Bard
Level 3 Conjurer
The dice never lie.
Posts: 87
|
Post by Bard on Jun 17, 2008 6:59:07 GMT -6
I'm trying to figure out the od&d tables: Experience tables and the HD tables for character levels. I see no logic behind them. The few things I understand:
- Fighters (until 10th level) approximately level = HD. So this means, that in the od&d sense, the fighter is the human monster or something like that. His experience progression is the most logical, it doubles every level, well, almost, but using 120000 instead of 128000, it is explainable...
- I can understand, that the Magic-user, and Cleric HD is lower than the fighter's. That is easy to understand.
What I don't understand:
- What is the logic (if any) behind the strange experience level progression tables?
- And the strange HD tables of the Cleric and Magic user?
- And why are different progression rates for the different Classes anyway? What do this represent?
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 17, 2008 8:36:30 GMT -6
- What is the logic (if any) behind the strange experience level progression tables? The progression for XP isn’t as strange as it looks at first. What they did was essentially to double the XP each level, except in some cases they rounded off the numbers to make them easier to work with. So, for the fighters (in 1000’s of XP) we see 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 … no they decided to use 120 instead of 128. I suppose at this point one could suggest that the progression goes 120, 240, 480, 960… Same with the cleric. 1.5, 3, 6, 12, 24 … er 25 … 25, 50, 100… Magic user is a bit more confusing. 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 40 … no, it’s 35 … okay, then 50, 75, 100, 125 … no, it’s 200 … um … 100, 200, 300… - And the strange HD tables of the Cleric and Magic user? The HD tables are a bit of a mystery as well. The first level fighting man is rated at 1+1 to make him better than the typical person, and other classes are assumed to be typical at first level. That part makes sense. The 1 HD addition per level for fighters is also logical, except that I’ll be darned if I can figure out why 5th level gets 5+1 in the middle of the string there. There appears to almost be a pattern emerging in the magic user chart, but then it gets broken in the 4 HD to 5 HD jump and is spastic at 6+1 for no reason. Cleric also has that odd little bump in there at 4+1 for no apparent reason. I guess my answer is that I really don’t know, either. What I find most interesting in these tables is the “fighting capability” numbers. For monsters, FC=HD. Simple rule, no headaches. For character classes this isn’t the case at all. Some explain that the difference accounts for the fact that some classes attack better and others defend better, but I think that’s accounted for in AC restrictions already. It’s a puzzle. - And why are different progression rates for the different Classes anyway? What do this represent? I think that the basic problem is that the classes aren’t really balanced and in the1970’s there weren’t so many people trying to “unify” game systems. Rather than trying to make all 5th level characters (for example) equivalent in powers, they simply juggled the XP charts so that it was easier to get to 5th level for the weaker classes. Does that help at all? |
|
Bard
Level 3 Conjurer
The dice never lie.
Posts: 87
|
Post by Bard on Jun 17, 2008 9:52:16 GMT -6
Thanks for the additional input! So even a veteran player sees these tables a bit of a mystery...
I have been thinking of this more since my first post... I put the experience points and the hd-s into a single table and noticed something.
When all the classes received 120 000 experience points they have 6+1, 7 and 8+2 HD. I think that they are very close to each other. Especially the magic user is much much closer to the others compared to later editions of the game.
I also noticed that if everybody always receives the same experience points, then until the 4th level, the cleric goes side by side with the fighter, occasionally ahead of him, but never behind (except at 0 exp.). Now, that don't make sense... To be more precise, it suggests, that the cleric is aided by the gods, at low levels. The fighter is not better than the cleric at staying alive, only at the attacking and killing phase of the fight.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jun 17, 2008 10:21:16 GMT -6
For me, the reason has always been "Because those are the numbers Gary put down. If you don't like 'em, change 'em!"
Seriously, the heart of the system is: Do what you want with what you have.
I realize that doesn't help find the original motive, but I'm not sure there was a specific motive; I think the numbers presented just "looked right" to Gary and so were used.
|
|
Bard
Level 3 Conjurer
The dice never lie.
Posts: 87
|
Post by Bard on Jun 17, 2008 10:48:25 GMT -6
Yes, looking at these tables, it's easy to think, that there wasn't an original motive, and that they just looked right... But who knows? And even if there wasn't any serious planning, it's good to understand them, for example it's interesting to notice the differences between the newer incarnations of the game and this.
The other thing, about Gary, I'm not even sure they just looked right for him... In Supplement I, Greyhawk they were changed, and as far as I know from the Gary's house rules topics, he used a different, more simple method in his late games. d6+1 for fighters, and d6 for the others.
And on top of all that, I like the simplicity of the d6 for hd for either class or monsters. But then I have to use the LBB or some variant of it. That's why I have to understand these tables...
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jun 17, 2008 11:47:27 GMT -6
I would guess that Gary constantly tweaked the values as early playing continued, to bring character abilities more in line with his expectations. "You're not 5th level yet? You probably should be. Lemme lower the number needed a bit." "Bob the cleric fights better than Joe the fighter with the same XP? Lemme give the fighter table a bit of a nudge."
If this is correct, the sense is in its development as an organic set of tables.
|
|
Bard
Level 3 Conjurer
The dice never lie.
