Actually, Phillip, it was a common complaint against D&D going back to the 1970s. There were easy and valid rejoinders, some of them even published in one official book or another, such as "just give out XP using some other criteria". Instant solution. All I was saying was that I don't see how Peregrin's comment applied especially to 2e.

QuoteConsider the design itself in light of this "new school" complaint

:rotfl: New school in the sense of 1978! Coming from TFT (and its descendant, GURPS), and Runequest, when 2e came out and I heard about its use of "skills" it was like the moment when Coke "blinked" in its staredown with Pepsi.

The problem with the attribute-based system in pre-3e D&D isn't that people can't gain levels in their NWPs (although I gather they can, sort of). With all due disclaimers (again) about my never having played 2e or BECMI/RC, the NWPs seem all too likely to allow characters with high ability scores to steamroller their way through games in a way completely out of proportion with their class levels.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;453805Actually, Phillip, it was a common complaint against D&D going back to the 1970s.

I merely noted that it was false, regardless of how often it may have been made.

QuoteThere were easy and valid rejoinders...

...such as the actual rules.

QuoteAll I was saying was that I don't see how Peregrin's comment applied especially to 2e.

2e made the former rule of x.p. for treasure optional, rather buried it, and the usual default offered nothing in its place. Points for monster slaying may have been increased slightly, but nowhere near enough to make up the difference.

If your only way to get x.p. is to kill orcs, and orcs are worth only 20 x.p. each, that's 100 kills to get the 2,000 x.p. needed for 2nd level!

The 2e inclusion of straight 3d6 as a featured option for player-character ability scores made a constitution bonus less likely than in 1st edition. With hit dice rolled normally, surviving 100 chances to get hit is extremely improbable.

(Rules for negative hit points help, but two hits for 1d6 each have a 1 in 6 chance of reducing even a 10-point fighter to zero.)

QuoteNew school in the sense of 1978!

No, "new school" in terms of the D&D schools today. The "old school" is packed with people who understand and embrace the designers' view of the game. The "new school" is packed with people who wanted -- and have got -- something other than what D&D was.

QuoteWith all due disclaimers (again) about my never having played 2e or BECMI/RC, the NWPs seem all too likely to allow characters with high ability scores to steamroller their way through games in a way completely out of proportion with their class levels.

How?

It's a mighty bizarre "Dungeons & Dragons" game that continually has all hinging upon a toss of dice for fire building, fishing, rope use, weather sense, or making animal noises!

Quote from: thedungeondelver;453757Maybe 2e fell into the trap of reverse Star Trek movie quality.  All the odd numbered (A)D&Ds are good, the even numbered ones are lousy.

And yet I love 2e and am currently getting into 4e.  Sigh.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;453805The problem with the attribute-based system in pre-3e D&D isn't that people can't gain levels in their NWPs (although I gather they can, sort of). With all due disclaimers (again) about my never having played 2e or BECMI/RC, the NWPs seem all too likely to allow characters with high ability scores to steamroller their way through games in a way completely out of proportion with their class levels.

Only if you played NWP's as that important in your game.  A lot of the time they never even come up for me.  The only two major events I recall was a player getting upset when his Wizard, who didn't have a Riding skill/NWP, ended up rolling a nat 20 (equivalent of a nat 1 attack roll) and falling off his horse when trying to charge into combat; and when my gnome fighter played poker with some other PC's, and after we all made successes on our rolls and I declared that I had the Gambling NWP (and it turned out nobody else did), my character was declared the winner (by the other players, not the DM).  I have found NWP's to be a great way of adding flavor to the game, and has not resulted in any effect when it comes to combat or any other game balance issues.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;453805The problem with the attribute-based system in pre-3e D&D isn't that people can't gain levels in their NWPs (although I gather they can, sort of). With all due disclaimers (again) about my never having played 2e or BECMI/RC, the NWPs seem all too likely to allow characters with high ability scores to steamroller their way through games in a way completely out of proportion with their class levels.

