4d6, drop the lowest
March 4, 2016 12:57 PM Subscribe
How do Strength ability scores in 1E AD&D translate into real life?
I heard some kids even re-roll 1's.
The AD&D 3d6 method gets you that 10.5 "average human" level. I always appreciated the design of those early ability checks, i.e., "Roll a d20, if it's lower than your _ stat, your feat is accomplished". The modifiers of today all seem unnecessarily abstract and complex.
posted by LiteS at 1:22 PM on March 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
The AD&D 3d6 method gets you that 10.5 "average human" level. I always appreciated the design of those early ability checks, i.e., "Roll a d20, if it's lower than your _ stat, your feat is accomplished". The modifiers of today all seem unnecessarily abstract and complex.
posted by LiteS at 1:22 PM on March 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
As for the analysis, it's actually interesting, because the Strength limits for women are usually considered kind of a sexist thing in AD&D and not much talked about. A female human cannot have a Strength higher than 18/50; other races have the women top out lower than the men. AD&D also has the peculiar restriction that, at Strength 5 or lower, the character can only be a magic-user, which means they can never wear armor or use weapons other than a dagger, dart, or staff. (The converse is also true: if your Intelligence is 5 or lower, you can only play as a fighter.)
posted by graymouser at 1:24 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by graymouser at 1:24 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
LiteS, the target number and modifier system has some benefits. For one, you get a system where a higher roll is always better. For another, you get to set different difficulties for different tasks.
posted by 4th number at 1:30 PM on March 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by 4th number at 1:30 PM on March 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
Good old days of cheating on my percentile strength rolls how I miss you. I really love 1ed.
posted by echocollate at 1:33 PM on March 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by echocollate at 1:33 PM on March 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
then Alekseyev pressed 521/180 = 2.89 times a regular 18, which is equivalent to approximately a 2171 GP weight allowance, giving him a STR stat of approximately 18/93.
I am impressed with the mathitude here.
Excellent stuff.
posted by Michele in California at 1:41 PM on March 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
I am impressed with the mathitude here.
Excellent stuff.
posted by Michele in California at 1:41 PM on March 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
Having run concurrent 1e and 5e pbp games, I have to say that despite my deep nostalgic affection for 1e, OH MY GOD is it nice being able to run combat and saving throws and difficulty checks intuitively with a quick glance at the relevant character sheet instead of having to look for one of a hundred subtables that relates to the particular situation I am screwing my players with.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:42 PM on March 4, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:42 PM on March 4, 2016 [14 favorites]
4th number, from a gameplay perspective, the modifier systems are indeed nice. AD&D also flipped to "higher is better" for attack rolls, and having high numbers be good sometimes and bad other times wasn't the best design.
posted by LiteS at 1:45 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by LiteS at 1:45 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
The d20 roll-under attribute system actually post-dates first edition AD&D (published 1977-1979). As far as I know, it first came about in the 1981 Expert rulebook as a suggestion. It later got codified into a bunch of places, such as the proficiency rules in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide and Wilderness Survival Guide, which themselves were copied into second edition AD&D.
I actually prefer 3d6 roll-under attribute tests, rather than 1d20. If you're rolling a d20 in my games it's probably either for a to-hit roll or a saving throw, and higher is always better.
posted by graymouser at 1:49 PM on March 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
I actually prefer 3d6 roll-under attribute tests, rather than 1d20. If you're rolling a d20 in my games it's probably either for a to-hit roll or a saving throw, and higher is always better.
posted by graymouser at 1:49 PM on March 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
I would always let my players do 4d6/drop the lowest/distribute as you want, because I'm trying to tell a story, not fill up a graveyard with adventurers.
posted by miguelcervantes at 1:58 PM on March 4, 2016 [26 favorites]
posted by miguelcervantes at 1:58 PM on March 4, 2016 [26 favorites]
miguelcervantes: "I would always let my players do 4d6/drop the lowest/distribute as you want, because I'm trying to tell a story, not fill up a graveyard with adventurers."
