|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on May 29, 2016 11:15:54 GMT -5
I keep coming back around to a thought (oh, no...) that has continued to nag me for many years. The idea that only clerics, fighters, magic-users and thieves would be out ransacking dungeons, tombs or, discovering such places as a dragon's hoard, the barrow mounds, the Pharaoh's crypt, etc., seem reasonable when one realizes that D&D evolved from miniature war games using units including some of the above mentioned. That it was created by war gamers, and that they drew upon what they were playing at the time.
It seems to me that, anyone with enough nerve, lust for wealth, and some general life-skills, could do the same. I mean, really, a L 1 Fighting Man (the best of the group at its commencement), doesn't really fight or hit enemies that much better than the local farm militia of "0 level" types. It is the game-mechanic that allows the FM, C, MU, T to improve arbitrarily determined class skills, that makes these "classes" better than anyone else.
But what if the young farm boy, his puny friend in the city, and his female cousin--all having their own (beginners') life skills--were given the same mechanic? Allowed the ability to improve their combat skills (STR) according to their successes against the enemies encountered in such places? or their diplomacy (CH) in dealing with others met along the way, or in the unfamiliar village they had just entered? or their knack for detecting and defusing small traps (INT?) or to use their Spirituality to contact divine beings, seeking their aid(WIS)?
You see...it doesn't take much to be an adventurer-explorer, if the game designer does not limit him/herself to certain restrictions.
Well, now. Ahem. Perhaps I've said too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 29, 2016 14:38:39 GMT -5
But what if the young farm boy, his puny friend in the city, and his female cousin--all having their own (beginners') life skills--were given the same mechanic? Allowed the ability to improve their combat skills (STR) according to their successes against the enemies encountered in such places? or their diplomacy (CH) in dealing with others met along the way, or in the unfamiliar village they had just entered? or their knack for detecting and defusing small traps (INT?) or to use their Spirituality to contact divine beings, seeking their aid(WIS)? That is how OD&D works, at least IME. If you don't like the class names, then just change them. Some players make up a backstory and some don't. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 30, 2016 10:25:38 GMT -5
It is the game-mechanic that allows the FM, C, MU, T to improve arbitrarily determined class skills, that makes these "classes" better than anyone else. You're looking at it backward. People don't "have" classes that allow them to do special things that help them go on adventures. Anyone who goes on adventures for fortune and glory will improve their abilities, and gets categorized according to what those abilities are. Those adventurers who primarily fight get categorized as fighting-men; those who primarily steal and avoid obstacles get categorized as thieves; and so on. So a farm boy who decides to take up a life of adventuring, who relies on swords and armor, gets classified as a fighting-man. |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on May 30, 2016 10:50:34 GMT -5
It is the game-mechanic that allows the FM, C, MU, T to improve arbitrarily determined class skills, that makes these "classes" better than anyone else. You're looking at it backward. People don't "have" classes that allow them to do special things that help them go on adventures. Anyone who goes on adventures for fortune and glory will improve their abilities, and gets categorized according to what those abilities are. Those adventurers who primarily fight get categorized as fighting-men; those who primarily steal and avoid obstacles get categorized as thieves; and so on. So a farm boy who decides to take up a life of adventuring, who relies on swords and armor, gets classified as a fighting-man. I respectfully disagree with this observation. One need only look at book 1 (M&M), and it tells us, exactly, that characters are of 3 specific classes. And I don't have a problem with that. The point of my...niggling thought... was that, one shouldn't feel compelled to exclude all other possibilities, and restrict one's choices by thinking that only the 3 classes described are the only options in approaching this game. (IOW--you'll probably be seeing such a "class" appear in the HR folder for the Adventurer-Explorer; a jack of all trades, king of none.  |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 31, 2016 7:53:00 GMT -5
You're looking at it backward. People don't "have" classes that allow them to do special things that help them go on adventures. Anyone who goes on adventures for fortune and glory will improve their abilities, and gets categorized according to what those abilities are. Those adventurers who primarily fight get categorized as fighting-men; those who primarily steal and avoid obstacles get categorized as thieves; and so on. So a farm boy who decides to take up a life of adventuring, who relies on swords and armor, gets classified as a fighting-man. I respectfully disagree with this observation. One need only look at book 1 (M&M), and it tells us, exactly, that characters are of 3 specific classes. And I don't have a problem with that. The point of my...niggling thought... was that, one shouldn't feel compelled to exclude all other possibilities, and restrict one's choices by thinking that only the 3 classes described are the only options in approaching this game. (IOW--you'll probably be seeing such a "class" appear in the HR folder for the Adventurer-Explorer; a jack of all trades, king of none. The Bard as laid out in The Strategic Review was exactly that, a jack of all trades. That is also what made it so overpowered compared to the base classes. |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on May 31, 2016 12:24:23 GMT -5
I've never seen the SR bard; is there any way those of us that do not have a copy of the SR's (which is, like, 99% of us) could get a look at these?
