Quote from: VisionStorm on January 01, 2021, 04:52:19 PM
Dude, the idea of people thinking of their characters as some sort of epic hero existed since Basic D&D. They had rules for characters going all the way to level 36, for crying out loud! People trying to created idealized representations of themselves were also a thing, and people with long as character backgrounds focused on the drama existed as well. Whether it's a good idea to create a 10 page tragic story of woe for a newly minted level 1 character its a different matter (it isn't), but those kinds of people didn't start existing the moment that 3e rolled out. It's a personal failing, not a rules-dependent topic.

Level 15+ characters are also probably rare in every edition of the game, and if anything, more options means that some people will want to create a bunch of characters rather than stick to just one for prolong periods, just to try out different concepts. You're conflating your own playstyle preferences and anecdotes with the rule systems themselves.

Eirik* might not have phrased it perfectly, but it's a valid point. In a lot of old school play, character was emergent. You rolled up stats randomly, your magic items were largely left to serendipity, and Fighter #2 was a valid character name. A lot of characters died at low levels, leading to a winnowing out process where the typical survivor was better than average (though not always). There was a strong push back, from cultural and rules angles, against thinking too far ahead. It's true the editions had some conflict ideas about this (2e was notorious for promoting princesses & paladins, without having any rules that really supported that kind of character longevity), and there were tons of players who played differently (me included, though that's a complex answer). But there was a fairly strong tendency.

Third edition started with a similar mentality -- if you remember Erik Noah's site (pre-EN World) and the updates, all the designer talk, and the initial push of the gameplay out of the gate, they really though it was going to play a lot more like older editions that it did. But as people looked at what the rules did instead of coming in with pre-existing expectations, that broke down in a lot of ways, including attitudes toward character longevity. The build mentality is probably the best example, because 3.0 and especially 3.5 really encouraged players to decide on things like feats and prestige classes in advance, creating an expected progression that often included very precise and finicky allocations of things like feats and skill points to meet all the requirements. With that much work invested, there was a lot more pressure to find a way for characters to survive. Combined with more formalized notions of level appropriate encounters, more liberal magic item creation rules, and so on; it led to a very different experience.

Quote from: Shasarak on January 01, 2021, 04:57:21 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 01, 2021, 04:15:17 PM
P.S., as an example of this conflict.  In 1e, could you imagine a fighter who found a magic hammer turning it down (unless they already had a far superior magic weapon)?  But from 3e to PF to 5e, I've had players that eschewed a magic weapon for a non-magical on, because the magic weapon conflicted with their build.  "I'm not going to use a +1 longsword... my whole build is based around using Polearm Master and Sentinel!"  Yeah, not what I ever experienced in older editions...

Weapon Specialisation is a thing going back to Unearthed Arcana.

Sure I will take less attacks per round just to use your +1 magic hammer - said no one.

That's one of the reasons why some grognards draw the line before UA was released. And much as I love BECMI's weapon mastery, it's worse. Five feat-equivalents in, and you're not switching.

Quote from: Pat on January 01, 2021, 06:09:41 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on January 01, 2021, 04:57:21 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 01, 2021, 04:15:17 PM
P.S., as an example of this conflict.  In 1e, could you imagine a fighter who found a magic hammer turning it down (unless they already had a far superior magic weapon)?  But from 3e to PF to 5e, I've had players that eschewed a magic weapon for a non-magical on, because the magic weapon conflicted with their build.  "I'm not going to use a +1 longsword... my whole build is based around using Polearm Master and Sentinel!"  Yeah, not what I ever experienced in older editions...

Weapon Specialisation is a thing going back to Unearthed Arcana.

Sure I will take less attacks per round just to use your +1 magic hammer - said no one.

That's one of the reasons why some grognards draw the line before UA was released. And much as I love BECMI's weapon mastery, it's worse. Five feat-equivalents in, and you're not switching.

But Pat its a +1 magic hammer

A +1!

