# J. Tweet's comments on Swords & Wizardry



## stuart (Jul 17, 2009)

An interesting post from Jonathan Tweet (designer for D&D 3e) on his recent experiences playing Swords & Wizardry -- which is a clone of Original D&D with tidied up rules.



> The game has a lot of warts, but it played really fast. Combat was arbitrary but it was blessedly fast. We didn't use miniatures. That's a break with tradition, but it seems to represent a bald refusal to be realistic and or attempt simulation. The interesting thing is that we can now approach the original D&D rules knowing everything we know about game design and role playing. Used judiciously, the system works and is simple, just what you need for a more story-oriented game. I think there are some interesting possibilities along these lines.
> 
> The problem with such games is that there's a lot of bad stuff that people are nostalgic for. For every bad rule that you might want to strip out, there are people who won't think your OD&D is original enough if you don't have it. Swords & Wizardry even has two AC systems that it uses side-by-side: the old-fashioned 9-down system that they have to include for tradition's sake and the 10+ system that they have to include because it's just clearly better.



Miniatures are fun, but I found the idea that *not* using them was "a bald refusal to be realistic and or attempt simulation" was a very strange idea. Sometimes I think people are using these words (eg. realistic, simulation) to mean vastly different things from each other.


----------



## mhensley (Jul 17, 2009)

He says this stuff like he never played D&D before 3rd edition, which I think explains a lot about 3rd and 4th edition design decisions.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 17, 2009)

[More from Tweet]
Added 5 July 09: For the record, the "bad stuff" I'm referring to is stuff like: too much arithmetic (5% XP bonus, copper pieces, etc.), wonky XP progression per class, too-random character creation, and poor class balance. It also has the problem that didn't get fixed until 4e: all spells are daily, which makes spellcasters play too differently from the fighters.[End quote]

This tells me that despite all the history and game design knowledge that Mr. Tweet has, he really doesn't understand old school gaming. 

Spell casters play differently from fighters. This is a problem?


----------



## stuart (Jul 17, 2009)

mhensley said:


> He says this stuff like he never played D&D before 3rd edition, which I think explains a lot about 3rd and 4th edition design decisions.



I would have thought anyone designing a new edition of D&D would be VERY familiar with all the previous editions. I remember seeing Mike Mearls post about how the 4e team sat down and played OD&D.


----------



## Maggan (Jul 17, 2009)

mhensley said:


> He says this stuff like he never played D&D before 3rd edition, which I think explains a lot about 3rd and 4th edition design decisions.




Tweet wrote some books for AD&D2nd edition.

Jonathan Tweet :: Pen & Paper RPG Database

Although that doesn't prove that he actually played the game he was writing for, there is a good chance that he did in fact play D&D before 3e.

/M


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 17, 2009)

mhensley said:


> He says this stuff like he never played D&D before 3rd edition, which I think explains a lot about 3rd and 4th edition design decisions.




I'm not really sure how you get that from what he's saying. 

And he's right on the whole. 

A lot of the changes made for 3e and 4e are improvements.

Of course, by fixing the old bugs you create all new bugs, but that's the way living in an imperfect world goes.


----------



## Riley (Jul 17, 2009)

I don't get the impression that he is unfamiliar with the old games (at least AD&D) - just that he is looking back a long time after moving on to more modern incarnations.

It's the same kind of response that I get when I look back through the old books on my shelves.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 17, 2009)

stuart said:


> I would have thought anyone designing a new edition of D&D would be VERY familiar with all the previous editions.




Maybe this time around, they wanted to start from a "clean slate" in designing 4E?

The easiest way to do this is to hire people who are clearly ignorant about older editions and the history of the game.


----------



## Maggan (Jul 17, 2009)

ggroy said:


> The easiest way to do this is to hire people who are clearly ignorant about older editions and the history of the game.




Enticing as that theory may be to some, I don't think Tweet was involved in designing 4e.

/M


----------



## stuart (Jul 17, 2009)

ggroy said:


> Maybe this time around, they wanted to start from a "clean slate" in designing 4E?
> 
> The easiest way to do this is to hire people who are clearly ignorant about older editions and the history of the game.




Mearls isn't ignorant of older editions.  Pretty sure that applies to the rest of the 4e team. 

A lot of people (like me) started in the early 80s with Moldvay/Mentzer Basic and then moved onto AD&D.  I don't think it'd be uncommon for people to have played every version of D&D *except* OD&D -- although the differences between Basic, AD&D and OD&D aren't that great from what I've seen.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 17, 2009)

ggroy said:


> Maybe this time around, they wanted to start from a "clean slate" in designing 4E?
> 
> The easiest way to do this is to hire people who are clearly ignorant about older editions and the history of the game.



Such as?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 17, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> [More from Tweet]
> Added 5 July 09: For the record, the "bad stuff" I'm referring to is stuff like: too much arithmetic (5% XP bonus, copper pieces, etc.), wonky XP progression per class, too-random character creation, and poor class balance. It also has the problem that didn't get fixed until 4e: all spells are daily, which makes spellcasters play too differently from the fighters.[End quote]
> 
> This tells me that despite all the history and game design knowledge that Mr. Tweet has, he really doesn't understand old school gaming.
> ...




Yes, for some people it is.  I'm not saying he's right, just that he has a point.  When two people, sitting down to play at the same table, are playing essentially completely different games, that can cause problems.  The wizard wants to stop and recharge so the fighter works to the wizzie's schedule, even though the game he's playing certainly doesn't require him to.

Again, I'm not taking sides here, just, hopefully, clarifying a point.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 17, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Such as?




The Easter Bunny.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 17, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Yes, for some people it is. I'm not saying he's right, just that he has a point. When two people, sitting down to play at the same table, are playing essentially completely different games, that can cause problems. The wizard wants to stop and recharge so the fighter works to the wizzie's schedule, even though the game he's playing certainly doesn't require him to.
> 
> Again, I'm not taking sides here, just, hopefully, clarifying a point.



Yes, considering he makes the comment in the context of "all spells are daily", this makes sense. Once out of daily spells, the wizard's player wants to stop and rest. The fighter's player, maybe not.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 17, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> [More from Tweet]
> Added 5 July 09: For the record, the "bad stuff" I'm referring to is stuff like: too much arithmetic (5% XP bonus, copper pieces, etc.), wonky XP progression per class, too-random character creation, and poor class balance. It also has the problem that didn't get fixed until 4e: all spells are daily, which makes spellcasters play too differently from the fighters.[End quote]
> 
> This tells me that despite all the history and game design knowledge that Mr. Tweet has, he really doesn't understand old school gaming.
> ...




Whether or not you agree with him on that point, he mentions a LOT of stuff there and in his previous posts that were clearly clunky.

5% XP bonuses, needing a HIGH attack roll to hit a LOW armor class (and a range of 9 to -10 wtf is that?), having a different XP table for every class, which was necessitated in part because the classes were not balanced against one another etc etc.

Sorry, I freaking love AD&D, but a lot of its RULES are not worth having any nostalgia for. I think he's spot on there.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 17, 2009)

stuart said:


> Sometimes I think people are using these words (eg. realistic, simulation) to mean vastly different things from each other.



Definitely. 

Some people around here use ('realistic', 'simulation') to mean something like 'possessing the qualities of D&D the way I prefer to play it'. They essentially denote play style preference, more so than their traditional meanings. For example: 

"Game X is realistic" (translation: it resembles D&D the way I like to play it)

"Game X is more of a simulation (translation: it resembles D&D the way I like to play it)

As for Tweet's post... I think he's spot on about the possibilities inherent in using old-style rules for campaigns with contemporary sensibilities. This shows he understands the spirit of old-school just fine: anything goes, use whatever you have on hand to make something new.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 17, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> Sorry, I freaking love AD&D, but a lot of its RULES are not worth having any nostalgia for. I think he's spot on there.




Some people may disagree.  I have one hardcore grognard friend who sees the 1E AD&D rules as written, as if it was "religious edict" not to be questioned by anyone.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 17, 2009)

ggroy said:


> I have one hardcore grognard friend who sees the 1E AD&D rules as written, as if it was "religious edict" not to be questioned by anyone.



This just means he's not the right person to discuss game design with.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 17, 2009)

ggroy said:


> Some people may disagree. I have one hardcore grognard friend who sees the 1E AD&D rules as written, as if it was "religious edict" not to be questioned by anyone.



I wouldn't characterize this attitude as "nostalgia".


----------



## ggroy (Jul 17, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> I wouldn't characterize this attitude as "nostalgia".




Fanatic is a more appropriate word to describe this guy.


----------



## stuart (Jul 17, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> Whether or not you agree with him on that point, he mentions a LOT of stuff there and in his previous posts that were clearly clunky.
> 
> 5% XP bonuses, needing a HIGH attack roll to hit a LOW armor class (and a range of 9 to -10 wtf is that?), having a different XP table for every class, which was necessitated in part because the classes were not balanced against one another etc etc.
> 
> Sorry, I freaking love AD&D, but a lot of its RULES are not worth having any nostalgia for. I think he's spot on there.



I agree that 5% XP bonuses, heck ANY XP bonuses based on stats is clunky.

High attack roll to hit a Low armor class is a personal taste thing, although I don't think it's wonderful it's not THAT horrible either. 

Negative armour class numbers is pretty bad.  Most people have a hard time subtracting negative numbers... although we always used the charts.

Different XP tables... that's a matter of preference. The Thief leveling much faster than the other classes was a benefit to taking the thief -- you'd get that 2nd level hit dice much faster.

Not using miniatures -- that's totally a preference thing.  There's nothing inherently better about playing an RPG with miniatures or without. They're just different games.

Which I think might have been Jonathan's difficulty with playing S&W... he really would have rather been playing 3e instead.


----------



## Eridanis (Jul 17, 2009)

OK. This topic can be discussed without the vitriol that's already starting. Discuss the merits all you like, but when it gets to impuging someone's motives or denigrating one's background, you're taking a vacation.

And honestly, if someone's doubting Tweet's "old-school" credentials, they're really lacking in their knowledge of RPG history. Between Ars Magica, AD&D, and D&D 3E (and that's just off the top of my head of what he's had his hand in), I think he knows whereof he speaks.


----------



## Eridanis (Jul 17, 2009)

double-post


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 17, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> Whether or not you agree with him on that point, he mentions a LOT of stuff there and in his previous posts that were clearly clunky.
> 
> 5% XP bonuses, needing a HIGH attack roll to hit a LOW armor class (and a range of 9 to -10 wtf is that?), having a different XP table for every class, which was necessitated in part because the classes were not balanced against one another etc etc.
> 
> Sorry, I freaking love AD&D, but a lot of its RULES are not worth having any nostalgia for. I think he's spot on there.




I find it difficult to believe that someone involved in the design of a system as math intensive as 3E has a problem calculating a 5% bonus to earned experience but sees nothing wrong with stacking bonuses from many sources and recalculating these multiple times during combat as buffs are applied and dispelled.

As far as class balance is concerned, I enjoy the concept of different classes providing vastly different play experiences. If these differences result in varying power levels between classes thats a part of being different. I'm not playing D&D as a competitive game so precise power balance means very little.

I wouldn't call all the old subsystems clunky. It's easy to remove subsystems that you find clunky with your own material without bringing down the house of cards. Some people enjoy a more freeform style of gaming that has nothing to do with nostalgia and calling thier choice of rulesets clunky is no more fair than wondering why those who prefer complex rules require 800 pages or so of core material to play a game of the imagination.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 17, 2009)

stuart said:


> Different XP tables... that's a matter of preference. The Thief leveling much faster than the other classes was a benefit to taking the thief -- you'd get that 2nd level hit dice much faster.




I disagree here. Having different XP tables was a symptom of a very serious problem.

Getting that "second HD" faster for the Thief might have been great but it's a bad thing that he NEEDED it because he was worse than the other classes. 

Mage gets sleep, Fighter gets the best HD and attack bonus, Cleric gets healing and turn undead and the thief gets a 15% chance to disarm traps. 

Or in other words, he had an 85% chance to NOT disarm a trap, and thereby put himself in extreme danger for the party.

I think the classes not being balanced in D&D prior to 3e was possibly the worst thing about the game.

It created HOSTS of other problems (this is my opinion in case that isn't clear). 

The weird ability score requirements of some classes, like all Paladins needing a 17 Cha, was a cludgy attempt at balance after the fact.

And of course, the fact that Unearthed Arcana and Oriental Adventures introduced a host of uber-classes really made the whole house of cards less stable than ever. 



> Which I think might have been Jonathan's difficulty with playing S&W... he really would have rather been playing 3e instead.




Well, regardless of what he'd rather have been playing, I don't think his points were bad ones.

A lot of the things that make people play retro-clones is nostalgia.

That was the main point I saw him make, and I think he's right.

Does that mean those games have no value as games? No, but then, I'm sure he didn't say that. He had plenty of good things to say about his game. 

Your point seems to be that preferring 3e over S&W is subjective. Ok- I think that's rather obvious. 

I don't think Tweet was trying to say 3e is objectively better. He was just saying nostalgia and rules-lightness were S&W's two main sources of appeal.


