|
Post by True Black Raven on Jun 13, 2018 22:13:18 GMT -5
Of all the OD&D classes that were introduced in the various sources, which ones do you like, which ones do you dislike and why? What do you see as the pros and cons of having or not having them in your campaign?
Fighting-Men Magic-Users Clerics Thief Paladin Ranger Assassin Ranger Druid Monk Bard Illusionist
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Jun 13, 2018 23:36:18 GMT -5
Frankly, i haven't read through most of the supplementary PDFs, so I can't say beyond my general dislike of both the Bard & Illusionist classes, but I hated them in all editions & fantasy RPGs I've seen them in. I've always been partial to the Thief but hated the roll under percentile Thief Skill thing. I thought Paladins were glorified knightly Clerics. I had zero issue with Assassins, Monks, Druids & Rangers. I'll have to check out the OD&D versions asap. Bard's should be a role one played not a class. Illusionists are glorified specialized Magic-users.
Update: I just looked up the classes & pretty much lines up with I said above. I'd preferred the Monk & Assassin, like the thief used D6 based skills than the percentage based system used.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jun 15, 2018 10:15:06 GMT -5
I always liked the three core classes:
Fighting-Men- This is the character class I could identify with and enjoyed playing the most, although as the Ref I enjoyed playing all the characters of all types.
Magic-Users- As a player I was not really interested in them, although I had fun with them as the Ref.
Clerics - As the Ref, I always thought this character class was under-rated by the players and I always thought they should be played as much more moral and ethical than most people play them.
I always liked the two Fighting-Men subclasses:
Paladin- I had a couple of Paladins and I always enjoyed playing them, and the way people complain about Paladins and the stories they tell on forums about how people play Paladins - playing them that way never even crossed my mind. And the way a lot of stories go about how the DM's (not Ref, but DM) would adjudicate a Paladin just rubs me the wrong way. I am personally offended about how jerks play Paladins and how jerks DM Paladins. I never saw a Paladin as just being a constant source of irritation to the rest of the party. Of course bitd the group I played with just did not spend time having the characters argue and disagree about every little thing either. I guess we were very pragmatic about a lot of things.
Ranger - I also played two or three Rangers and I really enjoyed them. I saw something the other day and someone was complaining about the "old school tree-hugger" Rangers and I was thinking "What are you talking about? Who would play a Ranger as a tree-hugger? Why would you even think of such a thing?"
Bards - I never played a Bard, but I was a Ref with the Bard on the other side of the table for about the last two months of college. I liked the idea of a Bard as a PC, but I really did not like the implementation - it was just way too foo foo, but at the time I did not have time to re-work it. I did a re-working of it a couple or so years ago, but never got to play test it and more tweaks were going to be needed.
I personally never liked these following classes:
Assassin- This is just evil and I do not run evil characters IMC.
Druid- I just do not like Druids and the thought of them is liking squeaking chalk on a black board - do not know why, it is just that way.
Monk- Like the Bard, just too foo foo and over the top for me.
Illusionist - They did not do anything that I thought set them apart from a magic-user, I would rather people just individualized their character.
This brings us to the Thief: Thieves I also never cared for mainly because I saw the back-stabbing thing as evil, as well as, the pickpocket thing, but mainly the backstabbing. I prefer for people to bring the thief part into the way they play their Fighting-Man, if you want to play a Fafhrd or Gray Mouser type then talk to me about it and I will work it out for you. Also lose the % rolls and go with a 2d6 mechanic for those things.
|
|
|
Post by Bartholmew Quarrels on Jun 28, 2018 14:18:54 GMT -5
I dislike the assassin most of all, followed by druids. Assassins are evil by nature and druids IMC are amoral by nature (basically sociopaths).
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Aug 12, 2018 15:41:30 GMT -5
I've always thought that an all Ranger campaign waging guerrilla warfare against the incursion of monsters would be a lot of fun. I'd like to see a good Ranger writeup.