Not with that attitude.
posted by Splunge at 2:02 PM on March 4, 2016 [50 favorites]
Not with that attitude.
posted by Splunge at 2:02 PM on March 4, 2016 [50 favorites]
Good use of the rulebooks, but it's kind of disappointing that an Olympic weightlifter is all the way up to 18/93. I mean, the upper reaches of strength 18 are supposed to be epic level-- your Conans and Hercules. Seems like they should outperform mere existing humans.
posted by zompist at 2:30 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zompist at 2:30 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm trying to tell a story, not fill up a graveyard with adventurers.
After more than 30 years as a GM, I have learned that the best stories are the ones featuring graveyards full of adventurers.
posted by The Bellman at 2:31 PM on March 4, 2016 [11 favorites]
After more than 30 years as a GM, I have learned that the best stories are the ones featuring graveyards full of adventurers.
posted by The Bellman at 2:31 PM on March 4, 2016 [11 favorites]
Not with that attitude.
I dunno. I've run everything from normal schmucks in various horror games to a D&D 3.x game that started at 30th level, using the much maligned Epic Level Handbook. If there's one thing players are good at, no matter what they can bench, it's finding the graveyard. Even if it's carefully marked.
posted by mordax at 2:32 PM on March 4, 2016 [10 favorites]
I dunno. I've run everything from normal schmucks in various horror games to a D&D 3.x game that started at 30th level, using the much maligned Epic Level Handbook. If there's one thing players are good at, no matter what they can bench, it's finding the graveyard. Even if it's carefully marked.
posted by mordax at 2:32 PM on March 4, 2016 [10 favorites]
Alekseyev's press was an obvious push press, not an overhead press.
Watch for the massive knee bend around 0:48. Somehow, that didn't get called a no-lift.
I'll go back to my corner.
posted by radicalawyer at 2:40 PM on March 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Watch for the massive knee bend around 0:48. Somehow, that didn't get called a no-lift.
I'll go back to my corner.
posted by radicalawyer at 2:40 PM on March 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Roll 4d6, drop lowest, use that to determine what type of prostitute -- whoops, wrong table.
at least Gygax never had you roll for anal circumference...
posted by delfin at 2:42 PM on March 4, 2016
at least Gygax never had you roll for anal circumference...
posted by delfin at 2:42 PM on March 4, 2016
If there's one thing players are good at, no matter what they can bench, it's finding the graveyard. Even if it's carefully marked.
WHAT IF THERE'S TREASURE IN THERE??
posted by clockzero at 2:44 PM on March 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
WHAT IF THERE'S TREASURE IN THERE??
posted by clockzero at 2:44 PM on March 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
#THAC0FL
posted by hanov3r at 2:57 PM on March 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by hanov3r at 2:57 PM on March 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm trying to tell a story, not fill up a graveyard with adventurers.
Reconsider your life choices.
posted by praemunire at 3:05 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Reconsider your life choices.
posted by praemunire at 3:05 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Huh, using the Symmetric Strength website and the author's math, I get a real life STR midway between 10 and 11. Hooray, I'm average!
Of course, Symmetric Strength calls me a novice, to which I say, hey, up yours website.
posted by Existential Dread at 3:05 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Of course, Symmetric Strength calls me a novice, to which I say, hey, up yours website.
posted by Existential Dread at 3:05 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
the upper reaches of strength 18 are supposed to be epic level-- your Conans and Hercules. Seems like they should outperform mere existing humans.
Hm. It seems to me that the chances of any given warrior having 18/00 strength are 1 in 21,600. So your chances of having one such in any given army are slim, but not unbelievably so.
posted by howfar at 3:18 PM on March 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hm. It seems to me that the chances of any given warrior having 18/00 strength are 1 in 21,600. So your chances of having one such in any given army are slim, but not unbelievably so.
posted by howfar at 3:18 PM on March 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Jesus, so many John Wick Running Champions gamers in here. Not playing with you jerks any time soon.
