In the incredibly slim chance someone is swayed by the argument that 1e is a deathgrind, please note that 3.5 presents a significantly more dangerous milieu for the characters to adventure in.  In virtually every instance, the 3.5 monster is more powerful (often much more powerful) than its 1e counterpart.

Quote from: mcbobbo;587783It brings up a side curiousity - how would you deal with deliberately non-optimal choices in your games?  E.g. character comes from a long line of basket weavers?

First of all, who decides what is "optimal"?

A fighter PC who only uses a dagger and little or no armor might seem like a bad choice at first, but I had one such PC and he was very successful. First, he moved very fast. Second, his preferred weapon was always in hand and was quickly brought to bear. Third, being a dude with a dagger and no armor meant that in several fights, he was the first target of enemy missile weapons because someone with a dagger and no armor in a party of adventurers was assumed to be a magic-user.

Quote from: MGuy;587850The best way to deal with this is at the design stage.Seriously there should be no reason that a player's basket weaving heritage should handicap the character for the rest of the game. In 3rd I'd solve this issue by just giving the player points in basket weaving at no cost. It is literally so useless of a "thing" that it can be given away.

Now if the player is deliberately making a weak character with the intention of being weak I would probably just allow them to do so. I don't really care. I would however make no adjustments to the difficulty of the campaign and if the other players are ready and willing to pick up the slack then there's no need for me to "do" anything. They will either not have fun and regret their decision (at which time I will allow them to change characters) or a good time will be had by all.

Again, who says it's a weak character? I might have some sympathy for a player who created a character who is good at seamanship, only to join a party that sticks to land adventures. On the flip side, I have zero sympathy for someone who deliberately creates a character that is useless to the party as a whole. BUT the sort of player who pulls that kind of crap will usually try to gum up the game in other ways.

However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating: A character might not have the kinds of skills and attributes one would expect for a certain type of campaign, but the character itself might still prove to be a useful member of the group. If a character in a D&D type of game is willing to be a team player then the fact that he or she only has skill in basket-weaving is no great loss.

In many adventure movies and novels there are often characters who don't have any skills that are useful in the adventure, but they can still be valuable members of the group. Maybe they know something important (or they are something important) to a thread in the campaign. For example, the Erika Eleniak character in Under Siege has apparently used all her skill points in Cute Blonde With Big Tits Skill, yet she helps save USS Missouri's crew from the hijackers in spite of not having any combat training.

There is also the fact that characters can often learn new things or learn how to better apply the ones they already have.

Of course a character that is not useful to the group in any way will usually be removed because if the rigors of adventuring don't kill off the character then the other PCs will, or at least expel the offender.

Admittedly skipped most of this thread, so I'll miss the point somewhat to ask...

...if there actually is a game with basket weaving as a selectable skill?  If it's in something obvious like D&D 2/3/4, I wouldn't be aware of that.

Hackmaster has the broader Carpentry/Woodworking, which mentions making baskets.

Harnmaster doesn't specifically mention it (which shocked me), but it could clearly be taken as a specialty of an appropriate craft skill, presumably woodcraft.  It does have a possible profession of Thatcher, which is probably as close as we'll get.

BRP is pretty much as HM; it could be a specialty of Art or Craft, depending on perspective.



*****


More to the (original) point...

Isn't it pretty much a question of Actor/Storyteller opposing Power Gamer/Butt-Kicker?  If you're on the former edge of the spectrum, then it makes sense to have skill in "basket weaving" because it makes sense for the character to have some ability there; on the latter side, it's wasteful because it isn't immediately obvious how it will be as consistently useful as "attack with sword".  Neither is right or wrong, just different ways that a game could be played.  Some people like indie character studies and some people like Hollywood blockbusters.  That's okay.

I think there is a bias due to RPGs' origins from wargaming, such that combat was a large element of early games (and probably most current games too).  And since combat skill is pretty direct and quantifiable, it's not unreasonable that trying to optimize it happens.  I can play that way, and often have to, as it's the only game in town, but I'd rather play with a group of basket weavers, in combat scarce scenarios.

Ideally, all the players and the GM should be generally on the same page.  If so, the game will be interesting.  A new player with an opposite viewpoint would probably see the game as boring (if it's storyteller heavy) or mindless (if it's combat heavy).

