured me to the D&D style rules.
I've also got issues with hit points that run out of control as you level up, but your defenses stay put. That's just upside down to me. Palladium you get more actions per round, and higher strike, parry/dodge bonuses. Yes, you get some hit points, but we're talking peanuts. You probably start with 10 HP & 30 SDC (the other hit points, just non-life threatening), and by max level you may have 20 HP & still just 30 SDC. What has happened is your strike and parry bonuses went from +3 to +8.
Mongoose d20 Conan did something similar.
They had dodge and parry "AC's". With armor as damage reduction.
A PC's ability to attack and defend themselves went up as they gained experience. Which was good - but then they had to mess up the works by having HP go up every level too...
They more I read the rules of different D&D editions, I'm convinced that continual HP bloat is a just bad game design.
I don't know the D20 Conan system very well, so this is more a general comment. I don't think HP increases are the issue in a vacuum, so much as HP being out of balance with the rest of the game. When setting out to modify D&D, a depressingly large number of designers seem to forget that attack bonus, defenses, HP and damage are all interrelated systems. Any tweaks made to one will always have knock-on effects on all the others. I've argued elsewhere and I stand by the contention that HP has to spiral upward in D&D because innate defenses don't increase by enough.
There's an additional problem in D&D though, which is the severe mismatch between magic and weapons when it comes to damage scaling. By 5th or 6th level the game has to account for the wizard's 6d6 damage (to multiple enemies) lightning bolt, and the thief's single weapon attack at 1d6+2. The HP bloat wouldn't matter if weapon damage scaled up with character level (or if enchantments added more additional dice rather than linear bonuses), or you could get rid of the exploding HP numbers if you heavily nerfed the spell damage.
Interestingly, the system I'm running at present (Dragon Warriors) illustrates what happens when you fail to account for all those systems at the same time. HP in that game scales extremely slowly (+1HP per level or less), which is mostly fine, because both weapon and magic defenses increase consistently for most classes, there are armor saves which nullify a lot of incoming attacks, and weapons do fairly consistent damage at any level.
The problem is that spell damage scales more like the way D&D spells do. The standard attack spell available to a 4th level sorcerer does 2d6+10 damage, when the average 4th level character has around 9-15 HP. There are also no armor saves against spells (though wearing armor grants you a small amount of damage reduction). This has the potential to produce a game wherein once mid-level spells get involved, whoever hits first automatically wins. Arguably a bigger issue than the stereotypical D&D HP slog.
Quote from: ForgottenF on November 09, 2022, 02:12:24 PM
I don't know the D20 Conan system very well, so this is more a general comment. I don't think HP increases are the issue in a vacuum, so much as HP being out of balance with the rest of the game. When setting out to modify D&D, a depressingly large number of designers seem to forget that attack bonus, defenses, HP and damage are all interrelated systems. Any tweaks made to one will always have knock-on effects on all the others. I've argued elsewhere and I stand by the contention that HP has to spiral upward in D&D because innate defenses don't increase by enough.
There's an additional problem in D&D though, which is the severe mismatch between magic and weapons when it comes to damage scaling. By 5th or 6th level the game has to account for the wizard's 6d6 damage (to multiple enemies) lightning bolt, and the thief's single weapon attack at 1d6+2. The HP bloat wouldn't matter if weapon damage scaled up with character level (or if enchantments added more additional dice rather than linear bonuses), or you could get rid of the exploding HP numbers if you heavily nerfed the spell damage.
Interestingly, the system I'm running at present (Dragon Warriors) illustrates what happens when you fail to account for all those systems at the same time. HP in that game scales extremely slowly (+1HP per level or less), which is mostly fine, because both weapon and magic defenses increase consistently for most classes, there are armor saves which nullify a lot of incoming attacks, and weapons do fairly consistent damage at any level.
The problem is that spell damage scales more like the way D&D spells do. The standard attack spell available to a 4th level sorcerer does 2d6+10 damage, when the average 4th level character has around 9-15 HP. There are also no armor saves against spells (though wearing armor grants you a small amount of damage reduction). This has the potential to produce a game wherein once mid-level spells get involved, whoever hits first automatically wins. Arguably a bigger issue than the stereotypical D&D HP slog.
Agree. I think this is where the problems come in with later versions written by different people. Which is the same problem I addressed before, only from a different angle. Simply, a good game has a balance of all those elements that work together, within the confines of what it was designed to do, because someone thought about it and played it a lot. Then someone else comes along, doesn't like how one of those things works, and changes it without regard to the rest of the system. It might even work OK in some cases, but it won't work as well as the original did for its design space. Likewise, if you want to change the intent and scope of the design, then you have to go back and address how all the mechanics work together.
This is, of course, hard to prove empirically. It has to be learned the hard way by changing things, determining what they do and do not improve, what they do and do not break, and then testing them over a wide variety of situations. Don't get me wrong. It's not rocket science. Any moderately thoughtful person
willing to do the work can do it. However, there aren't a lot of shortcuts, and there certainly isn't a valid shortcut that involves just going with feel.
One of the things that I continually struggle with is parsing out exactly what the role of the six attributes are, specifically finding a divide between Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. The culprit is always Wisdom, which feels like an messy blend of both Intelligence and Charisma. It's often described as a characters ability to intuit their surroundings as well as their self-determination, as if those things are at all related. I'm always coming back to the idea that five (not six) attributes is the optimal number. Intuition and intelligence can be covered by a "Smarts" attribute, while self-determination, confidence, and force of personality can be covered by "Willpower" (or any similarly named terms).
This isn't my "least favorite" part of the system, but it is one that I think survived only because of legacy, not because it made a whole lot of sense. I'm sure there will be those that support having six attributes and will justify it somehow, but my argument is merely that the game can function perfectly fine (perhaps even better!) with just five.
Quote from: Effete on November 09, 2022, 09:37:53 PM
The culprit is always Wisdom, which feels like an messy blend of both Intelligence and Charisma. It's often described as a characters ability to intuit their surroundings as well as their self-determination, as if those things are at all related.
The game needs a perception attribute as well as a Willpower attribute. Neither really fits Wisdom but it using Wisdom works better than creating new attributes that would be inconsistent with the rest of the D&D extended universe.
Quote from: Ruprecht on November 09, 2022, 09:57:11 PM
Quote from: Effete on November 09, 2022, 09:37:53 PM
The culprit is always Wisdom, which feels like an messy blend of both Intelligence and Charisma. It's often described as a characters ability to intuit their surroundings as well as their self-determination, as if those things are at all related.
The game needs a perception attribute as well as a Willpower attribute. Neither really fits Wisdom but it using Wisdom works better than creating new attributes that would be inconsistent with the rest of the D&D extended universe.
Perception is not just the ability to see or hear something, but also the ability to distinguish them from other things (particularly to determine whether or not it should be cause for alarm). This falls under a general umbrella of mental acuity that can also be shared with intelligence (as the game currently defines it).
Willpower, confidence, and a strong sense of "self" share a lot with what the game considers Charisma, which is pretty much just charm and force of personality. There are plenty of realworld examples where girls flock to the douchebag asshole simply because he exudes confidence and self worth.
The thing I struggle with is why D&D (and its clones) decided that these nuances warranted separation, but things like reaction speed and manual dexterity got lumped together. I just think the system doesn't need to make any of these minor distinctions to function.
Quote from: Effete on November 09, 2022, 09:37:53 PM
One of the things that I continually struggle with is parsing out exactly what the role of the six attributes are, specifically finding a divide between Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. The culprit is always Wisdom, which feels like an messy blend of both Intelligence and Charisma. It's often described as a characters ability to intuit their surroundings as well as their self-determination, as if those things are at all related.
This is why my system uses Strength, Endurance, Reflexes, Wits, Intellect and Presence with your Dodge defense based off the better of Reflexes or Wits and your Willpower defense on the better of your Intellect or Presence (and better of STR or END determining your Fortitude defense.
Your other comment about perception is also correct; you see what you see and hear what you hear and no amount of training will improve those functions. What can be trained and improved is your ability to process the information you are receiving.
