1st Edition AD&D in General Discussion Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

Forum Jump

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

1st Edition AD&D

Author

Comment

JRRNeiklot

[-]

Posts: 599

Sep 29 08 2:36 PM

Spectre

On sometimes rolling high, others low: It's a great way for the dm to nip metagaming in the bud and put the fear of Orcus into pcs. DM: "Thromgrir, roll a 20 sided die."
Thromgrir: "Ok, nat 20, woohoo!"
DM: Smiles evily.
Thromgrir: "Wait a minute, did I need high or low? Was that a wisdom check to recognize what deity is depicted in that statue? Was it simply a dex check to keep from slipping on the slick floor? Was it a saving throw vs charm - is there a mage somewhere invisible? Oh crap, we're screwed!"

Lord Prufrock of the Maimed Knights of the Southron Kingdom

C&C Society

Advertisement
	Remove this ad /td>

Bannor

[-]

Posts: 44

Sep 29 08 5:29 PM

Philotomy Jurament wrote:
I understand the criticism, but I can't muster up any real concern. I consider it a trivial issue, at best. The older editions have different subsystems, but they're all pretty much drop-dead simple. (I think universal mechanics are overrated.)

Not just overrated - foolish. Not all situations should use the Universal die, apply the Universal modifiers, and come up with the Universal result. If you're playing a REALLY simple game or trying to bring in players completely unfamiliar with roleplaying games then a universal mechanic can have advantages. But if you acknowledge that the game needs to have appeal beyond just newbies and the broader the amount of a game world you're trying to detail rules for then, "Use mechanics appropriate to the situation," is a far superior approach to, "Make all situations fit the universal mechanic." Even if it were appropriate, it gets DULL for EVERY situation to be resolved in the same fashion with the same dice using the same modifiers.

Take something like skill/proficiency use for example. A universal system wants to say that forging a good sword can and should be resolved the same way as disarming a trap, riding a horse or swimming a river - you have ONE stat that provides a bonus and the results are generally pass/fail. Why can't forging a sword have a completely different resolution mechanic since it IS a thoroughly different discipline and one whose results are far better represented as a DEGREE of success (greater/lesser value of the final product) than simply adjusting the time it takes you. Why shouldn't increased skill adjust the required time by one scale, ANY relevant attribute adjust your degree of success rather than just one, etc.? Just how universal does a universal system have to be? How fanatically universal can it get before it outreaches its usefulness?

Treebore

[-]

Posts: 8667

Sep 29 08 10:37 PM

Scribe of the Unending Word

I for one like a unified mechanic and am glad I only need to keep track of my d20 and damage dice. I haven't gotten bored yet. Haven't gotten confused either. My players do pretty good too.

TheRavyn

[-]

Posts: 2773

Sep 30 08 3:25 AM

Vampire

Bannor wrote:
Take something like skill/proficiency use for example. A universal system wants to say that forging a good sword can and should be resolved the same way as disarming a trap, riding a horse or swimming a river - you have ONE stat that provides a bonus and the results are generally pass/fail. Why can't forging a sword have a completely different resolution mechanic since it IS a thoroughly different discipline and one whose results are far better represented as a DEGREE of success (greater/lesser value of the final product) than simply adjusting the time it takes you.

I agree with this, in fact, I'll take it a step further - I don't think things like forging swords, leatherworking, etc, should require a skill check at all. Its not something that has to be done in a high stress or combat situation ("are you done forging the sword yet, Thorkar? That giant's only 30 feet away now!") and is therefore subject to the same "rules" as it is in reality: you know how to do it or you don't, and you keep trying til you get it right.

Skill checks are irrelevant unless they reflect your chance to do something under duress - jump over a pit, disarm a trap, bluff a guard, and so on. 1E was spot on with its simple profession chart, and B/X didn't need it at all. 2E and 3E went overboard with the skill/non-weapon proficiencies. I don't miss em at all in 4E.

A unified mechanic works fine unless you're trying to shoe-horn things that have no place in a game of adventure.