Yes, it did, especially when using NWPs not from the core rules.  The proficiency system in OA was a bit different in that it wasn't based on ability scores and (if I'm remembering it right) so preserved the level-based-ness of AD&D...I wonder why they went with the version from the Survival Guides.  It wasn't until Player's Option that the system was overhauled and made less dependent on raw ability scores.

Quote from: KenHR;453817The proficiency system in OA was a bit different...

If your campaign is one in which art appreciation, poetry, calligraphy and tea ceremony are essential to advancement as a warrior, then of course tying such skills to level may make sense.

The fairly obvious question is why pull them out in the first place from the class/level descriptions, adding a separate "skills system"?

Depending on your answer, you may be in the market for a game such as 3e or Palladium or Rolemaster -- or even one that replaces classes and levels entirely.

I should add that I see the question posed as well in the cases of AD&D weapon proficiencies and specialization, or Masters/RC weapon mastery.

I personally find those to weaken the significance of classes and levels, and of magic weapons as well, and do not like the effects.

When I was introduced to gaming, AD&D 2e was the dominant edition. During the early 90s my country (or at least, my city) experienced a RPG fad which was probably the closest we ever got to the 1980s craze in the US.

I was more of a D&D RC kid, but of course I was in awe of the lush, colored colors (the interior art was hit and miss) and of such "advanced" concepts as the race/class split, the expanded weapon table (with different damage dice against Small or Medium, and Large opponents)...  and of course, the settings. Dragonlance for some reason was hugely popular around here, as was Ravenloft; Forgotten Realms less so, Greyhawk almost unheard of, Dark Sun divided opinions ("OMG so edgy" vs. "WTF?") and Spelljammer was poorly understood and openly derided. Birthright and Planescape only came later.

In our defense, we were 13.

I still play AD&D 2e from time to time, as it still is the edition of choice for several, if not most people in my circle of gaming friends. It's not my #1 choice by any stretch, but it does push on the old nostalgia buttons. Now that I know AD&D 1e, and OD&D, and the smattering of retro-clones and tributes and variations, I cannot say I am "awed" by AD&D 2e the way I was as a youngling. Nonetheless, it does push the nostalgia buttons, and I don't think that's a bad thing. Sure, I'd rather be playing D&D RC, or AD&D 1e, or Labyrinth Lord, or Swords & Wizardry; but D&D is D&D, and if the GM can make the game sing, I'll just roll with it.

Quote from: Phillip;453815...such as the actual rules.

I don't recall anything in the actual rules of White Box D&D (with or without supplements) or AD&D 1e (core 3 published by 1979, not add-ons published half a decade later) that talked about awarding experience for anything other than monsters killed and treasure taken. If your point is that XP for treasure provides a means of gaining experience without resorting to combat, then point taken, although I don't recall exactly how much guidance there is in the actual rules for adjudicating treasure XP when the treasure wasn't gained directly through combat.

If 2e did have an official option for taking treasure out of the XP equation, without any balancing factor, as you say, then so much the worse. But even with XP for treasure, the criticism is valid. Not in the sense that if you played D&D by the book you were guaranteed a bad time, but in the sense that just giving XP for kills & treasure didn't satisfy how everyone wanted their game to work. Yes, this was an impetus to the development and popularization of new games entirely. However, it was also incorporated into some versions of D&D IIRC.

QuoteNo, "new school" in terms of the D&D schools today. The "old school" is packed with people who understand and embrace the designers' view of the game. The "new school" is packed with people who wanted -- and have got -- something other than what D&D was.

This seems like an unjustifiably rigid and ahistorical classification of opinions. In other words, my reaction to the RC non-combat skills (which is the first place I saw the pre-3e skills approach) was that of someone who'd read & played RPGs since the 1970s, including original D&D, AD&D, TFT, GURPS, Runequest, but who'd never read or played 3e.