Just wundrin'
Like I said...I'm preparing my own version of this...will be posting it soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 31, 2016 14:09:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on May 31, 2016 14:24:46 GMT -5
Cool, will do.
addendum:
this may have been Sieg's version/adaptation of the Doug Schwegman, Bard; the one I found in BOD, p.54. It shares a lot of similarities...
It's a nice read, but not what I'm in quest of.
My idea, is to create a non-class character. One that is simply out doing all the adventuring the standard class-types engage in routinely, for the same reasons: wealth! power! rock 'n' roll!
As I am imagining it, the character has no-skills in any of the traditional ones associated with the class-types. Instead, he/or she, will attempt to perform such things (jumping a chasm, climbing a wall, sword slapping a kobold, swearing highly spiritual things at undeadies, etc.,) hoping they work. In time, he/or she, might actually improve at such things (a base % + points gained with each adventure to be distributed towards the activities the character feels comfortable with performing).
Improvement is not from class-training by a mentor knight, mystic mage or temple priest, but from simple old repetition and street smarts. Some people can be book smart, and world(experience) dumb, and vice versa. That's how I am seeing this (non) character type.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2016 14:32:03 GMT -5
You're looking at it backward. People don't "have" classes that allow them to do special things that help them go on adventures. Anyone who goes on adventures for fortune and glory will improve their abilities, and gets categorized according to what those abilities are. Those adventurers who primarily fight get categorized as fighting-men; those who primarily steal and avoid obstacles get categorized as thieves; and so on. So a farm boy who decides to take up a life of adventuring, who relies on swords and armor, gets classified as a fighting-man. I respectfully disagree with this observation. One need only look at book 1 (M&M), and it tells us, exactly, that characters are of 3 specific classes. Disagree away, your disagreement is based on a precisely wrong conclusion. Stormcrow has it exactly right. Further, your vision is of something that bares no resemblance at ALL to the historical medieval period; most freemen had a basic proficiency with weapons (see the term "feudal levy") and would thus be fighters. OD&D is, after all "rules for fantastic medieval wargames." Add the legends of wizards and you have magic users, and we all know how the cleric and thief started. Stormcrow is right; what you do decides what you are. The three peasant children you posit wouldn't last for a moment. Now, you don't HAVE to start your OD&D game in something that looks like the Middle Ages. You are entirely within your purview to have a D&D game set in a Disney movie, which frankly is what this sounds like. |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on May 31, 2016 14:51:40 GMT -5
Mike, i respectfully disagree with your response.
I don't really see any point in us all continuing to "You wrong!" each other all the time. It's not productive. And the fact that such seems to appear more and more disturbs me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 31, 2016 15:13:33 GMT -5
My idea, is to create a non-class character. One that is simply out doing all the adventuring the standard class-types engage in routinely, for the same reasons: wealth! power! rock 'n' roll! As I am imagining it, the character has no-skills in any of the traditional ones associated with the class-types. Instead, he/or she, will attempt to perform such things (jumping a chasm, climbing a wall, sword slapping a kobold, swearing highly spiritual things at undeadies, etc.,) hoping they work. In time, he/or she, might actually improve at such things (a base % + points gained with each adventure to be distributed towards the activities the character feels comfortable with performing). This to me is roughly how the game is played, all first level characters start with no experience. All characters have to learn and grow to level up by earning experience. In essence just ignore the classes and simplify some of the tables to reflect a single class "Adventurer-Explorer" and you are ready to go. Improvement is not from class-training by a mentor knight, mystic mage or temple priest, but from simple old repetition and street smarts. Some people can be book smart, and world(experience) dumb, and vice versa. That's how I am seeing this (non) character type. Versions after OD&D add class-training. That concept is not found in OD&D and advancement is from simple old repetition and street smarts. You see restrictions and I do not see any - fair enough; however, it seems pretty simple and easy to do what you are talking about unless I am really misunderstanding you. I do not see any right or wrong here at all. I do think that you should just go ahead and do it - write it up and then show us. People can comment and offer tweaks or not and you can apply tweaks or not. There are a lot of things posted on here that I would enjoy play testing if I did not need a day job and had players to play a couple of times a week instead of once per month. I think just a general Adventurer-Explorer class could be a lot of fun. Why don't you do your write up so we can take a look. |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on May 31, 2016 15:43:29 GMT -5
I intend to.