----------



## JeffB (Jul 17, 2009)

No doubt that despite my love for S&W (and the game it's based on) there are some "wonky" issues with mechanics. BUT- Thats part of the fun- game rules IMO don't have to make all that much sense to enjoy the game. Chess Monopoly, whatever.


EDIT side discussion about Tweet  removed- as per Mods (though there was no vitriol)


----------



## Hussar (Jul 17, 2009)

Eridanis said:


> double-post




Heh, does this mean we're doubly moderated.  

The problem with the different xp tables is, as Vigilance says, it's a very poor system of balance.  You're basically saying that level is meaningless since the power disparity between various levels is so great that you actually should be based on xp instead.

In other words, the old modules shouldn't say X characters of Y to Z level, but rather, X characters of Y XP, presuming of course, that the game actually does balance that way, which I'm not sure that it does.

After all, you're basically saying that the 1st level thief is worth considerably less than the 1st level fighter.  IIRC, thief xp was about 1/2 of fighter, so, you're only par with the fighter on even numbered levels.

And, where things get REALLY ugly is with the multi-classing rules.  In AD&D, everyone was unlimited in thief, regardless of their other classes.  Plugging on a thief class to any other class didn't significantly change your level and you gained all the abilities of a thief class.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 17, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I find it difficult to believe that someone involved in the design of a system as math intensive as 3E has a problem calculating a 5% bonus to earned experience but sees nothing wrong with stacking bonuses from many sources and recalculating these multiple times during combat as buffs are applied and dispelled.




I think the idea that he saw nothing wrong with stacking bonuses is a fairly large assumption.

I saw his mention of AC going from 9 to -10 and 5% XP bonuses to be instances where rules were put in S&W specifically to invoke nostalgia, as opposed to being rules that NEEDED to be there.

I have never thumbed through a game manual and asked "why doesn't this class have a 5% XP bonus"?



> As far as class balance is concerned, I enjoy the concept of different classes providing vastly different play experiences. If these differences result in varying power levels between classes thats a part of being different. I'm not playing D&D as a competitive game so precise power balance means very little.




I think the different classes offering a different play experience is fine. 

And no, I don't think "precise" power balance is necessary.

On the other hand, what "different play experience" did the Cavalier add? He was just a fighter who got more bonuses in return for a watered down Paladin code and a slight increase in the XP needed to gain a level. 

And some of the classes weren't missing a "precise" power balance. Thief was next to useless at low levels, which is why they tried to make getting through those levels a breeze. 

The mage was explicitly "paying his dues" at low level for the glory days of high level. 

And don't get me started on the Monk. 



> Some people enjoy a more freeform style of gaming that has nothing to do with nostalgia and calling thier choice of rulesets clunky is no more fair than wondering why those who prefer complex rules require 800 pages or so of core material to play a game of the imagination.




And Tweet points that out.

You seem to be focused like a laser on the things he mentioned that he didn't seem to like.

But he mentions SEVERAL TIMES that he liked how fast it played. 

Clearly, he isn't just saying the appeal lies in nostalgia. He's saying ease and speed of play, along with nostalgia, are both selling points for the game.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Jul 17, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> [More from Tweet]
> Added 5 July 09: For the record, the "bad stuff" I'm referring to is stuff like: too much arithmetic (5% XP bonus, copper pieces, etc.), wonky XP progression per class, too-random character creation, and poor class balance. It also has the problem that didn't get fixed until 4e: all spells are daily, which makes spellcasters play too differently from the fighters.[End quote]
> 
> This tells me that despite all the history and game design knowledge that Mr. Tweet has, he really doesn't understand old school gaming.
> ...




Oh yes! From a design perspective it sure is. At the beginning of the campaign, a player selects his character's class - if the DM doesn't enforce the roll 3d6 six times, right down the values in the order given on the character sheet and see which class you might select - and is stuck with it for the life of this character. The campaign may run a long time, but the player has no chance to correct his decision. This is an example of extremely bad design!

Of course this may be okay with some/many/legions of old school gamers  but this doesn't change the design value.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jul 17, 2009)

I agree with most of what JT said.  I love AD&D too, but some of the wonky mechanics (IMHO) are just bad.  At the time I was learning the game, it was all I knew, so I didn't consider whether the rules felt right or were balanced.  Quite frankly, with the exception of adding in some Arduin Grimoire and Judges Guild stuff, there wasn't much else out there for me and RPGs.  Sure, I tried the original Traveller a couple of years later, but all I knew when I was in 7th grade was AD&D.   I didn't KNOW the rules were unbalanced or wonky.

Now, with experience, I can see how nostalgia can cloud my eyes with regards to the rules and mechanics.  

I was awestruck by D&D when I first played.  But, then again, it's likely I would have been awestruck by 3e or 4e if that was all knew and I was a wide-eyed young gamer.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 17, 2009)

By and large, I agree. I might quibble over some specific "bad things" (the wizard and the fighter should feel different in play, even if all spells are not dailies; ditching minis is not a repudiation of simulation, just of _combat_ simulation, etc), but there are plenty of wonky rules that I have been happy to see fall by the wayside in 3e. Less so in 4e, but they still managed to improve a good chunk.


----------



## stuart (Jul 17, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> Getting that "second HD" faster for the Thief might have been great but it's a bad thing that he NEEDED it because he was worse than the other classes.
> 
> Mage gets sleep, Fighter gets the best HD and attack bonus, Cleric gets healing and turn undead and the thief gets a 15% chance to disarm traps.
> 
> Or in other words, he had an 85% chance to NOT disarm a trap, and thereby put himself in extreme danger for the party.




Disarm traps at 15% was such bad odds you'd be crazy to try using it.   Moving about quietly, climbing stuff and shooting at monsters with a bow were much better ways for a Thief to make it to 2nd level.

I think there's A LOT worth changing and house-ruling in older editions, and a lot of ideas added in more recent editions that I just plain like better... but I think most of it comes down to our personal preferences and approaches to the game.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 17, 2009)

Back in the 1E AD&D days, I houseruled the magic-user to be somewhat less boring.  One was allowing the magic-user to have unlimited use of the magic missile, but requiring a roll to hit.  For a hit, it required a d20 roll of less than or equal to the magic-user's intelligence score.

How the encounters were structure was that combat spells were cast at the beginning of the round and the effects were realized at the end of the round.  If the spellcaster was distracted or hit by a badguy, the spell could fail.


----------



## stuart (Jul 17, 2009)

ggroy said:


> Back in the 1E AD&D days, I houseruled the magic-user to be somewhat less boring.  One was allowing the magic-user to have unlimited use of the magic missile, but requiring a roll to hit.  For a hit, it required a d20 roll of less than or equal to the magic-user's intelligence score.
> 
> How the encounters were structure was that combat spells were cast at the beginning of the round and the effects were realized at the end of the round.  If the spellcaster was distracted or hit by a badguy, the spell could fail.




I recently ran a B/X D&D game and I added "at will" Zap, Glow, Spark and similar minor magic spells.  Zap was much like you describe it.


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 17, 2009)

Tweet touched on the one thing that I truly believe that OD&D, 1E and 2E do much better than 3.x or 4E and that's speed.  

No minis = great speed of play.

I don't have a problem with the class balance issues of the older editions - although some of that was supposed to be mitigated by the varying XP charts.  7th level Wizard was not supposed to be equal with a 7th level Fighter.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 17, 2009)

"Game balance" in old D&D is in a very different (one might say broader) context than in WOTC-D&D. It's like comparing cricket and baseball.

The eight "descending" ACs are practically no great change from eight "ascending" ones (with leather alone and shield alone transposed) in _Chainmail_, given the assumption in both games of a tabular presentation; they could as well have been labeled L through S.

For those who prefer to do arithmetic, though, descending ACs can be used much as "BAB" is in later games. When in the first column of the OD&D table, the base sum needed to hit is 19+ from (d20+AC).

In terms of convenience in play, we're talking "half a dozen of one, six of another", or "I say to-MAY-to, and you say to-MAH-to".

Retaining the terminology that was "lingua franca" for a quarter century offers another convenience -- as does flipping AC around to WOTC-D&D style.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jul 17, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Heh, does this mean we're doubly moderated.




Double-_secret _ moderated.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 17, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> I think the idea that he saw nothing wrong with stacking bonuses is a fairly large assumption.




Agreed. This is entirely possible.




Vigilance said:


> On the other hand, what "different play experience" did the Cavalier add? He was just a fighter who got more bonuses in return for a watered down Paladin code and a slight increase in the XP needed to gain a level.
> 
> And some of the classes weren't missing a "precise" power balance. Thief was next to useless at low levels, which is why they tried to make getting through those levels a breeze.
> 
> ...




The cavalier was a product of Unearthed Bloat and added nothing but power creep.

IMHO The thief began as next to useless and stayed that way. Only because supplement 1 said hey make room for this guy in the party because you suddenly need him to do all the stuff that you have been doing already.

The mage did need to survive to earn his power. The dues were well worth paying though. 

The monk never felt right as the only Eastern example of a character class to me.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 17, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> Mage gets sleep, Fighter gets the best HD and attack bonus, Cleric gets healing and turn undead and the thief gets a 15% chance to disarm traps.
> 
> Or in other words, he had an 85% chance to NOT disarm a trap, and thereby put himself in extreme danger for the party.



Thief has a 15% chance to _automatically _disarm a trap. Disarming a trap is always available by descriptive action . . . by the player of any class.


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 17, 2009)

I think that basically sums up my problems with old school forms of D&D, and with new old school clones.  There are a lot of good things about an old school style of game, but not quite so many good things about the mechanics.  And unfortunately that style of gameplay has been ceded to, or taken over by, people who are far, far too attached to old school D&D mechanics.  It would be genuinely surprising if the first major published RPG just happened to get everything essentially right, with no room for mechanical improvement.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 17, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> As far as class balance is concerned, I enjoy the concept of different classes providing vastly different play experiences. If these differences result in varying power levels between classes thats a part of being different. I'm not playing D&D as a competitive game so precise power balance means very little.



My dislike for 'old-school' D&D class balance stems from being a DM rather than a player (as a player I could always select a class with a more robust set of mechanical options). 

The inherent class imbalance made DM'ing _harder_ for me. Some classes --let's say _thief_-- simply had fewer good mechanical options. Or their abilities were far too situational. 

Sure, players were always free to contribute things outside the purview of the game mechanics --ideas, plans, the solutions to riddles/puzzles, great characterization-- but that didn't alter the fact the system conferred good and decisive mechanical abilities haphazardly to the classes, if at all (again, the _thief_).

I felt like it was a chore to consistently need to address class imbalance via adventure/encounter design ("Must make sure X isn't useless!"), or by adding house rules/special rulings. 4e is an improvement in that regard. Mechanics-wise, everyone is dealt a more-or-less a fair hand. Which means any character will have usable abilities, wherever the action of story takes them.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jul 17, 2009)

Gentlegamer said:


> Thief has a 15% chance to _automatically _disarm a trap. Disarming a trap is always available by descriptive action . . . by the player of any class.




So the rules that the thief uses to disarm traps (and that he sucks at it) are not bad design because everybody can disarm traps without using the rules the thief uses for disarming traps? I´ve heard this defense for the way thief skills worked before, and i just don´t get it.


----------



## seskis281 (Jul 17, 2009)

The big point of contention rests on perception - especially perception of such words as "broken," "wonky," "balance" etc.

To some people, unless the core mechanics seek to "balance" all characters equally, the system is flawed. Others see the balancing as a flawed concept. Neither or inherently "wrong" or "right" - they are just different approaches and philosophies of RPG gaming, sometimes drawn along generational lines, sometimes on system preference lines, sometimes just very arbitrarily. 

One person's "warts" are another person's "beauty marks." Same thing with such things as AC (I like the development of Ascending myself, but I understand the _theory_ behind the other, and that it isn't always just because of "nostalgia," though for some it is). 

My personal likes are in imbalance, meaning the need for balance comes from the party as a whole. I understand completely and have many friends who feel the opposite ways. For that school of thought, the mechanical changes that led 1st through 3rd edition and ultimately to 4th are a "fix" and a wonderful thing. For those who don't like it, it's a further shift away from a paradigm/theory that we like and prefer. 

Again, this is all a matter of personal perception. Luckily, the gaming world is big enough and there are burgeoning avenues (both traditional and non-traditional, as Erik Mona pointed out on another thread) for all of us.


----------



## Mercurius (Jul 17, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> A lot of the changes made for 3e and 4e are improvements.
> 
> Of course, by fixing the old bugs you create all new bugs, but that's the way living in an imperfect world goes.




This is a refreshingly balanced viewpoint: that recognizes both the "evolution" of different editions without being vitriolic _or_ politically correct, but also the idea that new editions create new problems.



Fifth Element said:


> I wouldn't characterize this attitude as "nostalgia".




Sounds like old school fundamentalism to me.



Cadfan said:


> I think that basically sums up my problems with old school forms of D&D, and with new old school clones.  There are a lot of good things about an old school style of game, but not quite so many good things about the mechanics.  And unfortunately that style of gameplay has been ceded to, or taken over by, people who are far, far too attached to old school D&D mechanics.  It would be genuinely surprising if the first major published RPG just happened to get everything essentially right, with no room for mechanical improvement.




