tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post3410150365315522050..comments2024-03-27T22:32:17.055-05:00Comments on Jeffs Gameblog: Dude, where's my first level?Jeff Rientshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17493878980535235896noreply@blogger.comBlogger102125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-87938826449367549602012-08-07T12:57:37.526-05:002012-08-07T12:57:37.526-05:00Linked this article to a friend, and his reaction ...Linked this article to a friend, and his reaction was: "I propose a house rule to double all damage suffered by 1st level PC's for being 'Total Fucking Newbs.' "Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-82226081436289260492012-08-07T12:47:02.764-05:002012-08-07T12:47:02.764-05:00The cat thing is 3E. The basic housecat stats coul...The cat thing is 3E. The basic housecat stats could kill a 1st level 3e wizard with ease, especially if he had the wrong spells prepped.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-12424390322236148932012-06-04T15:22:03.072-05:002012-06-04T15:22:03.072-05:00@Siskoid
But that can go both ways. Can we not the...@Siskoid<br />But that can go both ways. Can we not then discount the incredulouness with which the death dealing 10 foot drop was bemoaned? After all, in reality, many people survive 10 foot drops and D&D is not a simulationist game so the character should die and any appeals to reality are simply silly.yell0w lanternhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06241328101929206494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-24777479609400842542012-06-04T15:17:35.625-05:002012-06-04T15:17:35.625-05:00I think the cat was Rolemaster.
>>Why on oe...I think the cat was Rolemaster.<br /><br />>>Why on oerth is a 3' tall kobold or goblin as tough or tougher than a normal 6' tall human?<br /><br />I'll give you 5 bucks to get into a fight with a bob-cat without using weapons. I'll give you 10 to fight a wolf pack bare-handed. You may find them pretty tough.yell0w lanternhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06241328101929206494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-48079103027060188812012-06-03T12:50:33.718-05:002012-06-03T12:50:33.718-05:00Oh, and, as to the argument that Old Schoolers can...Oh, and, as to the argument that Old Schoolers can just negatively adjust things to fit their tastes - true. Entirely true. But, I agree with Tenkar - it is always easier to add than to subtract. As bizarre as this may sound, I also feel that, if you arrive at a different style of gaming by adding something, if feels more inclusive than if you need to remove it (that may entirely be personal perspective though). More importantly, though, is the question of 'why?' Somebody who wants to play Old School has plenty of options that are simpler than 'you could play 5e and spitball lowering the Hit Points'; there'd have to be something more to make it worth the effort. Granted, it's way too early to assume that there won't be other bits that make it worthwhile, or that there won't be a discussion on lower hit point levels and so forth. Right now, it's all about amusing ourselves with guessing games, which is fun in its own way.Chaos Clockworkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04122472296580033166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-39286021944646043282012-06-03T12:46:57.592-05:002012-06-03T12:46:57.592-05:00There is also the matter of wandering monsters (in...There is also the matter of wandering monsters (in the time it takes your elf to scout the corridor, there is a chance of a monster attacking the party or cutting off your retreat).<br /><br />"You, deciding to arrange them in a strategically advantageous position is a tautologically self-evident manifestation of player skill."<br /><br />Your decision is using the optimum combination of character abilities (HP, attack options, gear) to get the desired result.<br /><br />If this is player skill, then using your Search skill to find traps, while taking a Synergy bonus from your Dungeoneering skill, is also player skill (You, deciding to use your skill, while remembering drawing on your characters previous experience with dungeons, is a self-evident manifestation of player skill.)<br /><br />"In this very thread(!) is this quote!"<br />It is at the end of the thread and I'm pretty sure it was written after my comment, but that is beside the point.<br /><br />Dude, there is a loooooong way from this quote to "acting like a squad of commandos". Also there is this:<br /><br />"In like manner, consider all of the nasty things which face adventurers as the rules stand. Are crippling disabilities and yet more ways to meet instant death desirable in an open-ended, episodic game where participants seek to identify with lovingly detailed and<br />developed player-character personae? Not likely! Certain death is is undesirable as a give-away compaign. Combat is a common pursuit in the vast majority of adventures, and the participants in the campaign deserve a chance to exercise intelligent choice during such confrontations. As hit points dwindle they can opt to break off the encounter and attempt to flee." (AD&D Dungeon Master Guide, 1st Edition).