Knights & Knaves Alehouse

ScottyG wrote:It's in the PH in the beginning of the abilities section, where it also states that a PC should have at least two 15s to be considered viable.

Oh, I know. That's a section of the PHB I regularly quote when people ask me why I don't play AD&D. It's a philosophical perspective that I just don't share.

That was always his PoV though, even if it wasn't expressly stated in OD&D.

I don't doubt it, but that POV really doesn't come through in the LBBs at all, whose sample character, Xylarthen, has not a single ability score above 13 and most of them are in the 9-12 range. That's what I expect of PCs these days, so it's another point of disagreement between myself and Gygax, I guess.

It’s definitely not as big an issue in OD&D where the abilities don’t have the same impact on the PC’s performance as they do in AD&D.

I suspect the idea of starting 1st level characters being little better than the average "flunky," with little (if any) indication of their possible future heroic status, and that their only real recourse in situations of adversity is to run like hell and hope someone else (ideally an NPC man-at-arms) is slower or less lucky, is an Arnesonism. It certainly matches the approach to play described in Greg Svenson's account of the first Blackmoor "dungeon adventure" (which I can't find a working link to at the moment, but I imagine most of you have already read it anyway). So it's not surprising that approach would be more prevalent in OD&D (where, even if Gygax personally felt otherwise, he was still more beholden to and respectful of Arneson's approach), increasingly de-emphasized over the lifespan of AD&D, and of course removed entirely in Mythus, where even the worst-possible starting PC is still by definition above-average in all respects. And there's also the evidence of Gygax's 21st century retro-OD&D games, where "starting" characters were 3rd level.

The idea of PCs being special (as I understand it) was nothing bu an explanation as to why they can quickly advance to high level in a few short years, say 10th level (with 80 HPs) or become powerful spell casters, while the average Greyhawk person can't ever accomplish such a task (otherwise the world would be populated with everyone being high level, as it is in 1E AD&D, leveled humans are rare). In other words, this mention of "above average" was a necessary explanation of what levels are and how they are attained. Another thing. What makes a PC "special" wasn't tied up in their attributes but rather their personality. A PC with 9 and 10s all the way down on their stats can attain any level of some classes in a relatively quick time period, while an NPC farmer with 18 on every attribute cannot. It is the same mechanism that explains why an elf is limited as a fighter. Without this idea that "PCs are a cut above the rest from the get go" the 1E AD&D world would not work logically.

As for needing some mechanical edge at first level (and using specialization to do it) how about use your freak'n brain and gusto instead. This is not a game about balance, balance finds itself. Where some players might find B2 too difficult at 1st level and require 3rd level PCs to complete it, others will find it not that difficult at all (usually a combination of superior tactics and a friendly but fair DM who interprets things in an advantagous way for the PCs).

Plus, if you do something heroic and your PC has some +2 weapons specialization, your always going to wonder if your success was due to that (you won't feel like you earned it). Thus, your victories will be shallow and your defeats more stinging (wow I couldn't even kill that ogre with all my specialization in my weapon).

Like I've said before, do yourself a favor and have Spock mind fuck the memory of Weapons Specialization from your brain (yes that means you TRP).

Name of the First Fighter Level: "Veteran."

Not a glitch.

T. Foster wrote:I suspect the idea of starting 1st level characters being little better than the average "flunky," with little (if any) indication of their possible future heroic status, and that their only real recourse in situations of adversity is to run like hell and hope someone else (ideally an NPC man-at-arms) is slower or less lucky, is an Arnesonism. It certainly matches the approach to play described in Greg Svenson's account of the first Blackmoor "dungeon adventure" (which I can't find a working link to at the moment, but I imagine most of you have already read it anyway). So it's not surprising that approach would be more prevalent in OD&D (where, even if Gygax personally felt otherwise, he was still more beholden to and respectful of Arneson's approach), increasingly de-emphasized over the lifespan of AD&D, and of course removed entirely in Mythus, where even the worst-possible starting PC is still by definition above-average in all respects. And there's also the evidence of Gygax's 21st century retro-OD&D games, where "starting" characters were 3rd level.

Good points all around, especially in bringing up Gary's OD&D house rules regarding beginning PCs. I guess I never really considered my own preferences particularly "Arnesonian," but perhaps they are, at least as far as certain foundational conceptions go. I've been enamored of the flavor of Gygaxian D&D ever since I acquired the PHB back in early 1980 that I may have deluded myself into thinking that I also liked the overall Gygaxian approach to fantasy. Now that I think about it, this explains a lot.