Quote from: TheHistorian;588817Admittedly skipped most of this thread, so I'll miss the point somewhat to ask...

...if there actually is a game with basket weaving as a selectable skill?  If it's in something obvious like D&D 2/3/4, I wouldn't be aware of that.

Weaving is a nonweapon proficiency in AD&D 2e.

Quote from: Elfdart;588807Again, who says it's a weak character? I might have some sympathy for a player who created a character who is good at seamanship, only to join a party that sticks to land adventures. On the flip side, I have zero sympathy for someone who deliberately creates a character that is useless to the party as a whole. BUT the sort of player who pulls that kind of crap will usually try to gum up the game in other ways.

However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating: A character might not have the kinds of skills and attributes one would expect for a certain type of campaign, but the character itself might still prove to be a useful member of the group. If a character in a D&D type of game is willing to be a team player then the fact that he or she only has skill in basket-weaving is no great loss.

In many adventure movies and novels there are often characters who don't have any skills that are useful in the adventure, but they can still be valuable members of the group. Maybe they know something important (or they are something important) to a thread in the campaign. For example, the Erika Eleniak character in Under Siege has apparently used all her skill points in Cute Blonde With Big Tits Skill, yet she helps save USS Missouri's crew from the hijackers in spite of not having any combat training.

There is also the fact that characters can often learn new things or learn how to better apply the ones they already have.

Of course a character that is not useful to the group in any way will usually be removed because if the rigors of adventuring don't kill off the character then the other PCs will, or at least expel the offender.

A character who decides to pick up Craft: Basket Weave is not necessarily "weak". As I understand it "basket weaver" is supposed to refer to someone who pays no heed to the rules of the game and plays a character not fit for the motif of the game. As in the person chooses to play a professional basket weaver in a game about big damn heroes.

Now, assuming the player doesn't focus on Craft:Basket Weaving may still end up being a valuable member of the team but they'd be slightly more effective if instead they put more points in a more valuable skill. In DnD you are essentially punished for not picking up every survival skill you can. For every point you spend on basket weaving you lose more valuable skills like spot/listen/sneak/Use Magic Device. That is not good. I whole heartedly believe the best approach is to have that skill available but not make it cost the same thing to get as more valuable skills.

Quote from: TheHistorian;588817Ideally, all the players and the GM should be generally on the same page.  If so, the game will be interesting.  A new player with an opposite viewpoint would probably see the game as boring (if it's storyteller heavy) or mindless (if it's combat heavy).

For me this is the only really valuable take-away from this thread. In my opinion "basket weaver" sounds like another group's synonym for "special snowflake," a character who is so focused and out of sync that it creates its own gravity well of expectations. But that's a table dynamic thing dealing with, as you stated, whether the GM and Players are on the same page.

You can play 2e D&D without WP/NWP or Secondary skills at all, and then run with the assumption that they have an even shake at trying anything (with an Attribute check to add a stochastic tiebreaker). Or you can play it with WP/NWP fully turned on and have a distinctly non-combat form of D&D (trust me, I've done it, and am still doing it with my Birthright campaign). But the core issue is the table's campaign premise and play group assumptions.

Some groups like to play in a glued-to-the-hip gestalt fashion (no PvP, no party splitting, everyone follows 1 quest at a time, no alignment 2 boxes away from heroic LG). Others are more flexible, but expect that the "group's goals" (whoever, or whichever clique, determines those goals isn't always explicitly stated... but should be) comes first. And other tables give primacy to individuality and groups are only alliances of convenience (and PvP, party splitting, etc. are essentially expected). And again others play with lots of solo or split groups and then run the occasional full group session. None of these styles are objectively wrong.

That's why this argument has been so specious. Trying to apply a subjective table issue as an epithet to all players of other games (especially of games you yourself have no real experience of) is just a childish waste of time. The only way you can see this as a dogmatic matter is if you are too young and immature to understand it's solely a people issue and has to be resolved there. Which brings up why I cannot take this seriously because it's beating up upon the young who are already having a difficult time learning this basic interpersonal dynamics lesson. It only leaves me sad that we've taken it this seriously so far assuming we're dealing with adults (who should know better).

What is Basket Weaving?