Beyond the Black Gate - Yer Old-School Gaming Blog

My other car is a Flail Snail.

Philotomy Jurament

[-]

Posts: 577

Sep 30 08 9:40 AM

Old School Cool

One problem I have with unified mechanics is weird side effects. For example, consider the surprise check in C&C. Like many things in C&C, it uses the SIEGE engine. Wis is considered the "perception stat," so the Surprise check uses Wis. All very consistent with the overall design. Unfortunately, this often means that the group's Cleric is the best ambush detector in the party (which is obviously inconsistent with the way most people see the class archetypes). The cleric is likely to have a higher Wis. Even if the Ranger or the Rogue have a higher Wis, the Cleric is more likely to have his Wis as a Prime stat (very important, for the SIEGE engine). Of course, it's possible to house-rule away the problem, but now you're destroying the "elegance" of the unified mechanic with exception cases, in which case you might as well have a separate mechanic, anyway.

Basically, I think unified mechanics work, but that they're not always the best fit, and sometimes they have these weird side-effects. Is the benefit derived from a unified mechanic worth it? Do you really gain more than you lose, if you went with better fitting, but different, subsystems? Usually not, in my opinion. YMMV, of course.

Philotomy's OD&D Musings
B4 Lost City Campaign

Last Edited By: Philotomy Jurament Sep 30 08 9:43 AM. Edited 1 times.

Treebore

[-]

Posts: 8667

Sep 30 08 9:49 AM

Scribe of the Unending Word

In the case of C&C I do not see it as destroying the elegance with exceptions. There are already plenty of "exceptions" in the rules like this. Like checks involving class skills versus someone not in that class. So I would just add this "exception" to the list of exceptions.

My exception in this situation is that everyone treats it as if they have it as a class skill, so get to add their level, and if its Prime they do even better.

Philotomy Jurament

[-]

Posts: 577

Sep 30 08 11:15 AM

Old School Cool

Treebore wrote:
My exception in this situation is that everyone treats it as if they have it as a class skill, so get to add their level, and if its Prime they do even better.

If the PCs are all close to the same level (the most common situation), adding their level wouldn't address the issue, unless you only allowed "perceptive classes" to add their level. For example, consider a 6th level Ranger without Wis prime, accompanied by a 4th level Cleric with Wis Prime. They're wandering through the forested hills when they come upon an ambush by a group of orc archers. For the sake of simplicity, let's say both PCs have a Wis of 10.

Under your system, the 6th level Ranger's surprise check succeeds if he rolls a 12 or better (Non-Prime Target is 18, he gets to add +6 for his level). The 4th level Cleric's surprise check succeeds if he rolls an 8 or better (Prime Target is 12, he gets to add +4 for his level).

Now, it's true that you can change the result by making the Ranger's Wis prime. In that case, the by-the-book approach would give them equal chances, and your house-rule would give the Ranger a 10% advantage, because he's two levels higher. However, neither of those is much better, in my opinion. I think the Ranger should be clearly better at surprise situations because of his class. And I think that it's likely the Cleric will have a bonus from a high Wis (i.e. higher than 10) that would offset the level adjustment from your house rule. That doesn't even address question of the actual percentage chance to be surprised, which I think often works out to be too high or too low. Overall, using the SIEGE engine for surprise turns out to be more trouble than it's worth, in my opinion; it simply doesn't model surprise like I think it should be modeled. When I run C&C, I house-rule surprise with a different mechanic.

Philotomy's OD&D Musings
B4 Lost City Campaign

Last Edited By: Philotomy Jurament Sep 30 08 11:19 AM. Edited 1 times.

Orcus

[-]

Posts: 5281

Sep 30 08 1:31 PM

Demon Lord

DaveMage wrote:
I like the faster play of 1E, but not the lack of options present in that system. If I could have 3.5 variety & options with 1E speed, it would be D&D heaven.

You may get just that.

I have an evil plan in mind.... see a new post coming soon.

Dark Mistress

[-]

Posts: 2649

Sep 30 08 1:55 PM

Dominatrix

Necro going to make their own retro DnD version off the OGL?