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Aug 12, 2018 19:13:27 GMT -5
I dislike the assassin most of all, followed by druids. Assassins are evil by nature and druids IMC are amoral by nature (basically sociopaths). The only Druid known in my Ruins of Dorgand is as you describe.
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Aug 12, 2018 19:14:19 GMT -5
I've always thought that an all Ranger campaign waging guerrilla warfare against the incursion of monsters would be a lot of fun. I'd like to see a good Ranger writeup. What do you think would make a good ranger Q Man?
|
|
|
Post by mao on Aug 13, 2018 12:08:38 GMT -5
I don't like:
Assasins, no place in the game for them, thief subclass would be better, banned
Druids: the players who played them drove me nuts, ended up banning them forever
Monk: They don't fit w Western European focus of the game, but I always let peeps play them
Illusionist always thought that all wiz's should have access to every spell, told prospective player of them, they would never get support of any kind which amounted to a ban.
All the rest are peachy keen
|
|
|
Post by mao on Aug 13, 2018 12:22:57 GMT -5
I dislike the assassin most of all, followed by druids. Assassins are evil by nature and druids IMC are amoral by nature (basically sociopaths). You have good taste
|
|
|
Post by randyb on Aug 13, 2018 16:19:15 GMT -5
Druid - Generally dislike , except as part of cleric:paladin::druid:ranger, which is a very specific cosmology. Apart from that, the Original Druid (cleric/MU monster) would be my take; not a character class, but an encounter to be overcome.
Assassin - likewise an encounter.
Monk - hybridizing Eastern unarmed fighting with Western monastic orders has a gonzo pulp feel that appeals to me.
Illusionist - specialist wizards have their appeal as well, but the eventual full implementation in 2e was too generic in feel.
I'm cool with the rest.
|
|
|
Post by mao on Aug 14, 2018 8:10:55 GMT -5
Druid - Generally dislike , except as part of cleric:paladin::druid:ranger, which is a very specific cosmology. Apart from that, the Original Druid (cleric/MU monster) would be my take; not a character class, but an encounter to be overcome. Assassin - likewise an encounter. Monk - hybridizing Eastern unarmed fighting with Western monastic orders has a gonzo pulp feel that appeals to me. Illusionist - specialist wizards have their appeal as well, but the eventual full implementation in 2e was too generic in feel. I'm cool with the rest. My exact list! Have an exalt!
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Aug 14, 2018 21:52:59 GMT -5
I mostly dislike classes, as I have mostly seen the concept abused as an excuse to avoid role playing. (Such was actually told to my wife during a Denver tournament - "We get points for combat and gold, not roleplaying!") Mostly I like saying "Mostly."
That said, I understand how they saved time and simplified the game - not to mention it made sense to the perceived market (miniature wargamers) but I chafed at the false restrictions that I saw the second wave of GMs place on PCs.
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Aug 15, 2018 10:29:22 GMT -5
I mostly dislike classes, as I have mostly seen the concept abused as an excuse to avoid role playing. (Such was actually told to my wife during a Denver tournament - "We get points for combat and gold, not roleplaying!") Mostly I like saying "Mostly." That said, I understand how they saved time and simplified the game - not to mention it made sense to the perceived market (miniature wargamers) but I chafed at the false restrictions that I saw the second wave of GMs place on PCs. This is such a profound and telling statement which I find most inspiring. Exalt! I do not have your vast experience, but I do feel the same way.
|
|
|
Post by mao on Aug 15, 2018 10:45:16 GMT -5
I mostly dislike classes, as I have mostly seen the concept abused as an excuse to avoid role playing. (Such was actually told to my wife during a Denver tournament - "We get points for combat and gold, not roleplaying!") Mostly I like saying "Mostly." That said, I understand how they saved time and simplified the game - not to mention it made sense to the perceived market (miniature wargamers) but I chafed at the false restrictions that I saw the second wave of GMs place on PCs. This is such a profound and telling statement which I find most inspiring. Exalt! I do not have your vast experience, but I do feel the same way. HEY! Classes are great!, BOO BOO BOO
|
|
|
Post by The Archivist on Aug 15, 2018 13:38:05 GMT -5
This is such a profound and telling statement which I find most inspiring. Exalt! I do not have your vast experience, but I do feel the same way. HEY! Classes are great!, BOO BOO BOO Caveat, classes are great when you have a real old school ref of the first water.