There is a point that has, however, been raised, that I would like to respond to.
IF what one does decides what one is, then, as far as i can see, there is absolutely NO advantage at all to just wearing armor and swinging lots of weapons at things over and over, or studying arcane scripts to unravel the secrets of the occult, or holding fast to one's spirituality in order to gain small bits of favor from divine sources, IF, doing so (arbitrarily) locks you into only, forevermore, being able to do those restricted things. What's the point? Why not do them all, over and over and over, and gain the benefits of all the possibilities?
Well, you can't! If one is to believe that The Game dictates to you the restrictions as some kind of noble code that cannot be questioned. If you are told to check your imagination and creative thinking at the door, and just sit down, shut up and DM/play.
Which I refuse to believe is what the designers intended.
And which is why I believe that, 3 peasant kids, have as much chance of surviving as a dip-schit level 1 character, if they are allowed the same mechanic to improve in whatever actions and abilities they wish to keep repeating.
I guess, by that definition, I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 31, 2016 16:13:14 GMT -5
Nah! It is DIY - add or discard rules to make the game what you want. What you are saying you want to do is fine with me. Don't view the rules as shackles and restrictions, remember they are GUIDELINES, so tweak them. If I understand correctly what it is that you want to do - if we lived close enough to game together I would invite you over and I would run you a game the way you are talking about on the fly. I am confident that I could strike it reasonably close based on what you have already shared and give it a play test.
The most recent game that we played this past Saturday I ran without referring to anything written. I did not even use the attack tables, I just ran the game with seven players for five hours. Game On!
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on May 31, 2016 16:16:29 GMT -5
I suppose, captaincrumbcake, that human lives are finite and we do not all have the same talents. So some are more likely to succeed as fighters, others as students of arcana. Very few do well at many things. I think that is the wisdom behind prime requisite. You could just force yourself to learn something that you want to do by golly whether you are good at it or not. But you will struggle along the way. If you decide to dedicate yourself to something you have innate proclivities for, then your efforts will be rewarded the faster. I think that is the wisdom behind the class system and the wisdom behind how folks have responded to you. I regret that the responses have not always been worded in a kind way or tone. But I think I agree with the content of those responses. I'll look forward to seeing what you write up. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2016 19:53:09 GMT -5
If you want to play a skill based game play The Fantasy Trip or Runequest, both of which were written specifically to get away from classes. If you want to play a non class based game for CROM's sake play a non class based game.