(Boasts about your killer GM skillz == me running away)
posted by mephron at 3:46 PM on March 4, 2016
(Boasts about your killer GM skillz == me running away)
posted by mephron at 3:46 PM on March 4, 2016
He's not treating carrying capacity properly from the table. Those numbers are in addition to the 1500gp a normal human can carry while still being considered unencumbered. A person with 18/93 strength could carry 3500 GP and still move 12" indefinitely. A person with straight 18 strength has an max unencumbered allowance of 2250gp and could carry Alekseyev's 2171 without breaking a sweat. I'm not positive what the percentages were but it was something like 50% more for half speed and 100% more for 1/4 speed. An 18/00 character could haul 9000gp indefinitely at 3" (and if they were wearing heavy plate they may already be moving 3" because of the bulk rules).
Also note that not only is the strength table not linear it is extremely notchy. Across the board an 18/100 is 10-15% better than 18/99. I'm not sure any RL human has ever had an 18/00. I mean you'd be able to toss a smaller car like a MG MGA onto your back and still do 6 miles a day with it.
Existential Dread: " I get a real life STR midway between 10 and 11. Hooray, I'm average!"
You're average for a character class human (or whatever it was that first edition called them). In game character class humans are already in the top 90th percentile or higher of all humans.
posted by Mitheral at 3:53 PM on March 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
Also note that not only is the strength table not linear it is extremely notchy. Across the board an 18/100 is 10-15% better than 18/99. I'm not sure any RL human has ever had an 18/00. I mean you'd be able to toss a smaller car like a MG MGA onto your back and still do 6 miles a day with it.
Existential Dread: " I get a real life STR midway between 10 and 11. Hooray, I'm average!"
You're average for a character class human (or whatever it was that first edition called them). In game character class humans are already in the top 90th percentile or higher of all humans.
posted by Mitheral at 3:53 PM on March 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
BUT as long as I get to be either a ranger or an orc i'm pretty cool with that
PCs can't be orcs in 1E.
posted by Chrysostom at 3:54 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
PCs can't be orcs in 1E.
posted by Chrysostom at 3:54 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Good use of the rulebooks, but it's kind of disappointing that an Olympic weightlifter is all the way up to 18/93. I mean, the upper reaches of strength 18 are supposed to be epic level-- your Conans and Hercules. Seems like they should outperform mere existing humans.
A lot of what makes Conan an interesting character is that he's an ordinary guy -- an ordinary really strong guy, probably the strongest warrior of his age, but still, there is nothing supernatural about him. It makes sense that he'd be as strong as a world-class Olympic athlete. Hercules, on the other hand, is a demigod, and breaks the scale.
posted by JHarris at 3:58 PM on March 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
A lot of what makes Conan an interesting character is that he's an ordinary guy -- an ordinary really strong guy, probably the strongest warrior of his age, but still, there is nothing supernatural about him. It makes sense that he'd be as strong as a world-class Olympic athlete. Hercules, on the other hand, is a demigod, and breaks the scale.
posted by JHarris at 3:58 PM on March 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
Strength 13, and I've worked damn hard for it. Being tiny sucks sometimes.
(On the other hand, I suspect I get a bonus on saves against wands, staves, rods, spells, and poisons, surprise 4 times in 6 if there is no door or other obstacle to open, and in natural surroundings where there is brush for cover I am treated as invisible if I choose to conceal myself.)
posted by kyrademon at 4:01 PM on March 4, 2016
(On the other hand, I suspect I get a bonus on saves against wands, staves, rods, spells, and poisons, surprise 4 times in 6 if there is no door or other obstacle to open, and in natural surroundings where there is brush for cover I am treated as invisible if I choose to conceal myself.)
posted by kyrademon at 4:01 PM on March 4, 2016
In official game rulebooks that listed this stuff, Conan has 18/00 Strength (Original D&D's Gods, Demi-Gods, and Heroes) and Heracles has 25 Strength (Deities & Demigods). And in case anyone is curious about my namesake, the Gray Mouser "only" has a 16 Strength, though Fafhrd has 18/00 (Deities & Demigods).
posted by graymouser at 4:05 PM on March 4, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by graymouser at 4:05 PM on March 4, 2016 [7 favorites]
Geez, just buy the DM a doughnut and he'll let you play whatever you want.
posted by Mitheral at 4:08 PM on March 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Mitheral at 4:08 PM on March 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Heracles has 25 Strength ...