Which is why the skill for that in my system is called Insight (based off Wits) which is how quickly and correctly you can understand what you're perceiving.
Quote from: Effete on November 09, 2022, 10:32:22 PM
Perception is not just the ability to see or hear something, but also the ability to distinguish them from other things (particularly to determine whether or not it should be cause for alarm). This falls under a general umbrella of mental acuity that can also be shared with intelligence (as the game currently defines it).
Brilliant people often wear glasses, wise old men might be hard of hearing, absent minded-professor types might not notice things because their mind is elsewhere. I don't t think Intelligence is a good fit for perception. Your example sounds like a perception skill which could be based on either attribute depending upon the situation which might work.
The original six are timeless. I do not have an issue with them.
I told my kids Intelligence is "could" and Wisdom is "should". They took to it right away, and let's face it, half their generation are actual morons.
Or ask someone to explain to you the difference between book smarts and street smarts. These are pretty easy concepts.
Quote from: Effete on November 09, 2022, 10:32:22 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on November 09, 2022, 09:57:11 PM
Quote from: Effete on November 09, 2022, 09:37:53 PM
The culprit is always Wisdom, which feels like an messy blend of both Intelligence and Charisma. It's often described as a characters ability to intuit their surroundings as well as their self-determination, as if those things are at all related.
The game needs a perception attribute as well as a Willpower attribute. Neither really fits Wisdom but it using Wisdom works better than creating new attributes that would be inconsistent with the rest of the D&D extended universe.
Perception is not just the ability to see or hear something, but also the ability to distinguish them from other things (particularly to determine whether or not it should be cause for alarm). This falls under a general umbrella of mental acuity that can also be shared with intelligence (as the game currently defines it).
Willpower, confidence, and a strong sense of "self" share a lot with what the game considers Charisma, which is pretty much just charm and force of personality. There are plenty of realworld examples where girls flock to the douchebag asshole simply because he exudes confidence and self worth.
The thing I struggle with is why D&D (and its clones) decided that these nuances warranted separation, but things like reaction speed and manual dexterity got lumped together. I just think the system doesn't need to make any of these minor distinctions to function.
I sometimes suspect that the reason why wisdom and charisma have hung on in their current forms for so long is just to prevent Intelligence from becoming a super-stat, which in the real world it kind of is.
We think on similar lines, here. My own system uses Intellect, Insight and Will as its mental stats. Insight governs perception, much like it does in D&D, but it also includes the ability to read people and social situations. Will, just like you said, includes force of personality, as well as discipline and spell resistance. Intellect is for analytical thinking and memory, again much like D&D, but it's also reasoning ability, so all three of the stats have social skills associated with them.
In the same vein, I've always found the separation between strength and constitution to be a bit weird. In the real world, you do occasionally meet someone who is very strong but has terrible cardio, but it isn't common. You could easily put them together into a single stat and call it "fitness". Hell, you could probably toss dexterity in as well and call it "athleticism". Of course, if you're going that route, you could probably just boil it down to two stats and call them "mind" and "body", though I get that there are good game design reasons for not doing so.
EDIT: I would rather have called "Insight" as "Intuition", but I didn't want it to have the same first three letters as "Intellect".
Quote from: FingerRod on November 10, 2022, 08:28:55 AM
Or ask someone to explain to you the difference between book smarts and street smarts. These are pretty easy concepts.
How often does anyone actually make a "street smarts" check in D&D though? Common sense, good judgment, cunning, etc. are are pretty much always left to the player, instead of being decided by roll, and for good reason. All the things wisdom is supposed to govern (outside or perception) are also the things that come under the heading of "player skill". Intelligence and Charisma do have the same problem, but to a much lesser extent, because the character's in universe knowledge and force of personality are more separate from the player's.
As a GM, I've used all three of the mental stats on both sides of the equation to either boost a character or hold them back when the player is weaker or better than the character is. One quick trick is to just ask the players what are the character's dump stats and make note of that.
Quote from: ForgottenF on November 10, 2022, 08:55:39 AMHow often does anyone actually make a "street smarts" check in D&D though? Common sense, good judgment, cunning, etc. are are pretty much always left to the player.
But the players didn't live in the setting for however long. People who live in X place know how to be street smart in X place. People outside it do not.
I have used rolls for 'common sense rolls' for things logical in-setting that the players may not be aware of.
Quote from: ForgottenF on November 10, 2022, 08:40:15 AM
Quote from: Effete on November 09, 2022, 10:32:22 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on November 09, 2022, 09:57:11 PM
Quote from: Effete on November 09, 2022, 09:37:53 PM
The culprit is always Wisdom, which feels like an messy blend of both Intelligence and Charisma. It's often described as a characters ability to intuit their surroundings as well as their self-determination, as if those things are at all related.
The game needs a perception attribute as well as a Willpower attribute. Neither really fits Wisdom but it using Wisdom works better than creating new attributes that would be inconsistent with the rest of the D&D extended universe.
Perception is not just the ability to see or hear something, but also the ability to distinguish them from other things (particularly to determine whether or not it should be cause for alarm). This falls under a general umbrella of mental acuity that can also be shared with intelligence (as the game currently defines it).
Willpower, confidence, and a strong sense of "self" share a lot with what the game considers Charisma, which is pretty much just charm and force of personality. There are plenty of realworld examples where girls flock to the douchebag asshole simply because he exudes confidence and self worth.
The thing I struggle with is why D&D (and its clones) decided that these nuances warranted separation, but things like reaction speed and manual dexterity got lumped together. I just think the system doesn't need to make any of these minor distinctions to function.
I sometimes suspect that the reason why wisdom and charisma have hung on in their current forms for so long is just to prevent Intelligence from becoming a super-stat, which in the real world it kind of is.
We think on similar lines, here. My own system uses Intellect, Insight and Will as its mental stats. Insight governs perception, much like it does in D&D, but it also includes the ability to read people and social situations. Will, just like you said, includes force of personality, as well as discipline and spell resistance. Intellect is for analytical thinking and memory, again much like D&D, but it's also reasoning ability, so all three of the stats have social skills associated with them.
In the same vein, I've always found the separation between strength and constitution to be a bit weird. In the real world, you do occasionally meet someone who is very strong but has terrible cardio, but it isn't common. You could easily put them together into a single stat and call it "fitness". Hell, you could probably toss dexterity in as well and call it "athleticism". Of course, if you're going that route, you could probably just boil it down to two stats and call them "mind" and "body", though I get that there are good game design reasons for not doing so.
EDIT: I would rather have called "Insight" as "Intuition", but I didn't want it to have the same first three letters as "Intellect".
Stats should always be what the game is about, and if you change the stats the rest of the system should change to match it, and vice versa.
The original six had relatively little mechanical effect compared to the rest of the system. They are mainly in there to help the GM adjudicate and give the players some idea of how the GM might adjudicate. They don't improve over time, absent magic. You'll note that as constituted, they represent things that don't generally improve.
Raw intelligence for example, can be developed or not, but some people just don't have it. Or more specifically, in a medieval fantasy world, most people don't have access to the means to develop/improve those kind of things. You can't just go to the gym and build strength. It's been gradually changed over the years to represent something else, so people's thoughts about what the stats represent have moved too. In the early game's view, fate made you stronger, or tougher, or brighter, or whatever, and it is up to you to use that in whatever way you can come up with (and the GM will buy).
For D&D, I'm fine with that. For my own game, I wanted the stats a bit more anchored into the mechanics of the system. I also wanted to have some minor gating effects, but allow the stats to improve according to what the character pursued in the rest of the system. (You chase fighting ability, good chance some physical aspect related to that is going to improve sooner or later.) I ended up with Might, Lore, Will, Dexterity, Agility, and Perception. (I wasn't set on having six stats either. It just worked out that way. Putting the first 4 in the same order as the D&D originals is not, however, an accident.) I also wanted multiple stats to be useful regardless of character choices, but not the extent that a character had to chase them.
