A few thoughts/gripes about recent game modern game design.

[Alai]

I would agree that “go home and wait for the world to end” is certainly genre-appropriate, and may even be interesting. But not fun. Especially in a Campaign.

Yeah. World ended a lot of times in Mythos fiction. Dunno what the long-running campaign cope is there. Gnostic Cthulhu or something, anyone?

(In CoCs defense, I just checked the 2nd ed rule book, and you can try again after 4 hours if you fail a Library Use roll. Which runs into another one of my personal peeves: if you’re under time pressure, then that can lead to the end of the world. If you can just keep trying until you succeed, then why are you rolling?)

Reminding the witness and the court that "not a CoC person" disclaimers still apply, I have a thought or two on how one might rules-doctor that.

First, I think an excellent general rule-of-thumb on retries is the one mentioned up the thread -- I dunno if we quite ever blamemapped/credited to its 'original' source -- is "reroll only if the situation materially changes". Obviously that's very how-long-is-a-piece-of-string, but you can concretise that (somewhat) as "do something that'd give you a bonus you didn't have previously".

Then the last piece is, time bonuses. My normal take is those make most sense if they're roughly logarithmic. Are you taking an extra minute, hour, day, week, month...? Then you're still under a pressure if you don't have that long. But maybe you can do something else in the meantime to "significantly change" the situation.

 

[JoeNuttall]

If it is about the thief. If so then we know why things are the way they are. Gygax made his call starting with the Thief's initial writeup in Greyhawk Supplement I. The thief percentage of success at various tasks was never meant to be D&D's skill system.

It was the first ever skill system that almost others derive from (such as Runequest) so I don't think we can say it wasn't meant to be a skill system - that's clearly what it was.
It wasn't the only solution, the Caltech variant (later published as The Complete Warlock) had a completely different implementation where (as a Thief) you pick and choose which skills you want, most are "you can do this" which is a much better approach (as proposed by others in this thread). For those which you do roll the chances are much higher. Pick Locks at 1st level has a 2/3 chance of success (compared to Greyhawk's 15% chance). For all its faults, the Caltech system is clearly more thought through, and is far more useable today. It reads as though its the outcome of actual playtesting.

There is nothing wrong to dislike how the default thief is setup in classic D&D. I don't like it and made the Burglar instead. But there is a difference between saying it is a system flaw versus disagreeing with the author's view of the default setting.

I do think it's clearly a flaw in D&D. It's never a good option to play a Thief in D&D - at low levels you're so useless as to be completely pointless, and at higher levels you're completely unnecessary. It clearly was not properly playtested - it differs little from Gary's initial unplaytested version (see here).

 

[Sharrow]

I do think it's clearly a flaw in D&D. It's never a good option to play a Thief in D&D - at low levels you're so useless as to be completely pointless, and at higher levels you're completely unnecessary. It clearly was not properly playtested - it differs little from Gary's initial unplaytested version (see here).

I think 'never' is too strong a term, at least if you count AD&D2 where you could choose where your points went. We had a few very fun sessions in a mini-campaign of all thieves running round Waterdeep getting into and out of trouble. As I recall we were 3-5th level, so specialty skills were reasonably reliable (especially when using the gear from the thieves splatbook for +5-10% more chance), and non thieves wouldn't have been able to keep up and magic didn't yet overwhelm mundanes.

I will grant that that's a pretty narrow window and a fairly narrow scope.

 

[ffilz]

I think 'never' is too strong a term, as least if you count AD&D2 where you could choose where your point went. We had a few very fun sessions in a mini-campaign of all thieves running round Waterdeep getting into and out of trouble. As I recall we were 3-5th level, so specialty skills were reasonably reliable (especially when using the gear from the thieves splatbook for +5-10% more chance), and non thieves wouldn't have been able to keep up and magic didn't yet overwhelm mundanes.

I will grant that that's a pretty narrow window and a fairly narrow scope.

Interestingly the Thieves Guild game starts thieves off with D&D like percentages. Maybe a bit higher. But definitely not in that 70% sweet spot.

 

[ffilz]

RQ2 also had previous experience rules that would give you 50+% in a couple of skills, and made your character a seasoned 21-year old instead of a raw 16-year old. I'm not familiar with RQ1's previous experience rules, so I don't know how they went.

As for rune--level, one of my characters got to 90+% attack and parry, and also in a language. We joked that these were the 'easy three', and now he had the hard work to do.

RQ1 previous experience can also put out some 50% and even 75% starting skills.