It's not that I don't understand, it's that I don't AGREE. You not only keep trying to change OD&D into things that aren't OD&D, but keep ignoring the MYRIAD of games written exactly for that purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on May 31, 2016 20:24:33 GMT -5
If you want to play a skill based game play The Fantasy Trip or Runequest, both of which were written specifically to get away from classes. If you want to play a non class based game for CROM's sake play a non class based game. It's not that I don't understand, it's that I don't AGREE. You not only keep trying to change OD&D into things that aren't OD&D, but keep ignoring the MYRIAD of games written exactly for that purpose. You may note that, up-thread somewhere, I state that there is nothing wrong with characters wishing to excel specifically as a fighter, mu or cleric; that some might have talents in those areas, and that they can actually rise in their abilities to perform skills within those narrow paradigms, is simply a career choice. My initial point was that the mechanic created for allowing such is pretty much denied to the concept of characters that don't want to be all that specialized, and would rather just be kinda good at anything/everything they can. I don't mean to offend, anyone. But it's obvious that the 3 class system (for '74 rules) derived from designers that drew upon their medieval war game experience. Which is fine, but my point is still as valid as anything (or anyone) else/'s: anyone can be a dungeon-robber, if the game mechanic isn't exclusionary of non-medieval war game units. But I find your points very perplexing. Isn't OD&D supposed to be about evolution of ideas, things, concepts, imagination? Haven't we been told, again and again, that the system was never meant to be complete...that it was left to others to fill in the gaps and tack on the trimmings according to their own interests? Has the concept of... "and the trimming will oftimes have to be added by the referee and his players" now become banned? Also, I'm not sure, exactly, what rules systems I am ignoring. Fact is, I've never read that many that purport to be "skill-based". I doubt I'd be satisfied with them, anyway! |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 1, 2016 2:30:11 GMT -5
If you want to play a skill based game play The Fantasy Trip or Runequest, both of which were written specifically to get away from classes. If you want to play a non class based game for CROM's sake play a non class based game. It's not that I don't understand, it's that I don't AGREE. You not only keep trying to change OD&D into things that aren't OD&D, but keep ignoring the MYRIAD of games written exactly for that purpose. You may note that, up-thread somewhere, I state that there is nothing wrong with characters wishing to excel specifically as a fighter, mu or cleric; that some might have talents in those areas, and that they can actually rise in their abilities to perform skills within those narrow paradigms, is simply a career choice. My initial point was that the mechanic created for allowing such is pretty much denied to the concept of characters that don't want to be all that specialized, and would rather just be kinda good at anything/everything they can. I don't mean to offend, anyone. But it's obvious that the 3 class system (for '74 rules) derived from designers that drew upon their medieval war game experience. Which is fine, but my point is still as valid as anything (or anyone) else/'s: anyone can be a dungeon-robber, if the game mechanic isn't exclusionary of non-medieval war game units. But I find your points very perplexing. Isn't OD&D supposed to be about evolution of ideas, things, concepts, imagination? Haven't we been told, again and again, that the system was never meant to be complete...that it was left to others to fill in the gaps and tack on the trimmings according to their own interests? Has the concept of... "and the trimming will oftimes have to be added by the referee and his players" now become banned? Also, I'm not sure, exactly, what rules systems I am ignoring. Fact is, I've never read that many that purport to be "skill-based". I doubt I'd be satisfied with them, anyway! In this case I agree with you. Dave Arneson's game differed from Gary's and mine differed from both; RPG as first written to be sold (D&D) is an unconstrained evolutionary building block. But Gary's iteration of what Arneson had done is what stood as the present day example which, IMO, and as Classic D&D, is not as well understood by those who play it as many would believe. It all comes down to how much (or how little) one wants to do with what. There are no limits to additions, amendments, changes, redirection, etc. Arneson proved that over two years just getting to the point where he presented it to us. IOW, whatever goes, goes. D&D can be different for everyone, just as it was between Dave and Gary. Michael is of the strict Gygaxian camp, Gary's iteration, so I surmise, and for his own good reasons. Spot on medieval facts and figures and times. But, let us not forget the fantasy and design part. We are all designers too, in our own ways, and that means shedding the norms and not always embracing the camp. |
|
|
|
Post by cadfael on Jun 1, 2016 3:15:40 GMT -5
The most recent game that we played this past Saturday I ran without referring to anything written. I did not even use the attack tables, I just ran the game with seven players for five hours. Game On! Yeah that's my kind of game! The best games I've run have had minimum of rulings. even to the point that if I managed to get the guys together again soon I'd be happy to run it diceless or almost diceless. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 16:42:45 GMT -5