I didn't want a core stat to escalate hit point tremendously, because I wanted the escalation that is there to be mostly a function of level. Might tacks on a modest, one-time boost or penalty, which tends to be important at first but disappear into the averages later. It does have a minor but useful function in natural healing that is good throughout. That could have been some kind of separate advantage outside of the stats, being that minor, but it worked well enough to roll it into Might, so there it went, along with it's more potent effects on larger melee weapons, the only major damage boost for early characters, the key stat for toughing out poison, disease, and other ill effects, and the encumbrance adjustment (which matters for anyone wearing heavier armor).
Lore is in the D&D Int spot, but it isn't Int. It's a mix of Int and very broad, practical training. In short, a high Lore means a bright character spent a lot of time in childhood learning many different things. It's applicable to more skills than any other stat in the game, including a lot of things that would get lumped elsewhere in other games to artificially spread them out over the skills. Though it's not automatic in my system, either. Most healing/medicine skills use Lore as an adjustment, but something like pulling an arrow out of a someone after a critical hit is Dex/Healing/Medicine, for example.
I don't buy the argument that Perception can be notably trained. There are a handful of discrete skills related to perception that can be trained, but not the general awareness part. Plus, I wanted it siloed. Being very perceptive can be a huge benefit in a game, and certainly is the way I tend to run them. So you prioritize improving that at the cost of the other 5 stats. Call it a kind of niche protection, if you like.
The stats are a great starting point for the player to understand what they can generally get away with, outside of any special buttons to push. Or should be. In early D&D, they are. In my game, they are. In later D&D, they aren't, but are instead a specialized jargon that has a lot of cruft built up around it over the years.
Quote from: ForgottenF on November 10, 2022, 08:55:39 AM
Quote from: FingerRod on November 10, 2022, 08:28:55 AM
Or ask someone to explain to you the difference between book smarts and street smarts. These are pretty easy concepts.
How often does anyone actually make a "street smarts" check in D&D though? Common sense, good judgment, cunning, etc. are are pretty much always left to the player, instead of being decided by roll, and for good reason. All the things wisdom is supposed to govern (outside or perception) are also the things that come under the heading of "player skill". Intelligence and Charisma do have the same problem, but to a much lesser extent, because the character's in universe knowledge and force of personality are more separate from the player's.
Exactly. There aren't really any rolls about "could" vs "should", and Wis has always been used for Perception/Willpower regardless. This isn't a philosophical question or about semantics, but a game design decision. And game design decisions should be made on the basis of what's actually necessary or serves a function for the game, not based around what you think certain words mean or minor semantic distinctions between them.
Nearsightedness and absent mindedness are also not inherent functions of Intelligence, just a common literary trope that's not even that common or universal that I'm aware of IRL.
Plus a lot of these distinctions are pointless once Skills are introduced to the system, because they're really just specialized functions of mental acuity or "Intelligence" anyways. All you really need are four attributes:
Physical Power (Str/Con),
Physical Speed (Dex),
Mental Power (Cha/Wis "Willpower") and
Mental Speed (Int/Wis "Perception"). The rest are just specialties of those attributes, better handled as Skills or Feat-like bonuses, or using Flaws/Anti-Feats (for stuff like nearsightedness or absent mindedness).
This has probably already been posted, but even though I've never played OneD&D, I hate the idea that DMs can't crit. I feel like it pisses off my simulationist sensibilities with regards to players not being special snowflakes any moreso than their innate capabilities would imply, and introduces "narrativist" bias in terms of player "heroics" that actually only serves to make rolls less meaningful, risk less notable, and players less likely to have to deal with the consequences of the actions of others within the world. IDK, kinda a weird thing to hate. But the moment I heard they were considering it, that became my least favorite rule within the franchise.
Quote from: KindaMeh on November 10, 2022, 03:59:14 PM
This has probably already been posted, but even though I've never played OneD&D, I hate the idea that DMs can't crit. I feel like it pisses off my simulationist sensibilities with regards to players not being special snowflakes any moreso than their innate capabilities would imply, and introduces "narrativist" bias in terms of player "heroics" that actually only serves to make rolls less meaningful, risk less notable, and players less likely to have to deal with the consequences of the actions of others within the world. IDK, kinda a weird thing to hate. But the moment I heard they were considering it, that became my least favorite rule within the franchise.
I don't hate it but I don't feel like it's necessary at all. GMs have always had the power to handle NPC crits as they wanted. The attempt to blanket ban them removes an interesting tool that GMs have, and I doubt most GMs will abide by this stance.
Quote from: Ruprecht on November 10, 2022, 08:27:15 AM
Brilliant people often wear glasses, wise old men might be hard of hearing, absent minded-professor types might not notice things because their mind is elsewhere. I don't t think Intelligence is a good fit for perception. Your example sounds like a perception skill which could be based on either attribute depending upon the situation which might work.
You are absolutely correct, which is why it is something I struggle with. I can totally see both side of the argument, and waffle between which one I want to agree with more. As to your last point, I think a nebulous linked-attribute isn't a bad compromise. Stars/Worlds Without Number works that way, and it uses the "classic six."
Quote from: ForgottenF on November 10, 2022, 08:40:15 AM
I sometimes suspect that the reason why wisdom and charisma have hung on in their current forms for so long is just to prevent Intelligence from becoming a super-stat, which in the real world it kind of is.
Are INT checks used very often in your games? I've found that actual lore or knowledge checks tend to be rare as players just make their own inferences about the game world. It might verge on metagaming, but it's usually not worth the time to stop the flow unless the player is deliberately trying to cheat.
The thing is, I wouldn't just dump all current Wisdom-based applications/skills onto INT... I'd split them between INT and CHA.
QuoteIn the same vein, I've always found the separation between strength and constitution to be a bit weird. In the real world, you do occasionally meet someone who is very strong but has terrible cardio, but it isn't common. You could easily put them together into a single stat and call it "fitness". Hell, you could probably toss dexterity in as well and call it "athleticism".
And many systems do this: Cypher, WarriorRogueMage, etc. The issue there is the same type of argumentation that justifies a split between INT and WIS. Strength is literally just muscle mass, whereas Constitution represents the body's immuno-response, metabolism, blood coagulation, bone density, and other things that you can't really "train" at a gym.
That being said, Constitution is a pretty useless stat in the game. In earlier versions, it didn't even modify Saving Throws. It pretty much just serves as a Hit Point adjustment (and HP bloat is issue anyway, so this isn't exactly a pro) and as a secondary "health track" when taking attribute damage (i.e. - dropping to 0 CON = death). So, yeah...
Quote from: KindaMeh on November 10, 2022, 03:59:14 PM
This has probably already been posted, but even though I've never played OneD&D, I hate the idea that DMs can't crit.
Didn't they reverse this decision?
I thought it was a lowkey announcement put out when the Expert Feats doc dropped. Maybe I'm wrong (OneDND isn't exactly on my radar).
Quote from: Effete on November 10, 2022, 06:10:01 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on November 10, 2022, 08:27:15 AM
Brilliant people often wear glasses, wise old men might be hard of hearing, absent minded-professor types might not notice things because their mind is elsewhere. I don't t think Intelligence is a good fit for perception. Your example sounds like a perception skill which could be based on either attribute depending upon the situation which might work.
You are absolutely correct, which is why it is something I struggle with. I can totally see both side of the argument, and waffle between which one I want to agree with more. As to your last point, I think a nebulous linked-attribute isn't a bad compromise. Stars/Worlds Without Number works that way, and it uses the "classic six."
Like I mentioned in my last post, nearsightedness and absent mindedness are not inherent traits of Intelligence. That sort of stuff is just better handled as type of "Flaw/Disadvantage". Spies and people who have to do a lot of INTELLIGENCE work (see what I did there?) or investigation also have to be pretty smart to do those jobs. Not every smart person is the stereotype or TV trope of the absent minded professor with glasses. In fact I doubt most of them are.
The main difference between book smart genius and a cunning covert agent is their skills (and maybe that the agent also needs to invest in Dex or equivalent attributes), not that one needs Int and the other one doesn't.