 

[Alai]

It was the first ever skill system that almost others derive from (such as Runequest) so I don't think we can say it wasn't meant to be a skill system - that's clearly what it was.
It wasn't the only solution, the Caltech variant (later published as The Complete Warlock) had a completely different implementation where (as a Thief) you pick and choose which skills you want, most are "you can do this" which is a much better approach (as proposed by others in this thread).

This might be a deficient reading of what you're saying at my end, because I don't know the details of what's in Greyhawk Supplement I, or how it related to RQ. Or not beyond its general origins in Steve Perrin deciding something on the lines of "D&D sucks, I wrote my own game instead", or "I house-rulesed D&D until I ended up with something different", depending which telling of the tale you put the more weight on.

But surely the essence of a "skill system" is exactly that it's debundled from things like "class"? i.e., that there is a way to choose them, directly or indirectly. As there is in RuneQuest. "Ad hoc mechanics for some features of a class" is very on-brand for early D&D, but seems different in concept from a "skills system".

 

[JoeNuttall]

This might be a deficient reading of what you're saying at my end, because I don't know the details of what's in Greyhawk Supplement I, or how it related to RQ. Or not beyond its general origins in Steve Perrin deciding something on the lines of "D&D sucks, I wrote my own game instead", or "I house-rulesed D&D until I ended up with something different", depending which telling of the tale you put the more weight on.

But surely the essence of a "skill system" is exactly that it's debundled from things like "class"? i.e., that there is a way to choose them, directly or indirectly. As there is in RuneQuest. "Ad hoc mechanics for some features of a class" is very on-brand for early D&D, but seems different in concept from a "skills system".

Thief skills are clearly skills, and unlike earlier mechanics they each have a percentage success that progressively increases. They are clearly the original skill system, and the extension beyond Thief skills and allowing player choice are the obvious next step. They don't have to be divorced from class, for example how they're done in Rolemaster. It still has D&D-like classes and levels and XP, and simply extends skills beyond thief skills and allows players choice in which skills to improve. The classes are differentiated in how many points skills cost varies from class to class. There was a lot of innovation in Runequest, but most of it was there in some form or other in prior systems and houserules.

EDIT: Greyhawk Supplement thieves are pretty much the same as B/X and AD&D thieves. Very few people played D&D before Greyhawk was published. After that lots of people were trying to house rule D&D to make it more how they wanted it to be, some ended up as variants (Arduin, Warlock) and some new games (RQ).

 

[JoeNuttall]

I think 'never' is too strong a term, as least if you count AD&D2 where you could choose where your point went.

Yes, I meant Gygax-era D&D.

We had a few very fun sessions in a mini-campaign of all thieves running round Waterdeep getting into and out of trouble. As I recall we were 3-5th level, so specialty skills were reasonably reliable (especially when using the gear from the thieves splatbook for +5-10% more chance), and non thieves wouldn't have been able to keep up and magic didn't yet overwhelm mundanes.

I will grant that that's a pretty narrow window and a fairly narrow scope.

Sounds great fun :-)

 

[migo]

My question is why do you think 1st level characters should have higher odds of success?

Unless I'm playing a gigolo with a tongue stud, I don't want to spend my escapist leisure time pretending to be someone who sucks.

 

[ffilz]

Unless I'm playing a gigolo with a tongue stud, I don't want to spend my escapist leisure time pretending to be someone who sucks.

Then play a game that supports that agenda. Don’t call other games poorly designed.

 

[AsenRG]

You might say that's a mismatch between the system and the adventure, that an investigative adventure shouldn't be written for a BRP-esque system, but since investigations are fun, it's the other way around. The system should be designed so that investigations work.

...investigations work just fine in BRP-type systems, no idea what you're talking about!

 

[migo]

Then play a game that supports that agenda. Don’t call other games poorly designed.

That's not an agenda. Nobody who wants to play RPGs after hearing about them for the first time wants to play someone who sucks. It's only something people pretend is desirable out of an inexplicable need to justify unjustifiably bad mechanics.

 

[ffilz]

That's not an agenda. Nobody who wants to play RPGs after hearing about them for the first time wants to play someone who sucks. It's only something people pretend is desirable out of an inexplicable need to justify unjustifiably bad mechanics.

Why do you feel the need to diss those who enjoy a different kind of game. I enjoy zero to hero and continue to attract players who do also. If people enjoy those games who are you to say they’re bad. I know other styles of games are out there and I’ve played some and had fun with them. I’m not inexplicably justifying bad game designs. I embrace a variety of game designs. Bug right now, I happen to be playing and running all zero to hero games.