Exactly.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 17, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> So the rules that the thief uses to disarm traps (and that he sucks at it) are not bad design because everybody can disarm traps without using the rules the thief uses for disarming traps? I´ve heard this defense for the way thief skills worked before, and i just don´t get it.




I think what he is saying is that the thief first has a 15% chance to disarm a trap without a hitch and no effort besides rolling the dice.  Beyond that, both the thief and other classes have the same chance to try and disarm a trap through describing their actions.  

So in other words it would be like you having a 15% chance to auto-kill a monster in the first round of combat... but even if you don't you have the same chance to battle the monster on the same terms as everyone else... in other words it's not an 85% chance to fail... it's a 15% chance to auto-succeed and then a regular chance to try and succeed.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 17, 2009)

I'm not going to necessarily take a stand on the subjective merits of aspects of game design; I will suggest that, if one looks at the original form of the game and the way it plays, the later inclusion of the Thief character class is problematic and created a "rules tension" (that may have began a "mechanics/character abilities arms race") that was probably unnecessary.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 17, 2009)

The 5% exp bonus is a nod toward simulation.  We all know the athlete who's better than the other guys and doesn't even half-assed try or the scholar who makes straight A's in school, yet never seems to crack open a book.  They advance quicker than others who have to get by on hard work alone.  I hate those bastards, lol.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 17, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> Of course, by fixing the old bugs you create all new bugs, but that's the way living in an imperfect world goes.



At least now you have a choice of bugs. That's progress.


----------



## stuart (Jul 17, 2009)

JRRNeiklot said:


> The 5% exp bonus is a nod toward simulation.  We all know the athlete who's better than the other guys and doesn't even half-assed try or the scholar who makes straight A's in school, yet never seems to crack open a book.  They advance quicker than others who have to get by on hard work alone.  I hate those bastards, lol.




I've always thought this was a very poor game rule.  The player is already being rewarded by having the higher attribute.  If anything if you can get your character to survive an adventure with LOW attributes you should be getting the bonus.


----------



## kitsune9 (Jul 17, 2009)

stuart said:


> An interesting post from Jonathan Tweet (designer for D&D 3e) on his recent experiences playing Swords & Wizardry -- which is a clone of Original D&D with tidied up rules.
> 
> Miniatures are fun, but I found the idea that *not* using them was "a bald refusal to be realistic and or attempt simulation" was a very strange idea. Sometimes I think people are using these words (eg. realistic, simulation) to mean vastly different things from each other.




Interesting read.


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 17, 2009)

Imaro said:


> So in other words it would be like you having a 15% chance to auto-kill a monster in the first round of combat... but even if you don't you have the same chance to battle the monster on the same terms as everyone else... in other words it's not an 85% chance to fail... it's a 15% chance to auto-succeed and then a regular chance to try and succeed.




I think it would be more like saying the Fighter has a 15% chance to hit AC 0... but if, instead of rolling the dice he describes his attack routine and lets the DM adjudicate the results, he has the same chance as anyone else.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 17, 2009)

stuart said:


> I've always thought this was a very poor game rule.  The player is already being rewarded by having the higher attribute.  If anything if you can get your character to survive an adventure with LOW attributes you should be getting the bonus.




It's not there to reward the player, it's their to simulate how more agile, stronger, smarter,  people generally excel at their careers.  People with low dexterity have a harder time becoming olympic gymnists.  It's not all that important, easy enough to disregard if you want to bow to the game balance gods, but it's not a poor rule, merely one of the simulationist effects of AD&D.  Of course, if you have more generous stat generation methods than standard, this rule becomes obsolete.


----------



## Treebore (Jul 17, 2009)

As I usually do, I bought the rules and played the game myself. Bottom line is we had a blast, it played very fast and fun.

Did we have complaints? Yes, primarily with spells, the level they were, and how crappy they were for their level.

Are the classes balanced? Pretty well, actually. Then again we don't think the thief is a fighter variant, and when fighters complain about us spell casters needing rest we don't heal them until after we rest, then they seem to like rest periods just fine.

Still, I think this "clone" is a vast improvement over the original, for one, I felt motivated to actually play it, which never happened with my little brown books.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 17, 2009)

I have never understood the concept of resting just because you're out of spells.  Hell, that's when the fun starts.  The fighter doesn't run to town when he runs out of arrows.  Every group I ever played in, regardless of edition, pushed onwards until we were way down on hit points.  Now, we'd generally try and rest up for an end fight we knew was coming, but if we're exploring the wilderness, or a dungeon, we pushed on, at some risk, to be sure, and occasionally we'd lose a character because of it, but stopping because the girly man in a dress is out of spells?  Not gonna happen.  Casters have weapon proficiencies, same as everyone else.


----------



## Chainsaw (Jul 17, 2009)

So, maybe I just don't get it, but.. a guy publishes what he thinks is a polished, but intentionally very, very similar version of a game alot of people liked and many still like. Immediately all the old complaints pop up from people who prefer something else - but it's not as if the system in question hides its intention, right? In the most respectful possible way, I honestly wonder what's to be accomplished?

Like another guy said, one guy's wart is another's beauty mark.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 17, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> Tweet touched on the one thing that I truly believe that OD&D, 1E and 2E do much better than 3.x or 4E and that's speed.
> 
> No minis = great speed of play.




I see this a lot and it constantly confuses me. 

Older editions of D&D were clearly written with miniatures in mind. That's why movement and spell areas in AD&D is listed in inches for example, so you could measure it off like they did with wargames not played on a grid. 

Sure, you could play it without minis, but I don't think that was really any harder or easier on play than later editions. 

There was always that question of whether or not your party was in range of the fireball, or if your monk could cross the room in one round, and DMs usually handwaved that stuff.

But you can do that in 3e too, and in my experience, it causes about the same number of snafus in actual play.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 17, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> At least now you have a choice of bugs. That's progress.




Oh heck yeah. I'm a big fan of more game systems, not less. Gives me a bigger playground


----------



## Imaro (Jul 18, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> I think it would be more like saying the Fighter has a 15% chance to hit AC 0... but if, instead of rolling the dice he describes his attack routine and lets the DM adjudicate the results, he has the same chance as anyone else.




No, I don't think so... if a thief succeeds on his disarm trap role that threat is totally neutralized... hitting AC 0 in no way guarantees a monster is neutralized, just hit that one time.  Also, since I don't believe failing that roll implicitly caused the trap to trigger (I gotta check this one, so I'll state upfront that I am not certain) unless the DM ruled so... the thief could in fact try again like everyone else.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 18, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> I think it would be more like saying the Fighter has a 15% chance to hit AC 0... but if, instead of rolling the dice he describes his attack routine and lets the DM adjudicate the results, he has the same chance as anyone else.



Yes, and that chance is zero. :cheeky:


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 18, 2009)

Imaro said:


> No, I don't think so...




That's fair, my post was kinda lame.

My point is that the difference is between "freeform roleplay" or the thief rolling dice.

A better combat example might be a % chance to trip someone.  Say a class has a 15% chance to trip an opponent (it's a homebrew class).  He could use that, or you could describe a trip attempt and let the DM adjudicate it.


----------



## stuart (Jul 18, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> I see this a lot and it constantly confuses me.
> 
> Older editions of D&D were clearly written with miniatures in mind. That's why movement and spell areas in AD&D is listed in inches for example, so you could measure it off like they did with wargames not played on a grid.




People who started from a wargaming background or were introduced to the game by those players probably used minis more often.  People who started in the 80s from a Choose Your Own Adventure / Lord of the Rings background with the Basic D&D rules probably didn't use minis as often.  I say this because right on the cover of the Mentzer edition "Red Box" basic D&D rules it says "This game requires no gameboard because the action takes place in the player's imagination".  It definitely gave me the idea that minis were very optional and the default way of playing the game was with it all "in the player's imagination".

I know that's not how everyone played it... but I know I'm not alone in getting that impression from the Red Box rules either.


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 18, 2009)

stuart said:


> People who started from a wargaming background or were introduced to the game by those players probably used minis more often.  People who started in the 80s from a Choose Your Own Adventure / Lord of the Rings background with the Basic D&D rules probably didn't use minis as often.  I say this because right on the cover of the Mentzer edition "Red Box" basic D&D rules it says "This game requires no gameboard because the action takes place in the player's imagination".  It definitely gave me the idea that minis were very optional and the default way of playing the game was with it all "in the player's imagination".
> 
> I know that's not how everyone played it... but I know I'm not alone in getting that impression from the Red Box rules either.




Exactly.

I started with the red box and it never dawned on me that minis would help the game.  Combat plays very fast without the battlemat.  Is it perfect?  Nope.  But in the time it takes to get through 4 combat encounters in 3.x/4E (using minis and RAW), I can get through 10-12 in 1E/2E (without minis).


----------



## ggroy (Jul 18, 2009)

stuart said:


> People who started in the 80s from a Choose Your Own Adventure / Lord of the Rings background with the Basic D&D rules probably didn't use minis as often.




I started playing D&D after playing the TSR board game "Dungeon!" a lot.  It essentially boiled down the essence of D&D into a simple playable dungeon crawl in board game form.

Sometimes we improvised and modified the rules completely, such as:

- going from room to room as a group, instead of individually
- having some rooms empty while other rooms having several monsters in it, where the group would try to kill all the monsters and take the loot
- changing the health system so that a player or monster could be hit many times before dying
- having one "healer" character in the group which handled injured characters, who also did some fighting
- a primitive combat system of two or more players attacking the same monster
- creating random encounters with monsters in the hallways
- using the more powerful monsters from lower dungeon levels, as a "solo" type boss monsters at upper dungeon levels
- one person would be handling the random encounters, monsters, solo bosses, etc ... (ie. like a DM)

In essence, we unknowingly modified the Dungeon! rules into something resembling a more D&D style game.  By the time any of us picked up the basic D&D box set, it was essentially a more precise codified version of our primitive "houserules" we used for our Dungeon! board games.  None of us had any miniatures, but we used things like checkers/chess pieces or tokens from a monopoly game to represent the players and monsters in combat (on a kitchen table).


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 18, 2009)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> It would be genuinely surprising if the first major published RPG just happened to get everything essentially right, with no room for mechanical improvement.



It would be almost as amazing as everyone agreeing in the first place on what's "right" and what mechanical changes constitute "improvement".



			
				Keefe the Thief said:
			
		

> So the rules that the thief uses to disarm traps (and that he sucks at it) are not bad design because everybody can disarm traps without using the rules the thief uses for disarming traps?



No more than it's bad design to get a bonus for an ability score, skill, feat or power -- when everybody can hit a monster (or whatever) without using that bonus. In the case of the thief's function, it is either a proportional bonus (greater the worse the chance would be without it) ... or in fact the chance of doing what cannot be done at all without it (as much a qualitative bonus as being able to meet or beat an otherwise impossible Difficulty Class).



			
				stuart said:
			
		

> If anything if you can get your character to survive an adventure with LOW attributes you should be getting the bonus.



That is seriously a fine way to play, but (less seriously) remind me again why one should get anything special for LOW scores? Oh, yeah: they have associated mechanical penalties ... so, if we flip them around and it's the low scores getting the bonuses ... we're back where we started, only upside down! Originally, those little (especially before "name" level) experience modifiers were the _only_ set mechanical effects of prime requisites apart from intelligence governing language-learning capability.

(I _do_ see the point that one can create a kind of abstract game balance by making everything that's a bonus _also_ a penalty, and vice-versa!)


----------



## rogueattorney (Jul 18, 2009)

stuart said:


> I've always thought this was a very poor game rule.  The player is already being rewarded by having the higher attribute.  If anything if you can get your character to survive an adventure with LOW attributes you should be getting the bonus.




In the original rules the only game effect that a high strength, intelligence or wisdom would give you is the bonus/penalty to experience.  There was no other mechanical effect in the rules.  It was how the game modeled a strong person being a better fighter, etc.  All the ability bonuses and adjustments from Str, Int, and Wis were added in later supplements and editions.

Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma, which didn't effect xp at all, did have various mechanical game effects.


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 18, 2009)

Regarding the thief's percentage chance of disarming a trap...

In my group we almost always had traps go off if you failed to disarm them.  Usually this meant they went off and hit the thief.  This meant that a 15% chance to disarm a trap, versus a nearly certain chance of disarming a trap through careful discussion and examination, was suicide.  Your options were literally:

A: 85% chance of failure and injury
B: Near 100% chance of success

People rarely chose the former.  Looking back, I wonder whether we were playing things correctly.  Anyone else know?


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 18, 2009)

Cadfan, I think that was making things needlessly either/or. (Also, traps in OD&D were far from perfectly oiled machines, by default activating but 1/3 of the time!)

I try to accomplish something, and fail; another would be sunk there and then. Being a specialist in this sort of thing, however, I have a Plan B!

Suppose my special skill saves my bacon half the time. That's not such a big deal when it means the difference between 98% and 99% chance of not blowing it (unless the consequences are commensurately dire). When it moves me up from 20% to 60%, though, my chance of success has tripled!

