|
I love it when people claim that they're running AD&D1e RAW for a group of 9 year olds who just absolutely love it. No you're not and they wouldn't if you did.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
I actually prefer point buy over rolling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 17:34
|
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:Talking about 3d6 down the line brings up a topic that's been on my mind; what are your personal sweet spots between not doing a modern stat array and not being frustrated your character is a real sad sack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:36
|
|
|
"I got elf elf." -- a thing you will never hear, because Mearls is a coward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:37
|
|
|
Mearls was not competent and outsourced his job to ENWorld. They told him to make 3e again.Hollismason posted:I actually prefer point buy over rolling. I'm trying to remember one or two indie games that recognized this and has you using 1d10+8 or some other random roll methods that aren't 3d6, but I can't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:45
|
|
|
The (in)famous Unearthed Arcana rolling method had you roll from 9d6 down to 3d6 (comeliness as #7) depending on how important a stat was for your class.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:59
|
|
|
I've never used it for a game but always wondered if any group tried Method IV from the 1E DMG: quote:3d6 are rolled sufficient times to generate the 6 ability scores, in order, for Just a chill 72 rolls to find some ability scores
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 20:12
|
|
|
At that point, you may as well use the Dragon Union method, where everyone can keep rolling 3d6-down-the-line until they get a set they're happy with, with a time limit if you're the last one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 20:14
|
|
|
aw frig aw dang it posted:I've never used it for a game but always wondered if any group tried Method IV from the 1E DMG: Lol why 12? It's not a terrible idea on its own, but it feels more sensible to do, like, 3 or 4 dwarf74 posted:The (in)famous Unearthed Arcana rolling method had you roll from 9d6 down to 3d6 (comeliness as #7) depending on how important a stat was for your class. I totally forgot that "comeliness" was a possible ability score in some editions/bonus rules. I only ever knew about it because in my early days of D&D I came across a character sheet online that listed 8 ability scores (I think #8 might have been "perception" before that was kind of its own thing?). I asked my DM at the time if we could use them and he was all for it, then promptly forgot about it because none of his rules reference stuff mentioned the extra stats. Being the young troll that I was, I think I put my highest score in comeliness, so for a while my dwarf cleric was canonically a massive himbo, but nobody ever noticed, until the DM remembered the extra stats existed. If I remember right he stopped a big fight in its tracks because, in his words, my character took off his glasses and let down his hair and all the orcs or whatever suddenly realized how truly beautiful I was the whole time
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 20:18
|
|
|
aw frig aw dang it posted:I've never used it for a game but always wondered if any group tried Method IV from the 1E DMG: It could work if it was the GM dropping 12 sheets and saying it was first come, first serve. Yeah steeve you never show up on time so you get to be Churlough the furry footed burrower.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 20:31
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:From what I understand, it was something that Gygax came up with because he couldn't think of a way to challenge high level players or deal with high level PCs. Nobody likes dealing with it, so I think it should be consigned to the dustbin of design. i've been looking through early issues of dragon magazine out of curiosity recently and this sounds extremely believable. like the #1 recurring complaint is "someone got too high level by accident and literally can't die" it's an important corrective that OSR play isn't necessarily just like OS play; there are some weird attitudes that just don't work, because they didn't have the game-design concepts that suited their stated intent, and what evolved out of those attempts changed the actual intent of play in the hobby away from its stated goal of play. the way gygax phrased it sometimes, i think the closest to that early vision of D&D today is actually something like gloomhaven rather than any trpg on the market. nothing is couched in terms of interesting or compelling stories, or particularly strong identification with a character's narrative, like it is today--it's all about fair challenges and exacting balance and difficult puzzle scenarios. Mister Olympus fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 21:44
|
|
|
I remember reading somewhere (maybe an old Grognardia post?) about this local group of bridge players in the late 70s or early 80s who moved into playing the very popular D&D for a year or so before moving back to bridge. It just impressed upon me how differently the game was thought of back then compared to today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 22:28
|
|
|
I prefer Basic and 0E -like systems that don't make stats everything. So, I like: 1. 3d6 down the line, but you can raise one stat to (+1). 2. Roll 3d6 N times, pick any consecutive run of 6 rolls (wrapping around the end if necessary) as stats in order. I think 1 is the sweet spot of speed, simplicity, and choice. The 2nd was fun but I wouldn't want to roll those IRL. Point buy is okay but slow. Assigned array is a meh but if you're playing crappy modern D&D why not. To me the big plus of assigned array is avoiding people trying to RP really low INT or CHA. aw frig aw dang it posted:I've never used it for a game but always wondered if any group tried Method IV from the 1E DMG:
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 22:32
|
|
|
I like the GM or players rolling up a bunch and players picking from a subset, we do that in our OSE campaign for hirelings and retainers. It's kinda fun to do group mass character generation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 22:50
|
|
|