<br /><br />Players learn the game by trying things, not by paranoidly prodding/scouting everything and not interacting with the enviroment at all. Combat is an important part of learning and entering combat is not the equivalent of a death-sentence (interestingly, Gygax goes on to write, that larger HP-scores cause *more* character deaths than low ones, because it is harder to see the death coming - a very interesting idea).alexandrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09456056647313914311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-14030930666161847932012-06-03T12:30:06.495-05:002012-06-03T12:30:06.495-05:00A thought on the 'for the children' excuse...A thought on the 'for the children' excuse.<br /><br />Full disclosure that is fairly obvious from the story - I'm primarily a White Wolf player (this does mean certain assumptions about play style are used in the example that are disconnected from DnD at large, but I think the example still works, so bear with me). Several years ago, when they were at the height of their 'Nu World of Darkness' years, they put out a game called 'Scion', about playing the children of gods. I and my friends were really excited, until we actually got the books. Then, we learned that over sixty pages of the book were devoted to a way-too-detailed adventure, which was tailor-made to the six pre-generated characters in the book (who were themselves conceived with all of the worst excesses of bad game writer narcissism). Sixty pages is way too much space to devote to a White Wolf adventure (heck, maybe to ANY adventure that isn't an entire campaign), and the game certainly could have used the extra pages to actually explain how to run it (or they could have cut the adventure out and made the whole thing cheaper, either way). I brought this up, and people's argument was that it was for newer gamers, to help them learn how to play.<br /><br />There are a couple things wrong with that argument, but I'll stick to the relevant one - if that was the intent, than it is offensive and insulting to younger people. You're telling me that a new GM has to be told that 'now would be a good time to slow down the action and let everyone try out roleplaying their characters'? And that the players need to be spoon-fed the personalities of these characters, right down to who has crushes on whom? That basically means that you're saying that nobody at the table is capable of imagining anything whatsover. That's incredibly insulting, which is why I doubted it was their intent.<br /><br />Same thing here. I started playing DnD in the mid nineties, which I guess makes me old by the idiotic definitions we now use for such things. But I didn't start out at the common game at the hobby shop, or in my older cousin's campaign, or anything like that. I had the books, and I taught my friends how to play. If you asked us about iconic roleplaying games, we'd probably say Shining Force or Final Fantasy before mentioning the tabletop game. We certainly didn't play in the Old School way - there were probably four deaths in six years, and only one that wasn't raised afterwards. But I managed to figure out how to do that on my own. Which is why I think that to say that kids today can't figure out how to change the rules because of video games strikes me as insulting. I refuse to believe that the last fifteen years has seen such degeneration in society that our children are complete drooling idiots that have to be spoonfed everything, and that it is all World of Warcraft's fault. I think that if they want to play a tabletop game, and they want it to feel like Skyrim, they'll figure out a way to get the Dragon Shouts in.<br /><br />Personally, I think the problems and weird inflation of hit points and so forth is the fault of the thing that always makes DnD worse - organized play. My problems with 3rd and 4th edition had less to do with the rules as written, and more with the assumptions people made about how it should be played, which was generally the fault of organized play. *That* is the part that runs into MMO mentality, because things like WoW do it much more efficiently. I have a friend who's a big fan of 4th, and he *loathes* the Encounters program. If you want to blame anything, blame that.Chaos Clockworkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04122472296580033166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-7544248537067918262012-06-03T05:18:15.573-05:002012-06-03T05:18:15.573-05:00I completely agree. The HP was also my main critic...I completely agree. The HP was also my main criticism of the rules.