AxeMental wrote:As for needing some mechanical edge at first level (and using specialization to do it) how about use your freak'n brain and gusto instead.

Axe, you are now getting dangerously close to impugning my players' gaming ability. I believe you're intimating that since I provide weapon specialization, then my players are not using their brains to enable their characters to survive. Well, you can put that ruler away right now, Sister Mary Elephant.

My preferred method of wargaming (and sometimes in D&D) is to play the underdog. There's a great sense of satisfaction in overcoming the odds to beat a superior foe. If, however, this underdog suffers defeat in a war game, it's a short-lived affair of just one evening. A drink later, and the sting is all gone. Next week, maybe I'll be the player with the upper hand, or it will be a level field. Either way, it will likely be my choice. In a D&D campaign, a player can face the same daunting challenge every. single. session. Not everyone finds that particularly enjoyable.

There are only so many brilliant moves, and tricks, most of us can pull from our arses to defeat a superior foe. Let's face it, low-level characters, especially when there are only a handful, are definitely underdogs in even a 1st-level dungeon. To borrow, and manipulate, an expression, "the DM's monsters & NPCs only have to be right once, the PCs must be right 100% of the time."

Most people believe in a sense of fair play, and that usually means a balanced field. A good gamer, of any stripe, should prefer an edge in a challenge, but at the very least expect a level playing field.

Now, Axe. I know exactly what you're thinking. "But, fairness and balance aren't realistic!" You know what? You're right. What's equally right is that D&D Is Not A Simulation; It Is A Game. And, being a game, fairness and balance should be an option for those players that choose it. IMO, weapon specialization helps a small group of players, often with only one, or at most two, single-classed fighters have a nearly even footing in the dungeon with their adversaries. PCs are still out-classed anyway if you ask me.

Now .. assuming a group is playing AD&D 1e, then:

• Some number of gamers enjoy the challenge of playing the underdog in AD&D.
  No one gets to say how others may enjoy playing AD&D.
  Some number of DMs allow weapon specialization in an attempt to infuse some fairness into low-level AD&D. Some DMs do it for other reasons.
  A player with weapon specialization must use their "freak'n brain" for their character to survive.

Axe, if you want to argue against weapon specialization, then go for it. Go for it in the manner of Foster, PJ and others. That is, attack the concept from it's mechanical ramifications within the game. If, however, you chose to continue to cast negative aspersions upon players that don't play AD&D how you think they should, then I'm going to take that Sister Mary Elephant ruler of yours and ......

C'mon, if they're playing 1e, then they have it at least 90% right already.

Odhanan wrote:Name of the First Fighter Level: "Veteran."

Not a glitch.

The point's well taken but I'm not sure we should rely heavily upon level titles as an indication of anything, since, for example, a 1st-level magic-user is a "Medium" and yet has no ability to communicate with spirits. Furthermore, aren't by-the-book AD&D fighters quite young at 1st level, like teenagers? Sure, Conan was 15 when he helped the Cimmerians sack Venarium, but are all 1st-level fighters supposed to be as potent at arms as he? Maybe, I don't know, but, if so, I can't say I'm very keen on that.

James Maliszewski wrote:The point's well taken but I'm not sure we should rely heavily upon level titles as an indication of anything, since, for example, a 1st-level magic-user is a "Medium" and yet has no ability to communicate with spirits. Furthermore, aren't by-the-book AD&D fighters quite young at 1st level, like teenagers? Sure, Conan was 15 when he helped the Cimmerians sack Venarium, but are all 1st-level fighters supposed to be as potent at arms as he? Maybe, I don't know, but, if so, I can't say I'm very keen on that.

In short, yes, that's basically the flavor of fantasy it emulates.

Medium, Acolyte and Veteran basically point out towards the same kind of concept: that despite his or her young age, the character has enough experience in the non-adventuring aspect of his specialization to make him a level 1 character instead of a non-descript level 0 character.

A medium could be an individual gifted with feeling magic, or a con-artist who knows his share about folks' understanding of "magic and witches," plays with oui-jas or crystal balls, and has just begun working out "real magic" (i.e. Vancian spells and memorization etc).

A veteran is a guy who's seen combat before, has been part of a campaign and fought on a battle field in some capacity. Maybe survived some combat situation outside of military campaigns, as a town's guard or foot soldier or some such. Regardless of actual origins, this youngster with combat experience then decides to start an adventuring career and becomes exceptional (i.e. non-level 0 player character).