What can be confusing is that Plan A itself is not necessarily formally quantified into a dice-roll. It may be a matter of player skill, which could yield statistical data after the fact just as might a season of ballgames.


----------



## Doodles (Jul 18, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> This tells me that despite all the history and game design knowledge that Mr. Tweet has, he really doesn't understand old school gaming.



*nod* Basically.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 18, 2009)

Eridanis said:


> And honestly, if someone's doubting Tweet's "old-school" credentials, they're really lacking in their knowledge of RPG history. Between Ars Magica, AD&D, and D&D 3E (and that's just off the top of my head of what he's had his hand in), I think he knows whereof he speaks.




Are Magica is the main thing I think people forget about Tweet.

I don't think Tweet has a problem with unbalanced "classes/options" in a game. 

I think Tweet has a problem with a game that doesn't state up front that there are unbalanced options AND doesn't allow for easy switching between said options.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 18, 2009)

stuart said:


> I've always thought this was a very poor game rule.  The player is already being rewarded by having the higher attribute.



True and for the same reason I think that balancing tough classes with the requirement of high ability scores is also a very poor mechanic. It doesn't balance the classes, it just makes them rarer*, but when a qualifying character is finally rolled he is doubly rewarded.

* Actually, a lot of DM's allow players to choose the class and thus allow raising ability scores to meet the minimums. In this case, you can have the paradoxical situation of giving some benefits only to characters of those classes... hey, let's play a paladin-cavalier, so I'm sure I'll get high scores in almost all my stats...


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 18, 2009)

Early on, I had the same response to the AD&D sub-classes, experience bonuses and high ability scores. (I would note that some subjects being raised in this thread may be as little pertinent, or even irrelevant, to Swords & Wizardry as they were to the original D&D set.)

Chance in character generation is simply part of the old D&D game -- and the _game_ aspect has, despite the apparent shortage of "crunch", a very big footprint. There is a lot to say on that subject, but basically it is a very different kind of game than some other RPGs. It may be helpful if one comes (as did its expected audience) from a historical war-gaming background.

It certainly does not increase understanding and appreciation to come in with a heavy expectation of its being Game X instead of itself -- any more than that smooths the path in approaching 4E.

There are plenty of games I either don't find much fun to play or lack interest even in trying. That does not make them bad designs. Some may be very excellent designs ... for the attainment of goals I do not happen to share!

Card-driven games, for instance, are not my cup of tea. Draws from the deck in _The Sword and the Flame_ are something I accept, but do not wax enthusiastic about. _Piquet_, though, is simply Not For Me, Thanks!

I think it is worthwhile to discuss our preferences, especially when it sheds light on the utility of different techniques as means to different ends. Simply learning about unfamiliar paradigms can be illuminating, whether or not they add to the set of one's personal pleasures.

To judge a design's success or failure as if it were "supposed" to be something quite other than what the designer had in mind, though, seems to me counter-productive.


----------



## Akrasia (Jul 18, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> ...
> Sure, you could play it without minis, but I don't think that was really any harder or easier on play than later editions. ...




Having DMed many different editions of D&D, I can say that it is _much, much, much_ easier to run OD&D (or its 'retro-clone', _Swords & Wizardry_) without minis than it is to run 3e or 4e.

I ran two 3e campaigns and, except for the most simple combats, I could not run combats without minis and battle mats (or equivalent).  That simply has _not_ been the case in my OD&D games.

Many other gamers report exactly the same experience (including, apparently, Jonathan Tweet).


----------



## Treebore (Jul 18, 2009)

Akrasia said:


> Having DMed many different editions of D&D, I can say that it is _much, much, much_ easier to run OD&D (or its 'retro-clone', _Swords & Wizardry_) without minis than it is to run 3e or 4e.
> 
> I ran two 3e campaigns and, except for the most simple combats, I could not run combats without minis and battle mats (or equivalent).  That simply has _not_ been the case in my OD&D games.
> 
> Many other gamers report exactly the same experience (including, apparently, Jonathan Tweet).





Yeah, in 3E and 4E if you are playing btb you are using mini's. If your willing to play "loosely" or "close enough" then you can get away with not using mini's.

In 2E and prior I do not remember having to use mini's to be sure we were following the rules. Maybe we did. I only remember liking to use mini's to be sure of who was and was not within the AoE of the various spells, but I also remember just guessing.


----------



## Primal (Jul 18, 2009)

Wasn't Tweet part of the 4E Design Team as well. Until he got laid off, which was (IIRC) around last Christmas.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 19, 2009)

Having looked at Swords and Wizardry after a friend suggested it for a summer campaign, I have to agree with Tweet. I'm an old fart, so I played OD&D back in the day, and this really is a pretty good update for those rules, keeping a lot of the quirky parts of the old game in place.

My take on these old school games isn't so much that it's nostalgia that is influencing them, but rather the desire to return to a game that runs largely by GM houserules and fiat. Before anyone gets excited, that's *not *a bad thing in my mind.

I used to play a lot of the Amber Diceless RPG, and that taught me a lot about running games like OD&D and these retro clones, basically because Amber is pretty much all fiat. In the hands of a good GM there's nothing better, but in the hands of an average or poor GM, *look out*!

So that's what I think is largely the interest behind Swords and Wizardry: a history of good GMing. A game like 3x or 4E with so many rules can survive a mediocre or poor GM much better than these games, because the group has a common framework to understand how things work. Want to know how your character might climb a cliff? In 3x onward, you know it's going to be a skill check (climb or athletics). In earlier editions, it might be anything from "make a strength check on a D20" to "if you aren't a thief, you can't).

Obviously deciding how those rules work largely determines whether or not you're going to have a good experience with the game. That's why I say that retro games have their audience largely based on the quality of the GM. If you have a GM that says "no, you can't" all the time, are you going to enjoy an old-school game? Likely not.

--Steve


----------



## stuart (Jul 19, 2009)

rogueattorney said:


> In the original rules the only game effect that a high strength, intelligence or wisdom would give you is the bonus/penalty to experience.  There was no other mechanical effect in the rules.  It was how the game modeled a strong person being a better fighter, etc.  All the ability bonuses and adjustments from Str, Int, and Wis were added in later supplements and editions.
> 
> Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma, which didn't effect xp at all, did have various mechanical game effects.




That's interesting. I'm certainly not an expert on OD&D... 

In Basic D&D (Moldvay or Mentzer) you still get those xp bonuses... but you ALSO get bonuses for the high stats.  I think it makes more sense in the original rules then like you're describing. There's no reason to give someone a bonus to their dice rolls AND to their xp rewards for making good dice rolls... all based on being lucky during character generation.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 19, 2009)

Actually, the original XP modifiers and the later modifiers to other things have just the _same_ reason. One can indeed get ahead by trying harder, but not having to try so hard in the first place also makes a difference. The muscular tend from the start to be better fighters, the intellectual better magic-users. That's the "simulation" reason, anyway.

The "game" reason is that it's like being dealt a hand of cards. You've got the same chances in the deal as everyone else, and the same opportunity to play well or poorly (which, along with the other chance factors along the way, really determines the outcome).

Character mortality is a significant factor here, along with the variable development of multiple characters in any case in a wide-open campaign. If you take for granted that both Mighty Mike and Average Joe are going to be rubbing shoulders session after session, advancing in lockstep until both reach 20th or 36th (or whatever) level ... then an initial disparity is understandably odious. Where's the New Deal?

The problem arises because that's _not how the game was designed to be played_.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 19, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> True and for the same reason I think that balancing tough classes with the requirement of high ability scores is also a very poor mechanic. It doesn't balance the classes, it just makes them rarer*, but when a qualifying character is finally rolled he is doubly rewarded.




I believe that assuming that the high stat requirements balances the class powers is a faulty assumption. It does what you suggest it does - it makes them rarer, not just among game groups that actually adhere to the character generation rules, but also in the game world.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 19, 2009)

billd91 said:


> I believe that assuming that the high stat requirements balances the class powers is a faulty assumption. It does what you suggest it does - it makes them rarer, not just among game groups that actually adhere to the character generation rules, but also in the game world.



Well, I've seen people argue that the stats requirement are a balancing mechanism.

Furthermore, many DM's will allow players to choose the class to play and will do the same when creating NPCs... first pick a class and then build the character (see for examples the followers tables or the tables for encounters in the AD&D DMG).


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 19, 2009)

Gentlegamer said:


> Thief has a 15% chance to _automatically _disarm a trap. Disarming a trap is always available by descriptive action . . . by the player of any class.




Are you talking about in S&W or the OD&D rules? Because if it's the last, I'll say something I've never said before: Cite.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 19, 2009)

WayneLigon said:


> Are you talking about in S&W or the OD&D rules? Because if it's the last, I'll say something I've never said before: Cite.



Cite what?


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jul 20, 2009)

Originally Posted by ExploderWizard:

This tells me that despite all the history and game design knowledge that Mr. Tweet has, he really doesn't understand old school gaming.



Doodles said:


> *nod* Basically.




Well, perhaps it´s for the best. Otherwise he would have written an old-school game and not Over the Edge.


----------



## Mythmere1 (Jul 20, 2009)

I've made my comments on JT's blog, mainly focusing on the fact that Swords & Wizardry/0e is a free-form game with different design principles from those of the later editions. You can only judge a game based on whether it hits the target it's aiming for (and then you can, of course, still decide you hate it or love it - understanding a game is not the same as enjoying playing it).

Along those lines, I tend to ignore people who criticize S&W or any older edition based on "imbalance," but I sit up and pay attention to the poster when he's talking about "DM Fiat."  The first is someone who probably (and only probably) hasn't grasped the difference between the two design principles. The DM Fiat guy, on the other hand, is speaking to the real difference between the two games, and probably has something meaningful to say.

My only real objection to JT's post (other than the fact he didn't really "IMO" it) was where he ascribed a motive to me that wasn't there. I included parallel rules for ascending AC for the purpose of broader compatibility, not because I consider it "better." I do actually use ascending AC, but I'm just about even-up on my preference between the two methods. Each has pluses and minuses.


----------



## Maggan (Jul 20, 2009)

Mythmere1 said:


> (other than the fact he didn't really "IMO" it)




Is that really neccessary on a personal blog? I read peoples' blogs to get their opinions about stuff, so the "IMO" seems redundant to me.

/M


----------



## Mythmere1 (Jul 20, 2009)

Maggan said:


> Is that really neccessary on a personal blog? I read peoples' blogs to get their opinions about stuff, so the "IMO" seems redundant to me.
> 
> /M




No, it isn't necessary at all, as you say - what I meant is that if his comments were made as "objective truths," I'd have more to say in response, about game theory, blahblahblah. Since I assume there's an implied "IMO," I don't.  Although I think bloggers sort of should make that distinction, because those are two very distinct types of commentaries, those focusing on the objective, and those focusing on the author's preferences.

Since it's clear that JT enjoyed the game, I took the whole post as an IMO.

By the way, since I've had the good luck to be mentioned in a big thread:

*Swords & Wizardry is nominated for an ENnie as Best Free Product.  *

Check it out at Swords & Wizardry - Lulu.com

Obviously, given the category, the pdf is free.


----------



## scourger (Jul 21, 2009)

Tweet understands old school gaming.  Check out Omega World d20.  It is a brilliantly succint homage to Gamma World using the 3e rules.


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 21, 2009)

Tweet understands old school gaming, but his flavor preference is quite different than that of most people with active nostalgia for previous editions. He's a good designer, but to me, he will always be the guy who wrote the worst edition of Talislanta.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jul 21, 2009)

Dude. You´re not supposed to mention the N word when referring to old-school gaming!


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 21, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> Dude. You´re not supposed to mention the N word when referring to old-school gaming!



I almost wrote a post making exactly that joke, but then I decided I shouldn't, and now I wish I did...


----------



## Solomoriah (Jul 21, 2009)

Hussar said:


> In other words, the old modules shouldn't say X characters of Y to Z level, but rather, X characters of Y XP, presuming of course, that the game actually does balance that way, which I'm not sure that it does.



Doesn't matter if it does, as, in classic games, purely mathematical balance is not necessary.

But just a point about your assumption:  Given that, up to 9th level, classic thieves tend to need about half the XP of fighters, and given that XP requirements approximately double each level, a thief will lead a fighter by only a single level most of the time.



Jan van Leyden said:


> Oh yes! From a design perspective it sure is. At the beginning of the campaign, a player selects his character's class - if the DM doesn't enforce the roll 3d6 six times, right down the values in the order given on the character sheet and see which class you might select - and is stuck with it for the life of this character. The campaign may run a long time, but the player has no chance to correct his decision. This is an example of extremely bad design!



Old school is, in part, about making choices that matter.  A "bad" choice of class IS (relatively) permanent... if it were not, the choice would not have mattered.

When all classes and races are perfectly mathematically balanced, and in combat a magic-user, fighter, cleric, sorceror, thief, etc. all have about the same effectiveness (at a given level or XP total), then the choice of class _did not matter._  But in a proper old-school game like S&W, you have choices that matter.  So you're playing a 1st level magic-user, and your spell for the day is Sleep.  Do you use it on the two goblin guards, or save it for a later fight where you might need it more?  See, the choice matters.



