Quote from: Larsdangly;746026The axiom that anything not forbidden is permitted is a fine philosophical stance, and I value that D&D grognards hold onto this idea, but it is not a useful quotation to throw around when thinking about the way the game actually works. It basically says that you are allowed to tip toe or climb a wall or whatever, regardless of your class. But HOW are you supposed to resolve these things? The game says nothing. Of course you can make it up; I can make up anything I want any time I choose. But that is a crappy rationalization for bad game design. You could say the same thing about attack rolls and saves vs. death rays and so forth, and the game provides plenty of rules for those. Basically, the original designers of D&D kind of shit the bed when it comes to core rules for things other than fighting - even very simple things that come up all the time - and for whatever reason they never went back and tidied it up when the opportunity presented itself. Compare the way Basic D&D was evolving ca. 1978-80 to what Chaosium was presenting in its games. Runequest gives you a simple mechanic in a few easy pages that covers all this stuff. It would have been so easy to do right!

Why do you think that you're less competent at coming up with some method for resolving such actions than those "professional game designers" who simply happen to have their names on the covers of a few books?

I understand and like lots of games, including old school D&D. That doesn't mean I can't notice when they have obviously screwed up.

The notion that old school D&D has done us a favor by leaving open room for improvising sounds great, and it is great when you are talking about settings and roleplaying social interactions, and monster powers, and ancient spells, and so forth. But it doesn't wash when you are talking about basic mechanics of events that come up all the time and probably have to be resolved with a die roll. Would we say it was 'creative' if they had forgotten to tell us the AC rating of half the armors in the equipment table? Or if they had left off the saving throw numbers for half the classes? Of course we could make those things up. But we shouldn't have to, and it would sow pointless chaos by having every person who plays the game make them up on the spot. It is particularly frustrating given how many rules there are for other things.

If you are going to have a game that specifies rules and takes them seriously, those rules should be unobtrusive but useful, self consistent and relevant to the sorts of things you are trying to adjudicate. That isn't a statement about D&D; it is a statement about not having your head up your ass when designing a game with rules. Unfortunately, arguably the best table top role-playing game ever made was written by people who couldn't get it done on this count.

Quote from: Larsdangly;746068If you are going to have a game that specifies rules and takes them seriously, those rules should be unobtrusive but useful, self consistent and relevant to the sorts of things you are trying to adjudicate.

Code name: 3.x
It's common knowledge that when Gary and Co. started getting letters asking for more of this sort of thing, they scratched their heads and wondered why these people couldn't just do what they did and make up their own rules. D&D was originally conceived as a loose framework to be filled in by each playing group as they saw best.

Quote from: Larsdangly;746026The axiom that anything not forbidden is permitted is a fine philosophical stance, and I value that D&D grognards hold onto this idea, but it is not a useful quotation to throw around when thinking about the way the game actually works. It basically says that you are allowed to tip toe or climb a wall or whatever, regardless of your class. But HOW are you supposed to resolve these things? The game says nothing. Of course you can make it up; I can make up anything I want any time I choose. But that is a crappy rationalization for bad game design. You could say the same thing about attack rolls and saves vs. death rays and so forth, and the game provides plenty of rules for those. Basically, the original designers of D&D kind of shit the bed when it comes to core rules for things other than fighting - even very simple things that come up all the time - and for whatever reason they never went back and tidied it up when the opportunity presented itself. Compare the way Basic D&D was evolving ca. 1978-80 to what Chaosium was presenting in its games. Runequest gives you a simple mechanic in a few easy pages that covers all this stuff. It would have been so easy to do right!

Can a character tie his shoes?

There is nothing specifically in the rules that says he can so I suppose adventures the multiverse over walk around with untied shoes. :rolleyes:

In an abstract archetype driven game there will be many things the everyman can just do. If you prefer that every capability be detailed and noted, there are systems better suited to the task than D&D.

As to the "how?" of the resolution its actually quite simple. Look at the situation that is actually occuring in the game and assign a success probability based on present circumstances.

A fighter wants to sneak past some guards at night, and is taking precautions to be quiet (wearing dark clothing, no noisy armor, and moving slowly and carefully) and the guards are in "secure" area and prone to laziness- 85% to succeed.

Hey that fighter is only first level! Why such a high chance?

The circumstances were very favorable. Success chances based on actual conditions beat the hell out of static by the rules dictated fail rates. This gives the player more control and more options to mitigate failure factors . The player has incentive to engage with the in-game situation and make a difference rather than serve as just a die rolling monkey engaging the rules.