OK, I feel appeased. I vaguely remembered there were strengths above 18, but I couldn't find them in the three basic rulebooks.
What about Batman? Another 18/00?
posted by zompist at 4:11 PM on March 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
OK, I feel appeased. I vaguely remembered there were strengths above 18, but I couldn't find them in the three basic rulebooks.
What about Batman? Another 18/00?
posted by zompist at 4:11 PM on March 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
(Boasts about your killer GM skillz == me running away)
Old school D&D isn't for everyone. Life's too short to worry about how other people play elf games.
posted by graymouser at 4:12 PM on March 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
Old school D&D isn't for everyone. Life's too short to worry about how other people play elf games.
posted by graymouser at 4:12 PM on March 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
I recently found out about the d34, a die designed with the intent that rolling 3d34 and subtracting two from the result would give you bell curve distribution of values from 1–100, but honestly one of the things I like about the d20 concept is the idea that for any given action attempted, there is fully a 10% chance that it will go either spectacularly wrong or impossibly right.
posted by DoctorFedora at 4:14 PM on March 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by DoctorFedora at 4:14 PM on March 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
To my knowledge, Batman never had an official write-up from TSR. Possibly a side effect of the fact that they had the Marvel license in the 1980s (and produced one of the all-time great superhero RPGs in the doing). There's an educated guess from some 1e folks at Dragonsfoot here.
posted by graymouser at 4:25 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by graymouser at 4:25 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Old school D&D isn't for everyone. Life's too short to worry about how other people play elf games.
Absolutely. The only tastes that matter are those of the participants.
I will note that I (among the many gamers on here) played "old school" D&D in the 80s, and I never ran games to kill characters for fun. I still don't, some decades later. Levels of lethality have always been a stylistic choice, and the tendency to use "old school" to describe a style of play that was never that dominant does seem a bit odd.
posted by howfar at 4:37 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Absolutely. The only tastes that matter are those of the participants.
I will note that I (among the many gamers on here) played "old school" D&D in the 80s, and I never ran games to kill characters for fun. I still don't, some decades later. Levels of lethality have always been a stylistic choice, and the tendency to use "old school" to describe a style of play that was never that dominant does seem a bit odd.
posted by howfar at 4:37 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Old school D&D isn't for everyone. Life's too short to worry about how other people play elf games.
Exactly. Some genres just have their own conventions. If I play Champions, I expect to kick some ass. If I play Call of Cthulhu and I survive the whole adventure, sane and whole, I feel like someone did something wrong. (Maybe I was too cautious, maybe the GM was a softie). Whether these things are fun or not are all about everybody at the table understanding and being on board with the premise.
The thing about old fashioned D&D isn't that it's adversarial - the DM holds all the cards there - it's about a particular kind of... almost horror comedy. Like, Tomb of Horrors is unfair, but it's also *hilarious*. (My last experience like that as a player was probably Rappan Athuk, and it was a blast, even with people dying every session.)
posted by mordax at 4:38 PM on March 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
Exactly. Some genres just have their own conventions. If I play Champions, I expect to kick some ass. If I play Call of Cthulhu and I survive the whole adventure, sane and whole, I feel like someone did something wrong. (Maybe I was too cautious, maybe the GM was a softie). Whether these things are fun or not are all about everybody at the table understanding and being on board with the premise.
The thing about old fashioned D&D isn't that it's adversarial - the DM holds all the cards there - it's about a particular kind of... almost horror comedy. Like, Tomb of Horrors is unfair, but it's also *hilarious*. (My last experience like that as a player was probably Rappan Athuk, and it was a blast, even with people dying every session.)
posted by mordax at 4:38 PM on March 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
Levels of lethality have always been a stylistic choice, and the tendency to use "old school" to describe a style of play that was never that dominant does seem a bit odd.