Quote from: Shasarak on January 01, 2021, 06:27:12 PM

Quote from: Pat on January 01, 2021, 06:09:41 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on January 01, 2021, 04:57:21 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 01, 2021, 04:15:17 PM
P.S., as an example of this conflict.  In 1e, could you imagine a fighter who found a magic hammer turning it down (unless they already had a far superior magic weapon)?  But from 3e to PF to 5e, I've had players that eschewed a magic weapon for a non-magical on, because the magic weapon conflicted with their build.  "I'm not going to use a +1 longsword... my whole build is based around using Polearm Master and Sentinel!"  Yeah, not what I ever experienced in older editions...

Weapon Specialisation is a thing going back to Unearthed Arcana.

Sure I will take less attacks per round just to use your +1 magic hammer - said no one.

That's one of the reasons why some grognards draw the line before UA was released. And much as I love BECMI's weapon mastery, it's worse. Five feat-equivalents in, and you're not switching.

But Pat its a +1 magic hammer

A +1!

I'd still keep it around for all of those nails that are immune to nonmagical weapons.

Quote from: Shasarak on January 01, 2021, 06:27:12 PM

Quote from: Pat on January 01, 2021, 06:09:41 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on January 01, 2021, 04:57:21 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 01, 2021, 04:15:17 PM
P.S., as an example of this conflict.  In 1e, could you imagine a fighter who found a magic hammer turning it down (unless they already had a far superior magic weapon)?  But from 3e to PF to 5e, I've had players that eschewed a magic weapon for a non-magical on, because the magic weapon conflicted with their build.  "I'm not going to use a +1 longsword... my whole build is based around using Polearm Master and Sentinel!"  Yeah, not what I ever experienced in older editions...

Weapon Specialisation is a thing going back to Unearthed Arcana.

Sure I will take less attacks per round just to use your +1 magic hammer - said no one.

That's one of the reasons why some grognards draw the line before UA was released. And much as I love BECMI's weapon mastery, it's worse. Five feat-equivalents in, and you're not switching.

But Pat its a +1 magic hammer

A +1!

A master wouldn't even throw back a +3 magic hammer of hurling.

Quote from: Shasarak on January 01, 2021, 06:27:12 PM

Quote from: Pat on January 01, 2021, 06:09:41 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on January 01, 2021, 04:57:21 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 01, 2021, 04:15:17 PM
P.S., as an example of this conflict.  In 1e, could you imagine a fighter who found a magic hammer turning it down (unless they already had a far superior magic weapon)?  But from 3e to PF to 5e, I've had players that eschewed a magic weapon for a non-magical on, because the magic weapon conflicted with their build.  "I'm not going to use a +1 longsword... my whole build is based around using Polearm Master and Sentinel!"  Yeah, not what I ever experienced in older editions...

Weapon Specialisation is a thing going back to Unearthed Arcana.

Sure I will take less attacks per round just to use your +1 magic hammer - said no one.

That's one of the reasons why some grognards draw the line before UA was released. And much as I love BECMI's weapon mastery, it's worse. Five feat-equivalents in, and you're not switching.

But Pat its a +1 magic hammer

A +1!

Well, I recognize that editions like 3.5 and PF have such broken mechanics that your characters can have +20 to skills and to hit by the time they are in their mid to late teens.  But, in AD&D you could easily have a character whose primary stat gave them a +1 to hit for the entire career of the character (that 17 you rolled didn't increase outside of very rare magic items).  So a +1 effectively doubled your attribute bonus.  But I recognize that's a foreign land to many of you.  Making fun of a +1 magic item in OD&D or AD&D shows how little you know what you are talking about (not everyone played in Monty Haul campaigns all the time)...

Quote from: Pat on January 01, 2021, 02:21:01 PM
The points they actually make are far more nuanced, but it's a lot easier to just create strawmen to knock down than to address arguments made by real people.

Just because you claim something is a strawman does not automatically make it so. I notice those who use it hide behind it when they can't really refute the point I made or it's attempt to make one look smarter. Or that it somehow makes the counterpoint have more weight. Note it really does not.