ExploderWizard said:


> I find it difficult to believe that someone involved in the design of a system as math intensive as 3E has a problem calculating a 5% bonus to earned experience but sees nothing wrong with stacking bonuses from many sources and recalculating these multiple times during combat as buffs are applied and dispelled.



Indeed.  XP bonuses are applied out-of-play; nobody is waiting for you to get the math done.  But ever-changing combat bonuses slow every round of combat.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 21, 2009)

> Old school is, in part, about making choices that matter. A "bad" choice of class IS (relatively) permanent... if it were not, the choice would not have mattered.



Intentionally bad class choices are only interesting the first time. Afterwards, you learned your thing and never pick the class again. Creating an entire class for that seems a waste of space and time. 

Choices matter in all RPGs I have encountered. It is not an old school thing.


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 21, 2009)

Solomoriah said:


> When all classes and races are perfectly mathematically balanced, and in combat a magic-user, fighter, cleric, sorceror, thief, etc. all have about the same effectiveness (at a given level or XP total), then the choice of class _did not matter._



That's a very interesting theory.

If I choose between pizza and chinese, and I like both pizza and chinese, my choice did not matter.

But if I choose between pizza and gravel, and I like pizza but do not particularly like gravel, then my choice mattered.

Interesting theory.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 21, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Creating an entire class for that seems a waste of space and time.



Right. From a game design perspective, it's nonsensical.



> Choices matter in all RPGs I have encountered.



The choice should be _how_ a character contributes (something mechanical) to the game, not _if_ the character can contribute (something mechanical). 

Sure, a PC, regardless of class, is always free to contribute an idea, a plan, a piece of clever role-playing. But this doesn't justify a rule system giving one class 10 effective mechanical abilities and another class 1 (or none). 

Suggesting that ineffective class options reflect some deeper purpose, like 'teaching' players to never play them more than once, sounds like bad apologetics. A brilliant, nay _revolutionary_ game can still have design flaws that become evident through years of hindsight.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 21, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> If I choose between pizza and chinese, and I like both pizza and chinese, my choice did not matter.



If I choose between marrying Helen or marrying Fiona my choice didn't matter - they're both fine girls!


----------



## Mallus (Jul 21, 2009)

Maggan said:


> II read peoples' blogs to get their opinions about stuff, so the "IMO" seems redundant to me.



Me too. I have no desire to read anything prefaced by a freight of qualifications, weasel words, and things like "I think, in my opinion, which might be daft, fairly sure of it in fact, absolutely not being objective here, etc..."

I just assume any discussion that's not about simple, agreed-upon maths is less than completely objective.


----------



## Solomoriah (Jul 21, 2009)

I think you're missing the point here.  In an adventure, the thief is supposed to sneak around, picking locks, disarming traps, scouting, etc.  The fighter fights.  The cleric can fight, or heal, or turn undead.  The magic-user casts spells.  Often, the magic-user character is the mapper.

When I quoted "bad" above, I meant a bad choice for the player.  No class is a bad choice overall, but not all classes are good choices for all players.  I have a player who just can't play a cleric, and another who always plays one.  In any given in-game situation, some characters will have an advantage and others may not; may, in fact, be at a disadvantage.  But in another situation, the roles will be rearranged.

This is a weakness of later editions, that treat the game as one big fight after another.  Heck, we do a lot of mayhem in my game, but that's not all we do.  When all you see are the fights, naturally you want all characters to have a "fair" chance in a fight; you don't look elsewhere.  When more happens in the game than just fighting, and indeed all fights don't look alike mechanically, the choices make more of difference.

Honestly.  In S&W (or BFRPG, being my own game), you can create a character in 20 minutes, tops.  So you rolled one, and played a session or two, and you don't like it?  Create another, and retire the first.  Even if your DM is really tough and doesn't let you keep some fraction of your XP, starting from scratch after a session or two is no big deal.

I've never seen a player play a character to 3rd or higher level and then choose to dump it.  Never.  So honestly, you'll find out the character is a stinker well before you're much "behind" the other players.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 21, 2009)

Solomoriah said:


> I think you're missing the point here.  In an adventure, the thief is supposed to sneak around, picking locks, disarming traps, scouting, etc.  The fighter fights.  The cleric can fight, or heal, or turn undead.  The magic-user casts spells.  Often, the magic-user character is the mapper.
> 
> When I quoted "bad" above, I meant a bad choice for the player.  No class is a bad choice overall, but not all classes are good choices for all players.  I have a player who just can't play a cleric, and another who always plays one.  In any given in-game situation, some characters will have an advantage and others may not; may, in fact, be at a disadvantage.  But in another situation, the roles will be rearranged.
> 
> ...



So you didn't mean what you wrote, but something different. Well, it happens to the best of us. 

Players have different classes that "fit" to them better, that is certainly true. But that doesn't change anything regarding class balance. If a Wizard can out-rogue a rogue or out-fight a fighter, that is still a problem. It's not like the player is ill-suited to play a rogue, it is just that a rogue is just not the best of the job he is supposed to perform.

It is also problematic if a classes "shtick" can easily be ignored (be it because you never use the situations it come up, or because you don't use the rules to guide the success of the related activities.) 

It is typically exemplary in combat. Fancy descriptions won't kill the dragon, making attacks that hit and deal damage is required. 
It is handled differently with traps or social scenarios or wilderness travel and similar stuff. Sometimes it's just enough to use fancy descriptions in these scenario.
I think that would be okay if you allowed it equally for every type of scenario, but that doesn't happen in most D&D (or any RPG) games. And that naturally requires people to be mechanically good at the stuff that is resolved using mechanics, else their character cannot contribute in those scenarios, while those that have mechanically good characters can still contribute anywhere else.


----------



## HywayWolf (Jul 21, 2009)

I know many of you may not understand why I enjoyed playing a 3 hp 1st level thief who never drew his sword in combat for the entire first level.  But I did and he lived despite the heavy losses the rest of the party have taken so far.  It helped that he had a high dex, but I wouldn't play a thief that wasn't better at range and jumping out of the way of trouble than the meat shields that grunt loudly as they kick open doors.  (Doors that I flatly refused to attempt to pick the locks on  Mama might have raised a criminal, but she didn't raise a stupid one)  I was always the first up and over a ledge, or down a hole, or through a creepy crawley place.  But put a big ugly beast in front of me, you can bet I was finding away to get behind the beefcakes and/or finding a safe place to range that had a nice exit point behind me.

I don't really care about what mechanics do what, I just want to go adventuring.  And if I die, like has happened to me 3 times in the last two gaming nights in another game (where I am not playing a cowardly braggart of a thief), then I just role em up again and start over hoping that I can amass enough money, or goodwill with the church, to afford a resurrection if my soon to be 4th level thief meets his demise.


----------



## HywayWolf (Jul 21, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So you didn't mean what you wrote, but something different. Well, it happens to the best of us.
> 
> snip.




I understood what he wrote.  I even understood what he wrote when he corrected your misunderstanding of what he wrote.  Even more, I understand that if you still misunderstand what he wrote then its because you are just being antagonistic and not really interested in rational discussion.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 21, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So you didn't mean what you wrote, but something different. Well, it happens to the best of us.
> 
> Players have different classes that "fit" to them better, that is certainly true. But that doesn't change anything regarding class balance. If a Wizard can out-rogue a rogue or out-fight a fighter, that is still a problem. It's not like the player is ill-suited to play a rogue, it is just that a rogue is just not the best of the job he is supposed to perform.
> 
> ...




Balance can be achieved by the gaming group assuming it is even desired. Balance dictated by a rulebook on a per round basis can be useful for some groups, but for many such forced balance clogs up the flow of the game and makes the classes play too similar to one another. 

As far as meaningful choices about class, I don't recall magic users that would often out-thief the thief. Magical items that could simulate such activity certainly existed, but the old magic user wasn't buying wands of knock by the armload like the 3E wizard could. Spell slots were precious and loading up on enough thief skill magic for an adventure left the magic user sorely lacking in other areas. In a world without the Wands and Scrolls R Us stores the magic user did a lot less toe stepping. 

Who says fancy descriptions won't kill the dragon? The PC's have a  problem with a nasty red dragon. They could charge in and just fight it or they could come up with a plan. Sneak in and steal the mother's egg while she is out hunting. Infiltrate the lair of a group of fire giants and hide the egg. Let the giants kill the dragon when she comes for her egg. Profit.

Clever ideas can often save the day.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 21, 2009)

The "jack of all trades" (and master of fighting) is a staple of RuneQuest, but D&D was designed with distinctively different types -- different, but complimentary, capabilities and strategies.

Yes, it was designed as a strategic game. It is certainly possible to play a series of disconnected scenarios, but it is in the campaign that one experiences the game as a whole.

Adventures into the underworld are usually the most remunerative per game-week, but an expedition into the wilderness may be occasioned by various purposes -- including the plundering of less frequented dungeons.

While Cat is healing, Mouse can be stealing. The deeper one delves, the greater both risk and reward. Reconnaissance pays dividends over wandering aimlessly. The _right_ spell judiciously cast can yield more than a dozen supposedly more "powerful" ones carelessly deployed. Henchmen and hirelings help those who cultivate them. Dead men may tell tales, but they gain no XP ...

There are many, many things to consider and prioritize, to deal with either adroitly or clumsily. The hand of chance plays a role that skill seeks to minimize.

In short, their initial states little predict which characters shall long survive, much less which shall by any other measure be counted far down the line as "winners" or "losers". Some choices are more conservative, while the magic-user is a gamble offering a big payoff for those who play it well and with luck.

The odds are rather against any particular character having a long career, though, if started at 1st level. Playing the same one every session is putting all your eggs in one basket; rotation among a "bullpen", on the other hand, means slower advancement for each (thereby remaining longer in the "kill zone" of low levels).

All of this and more combines to make simplistic assessments of "poor balance" poorly reasoned.


----------



## Solomoriah (Jul 21, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Clever ideas can often save the day.



Indeed, and clever ideas are FAR more interesting than cool feats or fancy magic items.

Because ANYONE can have a cool feat, or a fancy magic item.  But a clever idea?  Priceless.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> If a Wizard can out-rogue a rogue or out-fight a fighter, that is still a problem. It's not like the player is ill-suited to play a rogue, it is just that a rogue is just not the best of the job he is supposed to perform.



Not sure how this would ever happen.

Oh, I could be nasty to a thief player, by seeing to it that the magic-user ended up with elven cloak and boots, gauntlets of climbing, and a wand full of knock spells.  But in general, your statement is false for the games I play.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 21, 2009)

Solomoriah said:


> Indeed, and clever ideas are FAR more interesting than cool feats or fancy magic items.
> 
> Because ANYONE can have a cool feat, or a fancy magic item.  But a clever idea?  Priceless.



This is absolutely true...

... but it's also irrelevant in a discussion of class balance. It's not a compelling reason to distribute useful mechanical descriptors/perks/abilities unevenly across the character classes.

"Say, this class doesn't get a lot of cool things to do"
"Well, you can always try having a good idea."

Why is this good design, again?

Let me trot out my all-purpose Party Analogy. It's true that a person can have fun at a party without drinking alcohol. Solely through sparkling conversation, for example. This does not mean a good host should randomly decide to serve some guests wine and others tap water.


----------



## Solomoriah (Jul 21, 2009)

Mallus said:


> "Say, this class doesn't get a lot of cool things to do"
> "Well, you can always try having a good idea."
> 
> Why is this good design, again?



Um... in S&W, and BFRPG, and LL:

Fighters fight,
Magic-users cast spells,
Clerics fight some, and cast spells some, and generally provide support to the party, and
Thieves sneak around and steal things, and sometimes apply a cowardly poke in the back.

In terms of the number of different things the standard classes do, the thieves are actually ahead of the fighters and magic-users.  So are clerics, a class I find not many people prefer to play (at least, hereabouts).

But anyone can have a good idea.

Lots of hard-and-fast rules, with details for every possible situation, leaves the players needing to consult the rulebooks to decide what they want to try, and the GM doing the same to see if they can do it.  Relatively few, very simple rules allow the GM and players to look beyond the rules and think in terms of the characters.  My ideal game would provide excellent simulation of fantastic reality with the rules largely invisible to the players.  Of course, that's not possible, so I settle for the best I can get.

If you are offended by "DM Fiat" then you won't like these games.  If you are in love with lots of detailed, named and numbered options (feats, etc.) then you won't like them either. 

But if you like a game that plays FAST and needs little preparation time for the GM, then these might be the games for you.



Mallus said:


> Let me trot out my all-purpose Party Analogy. It's true that a person can have fun at a party without drinking alcohol. Solely through sparkling conversation, for example. This does not mean a good host should randomly decide to serve some guests wine and others tap water.