|
|
|
Post by The Archivist on Aug 15, 2018 13:39:12 GMT -5
I mostly dislike classes, as I have mostly seen the concept abused as an excuse to avoid role playing. (Such was actually told to my wife during a Denver tournament - "We get points for combat and gold, not roleplaying!") Mostly I like saying "Mostly." That said, I understand how they saved time and simplified the game - not to mention it made sense to the perceived market (miniature wargamers) but I chafed at the false restrictions that I saw the second wave of GMs place on PCs. Yeah, down with the false restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Aug 15, 2018 17:16:08 GMT -5
This is such a profound and telling statement which I find most inspiring. Exalt! I do not have your vast experience, but I do feel the same way. HEY! Classes are great!, BOO BOO BOO You just don't like saying "Mostly."
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Aug 15, 2018 19:28:43 GMT -5
I mostly dislike classes, as I have mostly seen the concept abused as an excuse to avoid role playing. (Such was actually told to my wife during a Denver tournament - "We get points for combat and gold, not roleplaying!") Mostly I like saying "Mostly." That said, I understand how they saved time and simplified the game - not to mention it made sense to the perceived market (miniature wargamers) but I chafed at the false restrictions that I saw the second wave of GMs place on PCs. Yeah, down with the false restrictions. I like classes but I've been coming to the conclusion that they should be tweaked to fit a given setting or used to create a template to build your own variants with. I've also been intrigued by RuneQuest and their class-less skill based system. There are a group of puritans who think you need to play a game by-the-book and see house ruling as an attempt to "fix" a perceived flaw in a system instead of the simple desire to customize the rules to fit the campaign wished to be run.
|
|
|
Post by The Archivist on Aug 16, 2018 10:17:40 GMT -5
House rules are not fixing flaws, house rules are customizing it. The by-the-book "puritans" (how charitable) are not really the puritans, the original spirit of the RPG per Arneson was to house rule and customize, so those that customize are the real puritans for following the spirit of the game. The by-the-book crowd are IMO the unwashed barbarians that lack imagination and fail to understand the spirit of the rules because they lack the capacity to go beyond the words on the page and thus they fail the Turing Test.
|
|
|
Post by mao on Aug 16, 2018 10:41:44 GMT -5
House rules are not fixing flaws, house rules are customizing it. The by-the-book "puritans" (how charitable) are not really the puritans, the original spirit of the RPG per Arneson was to house rule and customize, so those that customize are the real puritans for following the spirit of the game. The by-the-book crowd are IMO the unwashed barbarians that lack imagination and fail to understand the spirit of the rules because they lack the capacity to go beyond the words on the page and thus they fail the Turing Test. AD&D was created to cut Arnson out, and then 3.X was created to screw DMs, also remember you sell more books to players than DMs
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Aug 16, 2018 11:07:44 GMT -5
House rules are not fixing flaws, house rules are customizing it. The by-the-book "puritans" (how charitable) are not really the puritans, the original spirit of the RPG per Arneson was to house rule and customize, so those that customize are the real puritans for following the spirit of the game. The by-the-book crowd are IMO the unwashed barbarians that lack imagination and fail to understand the spirit of the rules because they lack the capacity to go beyond the words on the page and thus they fail the Turing Test. Oh I agree with everything said but especially the part I put in bold. When I was younger I was one of those unwashed barbarians only because I didn't know any better and was ignorant of how the early roleplayers did things. Now such a limited & restrictive point of view annoys me. It probably why I can't stand most rules heavy games or rules lawyers who memorize them just to exploit them and enforce a rules as written heretical mentality at the table.