Quote from: Pat on January 01, 2021, 02:21:01 PM
And 3e was a major shift in terms of optimization. The roots go back further, but it became a lot more important in 3e, and that was also accompanied by a culture shift, including the rise of the char op board on WotC website, the increase in the sense of player entitlement and the corresponding decrease in the authority of the Viking hat to curb abuses, builds, a greater degree of dependence on stats, a greater differential between optimized and non-optimized characters, and a lot more.

Oh please spare me the horseshit with your bullshit.

Optimization existed just as much in the Pre-3E days. You think no one ever optimized or because it's your favored edition that somehow optimization never happened with 1E or 2E. Some classes even encouraged it because if one did not meet the attribute requirements one could not take the class. The Ranger and the Paladin are a good example of it. As for Viking Hats we respect and always will respect the DM as we expect to receive the same. Let me tell something if the DM was an asshole no amount of viking hat crap was going to keep us at the table. Same applies and applied to player. If we were not having fun then like we were now we got and walked away and we still walk away. No imaginary Viking hat was going to keep any player who was and is not having fun at the table.

Except you Grognards love to think that somehow your favored pre-3E edition never had flaws. Nor the DMs or players who played and ran them had any flaws. No character optimization ever happened. I expect that kind of attitude from the younger 5E crowd the older gamers should know better. Whatever keep pushing the carefully constructed personal narrative that pre-3E never had issues as we all know nothing can go against the narrative. 

Quote from: sureshot on January 02, 2021, 12:48:28 AM

Quote from: Pat on January 01, 2021, 02:21:01 PM
The points they actually make are far more nuanced, but it's a lot easier to just create strawmen to knock down than to address arguments made by real people.

Just because you claim something is a strawman does not automatically make it so. I notice those who use it hide behind it when they can't really refute the point I made or it's attempt to make one look smarter. Or that it somehow makes the counterpoint have more weight. Note it really does not.

I refuted the point you made. You literally quoted it (below). On strawmen...

Quote from: sureshot on January 02, 2021, 12:48:28 AM

Quote from: Pat on January 01, 2021, 02:21:01 PM
And 3e was a major shift in terms of optimization. The roots go back further, but it became a lot more important in 3e, and that was also accompanied by a culture shift, including the rise of the char op board on WotC website, the increase in the sense of player entitlement and the corresponding decrease in the authority of the Viking hat to curb abuses, builds, a greater degree of dependence on stats, a greater differential between optimized and non-optimized characters, and a lot more.

Oh please spare me the horseshit with your bullshit.

Optimization existed just as much in the Pre-3E days. You think no one ever optimized or because it's your favored edition that somehow optimization never happened with 1E or 2E. Some classes even encouraged it because if one did not meet the attribute requirements one could not take the class. The Ranger and the Paladin are a good example of it. As for Viking Hats we respect and always will respect the DM as we expect to receive the same. Let me tell something if the DM was an asshole no amount of viking hat crap was going to keep us at the table. Same applies and applied to player. If we were not having fun then like we were now we got and walked away and we still walk away. No imaginary Viking hat was going to keep any player who was and is not having fun at the table.

Except you Grognards love to think that somehow your favored pre-3E edition never had flaws. Nor the DMs or players who played and ran them had any flaws. No character optimization ever happened. I expect that kind of attitude from the younger 5E crowd the older gamers should know better. Whatever keep pushing the carefully constructed personal narrative that pre-3E never had issues as we all know nothing can go against the narrative.

I never said optimization didn't exist prior to 3e. In fact, I said the exact opposite, that all the roots were there. I emphasized that there was a difference in degree, which implies a lesser quantity, not an absence. That's a perfect example of a strawman. You literally ignored everything I said and fabricated a completely fantasy to rebut.

I also talked about my experience with third edition, implying I liked it, and talked about grognards in the third person. Yet you're pretending I'm a grogard, even though what I said explicitly contradicted it. Another strawman. Although strawman is probably too weak a term, because it's normally used for overly simplified caricatures of an actual argument, and you just ignored what I said and invented stuff.

You're also implying anyone who doesn't favor your preferred playstyle has no respect for others, and you called them assholes. Which is an asshole move. You also fail to understand the Viking hat metaphor.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 01, 2021, 09:54:45 PM
Nah, let them babble.  The fact that I play 5e far more than OSR wouldn't even phase them.  They are what they accuse others of being: cultists, but they don't even have the slight redeeming quality of being cultists for something, just cultists against something.