mellonbread posted:Esoteric Enterprises starts with 3D6 down the line, then if you don't like your scores you can "invert" them (all or none) by subtracting 21 from each and taking the absolute value. It ensures you're never stuck with a character who has more negatives than positives, without just being a free lunch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 23:08
|
|
|
Mister Olympus posted:the way gygax phrased it sometimes, i think the closest to that early vision of D&D today is actually something like gloomhaven rather than any trpg on the market.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 23:16
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I love it when people claim that they're running AD&D1e RAW for a group of 9 year olds who just absolutely love it. No you're not and they wouldn't if you did. I've gotten by running some stripped down variations on D&D with younger players, but at a certain point you kinda just gotta let the dice fall back and the storytelling take the wheel, at least on the player side of things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 05:41
|
|
|
90s Cringe Rock posted:The other statline may be called your doppelgänger, but that's just a cute name, it definitely doesn't mean your opposite is out there. I really love this and it super fits into the setting! Did any early version have a roll 3d6 and get under your attribute value to succeed or anything like that? Since the actual bonuses are quite small, I wasn't sure if the difference between say 9 dex and 11 dex ever matters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 05:57
|
|
|
A Strange Aeon posted:I really love this and it super fits into the setting!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 07:42
|
|
|
there are a bunch of different minigames for ability checks in different Basic and 1e modules. the only one I can think of offhand requires a total of 40 points of STR to do something (close a valve?)
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 15:41
|
|
|
Rolling under the attribute value, with a modifier, is how Non Weapon Proficiency worked, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 15:46
|
|
|
That's an oft-ignored part of it, lots of old modules have ad-hoc rules for testing ability scores to get past some obstacle.slimetimez posted:I've gotten by running some stripped down variations on D&D with younger players, but at a certain point you kinda just gotta let the dice fall back and the storytelling take the wheel, at least on the player side of things. This ties into the ability check thing--we know there were rules for it, but how many people made them a regular part of play? My impression is that it was very common, but I don't know. It's valuable to have the anecdotes of people who have been playing D&D for decades, but those people ipso facto aren't representative.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 15:49
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:That's an oft-ignored part of it, lots of old modules have ad-hoc rules for testing ability scores to get past some obstacle. Anecdotally, yeah, my group used "ability checks" exactly like what the d20 system would use, just with much less robust rules. It was our go-to out of combat play mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 15:54
|
|
|
Empty Sandwich posted:there are a bunch of different minigames for ability checks in different Basic and 1e modules. Goddamn, why have I never done this? I love this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 20:03
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:That's an oft-ignored part of it, lots of old modules have ad-hoc rules for testing ability scores to get past some obstacle. Nickoten posted:Goddamn, why have I never done this? I love this. there are bunches of them but I'm completely blanking on any others (partly because that one makes a lot of sense to me). I'll see if my DM remembers any
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 20:55
|
|
|
I like "roll under your stat on 3d6" as an old school skill check system in part because it follows the exact same probability curve as you had while rolling the stat (if you did 3d6). You have an 50% chance of rolling at least an 11 for any given stat when making your character, so if you have an 11 in a stat you have a 50% chance of passing the skill check. You have a 1-in-36 chance of rolling an 18 for a stat, so if you have an 18 as a stat you have a 35-in-36 chance of passing, and so on. How exceptional your stats are maps 1:1 onto how likely you are to pass skill checks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 21:03
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:I like "roll under your stat on 3d6" as an old school skill check system in part because it follows the exact same probability curve as you had while rolling the stat (if you did 3d6). You have an 50% chance of rolling at least an 11 for any given stat when making your character, so if you have an 11 in a stat you have a 50% chance of passing the skill check. You have a 1-in-36 chance of rolling an 18 for a stat, so if you have an 18 as a stat you have a 35-in-36 chance of passing, and so on. How exceptional your stats are maps 1:1 onto how likely you are to pass skill checks. Yeah, it seems like a simple ad hoc way to adjudicate something at the table if you need to, I was curious if it was ever really promoted as such and it sounds like various modules made use of it which is cool. Modern versions with the constantly escalating + every 2 points just seem to mean the unfocused attributes do nothing except impact saves I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 22:55
|
|
|
No it was never used like that afaict, it was always weird bespoke conversions of stats into percentages or whatever. It's bizarre.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 05:26
|
|
|
Unless my memory is playing tricks on me, which is certainly possible given how long ago it was, before 3.0 came out my friends and I used "ability checks" for resolving all kinds of out-of-combat questions, and it was just roll a d20 and get equal to or under your attribute. We were just kids so I'm sure it some idea we just picked up from someone else, but I doubt it was from any book because had about zero published adventurers and even not that even many source books.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 08:19