Should've previewed. I think it's regarded as the dominant paradigm because Gary Gygax specifically loved it. (Most of the D&D I've ever run didn't fall into this either - IMO, it's more fun for short arcs than actual campaigns.)
posted by mordax at 4:39 PM on March 4, 2016
Should've previewed. I think it's regarded as the dominant paradigm because Gary Gygax specifically loved it. (Most of the D&D I've ever run didn't fall into this either - IMO, it's more fun for short arcs than actual campaigns.)
posted by mordax at 4:39 PM on March 4, 2016
The stuff about PC death is at least half gallows humor. In original D&D and the various "classic" branches of the game (the 1977, 1981 and 1983 Basic sets and their expansions), low level PCs were prone to die quickly if they were overzealous about fighting every monster. Careful players generally do pretty well in most modern old school games. Now, a modern "character funnel" in Dungeon Crawl Classics takes that to the hilt and purposefully loads the players up with disposable characters just for the fun of it.
And I maintain that it's called old school because, as Dickens said in Bleak House, it fits the definition of "a phrase generally meaning any school that seems never to have been young." But yeah, mostly Gygax's influence.
posted by graymouser at 4:44 PM on March 4, 2016
And I maintain that it's called old school because, as Dickens said in Bleak House, it fits the definition of "a phrase generally meaning any school that seems never to have been young." But yeah, mostly Gygax's influence.
posted by graymouser at 4:44 PM on March 4, 2016
Life's too short to worry about how other people play elf games.
I dunno, the best part of old Dragon magazines is the Forum, where people would argue at length about how other people should play their elf games.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:47 PM on March 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
I dunno, the best part of old Dragon magazines is the Forum, where people would argue at length about how other people should play their elf games.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:47 PM on March 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
best part of old Dragon magazines is the Forum
Do you remember that crazy "weenies and bedwetters" letter from the late 80s? I can't remember if he was a D&D fan who hated AD&D players, or the other way around.
We can maybe take some comfort in the fact that debate was no more civilised before the dominance of the Internet than it is today.
posted by howfar at 4:52 PM on March 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
Do you remember that crazy "weenies and bedwetters" letter from the late 80s? I can't remember if he was a D&D fan who hated AD&D players, or the other way around.
We can maybe take some comfort in the fact that debate was no more civilised before the dominance of the Internet than it is today.
posted by howfar at 4:52 PM on March 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hah, I don't remember that one specifically, but I do remember people taking the attitude that box D&D was only suitable for younger siblings and other lesser beings who weren't intellectual enough for Advanced elf games.
The one ongoing conflict that really stuck out for me was people having very strong opinions and getting very bent out of shape about how much treasure and experience points other DMs gave their players. Monty Haul Syndrome!
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:00 PM on March 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
The one ongoing conflict that really stuck out for me was people having very strong opinions and getting very bent out of shape about how much treasure and experience points other DMs gave their players. Monty Haul Syndrome!
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:00 PM on March 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
low level PCs were prone to die quickly if they were overzealous about fighting every monster.
I think there's definitely much to be said against the notion of "balanced encounters" that started to dominate in the 90s and reached its tedious apotheosis in 3.x. I run Savage Worlds almost exclusively these days, and the only significant balancing of encounters that I perform relative to party strength is to provide a beat structure of fear/hope (thank you Robin D Laws). Sometimes encounters are just too hard and the characters should run away. However, if they don't, I rarely kill a character unless it's interesting to do so. Even failure should be interesting, and finding yourself waking up in a barrel in the shark infested harbour is a lot more invigorating than just statting out a new PC.
posted by howfar at 5:02 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think there's definitely much to be said against the notion of "balanced encounters" that started to dominate in the 90s and reached its tedious apotheosis in 3.x. I run Savage Worlds almost exclusively these days, and the only significant balancing of encounters that I perform relative to party strength is to provide a beat structure of fear/hope (thank you Robin D Laws). Sometimes encounters are just too hard and the characters should run away. However, if they don't, I rarely kill a character unless it's interesting to do so. Even failure should be interesting, and finding yourself waking up in a barrel in the shark infested harbour is a lot more invigorating than just statting out a new PC.
posted by howfar at 5:02 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Dragon #151, page 65 (67 in the pdf), second column.
posted by rifflesby at 5:02 PM on March 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by rifflesby at 5:02 PM on March 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
Haaaahaha. It stands the test of time:
"Straightjacketed dabblers in the AD&D game and their pitiful reliance on external structures to aid them in negotiating the lovely, intricate labyrinth of role-playing are commonly the object of ridicule in the rarefied atmosphere of our gatherings."