The Pot called and it wants it's kettle back. You come here make blanket and wrong statements about pre-3E versions of D&SD while also ignoring the flaws of older editions because you favor them. I am no cultist yet don't try and con gamers into thinking older editions never had optimization it did have it. Simply because it's a favored edition of D&D. If you don't want or expect pushback don't post on a gaming forum. Your not getting an echo chamber.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 01, 2021, 09:54:45 PM
Well, I recognize that editions like 3.5 and PF have such broken mechanics that your characters can have +20 to skills and to hit by the time they are in their mid to late teens.  But, in AD&D you could easily have a character whose primary stat gave them a +1 to hit for the entire career of the character (that 17 you rolled didn't increase outside of very rare magic items).  So a +1 effectively doubled your attribute bonus.  But I recognize that's a foreign land to many of you.  Making fun of a +1 magic item in OD&D or AD&D shows how little you know what you are talking about (not everyone played in Monty Haul campaigns all the time)...

Here is a little secret even in older editions players once they received +1 weapons were looking to upgrade them to better weapons. As eventually the weapon became useless against anything with a +2 or better to hit. o either you lucked out with DMs who went out of their way to go easy on you and the rest of the players as that +1 weapon at higher levels stops being effective for the most part. That creature that has +2 or better to hit is not going to be effected by that +1 sword of yours. It's been going on since 1E With 3.5/PF and Damage Resistance a +1 weapon in those so called editions that you call broken actually made a +1 weapon last longer. With DR one can still hit a creature that requires magic weapons the +1 Sword for example does less damage and one should still upgrade it yet one can get more mileage out of a +1 weapon. I actually carry a +1 weapon as a backup when I play a melee character. So I wonder if you actually played 3.5/Pathfinder or going off the wrong secondhand information.S.

But hey we don't know what we are talking about and all Monty haulers so what we know.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 01, 2021, 02:04:59 PM
Pretty much. The OSR is basically an RPG cult obsessed with OD&D. They see in OD&D whatever they want to see--like people who see the visage of Jesus in burned toast. And OD&D rules are always uniquely suited to handle every eventuality better than other RPGs, even if it didn't include any rules for it, because even the absence of a rule is seen as a feature that promotes creative problem solving, as opposed to the books simply not covering those things.

I am starting to see that.

I have seen it also with the 4E and 5E crowd as well. Yet inevitably with the grognards it's "optimization nah never happened before 3E." with "your a Monty Hauler if you mock a +1 weapon with no clue to what your talking about". As again before 3E no one ever wanted to upgrade their +1 Sword. Let's ignore the fact that many creatures were immune to that weapon once one began encountering the +2 or better weapon to hit creatures.  PF/3.5 has it's flaws at least one can get more out of +1 weapon with Damage Resistance vs it having no effect on a creature.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 01, 2021, 02:04:59 PM
A&D incentivized fighters rolling ridiculous STR, cuz all the real bonuses were gated behind the silly % nonsense. So you need to roll a 18, then roll REALLY high on the d100 to get a decent damage bonus. Not to mention the pointlessness of ability scores when a 17 in STR only gave you a measly +1 to hit and damage. At that point you might as well do away with ability scores if they're only gonna give you crap, since the scores themselves are largely superficial. Spellcasters themselves basically REQUIRED 18 WIS or INT out of the gate or they would NEVER be able to cast level 7 (divine) or 9 spells (arcane), unless the DM was generous enough to include items that permanently increased their scores. There have always been a lot of silly restrictions or conceits you have to put up with in D&D.

I always found that 18/25 Str % strange myself and imo really added nothing to the game. Your also correct about the high stats which continued into 3E. Somehow that never existed in earlier editions of the rpg and it's all those new fangled version of D&D at fault.

One cannot remove ability scores in D&D as so much is tied to them. Not without much work or trying another rpg where ability scores are not so tied to what a character can do. 

Greetings!