<br /><br />http://billygoes.blogspot.co.il/2012/06/5e-playtest-postmortem.htmlNadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379496050656646495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-15180392725666115412012-06-03T02:12:34.045-05:002012-06-03T02:12:34.045-05:00Allow me to offer an alternative suggestion to &qu...Allow me to offer an alternative suggestion to "Why don't people to find it too hard just start at a higher level". <br /><br />Why would you not simply scale up the monster damage? If the kobolds aren't deadly enough, you as DM can just roll a d10 instead of a d8, or have them do d8+4 instead of d8+1. It's a simple enough solution, and if you're a fan of the old school ways then surely a bit of house ruling isn't a new concept. The DM might not even have to mention it's a house rule if you're rolling behind a screen. <br /><br />I think one of the problems is whenever I hear people complaining about how easy D&D is these days compared to the deadly old editions is this... people want it this way. More specifically, younger players and new players want it this way. This isn't the 1970's or the 1980's anymore. We are in an era where if you say "think of an iconic RPG" to a child or a teenager, they'll be more likely to respond "Skyrim" than "D&D". <br /><br />You might find it dull or boring, but new players in general do not find it fun if their character dies within minutes of them starting to play. And if your only response to them being disappointed is to tell them: "You're playing it wrong, you should have avoided combat, you need to be a better player." Then they're liable to just put down the dice and go back to the XBOX. <br /><br />So maybe the publishers need to skew things on the easy side a bit, to coddle the younger players. Because that's their expectation, and we can get into what's wrong with the youth of today but let's leave that aside for another day. The point is though, if the RPG industry as a whole wants to grow, or at the very least not shrink, it needs new players getting interested in tabletop RPGs. <br /><br />And new players are less likely to make houserules and changes. If they've never played RPGs before they will probably start at level 1, like the book tells them to, and then go from there. It's counter-intuitive for a new player to start at a higher level, because the lower levels are too hard. That's not how things work in video games, the challenges always start off easy then ramp up! <br /><br />Now, I'm not saying that D&D should be just trying to emulate video games (a complain I've heard many old schoolers level at 4th edition). But to stress my point again, the older fans can adapt, they know how to house rule things, tweak what they don't like. New players will probably just walk away if their first impression isn't a good one. And maybe it's a problem that they have this expectation of being a big damn hero from level 1, but you can't try to sell to the audience you wish existed, you have to deal with the audience that is actually there. <br /><br />This is just the way younger players think, and those are the expectations they have. And if all old schoolers do is say "You should be a better player then. Why, back in my day..." rather than try to engage with new players, then things will never improve.ChiPsiUphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02925618729859863386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-64778809758219397032012-06-01T08:46:04.230-05:002012-06-01T08:46:04.230-05:00@Alexandro
I got your post at work, so I had a lo...@Alexandro<br /><br />I got your post at work, so I had a lot of time to think about it. I'm going with the assumption that it was just posted because you lack information, and not as a troll or some sort of other negative interaction.<br /><br /><i>"Scouting is useless, as in oD&D it is determined randomly, if you notice the monster (or the monster notices you, or both)."</i><br /><br />Yes, in that one version, before basic, there was no explicit numerical advantage for halflings. This came immediately after (see Mentzer 64/65 for infravision/hiding elf/hobbit abilities) But sinceand elves have infravision (Greyhawk Suppliment I) and do not need a light source, it is certainly in their favor to scout ahead. This is in OD&D and is NOT useless.<br /><br /><i>All of which, is using character abilities, NOT player skill.</i><br /><br />No. Character abilities are how well they hit, how tall they are, what weapons proficiencies they have.<br /><br />You, deciding to arrange them in a strategically advantageous position is a tautologically self-evident manifestation of player skill.<br /><br /><i>"I reject the idea, that this is how D&D is supposed to be played (nothing in Gygaxes or Arnesons writings suggests so)."</i><br /><br />In this <b>very thread</b>(!) is this quote! It is Gygax, writing in the players handbook, the specific instruction of "act like a squad of commandos, instead of frat guys" to all the players of the game!<br /><br />You may reject the fact that the world is round, but it does not stop the planes from flying, nor the earth from rotating. The example of writing that "suggests so" doesn't exist, because he didn't suggest -- he explicitly instructed!<br /><br /><br /><i>"Avoid unnecessary encounters. This advice usually means the difference between success and failure when it is followed intelligently. Your party has an objective, and wondering monsters are something which stand between them and it. The easiest way to overcome such difficulties is to avoid the interposing or trailing creature if at all possible. Wandering monsters typically weaken the party through use of equipment and spells against them, and they also weaken the group by inflicting damage. Very few are going to be helpful; fewer still will have anything of any value to the party. Run first and ask questions later. In the same vein, shun encounters with creatures found to be dwelling permanently in the dungeon (as far as you can tell, that is) unless such creatures are part of the set objective or the monster stands between the group and the goal it has set out to gain." AD&D 1e PHB, pg. 109.