Quote from: Mr. GC;588552I defined that on the first page. People would rather go off on tangents to defend the right of basket weavers to ruin every game they touch.

Wait ...what?

I'm a GM, and basket weavers have every right to enjoy the game as they see fit!

One of the things, that was really sorely lacking in original D&D was skills.

Characters that could do things based on previous experience, that they got to choose right at the beginning of the game, to make their character, unique, special, capable of more than just being a monster killer or murder hobo. The path to heaven does not always involve laying waste to everything that is remotely disagreeable, you know?

These skills could add a lot of interesting turns and twists to a game, and give the player/character another opportunity to meaningfully participate.

Let's take our basket weaver for example...

Maybe he weaves an extra large basket that is waterproof, and uses that to cross a river instead of a boat.

The ancient Celts of Wales did exactly that. They called their basket boat a Coracle, it was named after a type of seashell.

Around 600 A.D. a group of Native Americans up on the Missouri River suddenly began to build and use Coracles too. They used them right up until the 1800's when they were about wiped out by all the settlers from the old world.

George Catlin, the great artist documented the Natives use of Coracles. He learned that they learned to use them from Welsh settlers that had arrived in North America almost a thousand years before Columbus arrived, but who were wiped out by a great council of Algonquin after they commited sins and broke taboos held sacred. A couple years back, I visited one of the former battle sites, You know, where the ancient Celts were wiped out, a few miles up the Ohio River from the Falls of the Ohio.

In 1781 while the Revolution was ongoing Thomas Jefferson, and some of the other founding members of our nation in a conspiracy, very carefully concealed this fact, so that the Kingdom of Britain could not lay claim to the lands of the New World, based on the fact that they had settled here prior to any of the colonists who had put together this document called the Declaration of Independence.

Wait, I'm getting distracted here... back to the Basket Weavers...

Maybe the Basket Weaver weaves a house... and Maybe the Orcs attack and burn the house. Is the Basket Weaver a murder-hobo because he goes after the orcs that gutted his home?

Maybe the basket weaver weaves extra baskets, when he isn't, you know... Killing stuff, and can get paid by selling the baskets in the towns he travels through, enabling him to get enough coin so he doesn't need to rob the other merchants, when he wants to upgrade his gear.

Maybe there's some players that like to play that way.

What have you got against them?

Quote from: TheHistorian;588817Admittedly skipped most of this thread, so I'll miss the point somewhat to ask...

...if there actually is a game with basket weaving as a selectable skill?  If it's in something obvious like D&D 2/3/4, I wouldn't be aware of that.

You could have a Craft (Wood) (?): Basket Weaving specialty for Exalted. If you really wanted.

The weirdest aspect of the whole "basket-weaver" concept is that it was basically invented by 3e.  1e and 2e don't have anywhere near the level of optimization required to truly gimp yourself.

Quote from: CRKrueger;588872The weirdest aspect of the whole "basket-weaver" concept is that it was basically invented by 3e.  1e and 2e don't have anywhere near the level of optimization required to truly gimp yourself.

"I am inclined to think that the far greater part, if not all, of those difficulties   which have hitherto amused philosophers, and   blocked up the way to knowledge, are entirely owing   to ourselves that we have first raised a dust and   then complain we cannot see."  --George Berkeley

This thread shows me that Denners are the Randroids of TRPGs.

Quote from: Benoist;588736Are you saying you need 20 sessions to get attached to a character?

If not, how many sessions does it take for you to be able to role play a character, in your mind?

It's not about how long it takes to get attached to a character. It's about if you're constantly changing characters, you're not going to get attached because you know they're just going to die horribly.

QuoteWell first, there's no THAC0 other than a monster reference in the DMG, in AD&D 1e. Another thing that spells clearly out loud that you don't know much about 1e, to me and the others who happen to know this game on this thread.

So you mean to tell me you do not roll a D20 and see if enemies hit? Because if you do, it doesn't matter if you call that "to hit, THAC0, or get in the kitchen and make me a sammich", what matters is that if they roll high you die. Now you're actually being fairly reasonable here, so don't start that bullshit again.