See, here it is again.  It seems that you think that classic games treat some characters better than others.  I disagree.  What it comes down to is this:  In some situations, some classes or races have advantages over others; but they pay for those advantages with disadvantages in other situations.  The "balance" is not mechanically precise, because _outside of combat,_ it appears impossible to make the balance mechanically precise.  There is no good metric for determining if game balance is "correct" in all non-combat situations.  For this reason, modern games tend to focus on balancing combat while ignoring the other situations.  But this leads to a combat focus in the mechanics that I don't really like all that much, and further, it leads to homogenizing the classes so that the choice of class really doesn't matter, balance-wise.

For a choice to matter, there have to be both good and bad consequences regardless of the decision, and the player must choose which set of good and bad he or she will accept.  How you deal with limitation is as important as how you deal with capability.

...

One of the things that really amazes me in modern games is how players will sit down and spend a mess of time generating a first level character... and _know in advance what that character will look like at level 20._  Egad.  Where's the fun in that?

The first campaign I ever ran had two thieves as the core PCs.  Yes, thieves, that much-maligned class.  They stole and fought and slunk through a number of adventures, collecting comrades and discarding them again (or losing them outright to the scythe of the reaper) until they somehow became heros.  In the process, they died a few times, but never both at once (so there was always one to pay to raise the other).  Then came the day when one was slain by a sea dragon, and too little remained to raise.  So he was reincarnated... as a halfling.  (In BX, which we played back then, a halfling was effectively just a kind of fighter.)  He paid a magic-user (the same one who reincarnated him, if I recall rightly) to Polymorph him back to a human.  Of course, he had to worry about Dispel Magic from then on.  But that lowly thief became a renowned warrior and eventually a king.  His thiefly associate remained with him until the very end of the campaign.

They had no idea when they started where they would end up.  No "career planning" there.  And we really did prefer it that way... still do.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 22, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Who says fancy descriptions won't kill the dragon?



IME, usually the DM.



			
				ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> Clever ideas can often save the day.



Yes, if the DM decides to adjudicate it that way. All too often, I've found, old-school DMs tend to be of the mind that "If I didn't think of it, it's not clever enough to work". So for this kind of gameplay to work, the players can't just come up with ANY clever idea. They have to come up with the clever idea that the DM already thought up to get around his insurmountable-by-combat challenge.

I have been fortunate enough to play with two DMs, in about 30 years of gaming, who really did a good job running a heavy fiat game where player ingenuity was greatly rewarded (or thwarted in entertaining fashion). But that's 2 out of around 30-40 DMs.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 22, 2009)

Ourph said:


> IME, usually the DM.
> 
> 
> Yes, if the DM decides to adjudicate it that way. All too often, I've found, old-school DMs tend to be of the mind that "If I didn't think of it, it's not clever enough to work". So for this kind of gameplay to work, the players can't just come up with ANY clever idea. They have to come up with the clever idea that the DM already thought up to get around his insurmountable-by-combat challenge.
> ...




I'm sorry you had to play with such crappy DM's.


----------



## HywayWolf (Jul 22, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I'm sorry you had to play with such crappy DM's.






Ourph said:


> IME, usually the DM.
> 
> 
> Yes, if the DM decides to adjudicate it that way. All too often, I've found, old-school DMs tend to be of the mind that "If I didn't think of it, it's not clever enough to work". So for this kind of gameplay to work, the players can't just come up with ANY clever idea. They have to come up with the clever idea that the DM already thought up to get around his insurmountable-by-combat challenge.
> ...




Since the proportion of good DMs to bad DMs is out of sync with the actual success of the game, is it possible that the game works for many people even with average DMs, but just not for you?


----------



## Solomoriah (Jul 22, 2009)

Go easy on him, Hyway.  Bad GMs are probably the number one reason old-school games die.

I think I've been pretty good at it for some time, but I know I got better as a result of many conversations on Dragonsfoot and other forums.  DM Fiat got a bad name as a result of many maladjusted DM's.  Of course, there is probably a similar percentage of maladjusted players.

You have to want to learn to be better before you get better (and you have to accept that you aren't perfect before you will want to be better... so many DM's can't accept that they aren't the best there is).


... oh, yeah.  Tommy is talking to Simon ...


----------



## Ourph (Jul 22, 2009)

HywayWolf said:


> Its possible that you are a statistical anomaly, but usually numbers like that would indicate the problem didn't lie with the DMs.



Implied insults aside, you're absolutely right. The problems weren't with the DMs (who were great DMs in many other ways) it's that the heavy DM fiat style of gaming requires a charismatic, witty, mature, outgoing, confident DM who isn't preoccupied by thoughts of work, upcoming tests, relationship problems, children or a hangover in order to be done well. And that type of DM just doesn't come along very often. It's a great game when all of those things come together, but campaigns like that (again, IME) are catching lightning in a bottle. Even the same DM might not be able to pull it off on a weekly basis.


----------



## Solomoriah (Jul 22, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Even the same DM might not be able to pull it off on a weekly basis.



Some game sessions go better than others, but really, it isn't that hard.  Not if you are running a low-maintenance game like S&W, LL, or BFRPG.  I spend an hour or so per four hour session getting ready to game, and as far as being distracted... this is how I relax, so no big thing.


----------



## HywayWolf (Jul 22, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Implied insults aside, you're absolutely right. The problems weren't with the DMs (who were great DMs in many other ways) it's that the heavy DM fiat style of gaming requires a charismatic, witty, mature, outgoing, confident DM who isn't preoccupied by thoughts of work, upcoming tests, relationship problems, children or a hangover in order to be done well. And that type of DM just doesn't come along very often. It's a great game when all of those things come together, but campaigns like that (again, IME) are catching lightning in a bottle. Even the same DM might not be able to pull it off on a weekly basis.




I'm not going to say that it wasn't meant as an insult, I'll just say that I was being frank.  BITD D&D was played by millions of kids who had no clue what it took to be a DM yet the game flourished.  So given that you could only find 2 out of 30-40 DMs that ran games the way you wanted means it is more likely that you yourself weren't a good fit for the game, not that the 30-40 DM that didn't meet your standards weren't a good fit for the game.

Nothing wrong with that.  That is the reason that there are more RPG games out there than anyone has shelf space enough to hold them.  It doesn't mean the game only works with expert and charismatic DMs, it just means it didn't work for you.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 22, 2009)

HywayWolf said:


> I'm not going to say that it wasn't meant as an insult, I'll just say that I was being frank.  BITD D&D was played by millions of kids who had no clue what it took to be a DM yet the game flourished.  So given that you could only find 2 out of 30-40 DMs that ran games the way you wanted means it is more likely that you yourself weren't a good fit for the game, not that the 30-40 DM that didn't meet your standards weren't a good fit for the game.



Given that those DMs cover nearly 30 years of gaming and a pretty wide age-range, qualifiers like "BITD" and "kids" don't really apply. Also given that B/X D&D is one of my favorite RPGs (and one that I still play on a semi-regular basis), the "you weren't a good fit for the game" doesn't really apply either.

I like a good DM-fiat heavy game, with the emphasis on GOOD. Most DMs (even the ones who think they are good at this form of gaming) aren't very good at it. Unfortunately, the same set of skills necessary to make such a game work are also the skills necessary to self-evaluate one's performance, so the mediocre DMs are also mediocre at knowing they're mediocre. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with that style of gaming. It's just not as easy to pull off successfully as a lot of people try to make it out to be.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 22, 2009)

I agree that a looser approach can be horrible when one depending more on the interest provided by manipulating rigid rules might be but mediocre. One thing I would observe is that, when so much depends on participant quality, it can help if the burden is shared.

As a DM, I am mindful that not everything needs to be kept from the players' purview. Often, a situation by its nature has nothing pertinent withheld; the players are in as good a position as I am to consider how it ought to be adjudicated. Their bias toward their characters can be partly offset by (among other things) the principle that rules will be applied even-handedly; what's good for them is good for the monsters, too! Keeping as much as possible above board, showing the degree to which the DM's rulings meet with the wider consensus, helps to build trust for the occasions when trust is necessary.

As a player, I appreciate being able to keep "in the shoes of" my character as much as possible; it's the referee's job to handle rules. However, I also like knowing that the DM is fair rather than fudging, and I prefer the open consideration of controversial questions to cryptic judgments from "on high".


----------



## HywayWolf (Jul 22, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Implied insults aside, you're absolutely right. The problems weren't with the DMs (who were great DMs in many other ways) it's that the heavy DM fiat style of gaming requires a charismatic, witty, mature, outgoing, confident DM who isn't preoccupied by thoughts of work, upcoming tests, relationship problems, children or a hangover in order to be done well. And that type of DM just doesn't come along very often. It's a great game when all of those things come together, but campaigns like that (again, IME) are catching lightning in a bottle. Even the same DM might not be able to pull it off on a weekly basis.






Ourph said:


> Given that those DMs cover nearly 30 years of gaming and a pretty wide age-range, qualifiers like "BITD" and "kids" don't really apply. Also given that B/X D&D is one of my favorite RPGs (and one that I still play on a semi-regular basis), the "you weren't a good fit for the game" doesn't really apply either.
> 
> I like a good DM-fiat heavy game, with the emphasis on GOOD. Most DMs (even the ones who think they are good at this form of gaming) aren't very good at it. Unfortunately, the same set of skills necessary to make such a game work are also the skills necessary to self-evaluate one's performance, so the mediocre DMs are also mediocre at knowing they're mediocre. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with that style of gaming. It's just not as easy to pull off successfully as a lot of people try to make it out to be.




The game worked well enough with mostly less than stellar DMs to spawn an entire industry so my position is that it ios very easy to pull off that style successfully..

I don't have a lot of experience with 3.5 and 4e but I have played them and/or watched others play them.  From my brief experiences I would much rather play in a DM Fiat game with a less than stellar DM than in a rules heavy game with a less than stellar DM and players who think they know more than the DM.  Just my druthers.  3.5 and 4e don't work for me, and retro works for you when you have the particular style of DM you like.


----------



## sinecure (Jul 22, 2009)

Given his comments about "improvements" that could be made for OD&D, I don't think Mr. Tweet knows very much about old school game design philosophy.  His examples of poor game design are actually "better" designs than the new stuff when old school play purposes are understood.  I put better in quotes as better is always dependent upon the goal.  To a good engineer a flower pot makes a lousy hammer.  

This is in no way meant to impugn Mr. Tweet's long, successful, and proven ability to engineer new school games, ones adhering to a different design purpose and therefore theory.  And it's not like OD&D & AD&D game design rationales were very scrutable either.  At least not to many outside of Gygax and perhaps a handful of other fellow designers.  Heaven knows later TSR designers seemed to make rules without understanding much at all about old school rationales after Gary left. But c'mon, he's suggesting the game was designed in order to tell stories.  That's a red flag right there.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 22, 2009)

HywayWolf said:


> I understood what he wrote.  I even understood what he wrote when he corrected your misunderstanding of what he wrote.




Aside from that, you seem to have identified a problem, but can you fix it?



> Even more, I understand that if you still misunderstand what he wrote then its because you are just being antagonistic and not really interested in rational discussion.




Antagonistic? I show you antagonistic!
[sblock]
http://images.google.de/images?hl=de&q=antagonistic&btnG=Bilder-Suche&gbv=2&aq=f&oq=





I really had no idea it was also a medical term. 




[/sblock]


----------



## HywayWolf (Jul 22, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Aside from that, you seem to have identified a problem, but can you fix it?




Can I fix your misunderstanding or fix what you consider imbalanced player classes?  Solomoriah made two pretty good posts on why he doesn't think that is a bad game design, I would assume you could understand what he is saying yet still disagree with him, so that will have to be up to you.

But if you mean can I fix the problem of imbalanced classes, then yes I can fix it.  The solution is, there is no problem.  So, problem fixed.  I like to play thieves.  They are the one class that has the most room for stepping outside its role.  Fighters fight ... no one would put up with a fighter that wouldn't be first through the door.  They can be as eccentric as they want, but when the excrement hits the rotary they better be standing like meat shields between the trouble and the weaker members.  Clerics heal and clerics turn undead.  No one will tolerate a cleric that was afraid of the undead.  But a thief can be brave, a thief can be cowardly, a thief can be a braggart, a thief can throw himself into melee or he can slink around looking for a dastardly stab in the back.  A thief can be any of those things and the other party members just shrug it off because thats how it is ... you just never let that damn thief out of sight.  

Another thing about character and game balance, in retro it isn't important.  If you see something you can't handle, just remember that Running is a game mechanic to.




> Antagonistic? I show you antagonistic!
> [sblock]
> antagonistic - Google Bilder
> 
> ...




I like it, but when I find out who disclosed our guild recognition signal to you they'll be doing penance.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 22, 2009)

HywayWolf said:


> and retro only works for you when you have the particular style of DM you like.



I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 22, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Given that those DMs cover nearly 30 years of gaming and a pretty wide age-range, qualifiers like "BITD" and "kids" don't really apply. Also given that B/X D&D is one of my favorite RPGs (and one that I still play on a semi-regular basis), the "you weren't a good fit for the game" doesn't really apply either.
> 
> I like a good DM-fiat heavy game, with the emphasis on GOOD. Most DMs (even the ones who think they are good at this form of gaming) aren't very good at it. Unfortunately, the same set of skills necessary to make such a game work are also the skills necessary to self-evaluate one's performance, so the mediocre DMs are also mediocre at knowing they're mediocre. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with that style of gaming. It's just not as easy to pull off successfully as a lot of people try to make it out to be.