An acolyte is a guy who's been involved with the cult for some time. Maybe someone helping with religious events, a student of the cult's theology, a boy from the choir, etc etc. He has just worked out the basic "real" tenets of the faith that allows him to connect with the deity on a personal level and in effect perform "miracles", i.e. divine spells.

And so on.

TRP: " Well, you can put that ruler away right now, Sister Mary Elephant." OK that was pretty fucking funny. Of course it helps to have spent 12 years in Catholic school to really appreciate it.

Yet people read a LOT into the level title “Hero”.

Besides, I must be missing some nuance here, but ISN’T every 1st level Fighter a potential Conan by definition, just by the nature of the level system?

Falconer wrote:Yet people read a LOT into the level title “Hero”.

Besides, I must be missing some nuance here, but ISN’T every 1st level Fighter a potential Conan by definition, just by the nature of the level system?

Yes.

Falconer wrote:Besides, I must be missing some nuance here, but ISN’T every 1st level Fighter a potential Conan by definition, just by the nature of the level system?

I'd buy that, which is why I don't like the idea that, even at level 1, Joe Fighter already is Conan (or Fafhrd, or whoever). I much prefer that low-level PCs be a little on the inept side, with only the clever and the lucky ones being those who, through time and experience, realize their potential.

But the increasing sense I'm getting here is that this notion of "zero to hero" isn't Gygaxian and D&D was never intended to simulate the rise of a nobody, through skill and fortune, to the heights of power. To that I can only say, "I guess I'm not as much of a Gygaxian as I used to think I was," and I'm OK with that.

TRP: "Now, Axe. I know exactly what you're thinking. "But, fairness and balance aren't realistic!" You know what? You're right. What's equally right is that D&D Is Not A Simulation; It Is A Game. And, being a game, fairness and balance should be an option for those players that choose it. IMO, weapon specialization helps a small group of players, often with only one, or at most two, single-classed fighters have a nearly even footing in the dungeon with their adversaries. PCs are still out-classed anyway if you ask me".


OK this is the same logic others have used, and I have two problems with it: 1. its just upping the strength of your group, so that means you can either succeed in more difficult dungeons or you can succeed with a smaller party. And 2. it doesn't really address what I think was the main point of WS, and that is customization.

I think point 1 answers itself (and you can do the same thing allowing 1st level fighters start with the 3rd level table as PJ suggested). But I think point 2 (customization) is the true issue and the real problem I have with the concept. Those who choose to not use specialization feel screwed (because those who do outperform them) and its a limiting aspect (encouraging fighters to take less rather then more). Its basically changing the template of the game (which is fixed archetypes). Prior to WS if you wanted to play an "archer" you chose the fighter class and used your bow most of the time. Post WS you specialize in bow (or whatever other specialist you want to be). Where I have no problem with this being used for NPCs and monsters I think it corrodes the activity based aspect of the game in lieu of fixed rules that reinforce that new defacto archetype.

I think a far better solution would have been for new classes that fit those archetypes rather then ruining the "fighter" (aka the well rounded bad ass who can do whatever the hell he likes).

James Maliszewski wrote:

Falconer wrote:Besides, I must be missing some nuance here, but ISN’T every 1st level Fighter a potential Conan by definition, just by the nature of the level system?

I'd buy that, which is why I don't like the idea that, even at level 1, Joe Fighter already is Conan (or Fafhrd, or whoever). I much prefer that low-level PCs be a little on the inept side, with only the clever and the lucky ones being those who, through time and experience, realize their potential.

But the increasing sense I'm getting here is that this notion of "zero to hero" isn't Gygaxian and D&D was never intended to simulate the rise of a nobody, through skill and fortune, to the heights of power. To that I can only say, "I guess I'm not as much of a Gygaxian as I used to think I was," and I'm OK with that.

It doesn't matter if thats what Gygax intended, all that matters is thats what 1E AD&D (the vibe generated by the game itself) results in and does well (the concept of progression...the thing that keeps you interested).

What Gygax liked or intended is one issue (one I could care less about) what Gygax and company created is another (and what this board is ultimately all about). There are places that focus on Gary Gygax 1st (his games second), that is not K&K. I care about is 1E AD&D the game first and foremost. To clarify you believe a 1st level PC gets to feel like a hero wasting 3 orcs as much as a 10th level fighter does killing some dragon, right?