</i> (Apologies for quoting this again in this thread.)-Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02331863932906631618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-64015228260574301812012-06-01T05:44:16.062-05:002012-06-01T05:44:16.062-05:00Yeah, combat really is more dangerous than it seem...Yeah, combat really is more dangerous than it seems. I ran a playtest game last night and my group of 4 pc's couldn't get past the front door of the goblin den. They killed 12 goblins and the ogre, but half of the party was also unconscious. It was a close thing. Seemed very much like 1st level to me. Maybe not Basic D&D 1st level - more like AD&D 2e 1st level in difficulty.Hakdovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00162408897716036685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-41291523941346395862012-06-01T02:09:53.718-05:002012-06-01T02:09:53.718-05:00@Siskoid: The point is that if D&D maintained ...@Siskoid: The point is that if D&D maintained its big tent status you wouldn't have to be talking about rule changes at all.Justin Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02227895898395353754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-72533140672556354712012-06-01T00:13:50.319-05:002012-06-01T00:13:50.319-05:00Where does it suggest not using skills or equipmen...Where does it suggest not using skills or equipment lists?<br /><br />Not trying to be a jerk here, just actually curious. Thought I looked through that book a bunch of times, but don't remember seeing those ideas. If you have page numbers, I'd like to look it up.Peter K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17181421723646836427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-35597065304793841212012-06-01T00:08:02.492-05:002012-06-01T00:08:02.492-05:00"The majority would start the game with wands..."The majority would start the game with wands of wishing if they could."<br /><br />I have to concur with the commenter above: I doubt that anyone over the age of 13 would want to start the game with a bunch of omnipotent wishes. Everybody in their right mind agrees (whether or not they'd articulate it this way) that much of what makes the stakes of a game valuable consists in challenges; we differ, I think, on what kind of challenges we want to be tasked with and how we want the rules of a game (as opposed to the socially emergent dynamics of a table) to produce them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-54836182837911672682012-05-31T23:25:51.786-05:002012-05-31T23:25:51.786-05:00I participated in the friends-and-famIly playtest....I participated in the friends-and-famIly playtest. I didn't get to read the doc but I played in a session, and I can attest that our lives were frequently in grave danger from low level monsters. At one point we turned and ran like hell from an encounter and it distinctly felt like the Old Days.Wade Rocketthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02785499425476736769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-1134783564160395722012-05-31T17:10:21.189-05:002012-05-31T17:10:21.189-05:00Notice, Jeff didn't really say it was "wr...Notice, Jeff didn't really say it was "wrong" he just said he didn't want to play that way. I think part of the disconnect is that while combat WAS a strong part of the original way to play, you're talking about guys who came from wargaming and loved a tactical challenge. The game was about DIFFICULT combat. On purpose. When newer people started playing who didn't have that tactical education, the way to survive the game as written was to AVOID combat. But considering how a LOT of the rules are about combat, it's not unfair to say that if you find that combat game as-written to be unsurviveable due to non-grognard mindset, you would feel gypped that a big part of your game is non-playable. Adjustments in that light make sense. But I think it's very true that combat WAS a key part of the original game, despite its difficulty. I think it's also true that the "avoid encounters" strategy was one that came out of emergent gameplay, and got incorporated somewhat into early iterations of the rules (after all, there's LOTS of other stuff to do). But later iterations decided that rather than have a part of the game that's meant to be avoided, why not actually make that part more playable. Part of that had to do with juicing up starting PCs. I agree, a better solution would have been "For X kind of scope of play, begin characters at Y level" rather than ramping up level 1. But hey, my game is still playable the way I want it. So I ain't care.Ωmegahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10218017822013052381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-5572613464138010672012-05-31T16:39:46.646-05:002012-05-31T16:39:46.646-05:00"Skillful players roll halflings who scout, &..."Skillful players roll halflings who scout, "<br />Scouting is useless, as in oD&D it is determined randomly, if you notice the monster (or the monster notices you, or both). <br /><br />"have dwarves in the front, with elves and humans in the back, carry polearms, "<br />All of which, is using character abilities, NOT player skill.