|
|
|
Post by mao on Aug 16, 2018 11:17:54 GMT -5
House rules are not fixing flaws, house rules are customizing it. The by-the-book "puritans" (how charitable) are not really the puritans, the original spirit of the RPG per Arneson was to house rule and customize, so those that customize are the real puritans for following the spirit of the game. The by-the-book crowd are IMO the unwashed barbarians that lack imagination and fail to understand the spirit of the rules because they lack the capacity to go beyond the words on the page and thus they fail the Turing Test. Oh I agree with everything said but especially the part I put in bold. When I was younger I was one of those unwashed barbarians only because I didn't know any better and was ignorant of how the early roleplayers did things. Now such a limited & restrictive point of view annoys me. It probably why I can't stand most rules heavy games or rules lawyers who memorize them just to exploit them and enforce a rules as written heretical mentality at the table. One thing that we are not taking into consideration is the skill level of a given DM, I think we all basically agreed that it was POOR.And advanced thinking is just beyond them. It is very easy for us to criticize when they just arnt capable of being better.Not sure what the solution is.
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Aug 16, 2018 11:55:22 GMT -5
Oh I agree, I was a wretched GM back in the day because I had no one to help teach me how to properly run a game. But some of the people I called By-the-Book puritans grew up house ruling and have decided now to run games RAW and now see house ruling as fixing a perceived flaw in the system instead of seeing the system as it is - a toolbox to tweak to run your campaigns your way. It was via the OSRs & here at Ruins of Murkhill that I broke myself of that flawed mentality.
I think one of my criticisms of the OSR or elements in it, is that if a rule set isn't a near 100% faithful clone of OD&D, B/X D&D or 1e AD&D it was heresy, "how dare you not create a legally authentic clone but a house-ruled version". Now I love Delving Deeper but like OD&D it is based on I can tweak it to my hearts content to better fit the needs of a specific campaign. It took reading posts by Rob Kuntz, Gronan, the archivist, TPD and Chet to shake off the rusty chains of false dogma I had been indoctrinated in as a player.
|
|
|
Post by mao on Aug 16, 2018 12:11:24 GMT -5
Oh I agree, I was a wretched GM back in the day because I had no one to help teach me how to properly run a game. But some of the people I called By-the-Book puritans grew up house ruling and have decided now to run games RAW and now see house ruling as fixing a perceived flaw in the system instead of seeing the system as it is - a toolbox to tweak to run your campaigns your way. It was via the OSRs & here at Ruins of Murkhill that I broke myself of that flawed mentality. I think one of my criticisms of the OSR or elements in it, is that if a rule set isn't a near 100% faithful clone of OD&D, B/X D&D or 1e AD&D it was heresy, "how dare you not create a legally authentic clone but a house-ruled version". Now I love Delving Deeper but like OD&D it is based on I can tweak it to my hearts content to better fit the needs of a specific campaign. It took reading posts by Rob Kuntz, Gronan, the archivist, TPD and Chet to shake off the rusty chains of false dogma I had been indoctrinated in as a player. Oh you probably wernt that bad,
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Aug 16, 2018 13:13:35 GMT -5
... your vast experience... Fooled you, didn't I? It was not so much vast experience, it was more like "making every mistake imaginable." That's why I like TnT's method of awarding more Adventure Points for FAILING something. Up to a point. If you try to accomplish something by doing the same thing over and over, you're an idiot. Or a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2018 14:00:03 GMT -5
... your vast experience... Fooled you, didn't I? It was not so much vast experience, it was more like "making every mistake imaginable." That's why I like TnT's method of awarding more Adventure Points for FAILING something. Up to a point. If you try to accomplish something by doing the same thing over and over, you're an idiot. Or a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
If you have experience? You make fewer mistakes. But, the only way to get experience is to make mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Aug 16, 2018 16:53:28 GMT -5
The BTB crowd are mastering a system. Before one can tinker, they must understand the rules and how they function. They are not at fault, they are victims of a specific market. This is a very complicated game which takes time to learn, and it doesn't help when you are exposed to rule systems which micromanage the user. Honesty, I don't think that I could run anything beyond 2e. Not by the book, anyway. The game evolved into a commercial market while I was learning. I believed the professionals at TSR and WotC. It isn't that they want to get rid of really good DM's. I think that all of those rules and micromanagement is meant to improve play, allow somebody who doesn't know what they are doing to run a decent game.