QuoteNow, if you do everything right, that's not what happens. If you do everything right, you have sneaked past the monsters, waited until they left camp to take their treasure when they weren't looking (GP accounts for about 2/3 of the XPs you're actually gaining, in my experience), created diversions, or ambushed them one by one so that you could kill them outright without them having the chance to reciprocate, etc. Now assuming you're not playing solo as I did, there are indeed plenty of ways in which you could kill a party of goblins, kobolds and the like on the surprise rounds. In other words, you survive because you don't put yourself in that situation where they roll against you with the chance to kill you outright at every encounter in the first place. It's a shift in game play from expecting every encounter to play nicely at equal CR, for sure, but it works in the context of this game.

Translation: You seriously expect taking thing's stuff without killing them to be easier than killing them and then taking their stuff, and seriously expect all enemies to be incredibly stupid even if they aren't. Yeah, I can see why you claim it's an incredibly non lethal experience. You're fighting MMO mobs and not D&D monsters.

QuoteIs it conceivable for you that some players might know the game better than the players represented in the example you are speaking of, and manage the circumstances differently, in your mind?

None of that would prevent one enemy rolls high = one PC dies, and there are about as many enemies as PCs.

QuoteAhhh I see. I misread that part. Sorry.

So you were around 10 when you played AD&D First Ed. Now what I understand is that you never reached level 10ish playing the game, that you played with 3 different DMs at the time (were they about your age?), and that you can't answer the last question because you never reached 10ish level.

OK. That's helping. So, how long and at which frequency did you play AD&D 1e? Were your DMs around your age, too? What is the max level you reached in the game, ever?

One was, one was 16, one was... I have no idea, but he's the dad that originally owned the books. All turned out about the same. Death, death, death... I think I got to 5 or 6 once, before dying and being screwed hard by the must make new at level 1 rule. If I recall correctly I died to my own spell because this is fuck you edition and they didn't tell you Fireball is volume based because they want you to learn that the hard way. A few years and in hindsight at least I accomplished nothing.

QuoteWell that's not an answer. Here's how this pans out:

Q: What RPGs have you played or ran?
A: No.

You don't answer "no" to a question that begins with "what", you see what I mean? I think it's relevant to me to understand where you are coming from, which is a different matter entirely than what you thought I was asking that for.

Now, which other RPGs have you played or run?

When you say what other RPGs have you run and the other person says they think the other RPGs are universally terrible, worthless, and not worth the time and money to learn even though they did not actually say those things were not played much or at all, that's exactly what the case is. Don't start this autistic pedantic bullshit where you act like you can't understand anything that isn't explicitly spelled out.

QuoteThat's where I actually disagree. I think that, especially where old modules are concerned, just reading them to make the kind of judgment you are making is misguided (to say the least). You need to play them to be able to see how different scenarios might play, and given you've just told me that you played AD&D when you were about 10-ish, I think your perception and extrapolation based on what's written on the page might be a tad off.

Except for the part where I read WPM a few days ago. The only way many rooms full of horrible death becomes not many rooms of horrible death is if the DM starts nerfing everything, ignoring the rules, etc.

QuoteAt 10, I'll believe you looked at the charts in the books and read some spells' descriptions. Bonus question: you told me you were not a DM of 1e. Did you read the DMG? If so, to which extent? Did you read it cover to cover?

I'm thinking no. I'd like to say I tried once and the DM got mad because (in hindsight) I'd have seen the super secret fuck you versions of spells and such but I don't remember clearly enough to say.

QuoteActually not. You generally don't level up in one or two sessions to level 2. The advancement rate in AD&D 1e is much slower than what you know of 3rd ed.

Yes I believe I mentioned that... when I was talking about how easy it is to be 1-2 hit KOed.

QuoteThese people would be level 0 or level 1, in AD&D 1e parlance. Which means, yes, if you strike them with a broad sword there's a huge chance for them to die. If they fall in a pit trap they didn't see coming, there's a possibility they'll end up knocking their head and passing out, needing to recuperate at a hospital for the next few days. If they jump head on into flames and take on fire, flames are not "EL appropriate", and they die.

And they are working jobs that while dangerous, are incredibly safe compared to any D&D character. So you consider, policemen and firefighters are rarely hurt in the line of duty if they are well trained. Adventurers are likely to be even if they are.