Well, character optimization has always existed, from the old days of D&D, that's for certain. I think though, it certainly has increased by degree, as the mechanics of the newer editions have greatly magnified and facilitated such character optimization. Character optimization is fine. Going all in for the absolute maximum mechanical advantages can be fun--though it also can overlook or miss out on other emphasis in character development. There are different play styles, with different approaches and goals embraced by different players, which is also great.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 01, 2021, 09:54:45 PM
Well, I recognize that editions like 3.5 and PF have such broken mechanics that your characters can have +20 to skills and to hit by the time they are in their mid to late teens.  But, in AD&D you could easily have a character whose primary stat gave them a +1 to hit for the entire career of the character (that 17 you rolled didn't increase outside of very rare magic items).  So a +1 effectively doubled your attribute bonus.  But I recognize that's a foreign land to many of you.  Making fun of a +1 magic item in OD&D or AD&D shows how little you know what you are talking about (not everyone played in Monty Haul campaigns all the time)...

If your characters are all dieing before 4th level then maybe you should try some of the character optimisation that people keep talking about.

Either that or try a more forgiving game like 5e or something.

I feel OSR style meatgrinder games real opponents aren't later D&D editions but roguelike games.

If I want to play a game with minimum stats, a grueling challenge, and descending into dungeons for loot and using my wits to beat it, but with minimal character care backstory or stuff il play Delve, or Binding of Isaac.

Edit:

Unexplored is also really great because it encourages evasion and cleverness-not combat.

Quote from: sureshot on January 02, 2021, 01:22:32 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 01, 2021, 02:04:59 PM
Pretty much. The OSR is basically an RPG cult obsessed with OD&D.

I am starting to see that.

I have seen it also with the 4E and 5E crowd as well.

I'll admit, 4E is my favorite edition of D&D, but even I can acknowledge its flaws which is why my spiritual successor project isn't just some retroclone, but it's own system now. Also, these days I'd either use my own system or Palladium Fantasy before I'd use 4E for my fantasy itch.

And to be fair to some of the OSR crowd who push it; RPGPundit made his name by releasing OSR titles; of course he's going to tout OSR as the best thing since sliced bread. It's in his financial interests to tout it (and his titles specifically) as the solution to all things tabletop RPG related. For him to do otherwise would be like expecting a Ford dealership to start touting the benefits of a Toyota.

By the same token, you'll not see me badmouth my own system anywhere either; though I will admit that, even with the various optional rules I included to tailor the experience to let you play it more like other editions, OSR is what it can emulate least well (there's only so far you can bend the default settings of "Big Damn Heroes" and "a choice to make each time you level").

As to optimization, it was definitely a thing in Basic and AD&D; have you ever looked at the base scores of the solo fighter used to teach you the game in the Red Box? Or the ability scores of the pre-gen heroes in 1e Dragonlance modules (which were my first introduction to AD&D)?

Those were NOT characters you got from rolling 3d6 in order, nor does their backstory indicate dozens upon dozens of associates who died along the way getting to DL-1 Dragons of Despair indicative of these having been just the survivors who made it to level 4-6 for the adventure.

Their stats were clearly assigned based on campaign needs and the magic items in the dungeons were likewise preselected to be useful to the pre-gen PCs (almost as if the much poo-pooed "wish list" of 4E were being employed).

The main thing that 3e (or more accurately any "Living" campaign from that era who always used point buy scores) did and 4E continued was to forego the pretense and let you just assign good stats where you wanted them for your PC to begin with instead of pretending that some players didn't roll multiple times to get just the right scores or just outright fudged the results and hoped the GM wouldn't notice... or worst case just suicided the subpar characters so they could get a new PC with possibly better stats.

I remember one DM who outright said he was so sick of people messing with stat rolling and pretending their results were honest that he was just giving us all straight 18s and max hit points for every level, but would be upping the danger accordingly.

CharOps absolutely happened in older editions, it was just that a huge part of it was how well you could BS the DM into believing (or at least giving a pass because it wasn't outrageous) that your stats were actually the legitimate result of 3d6 in order.

We either roll in front of each other - in the first session, or for online games we use an online roller. So there's no real way to cheat other than using loaded dice.