I genuinely don't think he's taking the piss. I wonder where he and his players are now.
I remember that yuan-ti cover really well, too. I think my old Dragons are still in the loft at my parents' house.... Hmm
posted by howfar at 5:08 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Straightjacketed dabblers in the AD&D game and their pitiful reliance on external structures to aid them in negotiating the lovely, intricate labyrinth of role-playing are commonly the object of ridicule in the rarefied atmosphere of our gatherings."
I genuinely don't think he's taking the piss. I wonder where he and his players are now.
I remember that yuan-ti cover really well, too. I think my old Dragons are still in the loft at my parents' house.... Hmm
posted by howfar at 5:08 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ah, that's an issue I checked out from the library a few times but never owned, so that's probably why I don't remember the letter.
I genuinely don't think he's taking the piss.
Oh yeah, no, he's totally not.
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:15 PM on March 4, 2016
I genuinely don't think he's taking the piss.
Oh yeah, no, he's totally not.
posted by prize bull octorok at 5:15 PM on March 4, 2016
All right, all you fuckers who didn't tell me that someone had scans of all the issues of Dragon are dead to me.
posted by Etrigan at 5:34 PM on March 4, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 5:34 PM on March 4, 2016 [9 favorites]
thank you Robin D Laws
Speaking of whom, I put up a post for every new episode of Ken and Robin Talk About Stuff in FanFare as they come out, and more of you guys should be commenting there.
posted by graymouser at 5:37 PM on March 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
Speaking of whom, I put up a post for every new episode of Ken and Robin Talk About Stuff in FanFare as they come out, and more of you guys should be commenting there.
posted by graymouser at 5:37 PM on March 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
We started a new 5e game last night and spent a while rolling up our attributes. 4d6 - lowest is really the only way to go. Happy to see my character's STR of 16 is not too far above my own, 15 (according to these metrics).
posted by turbid dahlia at 5:45 PM on March 4, 2016
posted by turbid dahlia at 5:45 PM on March 4, 2016
All right, all you fuckers who didn't tell me that someone had scans of all the issues of Dragon are dead to me.
it never occurred to you to check the pirate bay for this?
I gotta finish my project of cataloging all the Star Frontiers articles. Maybe someday I'm go through with my crazy dream of running a Star Frontiers session at GenCon. I guess I'd have to go to GenCon first.
posted by GuyZero at 6:47 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
it never occurred to you to check the pirate bay for this?
I gotta finish my project of cataloging all the Star Frontiers articles. Maybe someday I'm go through with my crazy dream of running a Star Frontiers session at GenCon. I guess I'd have to go to GenCon first.
posted by GuyZero at 6:47 PM on March 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've only just discovered the Annarchive, and it is nuts. Not just the full runs of Dragon, but also Dungeon, Nintendo Power, all the Infocom manuals...
posted by rifflesby at 7:03 PM on March 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by rifflesby at 7:03 PM on March 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
howfar: "Haaaahaha. It stands the test of time:
"Straightjacketed dabblers in the AD&D game and their pitiful reliance on external structures to aid them in negotiating the lovely, intricate labyrinth of role-playing are commonly the object of ridicule in the rarefied atmosphere of our gatherings."
I genuinely don't think he's taking the piss. I wonder where he and his players are now.
I remember that yuan-ti cover really well, too. I think my old Dragons are still in the loft at my parents' house.... Hmm"
The beastie on that cover is a kappa.
posted by Samizdata at 7:40 PM on March 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Straightjacketed dabblers in the AD&D game and their pitiful reliance on external structures to aid them in negotiating the lovely, intricate labyrinth of role-playing are commonly the object of ridicule in the rarefied atmosphere of our gatherings."
I genuinely don't think he's taking the piss. I wonder where he and his players are now.
I remember that yuan-ti cover really well, too. I think my old Dragons are still in the loft at my parents' house.... Hmm"
The beastie on that cover is a kappa.
posted by Samizdata at 7:40 PM on March 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
I will note that I...played "old school" D&D in the 80s, and I never ran games to kill characters for fun.