Nowadays I think I understand and appreciate the designers' view of the game better than I did, and the attribute-based skills seems just as bad from a D&D perspective as they do from RQ perspective. Let D&D be D&D.

QuoteIt's a mighty bizarre "Dungeons & Dragons" game that continually has all hinging upon a toss of dice for fire building, fishing, rope use, weather sense, or making animal noises!

If you tie the skills to attribute scores, it invites players to seek out ways to use skills tied to high scores to their benefit. Here are two lists of all the NWPs in 2e:

http://www.hurva.org/Docs/Houserules/NWP/NWPcompletelist.html
http://www.rpg.net/etrigan/files/nwpindx.txt

Here's a list of character skills from RC & the Gazetteers:

http://webnexus1.tripod.com/theworldofmystara/id67.html

I can't vouch for the completeness in any of these.

Not all of the skills in the lists are terribly useful for adventuring, but quite a few are, especially if your gaming tends to drift out of the dungeon and into city-based adventures and situations involving intrigue & trickery.

For me it's the corebooks, the settings and the wonderful 2nd version of the chargen program + expansion. While PCGen's workable (esp. for free!), the AD&D2E chargen program is very very helpful. Could do encounters and had a simple map maker that could handle wilderness and dungeons.

Never had much more than that really, though the chargen program had electronic files of pretty much all the rulebooks.

I think with a Dragon article that flipped NWPs to additions to a d20 roll + some other bits pre-3E you could have a really stripped down d20/D&D3E but not sure I'd want to bother reinventing the wheel.

Quote from: Peregrin;453684I think where I get confused is when you have this elaborate world with all these political organizations, and all this game text telling you how to make "real" characters, yada yada, and then all of that is grafted onto a wargame dungeon-crawling system designed to be extremely lethal, but where your primary XP comes from killing things.

In essence, a system where designers were telling you to strive to make your character unique and special, but one where it actively wanted your character to die as quickly as possible.

I mean, it works for Baldur's Gate, because you can reload your last save if you get slaughtered and get Minsc or someone back, but it just seems like a mismatch between intent for what should be happening at the table and the actual game design.

Just to poke at this one again (the classic Forge 'Incoherency' complaint):
2E characters did get their survival ramped up over the OD&D/1e dungeon crawlers with probably higher ability scores and negative HPs now largely in use (at least we always used this, even though it was still an optional rule).
And characters still got resurrection and the like, in extremis. For me at least I think 2E in some ways manages to find a good balance between having characters be actually threatened occasionally and having a working campaign.

The main thrust of the rules revolved around combat, rather than storytelling, but  I'd say that combat inherently requires more rules than social situations or 'test of character' type situations that you can actually use roleplaying for.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;453838I don't recall anything in the actual rules of White Box D&D (with or without supplements) or AD&D 1e (core 3 published by 1979, not add-ons published half a decade later) that talked about awarding experience for anything other than monsters killed and treasure taken.

Death.

1000xp bump for dying - death making you "sadder but wiser".

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;453859Just to poke at this one again (the classic Forge 'Incoherency' complaint):
2E characters did get their survival ramped up over the OD&D/1e dungeon crawlers with probably higher ability scores and negative HPs now largely in use (at least we always used this, even though it was still an optional rule).
And characters still got resurrection and the like, in extremis. For me at least I think 2E in some ways manages to find a good balance between having characters be actually threatened occasionally and having a working campaign.

The main thrust of the rules revolved around combat, rather than storytelling, but  I'd say that combat inherently requires more rules than social situations or 'test of character' type situations that you can actually use roleplaying for.

The ideas I put out there hardly begin with the forge. Otherwise what was the point of advertising 3e as 'back to the dungeon?' My complaint has nothing to do with including story mechanics, and everything with 2e trying to copy other gaming trends without thinking about how those styles of play mesh with the assumptions of d&d to produce satisfactory play. Saying those criticisms are classic forge is giving rewards credit for a line of thinking that already existed.