Posts: 87
|
Post by Bard on Jun 17, 2008 12:37:49 GMT -6
I would guess that Gary constantly tweaked the values as early playing continued, to bring character abilities more in line with his expectations. "You're not 5th level yet? You probably should be. Lemme lower the number needed a bit." "Bob the cleric fights better than Joe the fighter with the same XP? Lemme give the fighter table a bit of a nudge." If this is correct, the sense is in its development as an organic set of tables. Maybe the od&d game should not be viewed as the ad&d one, which (according to the introduction by Gary) is a carefully thought out and balanced system. Maybe I should not choose between two systems, but two approaches. The ad&d one, is a well thought out, balanced etc. one, ready to play, from level 1 to 20 and more... The od&d one is the: start playing, and if something feels wrong in your campaign, change it. But I'm still interested in how many veteran players find the original tables usable... I'm going to the Polling Place...  |
|
scogle
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 69
|
Post by scogle on Jun 19, 2008 20:50:45 GMT -6
What I find most interesting in these tables is the “fighting capability” numbers. For monsters, FC=HD. Simple rule, no headaches. For character classes this isn’t the case at all. Some explain that the difference accounts for the fact that some classes attack better and others defend better, but I think that’s accounted for in AC restrictions already. It’s a puzzle. My version of the rules says this: " Fighting Capability: This is a key to use in conjunction with the CHAINMAIL fantasy rule, as modified in various places herein. An alternative system will be given later for those who prefer a different method." I've just chalked it off to another one of those weird Chainmail relics you find throughout the set. |
|
Bard
Level 3 Conjurer
The dice never lie.
Posts: 87
|
Post by Bard on Jul 7, 2008 6:10:33 GMT -6
I have been meditating on this topic...
I've taken a look at the RC, the BECMI books, the first and second edition AD&D books and compared the variations of these tables... I won't write an essay on this, but in short, my thoughts are, that these Men & Magic tables are intentionally doesn't make any sense. In later editions the designers tried to put sense and mathematically understandable patterns into the HP, the THAC0, the spell progressions etc. I don't think that Gary Gygax wasn't good enough with numbers... So I can only think that it was intentional, that these tables don't make "any sense". Maybe he thought (at least I think this), that this way the rules won't have power over the imagination of the players. Or if they have some effect on the game, then it is that they radiate the aura of mystery and unpredictability.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2008 7:02:31 GMT -6
The od&d one is the: start playing, and if something feels wrong in your campaign, change it. But I'm still interested in how many veteran players find the original tables usable... I'm going to the Polling Place... The tweak it if it is needed approach is what I always used back in the day. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2008 7:05:07 GMT -6
I have been meditating on this topic... I've taken a look at the RC, the BECMI books, the first and second edition AD&D books and compared the variations of these tables... I won't write an essay on this, but in short, my thoughts are, that these Men & Magic tables are intentionally doesn't make any sense. In later editions the designers tried to put sense and mathematically understandable patterns into the HP, the THAC0, the spell progressions etc. I don't think that Gary Gygax wasn't good enough with numbers... So I can only think that it was intentional, that these tables don't make "any sense". Maybe he thought (at least I think this), that this way the rules won't have power over the imagination of the players. Or if they have some effect on the game, then it is that they radiate the aura of mystery and unpredictability. Maybe it is just me, but I never spent even a moment wondering why this or that is such and such a way. Even though I love numbers, I never looked at these tables and wondered why they did or didn't make "sense". If I thought it needed changed for my campaign, then I did. I never thought all that much needed changing but it was fun to change things now and then just to see what would happen or how it would affect things. |
|
oldgeezer
Level 3 Conjurer
Original Blackmoor Participant
Posts: 70 
|
Post by oldgeezer on Aug 5, 2008 9:27:59 GMT -6
Maybe it is just me, but I never spent even a moment wondering why this or that is such and such a way. Even though I love numbers, I never looked at these tables and wondered why they did or didn't make "sense". If I thought it needed changed for my campaign, then I did. I never thought all that much needed changing but it was fun to change things now and then just to see what would happen or how it would affect things. This. Gary made up some tables that "looked about right". Son of a pregnant dog, people have spent more time microanalyzing the d**n rules than was spent writing them. Just go play the game. |
|
Bard
Level 3 Conjurer
The dice never lie.
Posts: 87
|
Post by Bard on Aug 18, 2008 9:14:17 GMT -6
Maybe it is just me, but I never spent even a moment wondering why this or that is such and such a way. Even though I love numbers, I never looked at these tables and wondered why they did or didn't make "sense". If I thought it needed changed for my campaign, then I did. I never thought all that much needed changing but it was fun to change things now and then just to see what would happen or how it would affect things. This. Gary made up some tables that "looked about right". Son of a pregnant dog, people have spent more time microanalyzing the d**n rules than was spent writing them. Just go play the game. Okay, I go! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Aug 18, 2008 20:04:57 GMT -6
Son of a pregnant dog, people have spent more time microanalyzing the d**n rules than was spent writing them. Just go play the game. That. Is. Beautiful. And I say that as someone who has spent way too much d**n time mircoanalyzing the rules...  |
|