Me neither. That's what Paranoia was for.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 8:24 PM on March 4, 2016 [9 favorites]
Me neither. That's what Paranoia was for.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 8:24 PM on March 4, 2016 [9 favorites]
LiteS, the target number and modifier system has some benefits. For one, you get a system where a higher roll is always better. For another, you get to set different difficulties for different tasks.
Roll-then-add vs TN does have some benefits, but it's not those things...
There are roll-under systems out there (like Call of Cthulhu and GURPS) that have worked just fine forever; they have varying task difficulties, and no one sits there thinking, "This would be better, like, if 02 was a bad roll and 97 was good!" Even w/ D20 roll-under I've never seen anyone EVER have a problem understanding if you need to roll a 5 or under, lower die rolls = yay, and a -2 penalty means you need a 3 or under.
"Higher=better is better" is just an imaginary design peeve.
There are actually advantages to roll-UNDER if you use it in a style of play where you calculate what you need to roll, THEN roll, which has its own advantages and disadvantages as well. Doing it that way is more dramatic, because the moment of the roll is the moment of pass/fail drama, versus: rolling, doing some arithmetic, and being like, "I ... hit?" It's also easier to do a bunch of rolls at once that way, either in a large encounter or an actual war game. Roll-under math makes that style easier. In a roll-over game, you're like, "Okay I need fours, but I'm at -1, so I need... fives." It becomes natural eventually, but with roll-under, the bonuses are all positive, the penalties are all negative, and you just sum them all up along with your base target, and that's what you have to roll.
Some real disadvantages to roll-under is that degree of success and contested rolls aren't obvious, and there's a problem with stat range. What's the difference between a 20 and a 22 in d20 roll-under? You can work something out (or like, conspire to keep stats/skills very low by design, which can be unsatisfying because people fail all the time, yes I'm looking at you Chaosium). But in a roll-then-add system it's already there because it's built around comparing one result against another. That makes it a good fit for D&D whose upper range goes into like Freya drop-kicking a Bulette off the moon.
There's also a disadvantage to calculate-then-roll systems. If there's a lot of modifiers it becomes annoying--though if you have a lot of modifiers your game is already not fun. It's also awkward with hidden modifiers.. like if the DM doesn't want to reveal the AC of the Big Bad or how difficult a certain lock is to pick.
posted by nom de poop at 8:26 PM on March 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Roll-then-add vs TN does have some benefits, but it's not those things...
There are roll-under systems out there (like Call of Cthulhu and GURPS) that have worked just fine forever; they have varying task difficulties, and no one sits there thinking, "This would be better, like, if 02 was a bad roll and 97 was good!" Even w/ D20 roll-under I've never seen anyone EVER have a problem understanding if you need to roll a 5 or under, lower die rolls = yay, and a -2 penalty means you need a 3 or under.
"Higher=better is better" is just an imaginary design peeve.
There are actually advantages to roll-UNDER if you use it in a style of play where you calculate what you need to roll, THEN roll, which has its own advantages and disadvantages as well. Doing it that way is more dramatic, because the moment of the roll is the moment of pass/fail drama, versus: rolling, doing some arithmetic, and being like, "I ... hit?" It's also easier to do a bunch of rolls at once that way, either in a large encounter or an actual war game. Roll-under math makes that style easier. In a roll-over game, you're like, "Okay I need fours, but I'm at -1, so I need... fives." It becomes natural eventually, but with roll-under, the bonuses are all positive, the penalties are all negative, and you just sum them all up along with your base target, and that's what you have to roll.
Some real disadvantages to roll-under is that degree of success and contested rolls aren't obvious, and there's a problem with stat range. What's the difference between a 20 and a 22 in d20 roll-under? You can work something out (or like, conspire to keep stats/skills very low by design, which can be unsatisfying because people fail all the time, yes I'm looking at you Chaosium). But in a roll-then-add system it's already there because it's built around comparing one result against another. That makes it a good fit for D&D whose upper range goes into like Freya drop-kicking a Bulette off the moon.