For what it's worth, I'll echo your experiences, given that we appear to have similar gaming histories. A good GM makes all the difference in a fiat heavy game, because the weight of the game rests almost entirely on their shoulders.

I was lucky enough to play OD&D with Gary once (I was just a kid at the time, and didn't realize I was playing with the guy who started it all!), and he was a fantastic improv GM. When I hear stories about his games, I can only imagine how much fun they must have been. Similarly, I played in an Amber diceless game run by Erick Wujcik, and it was fantastic. From what I've experienced on ENWorld, there are a number of GMs who post here who run a game at that level of awesome as well.

Most games I played with either of these systems were not blessed by GMs of that kind of skill, which was rather the problem. As you say, if you're a mediocre GM, it's unlikely that you're going to self-assess yourself that way.

There's a lot that a GM needs to do in order to run a fiat heavy game well, and much of it starts with game theory. Reading a game like Amber or Burning Wheel or Dogs in the Vineyard can be a good start (I'd say "say yes or roll the dice" is the best piece of advice for a rules light game you can read, even if you disagree with it!) The question is, how many GMs who run old-school games take the time to really think about or study GM how-tos?

In any case, if I had to play a game with a mediocre GM, which we all have to sometimes, I'd much rather it be with a rules system that was better defined, since there will be more of a superstructure for them to rest on.

--Steve


----------



## HywayWolf (Jul 22, 2009)

Ourph said:


> I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.




If that's not what you meant, then I apologize.  But out of 30-40 DMs you only consider 2 of them to be up to meeting the challenge of old school gaming in the manner that you think they should be to make DM Fiat work. So I concluded you wouldn't like playing old school D&D if the DM wasn't up to your standards of what makes DM Fiat work.


----------



## Mythmere1 (Jul 22, 2009)

I definitely think Swords & Wizardry is a power tool for the experienced, skilled referee. In the hands of someone really good, I think it can be used to surpass what a rules-heavier game can do, and in the hands of a referee who's narcissistic or spiteful it will create a crappier experience than the crappy experience that same ref would provide with a set of rules where the players have more "rights" established by the books.

For the referee with medium skills? I think it depends a lot on what makes him "medium." A ref who fudges rules in a 3e game might rock in a free-form game where those rules are supposed to be fudged. A ref who runs a tight ship on combat but can't come up with an evocative description to save his life would shine more in a game where complex combat is more of a centerpiece. Refs who have an involuntary tendency to come down against the players - much better in a 3e game where the numbers are established. Refs who get tripped up because they can't keep track of large combats but use them anyway - better in Swords & Wizardry. Mediocre referees tend to be mediocre in different ways.

Some referees, also, are particularly gifted in running one or the other style of game. I'm pretty darn good with Swords & Wizardry, OD&D, and Basic, a bit slow with AD&D, and only mediocre with 3e. (haven't DMed 4e at all). So that varies too - a DM who's in the groove for "his" sort of game makes a huge difference.

I don't think there's an exact one-to-one correspondence between the game system and defending the game from a bad DM. A bad DM will manage to produce a crappy game no matter what rules he's using. A good DM will produce a good game in spite of a rule system.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 22, 2009)

Solomoriah said:


> Not sure how this would ever happen.
> 
> Oh, I could be nasty to a thief player, by seeing to it that the magic-user ended up with elven cloak and boots, gauntlets of climbing, and a wand full of knock spells.  But in general, your statement is false for the games I play.




Hey Chris, first off, love your work.

But I've seen it happen. Unintentionally, and intentionally. In 2nd edition (which is where the bulk of my high-level play in OS D&D happened). 

The problem starts like this.

1.) At low levels, a wizard primarily uses his 1st and 2nd level spell slots for either major combat spells (sleep, magic missile) or live-saving buffs (mirror image). However, once 3rd and 4th level spell slots roll around, most of these low-level spells begin to "outlive" thier usefulness. HD caps are exceeded, saves are too easy for all/nothing spells, and better, longer buffs replace short buffs. Those low level spell slots become useless except for some extremely good spells (magic missile) so they become breeding ground for a new type of spell: utility magic. 

It it here, where wizards begin their career of toe-stepping. A spell like sleep might have long been outdated, but when does spider climb lose potency? If there are no good offensive magic at 2nd level, why not load up on invisibility and knock? Clerics aren't immune to this either: there are no good buff or healing magic at 2nd level so find traps and silence 15 ft, are good alternatives. At the time when the thieves skills go from "barely possible" to mostly reliable, the wizard can step in and, at a crucial juncture, change "mostly reliable" to "1000% guarenteed". I've seen it happen too often. Thieves don't become the "go to" guy for crucial scouting or lockpicking, they do clean-up work for tasks the wizard doesn't find important enough to waste his spell slots on. And (depending on your DM) if you don't have X+1 locked doors (where X = number of knock spells prepped) the thief might not even be needed for said role. 

Ironically, 3e made this WORSE. Offensive spells go obsolete a lot sooner, characters have access to more spells/day and spells/known, and cheap magic item creation is a staple (wands of knock are cheap, easy to make, 100% effective, and good for 50 uses). 

Of course, it is 100% possible to run a mage without knock or such, or who focuses on just offensive magic, divinations, or illusion, but for the most part I see a lot of mages who, after a while, don't have anything better to fill those low-level spell slots with than thief-ruiners, intentionally or not.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 22, 2009)

SteveC said:


> In any case, if I had to play a game with a mediocre GM, which we all have to sometimes, I'd much rather it be with a rules system that was better defined, since there will be more of a superstructure for them to rest on.



Great post!

I agree with what you're saying above, but I wanted to point out that I think it's entirely possible to play older versions of D&D without a heavy reliance on fiat. It's not like B/X D&D doesn't have rules for resolving actions. I've played in plenty of older D&D games where the focus wasn't on lateral-thinking or developing some Rube Goldbergian deathtrap to defeat the dragon, instead of fighting it straight up. In most cases, the PCs fight the dragon as the rules intend (with swords and spells) and B/X can handle that perfectly, no fiat required.


----------



## Solomoriah (Jul 23, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Hey Chris, first off, love your work.



Thank you!



Remathilis said:


> But I've seen it happen. Unintentionally, and intentionally. In 2nd edition (which is where the bulk of my high-level play in OS D&D happened).
> ...



I've omitted your well-reasoned example.  I do see your point; but I have to say in my games it's never been an issue.  Partly, I guess, because I had some really mean thieves... a magic-user just can't compete with a backstab for a precision kill.  What I usually see is the "buff" magic (geez, I hate that term) being applied to the thief, multiplying his already nasty ability to whack the bad guys from behind.

Remember that even high-level casters only get just so many low-level spells... the magic-user can only spider climb a few times at most, but a good thief can do it all day long.  Likewise opening locks, finding traps, etc.  The only games I've seen the thief really marginalized in have been 2E games (don't play 3.x+) where bonus spells and non-weapon proficiencies really let the non-thieves step on the thief's toes.

I don't believe it's a problem endemic to old-school, but rather to specific rulesets (and possibly even specific game groups).


----------



## Solomoriah (Jul 23, 2009)

Ourph said:


> I agree with what you're saying above, but I wanted to point out that I think it's entirely possible to play older versions of D&D without a heavy reliance on fiat. It's not like B/X D&D doesn't have rules for resolving actions. I've played in plenty of older D&D games where the focus wasn't on lateral-thinking or developing some Rube Goldbergian deathtrap to defeat the dragon, instead of fighting it straight up. In most cases, the PCs fight the dragon as the rules intend (with swords and spells) and B/X can handle that perfectly, no fiat required.



I have to say that perhaps I've overstated the case.

Old school games depend on fiat, and thus do not have a lot of detailed rules for non-combat situations; but they tend to cover combat pretty well.  I still prefer games with low crunch levels in combat, as I find they make the whole thing run faster.


----------



## Solomoriah (Jul 23, 2009)

I re-read what I wrote, and I realized that not everyone here may agree on what "DM Fiat" means.

In a game with "incomplete" rules, the DM/GM/Referee/whatever must rule on what happens in any case the rules don't cover.  This means the GM must decide on a mechanism for the situation... not that the GM should just decide what happens.

To me, "DM Fiat" means this:  "You want to do X with your sword, but it's not in the rules? I think that calls for a penalty of -4 on the die roll.  Go for it if you want!"

Or, "Dang, Joe, that sounds like a pretty tough maneuver.  I'll let you try it, though... if you can roll percentiles equal to or less than your character's Dexterity, it'll work."

A major part of my preferred style of play is to let the dice decide.  Even in my story-oriented TSGS game, I roll the dice and then interpret the results.  For instance, Joe lies to Bob.  Joe has to roll an opposed roll against Bob to decide if Bob realizes he's being lied to... and then, if he does figure it out, Joe gets another roll against Bob to see if he can tell he's been "made."  I make these rolls (not the players) and I then interpret the results for them.  But whatever the dice decide, I live with it.

Almost exposed the man behind the curtain once.  If it had, I'd have lived with it... I don't write story.  Story is what happens when the players walk in and the dice start rolling.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 23, 2009)

Solomoriah said:


> In a game with "incomplete" rules



Aren't they all?


----------



## delericho (Jul 23, 2009)

With the exception of his point about Fighters and Wizards offering a vastly different play experience (which is a feature, not a bug), I do agree with most of Tweet's points. In fact, while I frequently consider running an old-school game (using AD&D, BD&D, or one of the clones), I end up not doing so because of the rules.

In many ways, I guess what I'm looking for is an AD&D near-clone that reads and plays like the old game, and certainly isn't close to as rules-heavy as either 3e or 4e, but at the same time brings in the genuine improvements that modern designs offer (such as ascending AC, a unified mechanic, unified XP tables, and so on).

Of course, at the same time C&C never really grabbed me. Maybe I'm just impossible to please.


----------



## mhensley (Jul 23, 2009)

delericho said:


> In many ways, I guess what I'm looking for is an AD&D near-clone that reads and plays like the old game, and certainly isn't close to as rules-heavy as either 3e or 4e, but at the same time brings in the genuine improvements that modern designs offer (such as ascending AC, a unified mechanic, unified XP tables, and so on).




you might want to give HackMaster Basic a try...


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 23, 2009)

delericho said:


> With the exception of his point about Fighters and Wizards offering a vastly different play experience (which is a feature, not a bug), I do agree with most of Tweet's points. In fact, while I frequently consider running an old-school game (using AD&D, BD&D, or one of the clones), I end up not doing so because of the rules.
> 
> In many ways, I guess what I'm looking for is an AD&D near-clone that reads and plays like the old game, and certainly isn't close to as rules-heavy as either 3e or 4e, but at the same time brings in the genuine improvements that modern designs offer (such as ascending AC, a unified mechanic, unified XP tables, and so on).
> 
> Of course, at the same time C&C never really grabbed me. Maybe I'm just impossible to please.




Unified mechanics defeat the feel of old school play. Different game elements require a variety of ways to model them. Trying to get every element to fit in the same size box  follows the principle of having the game serve the rules which is the opposite of old school philosophy.


----------



## HywayWolf (Jul 23, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Unified mechanics defeat the feel of old school play. Different game elements require a variety of ways to model them. Trying to get every element to fit in the same size box  follows the principle of having the game serve the rules which is the opposite of old school philosophy.




I am pretty sure this was a statistical anomaly, but the first time I watched a 3.5 game in action at our local gaming store, the d20 was rolled so much that it never seemed to leave the hands of the players.  They rolled it so often that they also started rolling it to decide which direction to go when passageways intersected.  Probably not the best example of game play for an impressionable 46 year old to experience.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 23, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Trying to get every element to fit in the same size box  follows the principle of having the game serve the rules which is the opposite of old school philosophy.



Having a single defining philosophy is the opposite of old-school philosophy .

The heart of old-school gaming is DM Fiat. The rules as guidelines. (Almost) anything goes. 

Also, the HERO system games seem to do OK modeling things using common framework. Ditto M&M. And GURPS too, right??


----------



## Mallus (Jul 23, 2009)

HywayWolf said:


> Probably not the best example of game play for an impressionable 46 year old to experience.



Heh... quite a few sessions in our old World of CITY 3.5e campaign were totally dice-free (there's a Story Hour based on the campaign: 1st link in my sig -- check it out, it's clever, damn it!). 

It's not the system, it's how people choose to use it.


----------



## delericho (Jul 23, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Unified mechanics defeat the feel of old school play. Different game elements require a variety of ways to model them.




Do they, though? I'm not sure.

I do know that I have run 3e in an old-school style, and both Necromancer and Goodman have made reasonable attempts at old school feel at times. Sure, they haven't ever been fully successful in capturing the feel, but my impression that that was due to other aspects of the 3e ruleset (rigid encounter design and treasure allocation, higher power level, de-emphasis on minutae of dungeon-crawling), rather than the unified mechanic.



> Trying to get every element to fit in the same size box  follows the principle of having the game serve the rules which is the opposite of old school philosophy.