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin

For MSG - I am sure you can teach a monkey to scratch his butt, just tell him to watch you. After a couple of hours he should be a master at it.

Orcus

[-]

Posts: 5281

Sep 30 08 2:27 PM

Demon Lord

Dark Mistress wrote:
Necro going to make their own retro DnD version off the OGL?

Lets just say I have an evil plan.

Imagine, if you will, 4E done right. With the spirit of AD&D still intact. That would be pretty cool. Classes powered down and actually reflecting how the classes are supposed to work. A wizard being a wizard again with a modified version of Vancian magic. Not all powers being combat powers, meaning the return of utility powers. Getting away from the grid and returning to feet. Changing a miniature game back into a roleplaying game. Restoring the classic magic items and not being afraid of buffs. Taking out the cheesy anime crap that snuck into 4E. Putting back in the goodness of AD&D. Mmmmm, wouldnt that be cool? There are some really great things about 4E, but somewhere along the way it lost its soul. Not sure how that happened. I intend to put it back in. Bill and I were talking about it today, in fact.

Clark

Advertisement
	Remove this ad

sparky 90

[-]

Posts: 1177

Sep 30 08 3:00 PM

Vampire

Orcus wrote:

Dark Mistress wrote:
Necro going to make their own retro DnD version off the OGL?

Lets just say I have an evil plan.

Imagine, if you will, 4E done right. With the spirit of AD&D still intact. That would be pretty cool. Classes powered down and actually reflecting how the classes are supposed to work. A wizard being a wizard again with a modified version of Vancian magic. Not all powers being combat powers, meaning the return of utility powers. Getting away from the grid and returning to feet. Changing a miniature game back into a roleplaying game. Restoring the classic magic items and not being afraid of buffs. Taking out the cheesy anime crap that snuck into 4E. Putting back in the goodness of AD&D. Mmmmm, wouldnt that be cool? There are some really great things about 4E, but somewhere along the way it lost its soul. Not sure how that happened. I intend to put it back in. Bill and I were talking about it today, in fact.

Clark

Now that's a game I would play. 4e is too gamest for me who has always been a simulest at heart. 4e destroyed the wizard with all his flavour and spell options. A 1st level 4e wizard looks to me like a 4th level 3e sorcerer and I've never been fond of sorcerers. I do like 4e monsters and their simple mechanics and some of the streamlining of the rules but they went too far for my taste and the fluff was very off putting.

Dark Mistress

[-]

Posts: 2649

Sep 30 08 3:05 PM

Dominatrix

Orcus wrote:

Dark Mistress wrote:
Necro going to make their own retro DnD version off the OGL?

Lets just say I have an evil plan.

Imagine, if you will, 4E done right. With the spirit of AD&D still intact. That would be pretty cool. Classes powered down and actually reflecting how the classes are supposed to work. A wizard being a wizard again with a modified version of Vancian magic. Not all powers being combat powers, meaning the return of utility powers. Getting away from the grid and returning to feet. Changing a miniature game back into a roleplaying game. Restoring the classic magic items and not being afraid of buffs. Taking out the cheesy anime crap that snuck into 4E. Putting back in the goodness of AD&D. Mmmmm, wouldnt that be cool? There are some really great things about 4E, but somewhere along the way it lost its soul. Not sure how that happened. I intend to put it back in. Bill and I were talking about it today, in fact.

Clark

Sounds good but curious just how exactly you will pull this off. I mean no GSL signing and you said you wouldn't do the other route. So my only thought is you will use the OGL to make a new version which honestly I am more than a bit surprised to see you thinking along this line. Not that this is bad just surprised is all. Guess we will have to wait while you tease us until you give a offical post about it.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin

For MSG - I am sure you can teach a monkey to scratch his butt, just tell him to watch you. After a couple of hours he should be a master at it.

DaveMage

[-]

Posts: 2966

Sep 30 08 3:45 PM

Wilderlands Pathfinder

Orcus wrote:

DaveMage wrote:
I like the faster play of 1E, but not the lack of options present in that system. If I could have 3.5 variety & options with 1E speed, it would be D&D heaven.