I know that when I first started DMing I skipped the basics and ran right in there screaming. I had played for years, I was blessed in that department! I had played all of the classes, getting a feel for them and even mastering some! I got to watch how other Dungeon Masters ran their games and became a very competent player! I had acquired a deep understanding of the player's handbook, I wrote notes in it. I had two Handbooks to choose from, I prefer the older one. I corrected what needed to be corrected in my PHB. I grew up on a diet of rules! And we kept adding more!
As far as DMing goes, I had help up to the point where I surpassed them. Most of the DM's that taught me the game were now sitting in front of me as players. They themselves preferred playing, while I enjoyed administering the game. I don't know if you know this or not, but the 2nd Edition AD&D DMG is not a very helpful product. I mean it is! The advice and odd rules are there, but more than half of it is filled up with Magic Items that are never going to see any use what-so-ever!
I didn't run it by the book, even back then. We didn't really play campaigns, we started characters at mid-level and played with them for a few weeks then made new ones. I'd write stories and get frustrated and make all of the mistakes that DM's are supposed to make. I even got so frustrated that I quit entirely! When I returned, I had a new attitude, and I was BTB DMing and it was working! Those games were better than the ones that we had been playing. I found the 1e DMG and it changed everything. We had a great time! But there was one more mistake that I really had to make before improving as a DM, and that was over preparing. I was moving at an incredible pace and eventually burned myself out and had to quit again and rethink my approach.
I had access to much better and like-minded folks than me. I enjoyed the creative side of things, but within the context of specific rules. I gained the ability to see what they were, and how they worked. The formulas were right there, they just needed to be understood so that I could run monsters without a book, create my own content which enhanced the system. I was looking deeper than ever into the system until I could actually start to see that there was some meddling going on. The designers were being less than honest with users, and there was a blueprint hidden in there which interfered with the system for no real reason other than to sell more products. I also identified the older game which was hidden inside of these rules and was trying to tease it out. That was when I met Rob Kuntz, and The Perilous Dreamer and all of these other guys who were doing incredible things with a system that I had been told was unusable. I never intended to change my btb style, it just kind of happened. Because I had mastered the 2e rules, OD&D made perfect sense to me. I was in the process of removing the bulk of spells which by 2e had already become over bloated, I have no doubts that it is even worse now!
Point being, one has to understand the rules before one can break them. I'm not a genius! If you were to hand me those little OD&D pamphlets 10 20 years ago and expect me to make a game happen, I wouldn't have been able to. How these guys got it done with just those products is worthy of the deepest respect.
Now, how far could I have gotten on my own if the books had just done their job, instead of selling me more books? Would D&D even be around today if they had not created a solid marketing plan which allowed them to do it? I doubt it. Back in the day, I needed stuff spelt out for me. Playing the story-driven games taught me timing and pacing. Playing a horrible module has its own lessons. Each trip and each failure taught me more than the books did. Eventually, the BTB guys will break that code too. It is a shame that that step is there now, but it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2018 17:09:23 GMT -5
As a DM/Ref, I really like Bard NPCs to run with the group. They are the perfect support character and they allow me to impart information to the PCs 'in character.'
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Aug 16, 2018 17:31:06 GMT -5
As a DM/Ref, I really like Bard NPCs to run with the group. They are the perfect support character and they allow me to impart information to the PCs 'in character.' Cherie and I were just commenting how Chester Proudfoot performed the same function in Gunsmoke, with his incessant complaining. Now we realize that he wasn't just imparting information to the listener - he was an NPC!