<br /><br />"and in general act like a squad of commandos, instead of a bunch of frat guys."<br />I reject the idea, that this is how D&D is supposed to be played (nothing in Gygaxes or Arnesons writings suggests so).alexandrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09456056647313914311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-54905984305574175382012-05-31T15:36:48.291-05:002012-05-31T15:36:48.291-05:00"The majority would start the game with wands..."The majority would start the game with wands of wishing if they could."<br /><br />Wow that's disingenuous. Apparently wanting to have a character that's not ridiculously, insanely fragile is the same thing as wanting to be able to wish for anything ever many times over.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-71388772372677067492012-05-31T15:33:48.780-05:002012-05-31T15:33:48.780-05:00Starting with a character who's not an establi...Starting with a character who's not an established hero and has lots of room to grow is a totally different matter from starting with a character who is just insanely fragile against the threats the world throws at him. Of course, as every superhero movie ever has demonstrated, origin stories are overrated. There are just so many things people take as necessary basically only because they've been in D&D for a long time.<br /><br />I don't know who's saying there needs to be "a mechanical system in place to prevent monsters from ganging up on the wizard(s)," though it is nice to give fighters a way to stop enemies from attacking their more vulnerable friends, especially given that that's something any decently capable fighter should be able to do. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with wizards being powerful, except for the part where the same wizard is expected to be on a team with non-wizards who he can completely obviate in every way if he wants.<br /><br />But no, there's no particular mental confusion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-72136120910436857752012-05-31T08:24:23.592-05:002012-05-31T08:24:23.592-05:00Yeah C, didn't you know? There's only one ...Yeah C, didn't you know? There's only one right way to play your fantasy elves.Vanguardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02787858605708891457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-7348496521358864672012-05-31T08:13:52.331-05:002012-05-31T08:13:52.331-05:00but D&D IS a game that follows mathematical/lo...but D&D IS a game that follows mathematical/logical rules. <br /><br />Do people speak fondly of the guys who die of blood poisoning at level 2? Not really, but they DEFINITELY do speak fondly of the guys who survive against all odds and make it to level 5 or 10. Not every story is (or should be) a good one...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-29599864141039956652012-05-31T03:40:06.011-05:002012-05-31T03:40:06.011-05:00Wrong?
It just isn't a game focused on comba...Wrong? <br /><br />It just isn't a game focused on combat. It's one focused on intelligent avoidance of risk. <br /><br />Just because it isn't the type of game you like to play doesn't make it wrong. <br /><br />I elaborate <a href="http:/hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/on-organic-growth.html" rel="nofollow">here.</a>-Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02331863932906631618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-59986001200385382922012-05-31T03:19:36.497-05:002012-05-31T03:19:36.497-05:00"If by the numbers I can't murder your st..."If by the numbers I can't murder your starting PC with a single lousy orc-stab, I don't want to play. It's that effing simple for me. " --- This here is EVERYTHING wrong D&D and the Old School. If you just want to play "Let random effects kill you and you probably shouldn't even bother giving your PC a personality" fantasy Vietnam simulators, why not play the dozens of dungeon crawl boardgames out there?Captain Rufushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00296697477771399357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-77027705617442538022012-05-30T23:16:42.531-05:002012-05-30T23:16:42.531-05:00If we've learned one thing in the past 30 year...If we've learned one thing in the past 30 years, it's that there are more ways to play D&D than the way(s) Gary Gygax envisioned. Some people enjoy combat-as-war, some like combat-as-sport, some combat-as-poetry, some combat-as-slapstick.<br /><br />To paraphrase Hölderlin: this is the era of Gary Gygaxes, of kings, no longer. You and your friends are living people, and you may prosecute your campaign - your _D&D_ campaign, in fact, and nobody has the right to dispute that designation - however you desire.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-36732981090513808702012-05-30T22:02:32.972-05:002012-05-30T22:02:32.972-05:00I'm also amused that some would use reality to...I'm also amused that some would use reality to justify stuff that happens in D&D, the mechanics of which have never seemed particularly simulationist to me.Siskoidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08266365376486695812noreply@blogger.com