You may get just that.

I have an evil plan in mind.... see a new post coming soon.

Indeed.

I'm skeptical, but looking forward to hearing more....

(Although certainly if it can work fairly easily with my vast 3.5 library, you've probably got me sold.)

Last Edited By: DaveMage Sep 30 08 3:48 PM. Edited 1 times.

Treebore

[-]

Posts: 8667

Sep 30 08 4:03 PM

Scribe of the Unending Word

Philotomy Jurament wrote:

Treebore wrote:
My exception in this situation is that everyone treats it as if they have it as a class skill, so get to add their level, and if its Prime they do even better.

If the PCs are all close to the same level (the most common situation), adding their level wouldn't address the issue, unless you only allowed "perceptive classes" to add their level. For example, consider a 6th level Ranger without Wis prime, accompanied by a 4th level Cleric with Wis Prime. They're wandering through the forested hills when they come upon an ambush by a group of orc archers. For the sake of simplicity, let's say both PCs have a Wis of 10.

Under your system, the 6th level Ranger's surprise check succeeds if he rolls a 12 or better (Non-Prime Target is 18, he gets to add +6 for his level). The 4th level Cleric's surprise check succeeds if he rolls an 8 or better (Prime Target is 12, he gets to add +4 for his level).

Now, it's true that you can change the result by making the Ranger's Wis prime. In that case, the by-the-book approach would give them equal chances, and your house-rule would give the Ranger a 10% advantage, because he's two levels higher. However, neither of those is much better, in my opinion. I think the Ranger should be clearly better at surprise situations because of his class. And I think that it's likely the Cleric will have a bonus from a high Wis (i.e. higher than 10) that would offset the level adjustment from your house rule. That doesn't even address question of the actual percentage chance to be surprised, which I think often works out to be too high or too low. Overall, using the SIEGE engine for surprise turns out to be more trouble than it's worth, in my opinion; it simply doesn't model surprise like I think it should be modeled. When I run C&C, I house-rule surprise with a different mechanic.

Part of my thing is I do not think there are "perceptive" classes. There are perceptive people, and they tend to be adventurers.

Treebore

[-]

Posts: 8667

Sep 30 08 4:05 PM

Scribe of the Unending Word

Orcus wrote:

Dark Mistress wrote:
Necro going to make their own retro DnD version off the OGL?

Lets just say I have an evil plan.

Imagine, if you will, 4E done right. With the spirit of AD&D still intact. That would be pretty cool. Classes powered down and actually reflecting how the classes are supposed to work. A wizard being a wizard again with a modified version of Vancian magic. Not all powers being combat powers, meaning the return of utility powers. Getting away from the grid and returning to feet. Changing a miniature game back into a roleplaying game. Restoring the classic magic items and not being afraid of buffs. Taking out the cheesy anime crap that snuck into 4E. Putting back in the goodness of AD&D. Mmmmm, wouldnt that be cool? There are some really great things about 4E, but somewhere along the way it lost its soul. Not sure how that happened. I intend to put it back in. Bill and I were talking about it today, in fact.

Clark

I have have found 4E to be very, very "meh." So I'll definitely take a look at what you guys do in case you can take 4E to "Awesome!".

Philotomy Jurament

[-]

Posts: 577

Sep 30 08 4:27 PM

Old School Cool

Treebore wrote:
Part of my thing is I do not think there are "perceptive" classes.

Well, that certainly explains the difference; as is apparent from my comments on skill systems, I'm big on classes, and like for the archetypes to be upheld by the game rules. (Incidentally, this is also on of the reasons I eventually abandoned the SIEGE engine for saving throws -- I like for the PC's class to matter and be the primary focus, along with level.) From my class-focused point of view (which is strongly colored by TSR-era D&D, of course), Ranger should be perceptive (e.g. AD&D's 1:6 chance for them to be surprised), and Thieves should be perceptive (e.g. AD&D's chance for Thieves to hear noise, their frequent role as a scout, etc.); Clerics...not so much, as a general rule.