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Aug 16, 2018 18:11:18 GMT -5
The BTB crowd are mastering a system. Before one can tinker, they must understand the rules and how they function. They are not at fault, they are victims of a specific market. This is a very complicated game which takes time to learn, and it doesn't help when you are exposed to rule systems which micromanage the user. Honesty, I don't think that I could run anything beyond 2e. Not by the book, anyway. The game evolved into a commercial market while I was learning. I believed the professionals at TSR and WotC. It isn't that they want to get rid of really good DM's. I think that all of those rules and micromanagement is meant to improve play, allow somebody who doesn't know what they are doing to run a decent game. I know that when I first started DMing I skipped the basics and ran right in there screaming. I had played for years, I was blessed in that department! I had played all of the classes, getting a feel for them and even mastering some! I got to watch how other Dungeon Masters ran their games and became a very competent player! I had acquired a deep understanding of the player's handbook, I wrote notes in it. I had two Handbooks to choose from, I prefer the older one. I corrected what needed to be corrected in my PHB. I grew up on a diet of rules! And we kept adding more! As far as DMing goes, I had help up to the point where I surpassed them. Most of the DM's that taught me the game were now sitting in front of me as players. They themselves preferred playing, while I enjoyed administering the game. I don't know if you know this or not, but the 2nd Edition AD&D DMG is not a very helpful product. I mean it is! The advice and odd rules are there, but more than half of it is filled up with Magic Items that are never going to see any use what-so-ever! I didn't run it by the book, even back then. We didn't really play campaigns, we started characters at mid-level and played with them for a few weeks then made new ones. I'd write stories and get frustrated and make all of the mistakes that DM's are supposed to make. I even got so frustrated that I quit entirely! When I returned, I had a new attitude, and I was BTB DMing and it was working! Those games were better than the ones that we had been playing. I found the 1e DMG and it changed everything. We had a great time! But there was one more mistake that I really had to make before improving as a DM, and that was over preparing. I was moving at an incredible pace and eventually burned myself out and had to quit again and rethink my approach. I had access to much better and like-minded folks than me. I enjoyed the creative side of things, but within the context of specific rules. I gained the ability to see what they were, and how they worked. The formulas were right there, they just needed to be understood so that I could run monsters without a book, create my own content which enhanced the system. I was looking deeper than ever into the system until I could actually start to see that there was some meddling going on. The designers were being less than honest with users, and there was a blueprint hidden in there which interfered with the system for no real reason other than to sell more products. I also identified the older game which was hidden inside of these rules and was trying to tease it out. That was when I met Rob Kuntz, and The Perilous Dreamer and all of these other guys who were doing incredible things with a system that I had been told was unusable. I never intended to change my btb style, it just kind of happened. Because I had mastered the 2e rules, OD&D made perfect sense to me. I was in the process of removing the bulk of spells which by 2e had already become over bloated, I have no doubts that it is even worse now! Point being, one has to understand the rules before one can break them. I'm not a genius! If you were to hand me those little OD&D pamphlets 10 20 years ago and expect me to make a game happen, I wouldn't have been able to. How these guys got it done with just those products is worthy of the deepest respect. Now, how far could I have gotten on my own if the books had just done their job, instead of selling me more books? Would D&D even be around today if they had not created a solid marketing plan which allowed them to do it? I doubt it. Back in the day, I needed stuff spelt out for me. Playing the story-driven games taught me timing and pacing. Playing a horrible module has its own lessons. Each trip and each failure taught me more than the books did. Eventually, the BTB guys will break that code too. It is a shame that that step is there now, but it is. Let me clarify, I have zero problem with by-the-book play especially if you are new to a game as it does behoove you to know how the system works before you tinker with it. That said, my criticism is aimed at people who infer that BtB play is the way that OD&D or some other RPG should always be played and if you are house ruling something you are trying to fix a perceived flaw that isn't there - in their not so humble opinion. Or the people who insist that unless a clone isn't as close to humanly & legally possible to the original RPG it should not be considered a proper version of the game. My criticism is the elitist my way or the highway attitude among some grognards connected to the OSR and Old School RPG community in general.
|
|