So while you rarely hear about a firefighter consumed by blazes, or an officer down in the line of duty, what you do hear about in the D&D world is the equivalent of a single police station losing > its maximum concurrent staff per year every year... and that's if they're doing it right (and playing a game in which this is even possible). So if you have 12 "officers", that's more than 12 deaths per year.

QuoteAssuming you stay long enough without being so much of a shithead you are banned, of course.

Remember the fate of your buddy Lord Mistborn.

Your choice.

Right... I don't think you're actually interested in a discussion after all.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;588760Guys, you're arguing with someone who is 13 or 14.  Let it go.  If I read him correctly, he said he was 10 when he read the AD&D books "a few years ago".


I actually feel kind of bad now for allowing myself to get caught up in the drama.  Dude's just a kid.

As usual, you are not reading it correctly, or else you'd know I said I was 10 when first exposed, then read them again a few years ago and if you actually go and reverse engineer my age based on that you get a number of 25 or greater.

I'd ignore you entirely, but experience has shown your dumbfuckery actually will mislead people here.

Quote from: Old One Eye;588799In the incredibly slim chance someone is swayed by the argument that 1e is a deathgrind, please note that 3.5 presents a significantly more dangerous milieu for the characters to adventure in.  In virtually every instance, the 3.5 monster is more powerful (often much more powerful) than its 1e counterpart.

Not entirely accurate. If you look at it in the sense of %life lost from an attack... that's sometimes true and sometimes isn't. If you look at it in the sense of %life lost in a round it's most definitely not true. In older editions you get bigger encounters. If you'd fight 1 Frost Giant in 3.5, you'd fight around 2-4 at once in an older edition. They might individually do less damage but you have less HP, and there are more of them... that's a greater %damage taken ratio. By far.

If you look at the spells, many individual spells are actually weaker in 3.5. Yes really. Illusions and the resulting I disbelieve everything meme? That shit was fucking justified. 3.5 illusions, while powerful are much more limited. Many save or loses were just loses in earlier editions, and even stuff like Fireball, which is the same as the enemy taking no action in 3.5 is devastating in older editions.

Finally, and most importantly... you can do something about it. 1st edition offers nothing but randomness and fuck yous, so expect to be fucked early and often. In 3.5 you can actually build and play well and have that make a difference. Such that even if you did fight 2-4 Frost Giants where you'd normally only fight 1 you'd still easily win it and probably even score a flawless victory. 2-4 Frost Giants in an early edition? Either you Fireball in the top of the first or everyone dies.

Quote from: GameDaddy;588851I'm a GM, and basket weavers have every right to enjoy the game as they see fit!

Then you are a terrible person encouraging, and promoting blights upon gaming. Please die in a fire immediately for the good of humanity.

QuoteWhat have you got against them?

They ruin games.

Quote from: Mr. GC;588892They ruin games.

Perhaps so. I'm sure that Basketweavers can ruin games for some groups, just as Charop Min-maxers, Rules Lawyers, Munchkins and/or Twinks can ruin games for some groups.  Its sounds like your games would be ruined by Basketweavers while my games would not. However, my games would easily be ruined by Charop Min-maxers and Rules Lawyers where from what you have said on this board. I would guess yours would not.

Different strokes for different folks, after all.

Quote from: RandallS;588893Perhaps so. I'm sure that Basketweavers can ruin games for some groups, just as Charop Min-maxers, Rules Lawyers, Munchkins and/or Twinks can ruin games for some groups.  Its sounds like your games would be ruined by Basketweavers while my games would not. However, my games would easily be ruined by Charop Min-maxers and Rules Lawyers where from what you have said on this board. I would guess yours would not.

Different strokes for different folks, after all.

Basket weavers ruin all games.

Cheaters ruin all games.

Powergamers don't even necessarily ruin basket weaver games (hey, someone's gotta carry these losers through the dungeon).

Quote from: Mr. GC;588892In older editions you get bigger encounters. If you'd fight 1 Frost Giant in 3.5, you'd fight around 2-4 at once in an older edition.

Not true in the slightest.  In every edition, whatever monsters can be encountered are those that are placed by the DM.  I've run Hommlet in 1e through 4e, it is not noticeably more deadly in any edition.  

It sounds like you are willing to change the actual world in relation to the edition.  I don't do that.