|
Post by peterlind on Sept 24, 2013 21:14:45 GMT -6
I played OD&D and AD&D back then. To me, the stat minimums were possibly ill advised. If you rolled high stats, you could qualify for a really cool character, like a Paladin, Ranger, or Bard. The problem was that stat rolling is hard for a GM to enforce, especially if characters are coming in from other campaign worlds, which often happened back then. This is one reason why I would prefer to just go with the basic four classes as a starting point, and then take it from there, in game. If a character becomes a Paladin, Ranger, or Bard, it is because it was "earned" in the game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2013 21:39:27 GMT -6
I played OD&D and AD&D back then. Me, too. Well OD&D anyway. I used the MM from AD&D when it became available but didn't play AD&D until years later. The problem was that stat rolling is hard for a GM to enforce ... Really? Not for me. Of course, back then players were plentiful and referees were in short supply. I didn't bully my players by any means, but I certainly didn't put up with any shenanigans. I was helped by the fact there were always folks waiting to play.
|
|
|
Post by peterlind on Sept 25, 2013 0:01:47 GMT -6
Yes, I expect most of the folks around here played back then . . . Overall, stat prerequisites worked out fine back then . . . they did help direct people in generating their characters. It really was all right. What I was hearkening back to is some of those experiences at the local game store when other players would try to bring "monty hall" type characters into the game. Sometimes the GM would allow them into the game, perhaps with some magic items "left at home." But what I found is that having a weaker character in the game along with those more powerful characters did not make a whole lot of difference so long as you played well.
|
|