You can call this bad game design if you wish, but from a players POV, I prefer the actual situation and an ability to influence it more satisfying gameplay than pushing ability buttons on a character sheet. YMMV.

Then why would you use any rules at all? When that fighter swings a sword at an ogre, do you use the rules to resolve whether or not he hits and what damage he does, or do you just wipe the slate clean and make up something from scratch that makes sense? 10 bucks says, if you tell the truth, you always or almost always use the rules. WHY?

Quote from: Larsdangly;746078Then why would you use any rules at all? When that fighter swings a sword at an ogre, do you use the rules to resolve whether or not he hits and what damage he does, or do you just wipe the slate clean and make up something from scratch that makes sense? 10 bucks says, if you tell the truth, you always or almost always use the rules. WHY?

No matter what game I run, I tend to use the rules that exist and make up the ones that don't.  

And no matter what game you play, there are going to be things that come up that aren't covered by the rules.  It's a continuum.  Some games cover more than others.  BD&D covers less than most.  But it's not like BD&D having you come up with stuff is unique.

Quote from: Larsdangly;746078Then why would you use any rules at all? When that fighter swings a sword at an ogre, do you use the rules to resolve whether or not he hits and what damage he does, or do you just wipe the slate clean and make up something from scratch that makes sense? 10 bucks says, if you tell the truth, you always or almost always use the rules. WHY?

The choice isn't between rules and no rules. It's between your rules and someone else's rules, someone who has no knowledge of what's going on at your game table. Most of us probably do use the combat rules more-or-less as written, because we find that they work well enough for what they were designed to do. But at the same time, if I found that they didn't work the way I think they should, I wouldn't hesitate to replace them with my own. A perfect example is the weaponless combat rules in the DMG. Almost everyone finds that they're clunky and unwieldy, so they make up their own to replace them. That's not a design flaw in AD&D, that's how it's supposed to be done.

I played a B/X thief just recently. I made it all the way to 3rd level before I committed suicide to avoid having to play Tower of the Stargazer anymore.

Anyway, at no time during his life did it ever seem like any rules were missing. No did I ever feel useless. Sure, once melee started my impact was minimal but that was only a small portion of game time.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;746083Anyway, at no time during his life did it ever seem like any rules were missing.

I think what Lars means is that rules are missing for the non-theives who want to try similar things.

Quote from: Larsdangly;746026Of course you can make it up; I can make up anything I want any time I choose. But that is a crappy rationalization for bad game design.

I wish this argument would proverbially die in the proverbial fire.  In TSR D&D, at least up until 2nd Edition, the rules are not the medium for interacting with the game.  The DM is the medium for interacting with the game.  So-called "rules" (guidelines, really) are just handy, but perforce limited, structures to help the DM adjudicate.  It was not expected that everything, or even most things, the players do would require a resolution roll, let alone a hard-and-fast rule.  That may not be design you like or a way you want to play, but it does not make it "bad design".

Quote from: Larsdangly;746078Then why would you use any rules at all? When that fighter swings a sword at an ogre, do you use the rules to resolve whether or not he hits and what damage he does, or do you just wipe the slate clean and make up something from scratch that makes sense? 10 bucks says, if you tell the truth, you always or almost always use the rules. WHY?

And this argument should join the other one in fiery doom.  That DMs like having a few handy structures to turn to for help in adjudication does not mean that everything must be so resolved, or else no rules used at all.  The game cannot, and specifically does not attempt to provide resolution mechanics for everything the DM might have to adjudicate, because every DM will have a different threshold for necessity.  The game provides a base on which a DM may expand or shrink as fits his needs.  Feature, not bug.

I think the starting percentages are a bit too low really, but if you can get to around level 5 the Cyclopedia thief becomes more competent. But after level 5 or so the Cyclopedia starts to stretch out the progression unnecessarily.

Keep in mind that the  thieves abilities are mostly through training. Climbing sheer surfaces without at least a little training is unlikely to go well. Detecting traps, yadda yadda. And the PCs can test for traps, there is that 10ft pole for a reason. They just arent going to be as good ever as someone whos devoting time into learning all the nuances of ever more sophisticated traps and tricks. Why should a fighter be able to do everything a thief can?

This is one area where 3rd eds skill system was viable. You COULD have a fighter with some thieving skills. IF you blew points into it.