Quote
Quote from: ForgottenF on November 10, 2022, 08:40:15 AM
I sometimes suspect that the reason why wisdom and charisma have hung on in their current forms for so long is just to prevent Intelligence from becoming a super-stat, which in the real world it kind of is.
Are INT checks used very often in your games? I've found that actual lore or knowledge checks tend to be rare as players just make their own inferences about the game world. It might verge on metagaming, but it's usually not worth the time to stop the flow unless the player is deliberately trying to cheat.
Yeah, unless we're talking older editions, when Int gave extra proficiency slots or skill points, there's no real danger of Int becoming a "super-stat". It's only used for lore checks now, which are extremely situational.
Quote
The thing is, I wouldn't just dump all current Wisdom-based applications/skills onto INT... I'd split them between INT and CHA.
Same, but TBH most Wis skills would go to Int. Only thing I'd give Cha is willpower stuff (like Saves) and maybe Animal Handling, to make it the universal interaction stat.
Quote
QuoteIn the same vein, I've always found the separation between strength and constitution to be a bit weird. In the real world, you do occasionally meet someone who is very strong but has terrible cardio, but it isn't common. You could easily put them together into a single stat and call it "fitness". Hell, you could probably toss dexterity in as well and call it "athleticism".
And many systems do this: Cypher, WarriorRogueMage, etc. The issue there is the same type of argumentation that justifies a split between INT and WIS. Strength is literally just muscle mass, whereas Constitution represents the body's immuno-response, metabolism, blood coagulation, bone density, and other things that you can't really "train" at a gym.
That being said, Constitution is a pretty useless stat in the game. In earlier versions, it didn't even modify Saving Throws. It pretty much just serves as a Hit Point adjustment (and HP bloat is issue anyway, so this isn't exactly a pro) and as a secondary "health track" when taking attribute damage (i.e. - dropping to 0 CON = death). So, yeah...
Hence, one of the reasons I'd merge Str & Con into a single stat.
Quote from: Effete on November 10, 2022, 06:15:43 PM
Quote from: KindaMeh on November 10, 2022, 03:59:14 PM
This has probably already been posted, but even though I've never played OneD&D, I hate the idea that DMs can't crit.
Didn't they reverse this decision?
I thought it was a lowkey announcement put out when the Expert Feats doc dropped. Maybe I'm wrong (OneDND isn't exactly on my radar).
They appear to be experimenting with several variations from playtest packet to packet, and the 'no NPC crits' was in the first but not the second. Who knows what happens going forward--and with the latest news, who cares? :)
Quote from: VisionStorm on November 10, 2022, 06:35:31 PM
Like I mentioned in my last post, nearsightedness and absent mindedness are not inherent traits of Intelligence. That sort of stuff is just better handled as type of "Flaw/Disadvantage". Spies and people who have to do a lot of INTELLIGENCE work (see what I did there?) or investigation also have to be pretty smart to do those jobs. Not every smart person is the stereotype or TV trope of the absent minded professor with glasses. In fact I doubt most of them are.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but the point I think Ruprecht was making is that nearsightedness and absentmindedness stem from a low Wisdom, and therefore to have a brilliant-but-forgetful wizard, you'd need the option for high INT and low WIS. What I agreed with is having the mechanical infrastructure to support such a build. DnD doesn't have "flaws" or "anti-feats" so that isn't really a viable option here, even though I agree that flaws would be the perfect way to represent such things as bad eyes or a wandering mind.
As much as I'd love to get lost in weeds over this discussion, the topic IS about OSR/DND. :D
QuoteThe main difference between book smart genius and a cunning covert agent is their skills (and maybe that the agent also needs to invest in Dex or equivalent attributes), not that one needs Int and the other one doesn't.
Right. I'm not entirely convinced by the "book smarts v. street smarts" distinction for Int v Wis. That's simply just a difference of learning-by-reading versus learning-through-experience. Either way, knowledge is gained. You can learn about gang culture by living the life, or by studying dosiers and conducting interviews with felons. I'm not convinced that the method by which knowledge is obtained needs to be differentiated in the game; a single stat representing mental acuity can cover that, with the player filling in the details of what it means for their character.
I actually really like your idea of just four stats: physical strength, physical speed, mental strength, mental speed. I think that encapsulates everything perfectly. It might not even be that difficult to plug them into old school DnD. Hit points would just be determined by class (no need for an adjustment modifier), and WIS gets split between M.Strength and M.Speed (or whatever names they're given).
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on November 10, 2022, 06:47:14 PM
They appear to be experimenting with several variations from playtest packet to packet, and the 'no NPC crits' was in the first but not the second. Who knows what happens going forward--and with the latest news, who cares? :)
Thank You!
My sentiments exactly. ;D
Quote from: ForgottenF on November 10, 2022, 08:55:39 AM
Quote from: FingerRod on November 10, 2022, 08:28:55 AM
Or ask someone to explain to you the difference between book smarts and street smarts. These are pretty easy concepts.
How often does anyone actually make a "street smarts" check in D&D though? Common sense, good judgment, cunning, etc. are are pretty much always left to the player, instead of being decided by roll, and for good reason. All the things wisdom is supposed to govern (outside or perception) are also the things that come under the heading of "player skill". Intelligence and Charisma do have the same problem, but to a much lesser extent, because the character's in universe knowledge and force of personality are more separate from the player's.
I don't think you are saying this, but for the benefit of others reading...me citing street and book smarts was to illustrate the difference between the terms intelligence and wisdom. I think that was pretty clear, but if not, I'll own that and point it out now.
To directly answer your question—Wisdom checks vary by edition, from never in OD&D to being overused by many in 5e. I can expand on this if you want, but I believe you were likely asking a rhetorical question.
To what I believe is your main point... Yes, to an overwhelmingly large extent I agree with what you are saying about player skill. I happen to also believe there is player skill in
roleplaying to a character's Wisdom score.
Quote from: Effete on November 10, 2022, 06:10:01 PM
Quote from: ForgottenF on November 10, 2022, 08:40:15 AM
I sometimes suspect that the reason why wisdom and charisma have hung on in their current forms for so long is just to prevent Intelligence from becoming a super-stat, which in the real world it kind of is.
Are INT checks used very often in your games? I've found that actual lore or knowledge checks tend to be rare as players just make their own inferences about the game world. It might verge on metagaming, but it's usually not worth the time to stop the flow unless the player is deliberately trying to cheat.
The thing is, I wouldn't just dump all current Wisdom-based applications/skills onto INT... I'd split them between INT and CHA.
That seems to be a DM-ing style question, since I've found that Int is one of the most frequently checked attributes. In one of the games I'm playing in, the DM requires a successful Int check before he will remind a player of something that happened in a previous session, so it gets rolled all the time. That is admittedly an extremely quirky DM-ing style, but in my own game I use it to check if a player would know something based on their class or background. I find in general that a lot of DMs fall back on it as the check made before they give any kind of hints or advice to players, and it also gets used a lot in old school games for background skills/professions (Medicine, architecture, crafting, etc.)
That's kind of beside the point though. I wasn't really arguing that Int as-is is in any danger of being an OP stat. In 5th edition it's arguably severely underpowered. I was more saying that if you allow Int checks to affect all the things that intelligence helps with in real life, then it would be OP, and that Wisdom and Charisma exist largely to split up what could all be intelligence, so as to balance the game out.
Quote from: ForgottenF on November 10, 2022, 08:40:15 AM
QuoteIn the same vein, I've always found the separation between strength and constitution to be a bit weird. In the real world, you do occasionally meet someone who is very strong but has terrible cardio, but it isn't common. You could easily put them together into a single stat and call it "fitness". Hell, you could probably toss dexterity in as well and call it "athleticism".
And many systems do this: Cypher, WarriorRogueMage, etc. The issue there is the same type of argumentation that justifies a split between INT and WIS. Strength is literally just muscle mass, whereas Constitution represents the body's immuno-response, metabolism, blood coagulation, bone density, and other things that you can't really "train" at a gym.
That being said, Constitution is a pretty useless stat in the game. In earlier versions, it didn't even modify Saving Throws. It pretty much just serves as a Hit Point adjustment (and HP bloat is issue anyway, so this isn't exactly a pro) and as a secondary "health track" when taking attribute damage (i.e. - dropping to 0 CON = death). So, yeah...