Quote from: The Butcher;453837Dragonlance for some reason was hugely popular around here, as was Ravenloft; Forgotten Realms less so, Greyhawk almost unheard of, Dark Sun divided opinions ("OMG so edgy" vs. "WTF?") and Spelljammer was poorly understood and openly derided. Birthright and Planescape only came later.

Dude, that sounds EXACTLY like the D&D scene in Eastern France (with the caveat there were a lot of games besides D&D that were competing for attention).

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut even with XP for treasure, the criticism is valid. Not in the sense that if you played D&D by the book you were guaranteed a bad time, but in the sense that just giving XP for kills & treasure didn't satisfy how everyone wanted their game to work. Yes, this was an impetus to the development and popularization of new games entirely.

How does that make a FALSE claim -- "your primary XP comes from killing things" -- a valid criticism?

Not only is that plainly illogical, but what it really comes down to is this:

You: "I don't like using treasures as tokens for points, therefore it's wrong!"

Arneson & Gygax: "As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign. They provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity  ... New details can be added and old 'laws' altered," and "the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!"

If you've got some major malfunction that prevents you from awarding x.p. however you please, then I guess you're stuck waiting for me or someone else to publish a book giving you 'permission' for method #42.

But this is Dungeons & Dragons, not Contract Bridge.

Gygax: "Being a true DM requires cleverness and imagination which no set of rules books can bestow. Seeing that you were clever enough to buy this volume, and you have enough imagination to desire to become the maker of a fantasy world, you are almost there already!"

Just how dim a bulb would someone have to be to complain about the suggested x.p. awards and have no 'better' alternative in mind?

The game was set up so that players are free to choose whatever means they wish to secure treasures, without losing points for "doing the wrong thing". Richer ones are on average harder to get, at least by brute force, but the actual difficulty in practice depends on the effectiveness of one's chosen plan -- which may be something the DM never thought of.

The proposed 'improvements' tend to come in two main varieties:

(1) Nickle and Dime: "Kill, kill, kill" is of this variety, but there are all sorts of niggling details one can add to the accounting burden. Made a roll of some sort? Score a few points.

It's lovely for drunkard's walks, but not so great for encouraging strategic pursuit of objectives. "The Golden Egg Cup? Oh, yeah. Is this going to be like when we didn't get around to Mount Doom because Sam insisted on cleaning out Dol Guldur? < shudder > I hope never to see another mop or dustpan."

In some games, if you are so well prepared that you sneak past all the traps and guards to bring home the Egg Cup or the Princess or whatever without a hitch, you have screwed yourself of points for "skipping encounters". Smart play is actually stupid, and stupid is smart.

(2) The DM's Whim: This, I understand, is how Arneson's proto-D&D started out. The DM "levels you up" (or maybe even hands out x.p.) whenever he or she thinks "the time is right" for reasons that might not be revealed (if at all) until after the fact.

The ability to form a strategy tends thus to boil down to guessing "what the DM wants us to do".

Quote from: Peregrin;453874The ideas I put out there hardly begin with the forge. Otherwise what was the point of advertising 3e as 'back to the dungeon?' My complaint has nothing to do with including story mechanics, and everything with 2e trying to copy other gaming trends without thinking about how those styles of play mesh with the assumptions of d&d to produce satisfactory play. Saying those criticisms are classic forge is giving rewards credit for a line of thinking that already existed.

Well, good for you, though I still don't what the problem is with 2E trying to be a more general FRPG rather than just dungeon-y.
On the copying other gaming trends I'd have said the shifting focus from dungeon exploration to complex plots and characters was a trend within D&D, rather than outside, even though some of the mechanics it picked up to support this e.g. skills pioneered by other systems. If anything, D&D designers seem to be generally pretty bad at finding and absorbing innovations.