There's also a disadvantage to calculate-then-roll systems. If there's a lot of modifiers it becomes annoying--though if you have a lot of modifiers your game is already not fun. It's also awkward with hidden modifiers.. like if the DM doesn't want to reveal the AC of the Big Bad or how difficult a certain lock is to pick.
posted by nom de poop at 8:26 PM on March 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
The beastie on that cover is a kappa.
Ha! You're right, of course. Possibly the least appropriate error I could have made, in the context of my comment. I think that there were even rules for what happens when their water plate dries out. I'll have to check.
posted by howfar at 8:30 PM on March 4, 2016
Ha! You're right, of course. Possibly the least appropriate error I could have made, in the context of my comment. I think that there were even rules for what happens when their water plate dries out. I'll have to check.
posted by howfar at 8:30 PM on March 4, 2016
Oriental Adventures, p126.
If the bowl empties its loses its powers (regeneration), its Strength, and loses 2HP per round until refilled.
In combat the water can be spilled with a Bend Bars roll, or you ninja throw them.
I saw a film once with a Kappa. Hella creepy it was.
posted by Mezentian at 12:22 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
If the bowl empties its loses its powers (regeneration), its Strength, and loses 2HP per round until refilled.
In combat the water can be spilled with a Bend Bars roll, or you ninja throw them.
I saw a film once with a Kappa. Hella creepy it was.
posted by Mezentian at 12:22 AM on March 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
howfar: "The beastie on that cover is a kappa.
Ha! You're right, of course. Possibly the least appropriate error I could have made, in the context of my comment. I think that there were even rules for what happens when their water plate dries out. I'll have to check."
I only remembered frankly, from reading some non-gaming Asian mythology, and from the water head.
posted by Samizdata at 1:31 AM on March 5, 2016
Ha! You're right, of course. Possibly the least appropriate error I could have made, in the context of my comment. I think that there were even rules for what happens when their water plate dries out. I'll have to check."
I only remembered frankly, from reading some non-gaming Asian mythology, and from the water head.
posted by Samizdata at 1:31 AM on March 5, 2016
It took me a while, but after about 20 years of DM-ing, I just stopped having players roll for stats. They all cheat anyway. I just require them to roleplay their chosen stats. I've had more than one player ask to recreate their character after one session of trying to RP an 18 Charisma and never making it out of a city without being harassed by prostitutes/marriage proposals/cat calls/being hit on .. etc etc. Consider that this is a fantasy game and naturally every character looks like a Boris Vallejo subject. Do you think that, I dunno, whoever the current SI Swimsuit cover model is, or a guy like Dwayne Johnson (The Rock) would make it a hundred feet down a busy street dressed in barbarian chic without being stopped? Hey you chose the stat, now play it.
posted by elendil71 at 9:02 AM on March 5, 2016
posted by elendil71 at 9:02 AM on March 5, 2016
"Roll over"? "Roll under"? That all sounds suspiciously like amateur thespianism to me. Back in the day with REAL D&D, they're was no rolling for success; you just told the DM what you wanted to do, and they would think about it and say "HaHaHa No. You fail and die." It was so much simpler then.
posted by happyroach at 11:21 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by happyroach at 11:21 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
High CHR doesn't always equal unnatural beauty. It can alternatively mean charming or good at manipulating people. EG: Jeffrey Dahmer would probably have a 17 or 18 CHR but wasn't particularly attractive. Lots of con men and grifters will have a high charisma.
Besides physical beauty is a simple thing to disguise with the possible exception of Dark Sun; just put on a hooded cloak or be dirty and mussed.
One DM I played with actually separated looks from charm. Attractiveness was a seventh stat in his game.
posted by Mitheral at 11:50 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Besides physical beauty is a simple thing to disguise with the possible exception of Dark Sun; just put on a hooded cloak or be dirty and mussed.
One DM I played with actually separated looks from charm. Attractiveness was a seventh stat in his game.
posted by Mitheral at 11:50 AM on March 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Comeliness, via the 1E Unearthed Arcana book.
posted by Etrigan at 1:31 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 1:31 PM on March 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
« Older You can do it. I did it, so you can do it. Just... | Your device will probably die before the piece is... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by graymouser at 1:16 PM on March 4, 2016 [21 favorites]