 

[ffilz]

Oh and one more thing. Out of deference to playing short sessions every other week, I use the previous experience system in RQ1 and start Cold Iron characters at 4th level.

 

[robertsconley]

Unless I'm playing a gigolo with a tongue stud, I don't want to spend my escapist leisure time pretending to be someone who sucks.

Rather thinking that 1st level suck, excepf if they are gigolo with tongue studs, how about starting out a campaign as experienced characters?

 

[robertsconley]

That's not an agenda. Nobody who wants to play RPGs after hearing about them for the first time wants to play someone who sucks. It's only something people pretend is desirable out of an inexplicable need to justify unjustifiably bad mechanics.

I had a very successful campaign where all the players were 75 PT GURPS characters living in a City State neighborhood.

And there were other low point campaigns intermixed with starting out at heroic level (125 to 150)

Why? They wanted to experience the challenge of various situations in my setting.

 

[migo]

Why do you feel the need to diss those who enjoy a different kind of game. I enjoy zero to hero and continue to attract players who do also. If people enjoy those games who are you to say they’re bad. I know other styles of games are out there and I’ve played some and had fun with them. I’m not inexplicably justifying bad game designs. I embrace a variety of game designs. Bug right now, I happen to be playing and running all zero to hero games.

There's a difference between a good concept and a good implementation. D&D is a terrible implementation of a fantastic concept. A lot of RPGs are like that. With imagination you can stretch the concept really far, and it can be great fun. But that doesn't mean the implementation couldn't, and more importantly shouldn't, be done better.

 

[Alai]

Then play a game that supports that agenda. Don’t call other games poorly designed.

Is that agenda or Agenda?

 

[migo]

Rather thinking that 1st level suck, excepf if they are gigolo with tongue studs, how about starting out a campaign as experienced characters?

I had a very successful campaign where all the players were 75 PT GURPS characters living in a City State neighborhood.

And there were other low point campaigns intermixed with starting out at heroic level (125 to 150)

Why? They wanted to experience the challenge of various situations in my setting.

You answered your own question. In GURPS 3e the default was 100 points. In Dungeon Fantasy the default is 250 points. You can choose to run with less, but the first, unmarked experience is going to be with more competent characters. So with D&D the game should tell you to start with 3rd level characters (like Dark Sun) or even something higher, instead of requiring you to find out for yourself that's the way to go after some shitty sessions.

 

[thebigh]

I think the whole zero-to-hero thing needs to be handled skillfully. As a player it's cool to watch your character develop from a regular Joe to an action badass. There is nothing wrong with wanting to play a normal person dropped into a situation where they're outmatched, but what isn't fun is whiffing on every combat roll, not being able to contribute anything useful, and generally just having to run away all the time. Have Mr. Zero be outclassed in combat, sure, but also give the player some opportunities to show the sort of tenacity, ingenuity, and courage that foreshadows the formidable champion that character will eventually grow into.

 

[JAMUMU]

I think the whole zero-to-hero thing needs to be handled skillfully. As a player it's cool to watch your character develop from a regular Joe to an action badass. There is nothing wrong with wanting to play a normal person dropped into a situation where they're outmatched, but what isn't fun is whiffing on every combat roll, not being able to contribute anything useful, and generally just having to run away all the time. Have Mr. Zero be outclassed in combat, sure, but also give the player some opportunities to show the sort of tenacity, ingenuity, and courage that foreshadows the formidable champion that character will eventually grow into.

Or, and stay with me here, you spend a few sessions throwing 1st level character after 1st level character until you're all level 3+ and ready to rumble: the party will consist of Thief Four, Fighter Two, Wizard Six and Original Cleric. You all get your tattoos in Swampstain, and then a delving you will go!

It's a different playstyle, sure. But we always had fun with it.

DM: "Okay, so what's the difference between Paladin Two and Paladin Three?"
Me: "Uuuuuhhh, Paladin Three is a she!"

 

[Alai]

Thief skills are clearly skills, and unlike earlier mechanics they each have a percentage success that progressively increases. They are clearly the original skill system, and the extension beyond Thief skills and allowing player choice are the obvious next step.

Hrm. So to Save vs Death by Powerpoint that, they:

• Increase progressively... with level. Like class abilities often do.
• Are expressed as a percentage, as some skill systems are. And some class abilities are, and some skill systems aren't.
• Have "skills" in the name.
• Are "clearly" something, twice. (Maths professor joke go here.)
• Are in fact class abilities.