Michael is of the strict Gygaxian camp, Gary's iteration, so I surmise, and for his own good reasons. Spot on medieval facts and figures and times. But, let us not forget the fantasy and design part. We are all designers too, in our own ways, and that means shedding the norms and not always embracing the camp. Okay, I'm going to try again because I appear to have not made my point clear. What CC is proposing is changing D&D so much that it becomes another game that already exists. The Fantasy Trip and Runequest are both existing games, and they are already very, very close to what CC is talking about. It's not about adhering to one strict model or the other, it's about not re inventing the wheel. You could probably modify the rules enough to use CHAINMAIL for World War 2, but when Tractics exists, why would you? About a year and a half ago on SOME forum or other somebody was raving about "the great invention they came up with." Instead of one party doing one thing, he drew up his maps for the town and he had eight or ten players each with their own goals and own agendas, and he was crowing about how "this was the new frontier in role playing games." My comment was, "Congratulations, you've just reinvented Braunstein." The difference is, of course, that Dave W. never published Braunstein rules, whereas the myriad of non-D&D rules out there HAVE been published. Just like it's one thing to put D&D into an Arthurian setting, but another thing to change the combat system, magic, and personality rules until it plays like Greg Stafford's "King Arthur Pendragon." You can do that, but why not just get a copy of Pendragon? With a hammer and a file and sufficient patience, you can reform the hammer head into a workable screwdriver. But when the hardware store just down the road has screwdrivers by the dozen, why would you? Yes, there are blacksmiths who would rather make the tool themselves, but they don't proclaim that they've created some new and wonderful tool. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 1, 2016 18:53:57 GMT -5
Michael is of the strict Gygaxian camp, Gary's iteration, so I surmise, and for his own good reasons. Spot on medieval facts and figures and times. But, let us not forget the fantasy and design part. We are all designers too, in our own ways, and that means shedding the norms and not always embracing the camp. Okay, I'm going to try again because I appear to have not made my point clear. What CC is proposing is changing D&D so much that it becomes another game that already exists. The Fantasy Trip and Runequest are both existing games, and they are already very, very close to what CC is talking about. It's not about adhering to one strict model or the other, it's about not re inventing the wheel. You could probably modify the rules enough to use CHAINMAIL for World War 2, but when Tractics exists, why would you? About a year and a half ago on SOME forum or other somebody was raving about "the great invention they came up with." Instead of one party doing one thing, he drew up his maps for the town and he had eight or ten players each with their own goals and own agendas, and he was crowing about how "this was the new frontier in role playing games." My comment was, "Congratulations, you've just reinvented Braunstein." The difference is, of course, that Dave W. never published Braunstein rules, whereas the myriad of non-D&D rules out there HAVE been published. Just like it's one thing to put D&D into an Arthurian setting, but another thing to change the combat system, magic, and personality rules until it plays like Greg Stafford's "King Arthur Pendragon." You can do that, but why not just get a copy of Pendragon? With a hammer and a file and sufficient patience, you can reform the hammer head into a workable screwdriver. But when the hardware store just down the road has screwdrivers by the dozen, why would you? Yes, there are blacksmiths who would rather make the tool themselves, but they don't proclaim that they've created some new and wonderful tool. Yep. That is, of course, if CCC is actually re-inventing anything rather than experimenting with parts here or there. The problem is, as we both know, that now that forums exist (i.e., the internet connection) that experimentation has been set loose upon the world at large rather a thought at a time, it seems, like we are now privy to the very inner workings of such stepped processes. In most cases it's so much noise better left to forethought and silent musings. But I shall not judge CCC's intent. He may very well be experimenting in part, maybe he will go beyond some other systems out there and take another route. Who knows. I was generally agreeing on being able to do anything; and since there are now... what was it PD?... 55 iterations of OD&D out there already!...I do not believe that another will add the final straw to an already broken camel's back. Rather cyclical has our hobby become, heh, Gronan? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 20:22:34 GMT -5
Cyclical indeed.
But what I don't know is if CCC has ever seen Fantasy Trip or Runequest first edition, or any of a myriad of other similar skill based games. By looking at them he could possibly save himself a lot of frustration, because those games have already been playtested.
There is a thing that some call a "Fantasy Heartbreaker". It's basically D&D with somebody's house rules added on, that they try to sell as "the next great thing." What makes it a heartbreaker is that D&D is all they know, so without knowing it they end up reinventing something that's already out there; the rest of the world yawns, says "been there, done that," and the would be game designer is demoralized and dispirited, and with some research would have saved themselves much work.
The first rule of computer programming is "Never write what you can copy." If a game exists that already is 99% of what Cap'n Cupcake is after, he'll have much smoother sailing by using that as his starting point. Nothing wrong with what he wants, my point is that D&D might not be the best place to start trying to get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Jun 1, 2016 20:28:39 GMT -5
I never expected, at the beginning of this discussion, that such a simple, little thing, would cause such an uproar.