Bone density at least can be improved in the gym. I'm not sure about the others, but I suspect most of them could be improved via either nutrition or exercise. More importantly, these days constitution is also often used to represent things like lung capacity, physical endurance and pain tolerance, all of which definitely can be improved.
Honestly one of my frustrations with old-school D&D is that attributes don't improve with level. The adventuring lifestyle includes a lot of fresh air and exercise. If it wasn't for all the deadly traps, tropical diseases and people trying to kill you, it'd be an extremely healthy occupation. Spending years of your life marching around, climbing mountains, and getting beaten up, should raise your Strength and Constitution. Dexterity should improve from all the time spent navigating difficult terrain and performing complex manual tasks. Wisdom should improve because how does a person acquire wisdom, except through experience? Even Charisma should improve, because an experienced adventurer would be more confident and self-assured than a rookie (Not to mention that as you get more competent and physically fit, people are generally more favorably inclined towards you).
The only one of the six attributes which is arguably baked into a person at birth is Intelligence, but if Intelligence is also supposed to represent education and knowledge, then yeah, that should absolutely be able to be improved as well.
Quote from: FingerRod on November 10, 2022, 08:02:43 PM
Quote from: ForgottenF on November 10, 2022, 08:55:39 AM
Quote from: FingerRod on November 10, 2022, 08:28:55 AM
Or ask someone to explain to you the difference between book smarts and street smarts. These are pretty easy concepts.
How often does anyone actually make a "street smarts" check in D&D though? Common sense, good judgment, cunning, etc. are are pretty much always left to the player, instead of being decided by roll, and for good reason. All the things wisdom is supposed to govern (outside or perception) are also the things that come under the heading of "player skill". Intelligence and Charisma do have the same problem, but to a much lesser extent, because the character's in universe knowledge and force of personality are more separate from the player's.
I don't think you are saying this, but for the benefit of others reading...me citing street and book smarts was to illustrate the difference between the terms intelligence and wisdom. I think that was pretty clear, but if not, I'll own that and point it out now.
To directly answer your question—Wisdom checks vary by edition, from never in OD&D to being overused by many in 5e. I can expand on this if you want, but I believe you were likely asking a rhetorical question.
To what I believe is your main point... Yes, to an overwhelmingly large extent I agree with what you are saying about player skill. I happen to also believe there is player skill in roleplaying to a character's Wisdom score.
Yeah, all I was really saying is that Wisdom as written doesn't match well with the way people usually play the game.
As to the idea of roleplaying a low wisdom score, I get that. Personally I don't see much appeal in playing a dumb character, and since decision making is such a huge part of the fun of D&D (at least for me), I don't see much point in having a character stat that requires people to make bad decisions or else not be playing their character correctly. I'm aware that other people feel differently about it, though, and I'll happily concede that as a matter of personal preference.
I feel the same way about dedicated "beauty" attributes, albeit to a lesser degree. In my experience, very few people want to play an ugly character, but the attribute is often next to useless in game, so a lot of people just dump it and then pretend their character is hot anyway. That's cheating of course, but I would argue that if there's a mechanic in a game which a large percentage of players end up just ignoring, then there's an issue with the mechanic. D&D, to it's credit, offers an easy compromise on that one, you can dump charisma and still say that your character isn't ugly, they're just socially awkward.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on November 10, 2022, 11:39:42 AM
Stats should always be what the game is about, and if you change the stats the rest of the system should change to match it, and vice versa.
....
I don't buy the argument that Perception can be notably trained. There are a handful of discrete skills related to perception that can be trained, but not the general awareness part. Plus, I wanted it siloed. Being very perceptive can be a huge benefit in a game, and certainly is the way I tend to run them. So you prioritize improving that at the cost of the other 5 stats. Call it a kind of niche protection, if you like.
Mostly agree. I gave my rant earlier about how the act of adventuring should improve attributes, but I'll happily concede that it needs a system designed to accommodate that, and D&D really isn't it. If that's your bugbear, as it is mine, better to go with another system. If I was writing my own version of D&D, I'd probably include some attribute improvements, but they'd be pretty minor.
Perception is a bit of a tough one. You could argue that the human eye picks up a lot of information, and that the brain can be trained to intake and process more of it, but that's really getting more out of your existing perception ability, not growing more. Based on what reading I've done on the subject, the chief ways you train a person's perception are by training their memory, so they retain more of what they see (arguably a function of intelligence), and training them to pick up on more environmental cues for things like social situations or traps (which the way D&D is structured, might even come under charisma). That's kind of why I'd put it under something like "intuition". Your eyesight might not improve, but your "sixth sense" for unconsciously spotting danger could.
D&D can easily accommodate improving attributes (it is in every post-2000 edition, and I give about 3-5 ability improvements from level 1-14 in my B/X games - see "Old School Feats").
As for perception it is probably too useful to be a single skill/stat, but same goes for dexterity, and the word "intelligence" is also incredibly broad. I've toyed with the idea of separating perception in nature, in social settings, in the underground, etc., as being different skills.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 11, 2022, 11:07:27 AM
I've toyed with the idea of separating perception in nature, in social settings, in the underground, etc., as being different skills.
That made me think. Perception in Nature could easily come under survival, bushcraft, and tracking. It's just part of that other skillset. Then you still have to account for those that can't be surprised in certain situations which really is perception. And we have those that find traps and notice slopes and such. That's perception.
Perception really is just smeared all over the place.
Quote from: Ruprecht on November 11, 2022, 11:30:52 AM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 11, 2022, 11:07:27 AM
I've toyed with the idea of separating perception in nature, in social settings, in the underground, etc., as being different skills.
That made me think. Perception in Nature could easily come under survival, bushcraft, and tracking. It's just part of that other skillset. Then you still have to account for those that can't be surprised in certain situations which really is perception. And we have those that find traps and notice slopes and such. That's perception.
Perception really is just smeared all over the place.
Yes, it is. Which is why just making up a few perception "skills" and calling it done seldom works very well.
Quote from: Effete on November 10, 2022, 07:28:44 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on November 10, 2022, 06:35:31 PM
Like I mentioned in my last post, nearsightedness and absent mindedness are not inherent traits of Intelligence. That sort of stuff is just better handled as type of "Flaw/Disadvantage". Spies and people who have to do a lot of INTELLIGENCE work (see what I did there?) or investigation also have to be pretty smart to do those jobs. Not every smart person is the stereotype or TV trope of the absent minded professor with glasses. In fact I doubt most of them are.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but the point I think Ruprecht was making is that nearsightedness and absentmindedness stem from a low Wisdom, and therefore to have a brilliant-but-forgetful wizard, you'd need the option for high INT and low WIS. What I agreed with is having the mechanical infrastructure to support such a build. DnD doesn't have "flaws" or "anti-feats" so that isn't really a viable option here, even though I agree that flaws would be the perfect way to represent such things as bad eyes or a wandering mind.
As much as I'd love to get lost in weeds over this discussion, the topic IS about OSR/DND. :D
The ability to remember stuff is also technically based on Int as well, though. I don't think you really need Int and Wis separate just to RP a wizard as absentminded.
Quote
QuoteThe main difference between book smart genius and a cunning covert agent is their skills (and maybe that the agent also needs to invest in Dex or equivalent attributes), not that one needs Int and the other one doesn't.
Right. I'm not entirely convinced by the "book smarts v. street smarts" distinction for Int v Wis. That's simply just a difference of learning-by-reading versus learning-through-experience. Either way, knowledge is gained. You can learn about gang culture by living the life, or by studying dosiers and conducting interviews with felons. I'm not convinced that the method by which knowledge is obtained needs to be differentiated in the game; a single stat representing mental acuity can cover that, with the player filling in the details of what it means for their character.
I actually really like your idea of just four stats: physical strength, physical speed, mental strength, mental speed. I think that encapsulates everything perfectly. It might not even be that difficult to plug them into old school DnD. Hit points would just be determined by class (no need for an adjustment modifier), and WIS gets split between M.Strength and M.Speed (or whatever names they're given).