Doesn't sound much like a skill system as the term is generally understood, sorry.

There was a lot of innovation in Runequest, but most of it was there in some form or other in prior systems and houserules.

I'm not here to big up RQ's billing. That just caught my eye as it's one I'm familiar with, and wasn't really seeing the obvious link with that aspect of D&D. (Many others, rather blatantly.) Maybe it's clearer if one sees the assorted intermediate tweaks in between or the various other "parents", Iunno. And I'm definitely not making any claim as to what was the first "skill system", however defined.

EDIT: Greyhawk Supplement thieves are pretty much the same as B/X and AD&D thieves.

Right, that's sort of what I was presuming, just wasn't sure either first-hand or from the original post. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Alai]

I think the whole zero-to-hero thing needs to be handled skillfully. As a player it's cool to watch your character develop from a regular Joe to an action badass. There is nothing wrong with wanting to play a normal person dropped into a situation where they're outmatched, but what isn't fun is whiffing on every combat roll, not being able to contribute anything useful, and generally just having to run away all the time. Have Mr. Zero be outclassed in combat, sure, but also give the player some opportunities to show the sort of tenacity, ingenuity, and courage that foreshadows the formidable champion that character will eventually grow into.

Yeah, I'm reminded here of HeroQuest (as was), which made this distinction jarringly clear to me, as it pinged between different authorial hands. "What're the numbers" and "what do the numbers mean in the world" (or in the "fiction", if you're going to look at it that way instead) are two separate issues. Or potentially separable ones, at least.

 

[migo]

Or, and stay with me here, you spend a few sessions throwing 1st level character after 1st level character until you're all level 3+ and ready to rumble: the party will consist of Thief Four, Fighter Two, Wizard Six and Original Cleric. You all get your tattoos in Swampstain, and then a delving you will go!

It's a different playstyle, sure. But we always had fun with it.

DM: "Okay, so what's the difference between Paladin Two and Paladin Three?"
Me: "Uuuuuhhh, Paladin Three is a she!"

In the context of modern game design, that's anachronistic at best. Ain't nobody got time for that. Sure in high school it worked.

Essentially what you were doing is extended Classic Traveller character generation. And while people think it's funny, nobody thinks it's actually good.

 

[thebigh]

Or, and stay with me here, you spend a few sessions throwing 1st level character after 1st level character until you're all level 3+ and ready to rumble: the party will consist of Thief Four, Fighter Two, Wizard Six and Original Cleric. You all get your tattoos in Swampstain, and then a delving you will go!

It's a different playstyle, sure. But we always had fun with it.

DM: "Okay, so what's the difference between Paladin Two and Paladin Three?"
Me: "Uuuuuhhh, Paladin Three is a she!"

Ah yes, the meatgrinder. That can definitely be fun, provided chargen is (unlike the death of Wizard Four) quick and painless. Moldvay D&D? Definitely. GURPS? Probably not. The bigger the chargen investment the less I'd want to bother.

 

[JAMUMU]

In the context of modern game design, that's anachronistic at best. Ain't nobody got time for that. Sure in high school it worked.

Essentially what you were doing is extended Classic Traveller character generation. And while people think it's funny, nobody thinks it's actually good.

Good equals funny. Funny equals good. The obsession with applying modern game design principles to 35 year old game systems is too damn high!

 

[JAMUMU]

Ah yes, the meatgrinder. That can definitely be fun, provided chargen is (unlike the death of Wizard Four) quick and painless. Moldvay D&D? Definitely. GURPS? Probably not. The bigger the chargen investment the less I'd want to bother.

It's very much a paradigm that requires quick character design. If a GURPS GM or a HERO GM tried that shit, why, I'd chop them across the throat and piss on their cornflakes.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

In the context of modern game design, that's anachronistic at best. Ain't nobody got time for that. Sure in high school it worked.

Essentially what you were doing is extended Classic Traveller character generation. And while people think it's funny, nobody thinks it's actually good.

I enjoy this style of play. It isn't for every group, but when you have the right mix of players, it can be a ton of fun. Many of the best campaigns I have played in have been of this style (and not too long ago so well after high school). I do get the time issue for some though and one game that has appealed to me a lot lately because it gets at this style but more efficiently is Dungeon Crawl Classics.

 

[migo]

Good equals funny. Funny equals good. The obsession with applying modern game design principles to 35 year old game systems is too damn high!