That may be true. However, I am very far from convinced that using a d20 roll-high for attack rolls and d% roll-low for skills (for example) is necessary, or a good thing at all.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 23, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Unified mechanics defeat the feel of old school play. Different game elements require a variety of ways to model them.



Does turn undead *require* being modelled differently than to hit rolls? Why can't it be d20+modifier instead of 2d6?


----------



## HywayWolf (Jul 23, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Does turn undead *require* being modeled differently than to hit rolls? Why can't it be d20+modifier instead of 2d6?




For me its because that would make the act of turning undead no different than attacking undead.  Now I am sure you will find an area where I will treat a similar action differently.  That's ok, I don't have to be rational, I am an old school player . Life isn't always rational either.


----------



## Treebore (Jul 23, 2009)

delericho said:


> With the exception of his point about Fighters and Wizards offering a vastly different play experience (which is a feature, not a bug), I do agree with most of Tweet's points. In fact, while I frequently consider running an old-school game (using AD&D, BD&D, or one of the clones), I end up not doing so because of the rules.
> 
> In many ways, I guess what I'm looking for is an AD&D near-clone that reads and plays like the old game, and certainly isn't close to as rules-heavy as either 3e or 4e, but at the same time brings in the genuine improvements that modern designs offer (such as ascending AC, a unified mechanic, unified XP tables, and so on).
> 
> Of course, at the same time C&C never really grabbed me. Maybe I'm just impossible to please.





I can only guess that its the non unified XP charts. The rules disappear into the background and it becomes all about our actions decided upon and results achieved, all with one simple mechanic with which to resolve an outcome of any type.

Yep, I am always mystified when people don't find C&C awesome. Well, not mystified, just disappointed that everyone else doesn't have the same gaming tastes and preferences I have. Oh well.

Now if only everyone would decide pistachios suck, and the prices would drop so I could afford to buy a lot more.


----------



## darjr (Jul 23, 2009)

Treebore said:


> Yep, I am always mystified when people don't find C&C awesome. Well, not mystified, just disappointed that everyone else doesn't have the same gaming tastes and preferences I have. Oh well.




I think C&C is awesome. I also think other games are awesome, I just only have time for some of them. I hate having to pick.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 24, 2009)

HywayWolf said:


> For me its because that would make the act of turning undead no different than attacking undead.  Now I am sure you will find an area where I will treat a similar action differently.  That's ok, I don't have to be rational, I am an old school player . Life isn't always rational either.



In the end, it all comes down to the probabilities and the effects you achieve. Is there really a need to have the probability curve of a 2d6 vs a probablity curve of a 1d20? 

I don't think it matters. I am definitely not a fan of different mechanics just to evoke a feel of difference. Maybe if we wanted to build a world simulator, we would need very different probability mechanics. Probably something that ensures that we have a Gaussian distributation of results with the necessary width of possible results. The method of rolling d20 + dice modifiers to determine a jump distance won't recreate realistic jump distances. 

But I don't really want a world simulator. I just want mechanics that allow me to determine probabilities of success for tasks, mechancis that allow me to resolve conflicts. The probabilities don't neccessary need to reflect a fictional reality.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 24, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> In the end, it all comes down to the probabilities and the effects you achieve. Is there really a need to have the probability curve of a 2d6 vs a probablity curve of a 1d20?




You are aware that there is no probability curve on a 1d anything right?



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I don't think it matters. I am definitely not a fan of different mechanics just to evoke a feel of difference. Maybe if we wanted to build a world simulator, we would need very different probability mechanics. Probably something that ensures that we have a Gaussian distributation of results with the necessary width of possible results. The method of rolling d20 + dice modifiers to determine a jump distance won't recreate realistic jump distances.
> 
> But I don't really want a world simulator. I just want mechanics that allow me to determine probabilities of success for tasks, mechancis that allow me to resolve conflicts. The probabilities don't neccessary need to reflect a fictional reality.




Different mechanics don't have to be used for any reasons of realism but they may come in handy for modeling certain constructs the way someone wants them to work. This isn't an attempt at realism, rather it's simply a method for designing a tool to do a specific job. A d20 plus modifiers is a useful tool but it might not fit for every single type of task resolution. 

Some people might not want to use such a quirky random method of d20 + modifiers for skill based tasks, especially if the difficulty for such tasks scales with level. Does a character really grow and improve if the odds of success at performing a given task remain the same? If the goal is to engineer a task system whereby a player needs to roll a certain raw number to succeed and to keep such odds stable over the levels then d20 + modifiers vs scaling DC's fits the bill. 

That, to me, while a workable mechanic does not fit the description of skill as it is commonly defined. If we are to see measurable improvement then actual odds of success should increase steadily as skill improves. IMHO a flat 1d anything roll makes this more difficult to model.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 24, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> You are aware that there is no probability curve on a 1d anything right?



Neither does 3d6 then. Let's call it "graph". 



> Different mechanics don't have to be used for any reasons of realism but they may come in handy for modeling certain constructs the way someone wants them to work. This isn't an attempt at realism, rather it's simply a method for designing a tool to do a specific job. A d20 plus modifiers is a useful tool but it might not fit for every single type of task resolution.
> 
> Some people might not want to use such a quirky random method of d20 + modifiers for skill based tasks, especially if the difficulty for such tasks scales with level. Does a character really grow and improve if the odds of success at performing a given task remain the same? If the goal is to engineer a task system whereby a player needs to roll a certain raw number to succeed and to keep such odds stable over the levels then d20 + modifiers vs scaling DC's fits the bill.
> 
> That, to me, while a workable mechanic does not fit the description of skill as it is commonly defined. If we are to see measurable improvement then actual odds of success should increase steadily as skill improves. IMHO a flat 1d anything roll makes this more difficult to model.



Does it really matter how the characters abilities really grow? I think it does not. The important thing it does grow, and that it grows in a manner that has a an appreciable and desirable effect on the way the game is played. I see that others don't find this sufficient or relevant. I won't compromise for them, and they shouldn't have to compromise for my goals, either.


----------



## Mythmere1 (Jul 24, 2009)

If anyone truly, wholly, absolutely disagrees with JT's comments about the technical side of Swords & Wizardry, you can certainly vote for S&W as best free product.  Voting has begun.

(and/or for Mythmere Games as best publisher)


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 24, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Neither does 3d6 then. Let's call it "graph".




Really? So you are saying that the probability of rolling a 3 or an 18 on a 3d6 is the same as rolling a 10?



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Does it really matter how the characters abilities really grow? I think it does not. The important thing it does grow, and that it grows in a manner that has a an appreciable and desirable effect on the way the game is played. I see that others don't find this sufficient or relevant. I won't compromise for them, and they shouldn't have to compromise for my goals, either.




It only matters depending on the play experience desired.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 24, 2009)

You can pretty much model 2d6 on a d100 if you want. There's a 1 in 36 chance of rolling a 2 so that can be 01-03, 12 is 98-00. There's a 1 in 6 chance of a 7 so that's represented by something like 43-57. (Those values aren't exact but you get the idea.)

With a big enough linear track, any bell curve can be simulated.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 24, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Really? So you are saying that the probability of rolling a 3 or an 18 on a 3d6 is the same as rolling a 10?




really. If you look at the possible distrubitions, you will note that the graph will consist of spots denoted for the 16 numbers you can roll. It will not show a curve. 

Of course, if you say that you connect those dots with some magical trickery to create a curve - well, then the probability curve of a d20 is just a very flat curve.


----------



## HywayWolf (Jul 24, 2009)

I would like to point out that I did say "for me" in my post.  Your mileage may differ, and it obviously does.  I wasn't talking about probabilities; it doesn't matter to me if I roll 2d8 or 3d6 when turning undead.  What I was saying is that if I am a cleric I want there to be some difference between me saying "I attack the skeletons" and "I turn the skeletons". For me the difference between rolling 1d20 or 2d6 is sufficient.


----------



## Mythmere1 (Jul 24, 2009)

HywayWolf said:


> I would like to point out that I did say "for me" in my post.  Your mileage may differ, and it obviously does.  I wasn't talking about probabilities; it doesn't matter to me if I roll 2d8 or 3d6 when turning undead.  What I was saying is that if I am a cleric I want there to be some difference between me saying "I attack the skeletons" and "I turn the skeletons". For me the difference between rolling 1d20 or 2d6 is sufficient.




That's nicely put!

I usually talk about this using the terms "wonk" (when a game uses different subsystems for various tasks or classes) and "elegance." (when the same system is used for everything). Obviously, I prefer a wonky system because it gives more character to different types of things.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 24, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> really. If you look at the possible distrubitions, you will note that the graph will consist of spots denoted for the 16 numbers you can roll. It will not show a curve.
> 
> Of course, if you say that you connect those dots with some magical trickery to create a curve - well, then the probability curve of a d20 is just a very flat curve.




The probability of a d20 rolling any particular result is 5%  This is as flat as a pancake.

http://www.anwu.org/games/dice_calc.html

You can check out the distributions here.


----------



## rkwoodard (Jul 24, 2009)

*V&v*



Mythmere1 said:


> That's nicely put!
> 
> I usually talk about this using the terms "wonk" (when a game uses different subsystems for various tasks or classes) and "elegance." (when the same system is used for everything). Obviously, I prefer a wonky system because it gives more character to different types of things.




Hello,

Did you ever play V&V.  That system is a haven for Wonk.  Each power is its own sub-system, and the defense table is all over the place. 

It is by far my favorite supers game.  

RK


----------



## Harlekin (Jul 24, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> The probability of a d20 rolling any particular result is 5%  This is as flat as a pancake.
> 
> DPC
> 
> You can check out the distributions here.




That's pretty much what he said: 
In mathematical terms, a flat line is still called a curve, so even if you connect the discrete set of points in this distribution to form something continuous, the resulting graph would be a curve.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 24, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> In the end, it all comes down to the probabilities and the effects you achieve. Is there really a need to have the probability curve of a 2d6 vs a probablity curve of a 1d20?




I know people who do feel it matters, particularly when doing things like adjudicating PC actions. They feel that a flat probability doesn't reflect reality enough because it's unlikely that, for any given attempt at a task, you're equally as likely to achieve your best work as your most mediocre. Thus, they prefer a bell-style curve like 3d6 in which you are decidedly more likely to middling work than achieve exceptional levels of success (or failure).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 24, 2009)

Mythmere1 said:


> That's nicely put!
> 
> I usually talk about this using the terms "wonk" (when a game uses different subsystems for various tasks or classes) and "elegance." (when the same system is used for everything). Obviously, I prefer a wonky system because it gives more character to different types of things.



I like the terms. Obviously, I prefer elegance.  



> I know people who do feel it matters, particularly when doing things like adjudicating PC actions. They feel that a flat probability doesn't reflect reality enough because it's unlikely that, for any given attempt at a task, you're equally as likely to achieve your best work as your most mediocre. Thus, they prefer a bell-style curve like 3d6 in which you are decidedly more likely to middling work than achieve exceptional levels of success (or failure).



Yes. But of course they create the issue of how modifiers stacking has a far stronger effect on the outcome, and the question arises if this is also what is desired? 



> The probability of a d20 rolling any particular result is 5% This is as flat as a pancake.
> 
> DPC
> 
> You can check out the distributions here.



Maybe I should have added a smiley or at least something to indicate that I am engaging in mathematical pedantry, proving my manlihood or at least nerdhood that I know more about math than you? 

Nah, that would be no fun.

Thanks for the link. I should steal the code since my math is too rusty to come up witht he correct way to calculate dice probability curves on my own. Or rather how to create a formula or algorithm to have a computer do it. And I am too lazy, too.


----------



## Mythmere1 (Jul 24, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I like the terms. Obviously, I prefer elegance.




Sorry, I said "obviously" because I wrote a couple of retro-clones, so "obviously given that it's me," not "obviously" in the sense of "obviously better."  I know a lot of players who prefer elegant rule sets, and they're particularly good when you've got a system where several different factors are assembled during character creation, or when you combine different skills into a single bonus.  For D&D, I prefer wonk. In most sci-fi games, I prefer elegance. It depends on the game.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 24, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Maybe I should have added a smiley or at least something to indicate that I am engaging in mathematical pedantry, proving my manlihood or at least nerdhood that I know more about math than you?
> 
> Nah, that would be no fun.
> 
> Thanks for the link. I should steal the code since my math is too rusty to come up witht he correct way to calculate dice probability curves on my own. Or rather how to create a formula or algorithm to have a computer do it. And I am too lazy, too.




Whew!!!   You were scaring me. I love that site and use it a lot when tinkering with game mechanics.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 24, 2009)

Mythmere1 said:


> Sorry, I said "obviously" because I wrote a couple of retro-clones, so "obviously given that it's me," not "obviously" in the sense of "obviously better."  I know a lot of players who prefer elegant rule sets, and they're particularly good when you've got a system where several different factors are assembled during character creation, or when you combine different skills into a single bonus.  For D&D, I prefer wonk. In most sci-fi games, I prefer elegance. It depends on the game.



I certainly assumed you talked about personal preference, not absolute truths. 

The absolute truth, of course, is that elegance is best.


----------