|
|
|
I always wonder, whenever I encounter these ad hoc house rules, whether they're hiding bad math that incorrectly models what it's trying to model, like how the thief was worse at all his trained skills than every other class attempting it untrained until like... level 13. Or how apparently 4th Edition had some kind of skill challenge mechanic that was designed in such a way that you got worse at passing it as you leveled up and increased your skill. Edit: As an aside, it's not OSR, but if anyone wants to see a game that took its math seriously, Cortex Prime is a system I really enjoy. Apparently the creators worked with actual mathematicians and statisticians to build a robust system that makes sense at all of its angles and scales. It's a remarkably effective universal system, and there are hacks for running it as a D&D-like that I've always been curious about. SlimGoodbody fucked around with this message at 11:16 on Jan 5, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 11:05
|
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:Unless my memory is playing tricks on me, which is certainly possible given how long ago it was, before 3.0 came out my friends and I used "ability checks" for resolving all kinds of out-of-combat questions, and it was just roll a d20 and get equal to or under your attribute. We were just kids so I'm sure it some idea we just picked up from someone else, but I doubt it was from any book because had about zero published adventurers and even not that even many source books. We did the exact same thing, yeah. There's a little two-paragraph thing in the 2E PHB about ability checks, but it doesn't describe how to do them. It's near the end of the section on saving throws, so you might assume it uses a d20, but it also wouldn't really make sense to treat it like a saving throw - why would having a higher DEX score making you less likely to succeed at a DEX check? It feels like it was common knowledge for how to do these by then, but I don't know where it started.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 16:39
|
|
|
aw frig aw dang it posted:We did the exact same thing, yeah. There's a little two-paragraph thing in the 2E PHB about ability checks, but it doesn't describe how to do them. It's near the end of the section on saving throws, so you might assume it uses a d20, but it also wouldn't really make sense to treat it like a saving throw - why would having a higher DEX score making you less likely to succeed at a DEX check? It feels like it was common knowledge for how to do these by then, but I don't know where it started. From page B60 of Moldvay Basic 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 16:44
|
|
|
This does, like was said earlier, lead to the weird situations where anyone with a decent dexterity, including thieves, are better off trying to roll under a stat than use their special skills. It's definitely something the d20 system rationalized.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 18:05
|
|
|
Yeah, I prefer going with completely not-TSR systems for thieves and I'm curious how you all handle it. I didn't start running or playing anything old-school until after I'd had plenty of experience with 3e, so my interpretation was that thief abilities either let you do stuff preternaturally (hide in any shadow, scale a sheer wall with no handholds) or it's a chance you get on top of a roll-under-Dex or whatever resolution method. Just don't let it get around that I'm not a fan of RAW Thieves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 18:51
|
|
|
I always interpreted the thieves skills as preternatural abilities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
Also, maybe I'm crazy, but are some of the % chances to do Thief Stuff another one of those things where they would write "2-8 damage" instead of 2d4 damage? Like, an 87-88% chance to Climb Walls is the same as 7-in-8 on a d8.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 19:08
|
|
|
Empty Sandwich posted:there are bunches of them but I'm completely blanking on any others (partly because that one makes a lot of sense to me). I'll see if my DM remembers any I know the concept of characters needing a combined total of at least [x] Strength score shows up in The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan a couple of times because they inexplicably left this intact for the 5e adaptation they included in Tales From the Yawning Portal. SlimGoodbody posted:I always wonder, whenever I encounter these ad hoc house rules, whether they're hiding bad math that incorrectly models what it's trying to model, like how the thief was worse at all his trained skills than every other class attempting it untrained until like... level 13. Or how apparently 4th Edition had some kind of skill challenge mechanic that was designed in such a way that you got worse at passing it as you leveled up and increased your skill. Honestly I think most of the ad hoc rules in early modules are mostly a product of most of those modules coming out so early in the product's lifespan that there wasn't really a centralized design philosophy as to how to handle most non-combat scenarios. The Thief, for example, wasn't part of the game until the original Basic set in 1977, the same year Hidden Shrine was originally published. Couple this with the fact that you had multiple different teams of people working on multiple different incarnations of the game at the same time and it leads to a lot of different, contradictory subsystems and mechanics cropping up at the same time to handle the same problems. Oddly enough, this disorganized approach ended up leading to the GM DIY approach to running the game that I feel like the OSR scene has always been trying to consciously replicate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 20:10
|
|
|
Christ, I wish TSR had ever had a centralized design philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 20:11
|
|
|
I mean, technically speaking, "Make some poo poo up off the top of your head, claim it's obvious common sense and then stick (Q.E.D.) at the end of it" is a type of design philosophy
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
Also, "Passive aggressively write terrible rules for things you don't want to do instead of just saying no."
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 21:25
|
|