It's not about applying them to 35 year old systems - unless we can do time travel, in which case that would be the best application of the technology imaginable.

It's about making sure we don't repeat 35 year old mistakes when making a game now.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

It's very much a paradigm that requires quick character design. If a GURPS GM or a HERO GM tried that shit, why, I'd chop them across the throat and piss on their cornflakes.

I agree on the quick character design. It can work in a system you are familiar with as well. I've been in a number AD&D 1E games like this (and it's easy enough to make a character in that system especially if you have played it or 2E for a long time). But if you are designing a game towards this style fast character creation is pretty important.

 

[TristramEvans]

Heh. "modern game design". Like it's a House decor magazine.

 

[JAMUMU]

I enjoy this style of play. It isn't for every group, but when you have the right mix of players, it can be a ton of fun. Many of the best campaigns I have played in have been of this style (and not too long ago so well after high school). I do get the time issue for some though and one game that has appealed to me a lot lately because it gets at this style but more efficiently is Dungeon Crawl Classics.

The characters that emerge triumphant (after your last four efforts have failed) become characters I get very attached to. Paladin Nine, I'm looking at you.

DM: Fksks, what makes Paladin Nine different from all the other Paladins you've played?
Me: She has hairy armpits like Souxsie Sioux!

In fact, this DM ran his game for a few newbies a few months ago. One of the things they found on their early sojourns was a mass grave, filled with the bones and dog-tags of all the PCs we'd burned through in the late 80s/early 90s. Good times!

 

[migo]

I do get the time issue for some though and one game that has appealed to me a lot lately because it gets at this style but more efficiently is Dungeon Crawl Classics.

And DCC tells you up front that's what you're going to get, and also tells you if you don't think you'll like it, put the book away. They're not going to try to convince you to like it. They're offering a niche play style.

But what they absolutely get right, and many other games that have this kind of justification get completely wrong is clearly and explicitly communicating that not only to players, but to prospective players.

That's something every game should take from DCC, regardless of what the play style is and whether it is mainstream or niche.

 

[TristramEvans]

all RPGs can offer is a niche play style.

The entire hobby is niche. Anything not D&D is a niche of a niche.

 

[JoeNuttall]

Doesn't sound much like a skill system as the term is generally understood, sorry....

Yes, you can define skill system sufficiently narrowly to exclude the first ever skill system if you so wish!

 

[JAMUMU]

It's about making sure we don't repeat 35 year old mistakes when making a game now.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

The characters that emerge triumphant (after your last four efforts have failed) become characters I get very attached to. Paladin Nine, I'm looking at you.

DM: Fksks, what makes Paladin Nine different from all the other Paladins you've played?
Me: She has hairy armpits like Souxsie Sioux!

For me a big reason I enjoy RPGs is finding out over time what happens, being surprised by developments and allowing the accidents of the characters history to shape the party and direction of the campaign. So I am with you there. And even those who don't make it can be memorable (I still have a lot of fondness for a 1st level wizard taken out by a stirge in the first encounter of the first session).

In fact, this DM ran his game for a few newbies a few months ago. One of the things they found on their early sojourns was a mass grave, filled with the bones and dog-tags of all the PCs we'd burned through in the late 80s/early 90s. Good times!

These moments go well with Barber's Adagio fro Strings

 

[TristramEvans]

Yes, you can define skill system sufficiently narrowly to exclude the first ever skill system if you so wish!

that wasn;t the first.

 

[JAMUMU]

For me a big reason I enjoy RPGs is finding out over time what happens, being surprised by developments and allowing the accidents of the characters history to shape the party and direction of the campaign. So I am with you there. And even those who don't make it can be memorable (I still have a lot of fondness for a 1st level wizard taken out by a stirge in the first encounter of the first session).

These moments go well with Barber's Adagio fro Strings

I guess most of my preferences are a reaction against what I didn't like in my "mid period" gaming, when it was all quite serious and po-faced, like 2nd ed AD&D and post-Vampire. I like finding out what emerges from the first few seething sessions of any proto-campaign. It's only after that initial period that I feel things can simmer down and start to form the foundation of an ongoing game.

 

[Bunch]

To me it seems the larger issue here is that rpg play tends to assume that the game element makes failure a possibility, while in reality failure of experts in their field is often rare. If a tightrope walker had a 10% chance of falling off the rope during a performance he wouldn't be doing it.

Well I think if they are undistracted yeah. But if there is more challenge to be it like a time constraint or weapons fire then adding the element of failure seems reasonable.