Philotomy's OD&D Musings
B4 Lost City Campaign

Geleg

[-]

Posts: 2263

Sep 30 08 4:50 PM

Lurker Above

well, just when I was ready to count Big Daddy Orcus down, he comes springing up with a new - and sexy - plan. Sounds very good. Let's hope you and Bill can make it work. A NG take on AD&D - a 1.5e - sounds greeeaaat. Get to work, O Demon Lord! Better yet, whip your minions into activity!

Snoring Rock

[-]

Posts: 1419

Sep 30 08 10:35 PM

Eternally Unspanked

Mighty Orcus, can Tegel Manor exist in this evil plan? Or is this a clever way to get us excited bout some kind of 4e concoction? Strike me down, but if you developed a serious 1e-feeling game mechanic, then I would listen. Tell us. Dont GSL us by teasing us.

cjs65

[-]

Posts: 382

Sep 30 08 10:56 PM

Ghast

Orcus wrote:

Dark Mistress wrote:
Necro going to make their own retro DnD version off the OGL?

Lets just say I have an evil plan.

Imagine, if you will, 4E done right. With the spirit of AD&D still intact. That would be pretty cool. Classes powered down and actually reflecting how the classes are supposed to work. A wizard being a wizard again with a modified version of Vancian magic. Not all powers being combat powers, meaning the return of utility powers. Getting away from the grid and returning to feet. Changing a miniature game back into a roleplaying game. Restoring the classic magic items and not being afraid of buffs. Taking out the cheesy anime crap that snuck into 4E. Putting back in the goodness of AD&D. Mmmmm, wouldnt that be cool? There are some really great things about 4E, but somewhere along the way it lost its soul. Not sure how that happened. I intend to put it back in. Bill and I were talking about it today, in fact.

Clark

Is it just me that's filled with horror at the thought of this? This is far from cool. Yet another game in a fairly saturated market trying to 'get it right' because xxxx game doesn't have the 'right feel'. Competing with Pathfinder and D&D, not to mention the numerous other systems such as RuneQuest, GURPS, C&C etc. strikes me as plain dumb. It's going to get a few people on these boards excited for a while, maybe, but what's the wider ranging appeal? By the time anything sees print, 4E and Pathfinder will be firmly established as the games of choice for 90% of the D&D community.

Why can't Necromancer stick to what it does best? Just produce some mega-cool adventures. Don't care what system - I'll convert to whatever I happen to be playing. I don't want a set of rules, I have those already. What I want is the new ToA/VoLK/LCoB, the stuff that WotC just can't get right.

Am I the only person who feels this way?

Words can't express my disappointment if this is the route Necro has been forced to take because of that piece of s&!$ GSL.

Ex-OAF. Now sick to death of WotC and D&D in general.

Game 1: Mongoose Traveller - Spinward Marches, 1105, crew of the Free Trader Mira's Luck.
Game 2: Mongoose RuneQuest - 3rd Age, Praxian animal nomads.

Mongoose is where it's happening!

Philotomy Jurament

[-]

Posts: 577

Sep 30 08 11:17 PM

Old School Cool

cjs65 wrote:
Yet another game in a fairly saturated market...Why can't Necromancer stick to what it does best? Just produce some mega-cool adventures...I don't want a set of rules, I have those already. What I want is the new ToA/VoLK/LCoB, the stuff that WotC just can't get right....Am I the only person who feels this way?

I'm sorta with you on this, in that I'm not interested in another "D&D" system for its own sake, and I think cool adventures are what NG does best (I'd add Rappan Athuk, Demons & Devils, and Coils of Set to your list). However, I'm not with you on "any system." In a nutshell, the closer to original D&D or 1e, the better, for me. If NG wants to define a system that allows it publish adventures, and that system really is powered down and similar to AD&D in scale and approach, then I'm all for that.

Philotomy's OD&D Musings
B4 Lost City Campaign

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

1st Edition AD&D