One option that was used way back was to adapt the class creation system and just tack on an EXP penalty if someone wanted to pick up some abilities outside their class.

Quote from: Larsdangly;745960That said, I am at a loss as to how anyone could play a thief in this edition without going crazy waiting to get a skill or two up to a useful percentage...How do the rest of you deal with this?

I wouldn't use the BECMI/RC Thief.  

I also wouldn't go with "general skills," which I think are pretty crap as a mechanism in D&D, to begin with.  

You could use the '81 B/X version, although even that may not completely satisfy.  You could roll your own Thief class.  And/or you could think about how Thief abilities should work with the rest of D&D system.

For example, take the example of a PC sneaking up on a guard.  Anyone can attempt this: Fighter, Thief, MU, whatever.  The core built-in mechanism for handling this kind of thing is the surprise check.  However, the Thief has the possibility of moving with no sound at all.  If he succeeds, he increases his chance to surprise.  If he fails to move silently, it shouldn't mean his entire attempt to sneak up on the guard fails.  It means he's moving quietly (like a Fighter might), rather than silently.  He'd still have the normal chance to surprise, just no extra bonus from moving silently.

As far as rolling your own Thief, I made a quick pass at something along those lines, somewhere...[runs off to Google]...here it is:

QuoteLevel/HD/Attacks as Supplement I Thief

Stealth - When actively sneaking or hiding, the Thief gets +1 to surprise (e.g. instead of a standard 2:6 chance of surprise, the Thief gets a 3:6 chance of surprise). At level 9, this increases to +2 to surprise. (Note that a group uses the surprise chance of the least stealthy group member.)

Perceptive - The Thief is only surprised on a 1:6, rather than the standard 2:6. He can detect secret doors on a roll of 1-3. When listening, he hears noises on a roll of 1-2. At level 6, his ability to hear noises improves to 3-6.

Mechanical Manipulation - With proper tools, the Thief has a chance of opening mechanical locks without damaging them, or of removing or disabling small mechanical traps, like spring-loaded poison needles and the like. (Note that traps can also be disabled or bypassed with other precautions, described in-play.) His chances to do so are as follows:
Level 1-4 = 2:6 (roll 1-2 on 1d6)
Level 5-8 = 3:6 (roll 1-3 on 1d6)
Leve 9+ = 4:6 (roll 1-4 on 1d6)

Sneak Attack - When making a melee attack on an enemy who is unaware of the PC, a successful attack deals maximum damage. At level 5, this improves to maximum damage + 1d6. At level 9, this improves to maximum damage + 2d6.

Amazing Climber - The Thief can climb sheer surfaces that most would find impossible without ropes and climbing gear. His chances to climb such surfaces are as follows:
Lvl 1-4 = 17:20 (roll 4-20 on a d20)
Lvl 5-8 = 18:20 (roll 3-20 on a d20)
Lvl 9+ = 19:20 (roll 2-20 on a d20)

That was done off-the-cuff, isn't playtested, and had original D&D (rather than B/X) in mind, but it might be a decent jumping off point.

Quote from: Larsdangly;746078Then why would you use any rules at all? When that fighter swings a sword at an ogre, do you use the rules to resolve whether or not he hits and what damage he does, or do you just wipe the slate clean and make up something from scratch that makes sense? 10 bucks says, if you tell the truth, you always or almost always use the rules. WHY?

The rules are there to make it easier for me to resolve stuff.  I could indeed simply adjudicate combat, but using rules makes it easier.

My players do not have copies of the rules, only I do.  The rules are my notes that I've taken to make the game easier for me to referee.  I don't want more rules than are in the original three little brown books of D&D.

The only rules I use are the to hit charts and saving throw charts and player character progression, because that makes life easier for me.  EVERYTHING else in the rules, from monster description to 3 characters fitting in a 10 foot wide corridor, is a suggestion.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;746075Can a character tie his shoes?

Ah, yes, the old SKILLS!  "Use Rope," "Eat Food," "Take Shit," and other necessary skills.

Any boob can hide behind a door, or in a dark room.  A thief can hide in SHADOWS, not darkness.

There are no rules for a fighter hiding behind a door because frankly Gary and Dave didn't think anybody was stupid enough to need them.

Thief abilities aren't "skills" as later RPGs define them.  They are "I win" buttons to bypass dungeon obstacles.

Suddenly, the (low) percentages actually start to make sense.