Yeah, I don't think reducing it to four stats would break old D&D too much. Melee/ranged stat associations would be basically the same. Wizard magic would stay the same. And Priestly magic would be changed to whatever Cha/Willpower is called, which still works thematically, since priests are supposed to lead their flock, and some definitions of "Charisma" are divinely/magic related.
Quote from: Ruprecht on November 11, 2022, 11:30:52 AM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 11, 2022, 11:07:27 AM
I've toyed with the idea of separating perception in nature, in social settings, in the underground, etc., as being different skills.
That made me think. Perception in Nature could easily come under survival, bushcraft, and tracking. It's just part of that other skillset. Then you still have to account for those that can't be surprised in certain situations which really is perception. And we have those that find traps and notice slopes and such. That's perception.
Perception really is just smeared all over the place.
Some of those are more "lore" related than about detecting things, since being able to see a plant, for example, doesn't tell you that it's poisonous (Survival). Tracking is also based on knowledge, since finding a trail doesn't really tell you anything about who passed by there or which direction they took. Trap finding gets into the area of "too specific", though, unless it includes knowledge of disarming traps. But anyone could just notice a tripwire or whatever.
Granted, a lot of this depends on what we even mean with the word "Perception" and what's its scope in any given system. In d6 Star Wars it not only covers noticing sensory stuff, but also intuition, noticing lies/deception, sneaking around and even social skills of all kinds. In a system I've been working on "Perception" basically means "mental" agility, and covers problem-solving, reason and planning/strategy, in addition to noticing stuff of any kind (sense-related, or intuition), and is one of a dozen "disciplines"(general skills/talents) in the game.
It's only in those terms that I would consider Perception too broad for a single skill, and only if by "skill" we mean very specialized stuff. Otherwise treating Perception as a separate attribute you need to invest on would be punitive AF.
It also depends on OTHER skills. If there are about 20 skills, a perception skill is just too broad - as 5e exemplifies by giving stealth and perception to all the monsters (and, curiously, not survival):
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/05/skills-breakdown-of-5e-monsters-blog-of.html
My own clone, however, ALSO has a perception skills... but there are only ten skills in total, INCLUDING combat, spellcasting, and turn undead, thus making perception not as powerful in comparison.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 11, 2022, 01:55:52 PM
It also depends on OTHER skills. If there are about 20 skills, a perception skill is just too broad - as 5e exemplifies by giving stealth and perception to all the monsters (and, curiously, not survival):
Don't entirely disagree, but the bolded part is not true. I just did a quick glance through the 5e Monster Manual and a lot of monsters don't even list skills, including some that I would think would have both, such as Displacer Beasts. When it does list skills, Perception does seem to be the most common, but it's not that ubiquitous, and it often lists other stuff instead, and Stealth only seems to show up when it's appropriate (but sometimes it's also absent, like in the Displacer Beast example).
Often (but not always), a monster will have Stealth, but not Perception (Shadows). Granted, they all list Passive Perception, but that's a different thing that everyone needs.
Another thing to consider is that if something is so common in play, such as the need to be alert of traps or sneaking enemies, you're gonna see examples of creatures or even PCs and NPCs taking skills to deal with that aspect of play just because they need it to survive. But that's not exactly an example of that skill being too powerful, but rather its associated tasks so prevalent it becomes necessary.
Quote from: ForgottenF on November 09, 2022, 02:12:24 PM
I don't know the D20 Conan system very well, so this is more a general comment. I don't think HP increases are the issue in a vacuum, so much as HP being out of balance with the rest of the game. When setting out to modify D&D, a depressingly large number of designers seem to forget that attack bonus, defenses, HP and damage are all interrelated systems. Any tweaks made to one will always have knock-on effects on all the others. I've argued elsewhere and I stand by the contention that HP has to spiral upward in D&D because innate defenses don't increase by enough. ...
This is the first reason I have a problem with HP bloat - D&D has never fully dealt with the scaling issues that continual HP bloat induces into a system.
Primarily because it requires extensive playtesting when you have a near final draft of the game... Which no one does.
Quote from: ForgottenF on November 09, 2022, 02:12:24 PM
There's an additional problem in D&D though, which is the severe mismatch between magic and weapons when it comes to damage scaling. By 5th or 6th level the game has to account for the wizard's 6d6 damage (to multiple enemies) lightning bolt, and the thief's single weapon attack at 1d6+2. The HP bloat wouldn't matter if weapon damage scaled up with character level (or if enchantments added more additional dice rather than linear bonuses), or you could get rid of the exploding HP numbers if you heavily nerfed the spell damage. ...
I also feel HP bloat is bad game design is because it induces you to
always be playing in a highly specific D&D zero to superhero mode, which
always has the aforementioned scaling issues.
My second issue with the way most class/level systems scale things. The "power increase" is illusionary, because the games assume that you will always play against equivalent opposition. Hence the overly bloated monster manuals to keep up...
HP bloat games do certain genre's of fantasy very badly because PC's move out of the 'gritty' tier where other humans are a threat fairly quickly for long campaigns.
Not that the d20 system class/level systems couldn't be modded to do other genre's, but it requires ditching HP bloat - which no one does.
Quote from: jhkim on October 12, 2022, 07:17:11 PM
Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 12, 2022, 06:43:15 PM
So what is your thing?
My biggest issue is the "zero to hero" aspect of leveling. Over just a year or two in-game, D&D characters go from being schlubs barely better than average minions to being world-changing powerhouses. That should really come across as incredibly weird to anyone in the game-world, like "Why the hell are we getting so powerful so quickly?" It really messes with my suspension of disbelief.
Characters gain experience in other games, but the difference is usually far less. An experienced Call of Cthulhu investigator can be much more competent, but they're still just regular humans and easily killed. Superhero PCs can gain a lot of power, but they already started out as superheroes.
I had this discussion last week with my group. And we *never* had this problem in 1e or 2e because of the XP totals were so steep, leveling took a long time. It's something I experienced in Savage Worlds too where pacing is expected to be fast, and in-game time obviously is relative to actions taken over the course of a game, but even with downtime it seems a little "too fast". But I'm planning on my next game letting players get Advances but they can only Rank Up when I tell them they can (rather than after 4 Advances).
I wonder if bringing back the long XP totals in OSR/D&D would alleviate your (my own) perceptions?
Quote from: tenbones on November 11, 2022, 03:57:58 PM
I had this discussion last week with my group. And we *never* had this problem in 1e or 2e because of the XP totals were so steep, leveling took a long time. It's something I experienced in Savage Worlds too where pacing is expected to be fast, and in-game time obviously is relative to actions taken over the course of a game, but even with downtime it seems a little "too fast". But I'm planning on my next game letting players get Advances but they can only Rank Up when I tell them they can (rather than after 4 Advances).
I wonder if bringing back the long XP totals in OSR/D&D would alleviate your (my own) perceptions?
Far as I am concerned, there's only two solutions to that: Either long time spent between coarse levels or more rapid advancement on finer levels. It's a rubber band--the more you cram into a "level", the more time needs to be spent in it.
Quote from: VisionStorm on November 11, 2022, 02:53:42 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 11, 2022, 01:55:52 PM
It also depends on OTHER skills. If there are about 20 skills, a perception skill is just too broad - as 5e exemplifies by giving stealth and perception to all the monsters (and, curiously, not survival):
Don't entirely disagree, but the bolded part is not true. I just did a quick glance through the 5e Monster Manual and a lot of monsters don't even list skills, including some that I would think would have both, such as Displacer Beasts. When it does list skills, Perception does seem to be the most common, but it's not that ubiquitous, and it often lists other stuff instead, and Stealth only seems to show up when it's appropriate (but sometimes it's also absent, like in the Displacer Beast example).
Often (but not always), a monster will have Stealth, but not Perception (Shadows). Granted, they all list Passive Perception, but that's a different thing that everyone needs.
You're completely right, "giving stealth and perception to all the monsters" was a figure of speech. The actual numbers are in the link I included in my comment.