I heartily support anyone's choice to play/participate in/conduct(referee) the type of OD&D that they prefer; be it strict as nails, or loose as a Chicago hooker. Additionally, I support those that wish to experiment, alter, detract or otherwise modify the game and its parts to their hearts' desires. If someone else's OD&D doesn't look like my OD&D, I really could care less, as long as (1) they are enjoying themselves to the gills and, (2) I am not forced to participate in anything I'd rather not.
The premise of the A-E* is simply this: someone besides the 3 classes (Fighting Man, Magic-user, Cleric), that might want to go along with such folk (or in their own groups) for, primarily, the same reasons: in search of wealth/treasure. Conceptually, one could think of it (the A-E) as simply, another class; one not trained or skilled in any of the abilities perfected by the 3 aforementioned. But one with as much desire to explore and investigate the big wide world outside their mundane way of life in the village, town, city, etc. as the others.
Considering that Greyhawk and Blackmoor are the templates when it comes to introducing more (optional) classes, the idea of just another (and perhaps more difficult to actually succeed with), hardly seems earth-shattering. Were these publications viewed as attempts to redesign OD&D? I wasn't there...perhaps, to some, they were. But time has clearly shown us that it is possible for an OD&D world to include other classes beyond the original 3. Perhaps some might argue that such a world would not be an authentic OD&D campaign. And if such is one's preference, have at it. Or, if one prefers choices beyond those originally conceived, again--have at it.
But if the game-environment should become hostile to/towards creative proposals (I'm generalizing here--so don't anyone get their panties wet!), then it has lost its soul, IMO. And if such became the case to the extent of a majority, I think most of us would/will look for other outlets to enjoy ourselves in.
So to be clear, without jumping to conclusions of changing game mechanics to create something else that already exists... the A-E is, simply put, just another... class.
A-E* (Adventure-Explorer)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 22:59:13 GMT -5
"yesterday at 2:24pm captaincrumbcake said:
My idea, is to create a non-class character."
"Jun 1, 2016 20:28:39 GMT -5 captaincrumbcake said:
So to be clear, without jumping to conclusions of changing game mechanics to create something else that already exists... the A-E is, simply put, just another... class."
So which is it?
You do this a lot. Your ideas are often very vaguely expressed and when people point out anything from flaws to an easier way to do things you get very defensive. Your writing style is very unclear as well, with long rambling sentences full of hard to follow syntax.
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Jun 1, 2016 23:59:29 GMT -5
Well, I'm no Einstein... or, perhaps he and I share something--I got a bit of a foggy-brain*, and sometimes I'll post something in duplicate not remembering what the heck is going on. I know it's hard for some to express, or perhaps even of me to expect, but, I would appreciate a little consideration for the condition. I like to think I reciprocate this enough. Technically, its a non-class, if we were to compare it to the narrow/defined classes described in the 3 LBBs. But, to make everyone happy, let's call it a--widget. Will that work? I'll be posting a write-up of it in the HR folder soon. Then everyone can have at it as they will/like. If I get to the point where I start reciting the lyrics of I Am the Walrus, please... don't ask me to explain. *Early/Mild Alzheimers |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 2, 2016 3:07:06 GMT -5
I never expected, at the beginning of this discussion, that such a simple, little thing, would cause such an uproar. I heartily support anyone's choice to play/participate in/conduct(referee) the type of OD&D that they prefer; be it strict as nails, or loose as a Chicago hooker. Additionally, I support those that wish to experiment, alter, detract or otherwise modify the game and its parts to their hearts' desires. If someone else's OD&D doesn't look like my OD&D, I really could care less, as long as (1) they are enjoying themselves to the gills and, (2) I am not forced to participate in anything I'd rather not. The premise of the A-E* is simply this: someone besides the 3 classes (Fighting Man, Magic-user, Cleric), that might want to go along with such folk (or in their own groups) for, primarily, the same reasons: in search of wealth/treasure. Conceptually, one could think of it (the A-E) as simply, another class; one not trained or skilled in any of the abilities perfected by the 3 aforementioned. But one with as much desire to explore and investigate the big wide world outside their mundane way of life in the village, town, city, etc. as the others. Considering that Greyhawk and Blackmoor are the templates when it comes to introducing more (optional) classes, the idea of just another (and perhaps more difficult to actually succeed with), hardly seems earth-shattering. Were these publications viewed as attempts to redesign OD&D? I wasn't there...perhaps, to some, they were. But time has clearly shown us that it is possible for an OD&D world to include other classes beyond the original 3. Perhaps some might argue that such a world would not be an authentic OD&D campaign. And if such is one's preference, have at it. Or, if one prefers choices beyond those originally conceived, again--have at it. But if the game-environment should become hostile to/towards creative proposals (I'm generalizing here--so don't anyone get their panties wet!), then it has lost its soul, IMO. And if such became the case to the extent of a majority, I think most of us would/will look for other outlets to enjoy ourselves in. So to be clear, without jumping to conclusions of changing game mechanics to create something else that already exists... the A-E is, simply put, just another... class.