Quote from: VisionStorm on November 11, 2022, 02:53:42 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 11, 2022, 01:55:52 PM
It also depends on OTHER skills. If there are about 20 skills, a perception skill is just too broad - as 5e exemplifies by giving stealth and perception to all the monsters (and, curiously, not survival):
Don't entirely disagree, but the bolded part is not true. I just did a quick glance through the 5e Monster Manual and a lot of monsters don't even list skills, including some that I would think would have both, such as Displacer Beasts. When it does list skills, Perception does seem to be the most common, but it's not that ubiquitous, and it often lists other stuff instead, and Stealth only seems to show up when it's appropriate (but sometimes it's also absent, like in the Displacer Beast example).
Often (but not always), a monster will have Stealth, but not Perception (Shadows). Granted, they all list Passive Perception, but that's a different thing that everyone needs.
Another thing to consider is that if something is so common in play, such as the need to be alert of traps or sneaking enemies, you're gonna see examples of creatures or even PCs and NPCs taking skills to deal with that aspect of play just because they need it to survive. But that's not exactly an example of that skill being too powerful, but rather its associated tasks so prevalent it becomes necessary.
To elaborate on this, now that I bothered to read the blog in the posted link, I think that this is the result of an oversight, happenstance and perhaps bad design, rather than a true indicator of the broadness of Perception as a skill. Like I mentioned above, lots of creatures I thought maybe should've had these skills didn't. And taking into consideration that a lot of these are beasts or monsters, there are not a lot of other skills that would have been appropriate regardless (other than Athletics; way too many creatures lack this, despite it being so crucial to wild animals survival IRL). I mean, how many creatures can find use for stuff like Arcana, Religion, Persuade or Deception?
Social skills and Lore are really PC stuff. You can't really use social skills on PCs and creatures either know stuff the DM wants them to or they don't. Would it make sense if they did know Lore stuff? Sure. But they're not not stuff that would normally be rolled by monsters, so they probably didn't include them for a lot of creatures, either due to some oversight, bad design, or maybe even a conscious "gamey" design decision that monsters simply didn't need them, so they were omitted to keep their entries light and combat-focused.
But ultimately Stealth and Perception are two of the few skills that would actually be of any use to monsters or beasts. And lots (LOTS) of beasts have Perception at the very least in real life. So that probably has more to do with the fact that the skill is overrepresented in the Monster's Manual than the idea that the skill is too good. If anything, more creatures should have it, cuz it's a pervasive and outright crucial skill for wild life survival IRL, and too many creatures in the MM lack it that should have it.
Edit:
Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 11, 2022, 07:36:42 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on November 11, 2022, 02:53:42 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 11, 2022, 01:55:52 PM
It also depends on OTHER skills. If there are about 20 skills, a perception skill is just too broad - as 5e exemplifies by giving stealth and perception to all the monsters (and, curiously, not survival):
Don't entirely disagree, but the bolded part is not true. I just did a quick glance through the 5e Monster Manual and a lot of monsters don't even list skills, including some that I would think would have both, such as Displacer Beasts. When it does list skills, Perception does seem to be the most common, but it's not that ubiquitous, and it often lists other stuff instead, and Stealth only seems to show up when it's appropriate (but sometimes it's also absent, like in the Displacer Beast example).
Often (but not always), a monster will have Stealth, but not Perception (Shadows). Granted, they all list Passive Perception, but that's a different thing that everyone needs.
You're completely right, "giving stealth and perception to all the monsters" was a figure of speech. The actual numbers are in the link I included in my comment.
Yeah, just got done elaborating on that, above.
Just in passing, a thing that everyone has, is pretty much the mechanical reason for attributes in the first place. Granted, there are plenty of edge cases.
Quote from: Jaeger on November 11, 2022, 02:57:10 PM
This is the first reason I have a problem with HP bloat - D&D has never fully dealt with the scaling issues that continual HP bloat induces into a system.
Primarily because it requires extensive playtesting when you have a near final draft of the game... Which no one does.
I agree, but I don't think it's beyond the wit of man to solve that problem. Several games have tried already, though I don't think any of them have nailed it. For example, Starfinder has its tiered weapon lists, where a level 17 sword might do 10d10 damage, and Shadow of the Demon Lord has a fairly large number of class abilities that add extra damage dice to weapon attacks.
Quote from: Jaeger on November 11, 2022, 02:57:10 PM
I also feel HP bloat is bad game design is because it induces you to always be playing in a highly specific D&D zero to superhero mode, which always has the aforementioned scaling issues.
A bit of a tautology there. You wouldn't call it "bloat" if it was well-implemented.
More importantly, That's only bad design if you don't like that style of game.
Personally, I've got room in my heart for both. I understand the appeal of a game where the PCs are kept within the realm of what a real-life human could realistically achieve, but if I want that, I'll play something like WFRP or Call of Cthulhu. D&D is a game of heroic fantasy, and personally I think it always was. Even in the older editions, the monster manuals are full of things that would easily steamroll even the most skilled human in the real world, and which you are fully expected to be able to fight. Once you've got PCs that can easily hurl around fire and lighting, or go toe-to-toe with a manticore, the "gritty realism" ship has sailed.
I'm fine with that. I don't often play D&D myself, but when I do, I just wish it was a better designed game of heroic fantasy.
I see a lot of people on forums like this one that are trying to turn D&D into something it never was, when IMO their time would be more profitably be spent playing or writing different games.
Quote from: Jaeger on November 11, 2022, 02:57:10 PM
My second issue with the way most class/level systems scale things. The "power increase" is illusionary, because the games assume that you will always play against equivalent opposition. Hence the overly bloated monster manuals to keep up...
That's a problem, but it's a problem more of campaign design than of core game design. There's no law that says you have to only throw on-level enemies at your players. You have to exercise moderation, so that the game doesn't become too easy, but I firmly believe that if you have high level PCs, you should occasionally throw low-level grunts in their path to get flattened, just to maintain the context for their power levels.
Quote from: Jaeger on November 11, 2022, 02:57:10 PM
HP bloat games do certain genre's of fantasy very badly because PC's move out of the 'gritty' tier where other humans are a threat fairly quickly for long campaigns.
Again, I don't think any game can do every genre well. At the simplest level, a single goblin either is a credible threat to a high level character, or it isn't. There are pros to either approach. The low power approach is more realistic, easier to run, and possibly more difficult (though not necessarily). However, it reduces the feeling of character progression, which is fairly major part of the appeal of RPGs, and heavily limits what you can put into a game. If a lone goblin is a serious threat to a max-level fighter, you're going to have some problems implementing a dragon. Either the dragon is going to be so overpowered that the PCs can't confront it, or it's going to be not much more powerful than the goblin, which would be a little ridiculous. Realistic PCs wouldn't be able to explore the Elemental Plane of Fire, or even the Underdark. They'd be killed almost instantly.
All I'm really trying to say here is that there's a time and a place for high fantasy. For my money, it's best to just accept that that's what D&D does best, and move on to other games for the other experience.
Also, high player HP isn't the only way to make a high-powered game. Personally I prefer a game where HP stays relatively low, but player defenses drastically improve. That still leaves open the possibility of low-level enemy getting that one lucky shot. "Puncher's chance", essentially. But to make that work in D&D, you have to overhaul the system to the point where its basically a different game.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on November 11, 2022, 09:22:42 PM
Just in passing, a thing that everyone has, is pretty much the mechanical reason for attributes in the first place. Granted, there are plenty of edge cases.
Everyone has Stealth IRL. They might not always be good at it, but pretty much anyone could try to sneak pass someone else, even if they're not a spy or a burglar or someone who's had training in covert ops.
Doesn't mean that Stealth needs to be an attribute.
Same with Combat or Athletics. Anyone IRL could pick up a rock or a hammer, and bash someone in the head with it, or throw it at someone else. Or attempt to climb, jump or whatever.
Doesn't mean Athletics or Combat are attributes. Broad skills? Maybe. But that depends on how abilities are handled in the system, and how broad "Athletics" is (does it also cover riding and acrobatic stunts?).