A-E* (Adventure-Explorer) Well. You see. By being challenged by Gronan you were forced to stop musing and to actually explain what it is, so I too now understand the two usages of "class". It's just a "classless" class. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 2, 2016 5:29:14 GMT -5
CCC quoth: "Considering that Greyhawk and Blackmoor are the templates when it comes to introducing more (optional) classes, the idea of just another (and perhaps more difficult to actually succeed with), hardly seems earth-shattering. Were these publications viewed as attempts to redesign OD&D? I wasn't there...perhaps, to some, they were. But time has clearly shown us that it is possible for an OD&D world to include other classes beyond the original 3. Perhaps some might argue that such a world would not be an authentic OD&D campaign. And if such is one's preference, have at it. Or, if one prefers choices beyond those originally conceived, again--have at it."
As a step to the right of the current classless argument, the idea that there is an "authentic D&D" out there somewhere to begin with is highly erroneous; not pointing at you, but you raise an ongoing hair which I believe is killing the idea of what D&D is and is not. The idea that we can all be in agreement is non-sensical due to D&D's very open stance. Thus when it comes to sharing, that's all well and good. BITD it was done by showcasing one's finished iteration, rule, addition, or using these from printed materials and then evaluating these. It seems to me that, just like in the market these days, that products and musings and what-not are over burdening play/design and the real evaluation of one's conceptual intent. There's too much information, too much product and too much thought given to it. The hobby has become diffuse in a manner of speaking. No doubt this stems from the individual tendencies deriving from the game itself and no doubt intermixes with the non-DIY folks. So. For my stance I'd rather have seen you, CCC, actually produce the class and then one day say, "Here it is" rather than having a confusing soliloquy up front about it. This of course would have avoided and accomplished much for the positive. YMMV.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jun 2, 2016 10:44:57 GMT -5
From what I can tell, all you're doing is defining a new "ubermensch" class, approximately equal to a fighter/magic-user/cleric/thief multiclassed character.
Sounds dull. Why be anything but an ubermensch? What about niche protection?
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Jun 2, 2016 11:40:33 GMT -5
I agree, and which I thought I was kind of saying when I said: " Perhaps some might argue that such a world would not be an authentic OD&D campaign. And if such is one's preference, have at it. Or, if one prefers choices beyond those originally conceived, again--have at it." (You didn't catch it?) But, then, as Mike pointed out, I am guilty of scrawling lengthy, convoluted codes in place of traditional grammar. Why do you say that? How do you know? You haven't seen any details of what I'm attempting to do. Granted, if your observation is based on your feelings towards 3-4-5E / PF materials, I can understand where you're coming from. I'm beginning to feel like Howard Roark...  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 11:42:02 GMT -5
Any idea is a good idea, but it must be expressed clearly!
So what are the skills and abilities of the AE? Do they have unique abilities, or is it merely the ability to do unlimited multiclassing like in 3rd edition, where you can start as a magic user, then take a level in Cleric, then a level in Fighter, etc? Your original proposal sounded more like Runequest, where you simply have a skill list and skills improve as you use them. Which is it? Also, as a long time gamer and somebody who was diddling around with rules decades ago, my gut feeling is that trying to mix a percentile skill system with levels would be.... tricky. Yeah, I think "tricky" is the right word for it. Not to say it can't be done, but just advising caution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 11:45:49 GMT -5
I had no idea. You have my deepest apologies. Unclear writing tends to frustrate me (ya THINK?) but your situation is different. Again, I apologize. |
|