Granted, in old D&D Combat is a game stat, since everyone has a THAC0 or whatever to handle their ability to hit. But that's based on class and level, rather than rolled at random and set in stone like an ability score.
And Athletics could also be said to already be covered by Strength, while Stealth is already covered by Dexterity. Hence, negating the need for specificity while still addressing the fact that anyone could try those tasks. Just like anyone could fallback on Wisdom to try to notice stuff without turning this ONE thing anyone could try into its own Perception attribute.
Unless by "Perception" we mean this expansive thing that can cover a broad range of stuff beyond just sensory perception (like intuition, investigation, deductive reasoning, problem solving, and specialized knowledge like tracking, etc). Which leads us back to what do we even mean by "Perception"?
Whether something can qualify as a proper "attribute" (or at least a class of universal "broad skills") mechanically speaking vs "just a skill/specialty" is more a matter of definition and specificity, rather than whether or not everyone could kinda sorta try related tasks.
I've never seen D&D as particularly good at "high fantasy." The mechanics have always worked best at low levels, and struggled to meaningfully represent high fantasy.
Part of that is simply that this isn't a well defined term. Is high fantasy one warrior taking on 100 goblins, is it arm-wrestling a giant, lifting a mountain, or KO'ing Vishnu with a punch?
Quote from: Zelen on November 12, 2022, 10:43:41 AM
I've never seen D&D as particularly good at "high fantasy." The mechanics have always worked best at low levels, and struggled to meaningfully represent high fantasy.
Part of that is simply that this isn't a well defined term. Is high fantasy one warrior taking on 100 goblins, is it arm-wrestling a giant, lifting a mountain, or KO'ing Vishnu with a punch?
Genre designations are always a little sticky, and it's definitely a continuum, and most fantasy products float between designations. But we need terms to talk about it, so we have to make the best we can. If I was forced to come up with a classification schema, I would probably grade things along a continuum of:
--"Realistic Fantasy": Highly grounded. The vast majority of the world is identical to our own, but the supernatural exists, and most people know it. Any fantastical elements are extremely scarce and usually not available to the protagonists. Protagonists are normal people without any supernatural ability whatsoever. They have no hope of overcoming monstrous or supernatural foes head-on. Game of Thrones might be an example here.
--"Swords and Sorcery": The world bears a substantial resemblance to ours. Protagonists have a skill level which places them outside what is plausible for a real-world human, but not drastically so. They rarely, if ever have access to outright magic or superpowers. Slaying monsters is possible, but an extraordinary feat, even for the heroes. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser would be the example.
--"Heroic Fantasy": The world is recognizably based on ours, but magic is quite prevalent, possibly to the point where it is integrated into the operation of society. Protagonists extraordinary people in the context of their world. They have extensive access to the supernatural, and are expected to be able to defeat monstrous or supernatural enemies. The Elric of Melnibone stories fit this, and it is also where in my experience, the vast majority of D&D takes place.
--"Mythic/Epic Fantasy": The world no longer operates according to real-world rules, instead working on the logic of myth and fable. Protagonists can approach godlike abilities, and are expected to be able to challenge godlike beings. Examples would include a lot of anime, Dark Souls, and the Silmarillion, but high-level D&D sometimes starts to reach this level as well.
That's still a highly imperfect system. Lots of fantasies pull elements from multiple catgories, and the continuum is still too limited. It doesn't cover outliers like "urban fantasy", science-fantasy or superhero stories, or tonal changes such the difference between "dark fantasy" and something more romantic.
For game purposes I think the useful criteria are how much supernatural power is available to the protagonists, and where they stand in relation to the world.
By 3rd or 4th level, D&D characters usually have a hefty amount of spells, magic weapons, and special abilities at their disposal. The power levels of the world change according to campaign setting, but I would say the majority approach is that there's usually a fair few higher-level classed characters around to keep the players in line, but most of the world is normal people.
You say that D&D isn't great at representing heroic/mythic fantasy, which I would agree with. I don't think it's marvelous at representing any genre. But I think it's worse at "Realistic" or "Swords and Sorcery" settings. In the absence of a proper skill system, taking out magic and special abilities strips most characters of most of their options (That's mostly an OD&D through 2nd edition problem. 3rd edition tried to remedy this, which may be why some of the lower-magic D20 games aren't too bad. But of course they walked back on that design direction in 4th and 5th edition). The "attack bonus vs. AC" system breaks down in the absence of magical equipment. The HP and damage system breaks down without magical healing.
Can you tweak the numbers in D&D to make it work for those less fantastical tones? Yes, but it takes a lot of tweaking. Personally I don't think any of the official editions do it at all well, as they are written.
Quote from: VisionStorm on November 12, 2022, 09:34:37 AM
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on November 11, 2022, 09:22:42 PM
Just in passing, a thing that everyone has, is pretty much the mechanical reason for attributes in the first place. Granted, there are plenty of edge cases.
Everyone has Stealth IRL. They might not always be good at it, but pretty much anyone could try to sneak pass someone else, even if they're not a spy or a burglar or someone who's had training in covert ops.
Doesn't mean that Stealth needs to be an attribute.
Same with Combat or Athletics. Anyone IRL could pick up a rock or a hammer, and bash someone in the head with it, or throw it at someone else. Or attempt to climb, jump or whatever.
Doesn't mean Athletics or Combat are attributes. Broad skills? Maybe. But that depends on how abilities are handled in the system, and how broad "Athletics" is (does it also cover riding and acrobatic stunts?).
Granted, in old D&D Combat is a game stat, since everyone has a THAC0 or whatever to handle their ability to hit. But that's based on class and level, rather than rolled at random and set in stone like an ability score.
And Athletics could also be said to already be covered by Strength, while Stealth is already covered by Dexterity. Hence, negating the need for specificity while still addressing the fact that anyone could try those tasks. Just like anyone could fallback on Wisdom to try to notice stuff without turning this ONE thing anyone could try into its own Perception attribute.
Unless by "Perception" we mean this expansive thing that can cover a broad range of stuff beyond just sensory perception (like intuition, investigation, deductive reasoning, problem solving, and specialized knowledge like tracking, etc). Which leads us back to what do we even mean by "Perception"?
Whether something can qualify as a proper "attribute" (or at least a class of universal "broad skills") mechanically speaking vs "just a skill/specialty" is more a matter of definition and specificity, rather than whether or not everyone could kinda sorta try related tasks.
Sure, but there is a core thing that everyone has (or with negative scores, notably lacks compared to the average) that will underlay all of those perception-based skills. Some of you are saying it is Intelligence, or Wisdom, or something else. I'm saying that in the whole design, those are usually lousy choices for it. So much so, that using the D&D core six abilities, a better choice for working a Perception skill into the game would be to make it a skill not based on an attribute or perhaps base it on a feat.
When you design an entire system, there a few things that sit at the boundaries of attribute, talent, skill, etc. The exact list will vary somewhat depending on what the game is about, too. In fact, you can't accommodate all of them. Perception is one of those things.
For me, perception is important enough that it gets a coveted slot, and then the rest of the design has to bend around that. Whereas, for example, I don't find representing "Toughness" or "Charisma" to be quite that important. Other designs have different choices because those designs have different design goals.
You'll note that it also matters a great deal how you want the system to handle overlapping activities. If you want, say, "Persuasion" to be something that the "face" character does as a role in the party, then you might tie that to an ability score (Charisma or Presence or whatever) and a handful of skills that you need to buy up to a decent level to do reliably. Then maybe even tack on some traits or feats or whatever to really drive it home. So the face character invests a lot in it, over two or more mechanical categories, and practically no one else does, because the face character has it covered. That design will work quite well for that goal. If you don't want "face" specialists, but instead want people to talk about the things they know when appropriate to the situation, that same exact design sucks.
It's impossible to make a valid critique of a design without considering the intent of the design and its mechanics. It's often true that the design intent is not one that the critic doesn't want, but that is a lousy reason for the critic to slag the mechanics chosen. If the critic thinks the design intent is ill chosen, critique that.