|
Post by jakdethe on May 7, 2014 9:17:42 GMT -6
Maybe I'm using the term wrong. To give an example, in the Little Brown Books, if you choose to play a Elf, that's pretty much that. You don't write down much on character sheet (unless you choose to multi-class). When it comes time to checking for secret doors, the Referee handles that, and the rules for it are in the Referee's section. As a player, you're choice is whether you play an elf; the benefits come later because you decided to play an elf. In other words, you don't pick an elf because he can find secret doors, it's just a benefit. In fact this even extends to keeping charts, matrices, and statistics in the back of the player's book.
Why I bring up this discussion, is the (in my opinion) misconception that the original books (whether OD&D or AD&D) are poorly formatted. Now the tendency, whether it's a brand new RPG, or a retroclone, is to take the more modern "cleaner" and "better organized" approach of listing character abilities under the initial options and choices presented.
I'm just wondering what you guys prefer, and the benefits to both methods. The only real one I can see to laying out abilities under the initial description is that it helps to balance character options when they're are a lot of abilities for each option. In other words, I can see it being helpful in the case of AD&D because each class and race has a whole page of abilities and benefits. I feel like that is really counter-intuitive to the benefit of OD&D at least, because it's main attraction is simplicity, and freedom for creativity and imagination.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 7, 2014 11:46:40 GMT -6
There's a tendency to overdevelop character sheets. There's no reason, for instance, why you should copy your attack rolls or your saving throws onto your sheet; you can just look up what you need on a table. But once you start writing everything, you perceive a need to have all the information to copy in one place.
I've given before the list of the absolute minimum you need to record on a character sheet for just the original rules: name, strength, intelligence, wisdom, constitution, dexterity, charisma, class, hit points, experience points, alignment, equipment, spells (if any). "Class" for nonhumans is the character's race; equipment includes money and magic items. Everything else derives from these. All of these can be worked out with only Men & Magic.
I don't have a preference; I already know the rules and the shape of their compilation doesn't matter to me.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on May 7, 2014 12:29:41 GMT -6
You bring up a good point, which I feel kind of extends the idea. If you have a good Referee Screen, or the original Reference sheets, there really is no need for attack rolls, saving throws, etc. on a character sheet. I might just a game or two doing that. I really like the idea of having players "just roll": no calculations, or checking for various bonuses or abilities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 12:59:09 GMT -6
I've never had players put attack rolls, et al on a character sheet.
"Don't ask me what number you need. Roll. I'll tell you what happens."
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on May 7, 2014 13:19:12 GMT -6
I agree with gronan's sentiment. I will often just ask a player to roll a die and not tell them whether they even want high or low. Particularly easy with OD&D where it's almost always either a d6 or a d20. Character sheets should be like index cards.
The question of how to present the rule for elves finding secret doors is interesting, though: do you put it with the secret doors rules, or with the elf rules? There is an attitude that all the elf rules should be together, or that all secret doors should be together. Today, with PDFs and easy print-on-demand, no reason you can't do both. It's not like someone is painstakingly typesetting the rulebook and you need every precious inch of space.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 7, 2014 13:49:25 GMT -6
You can extend this even farther and dispense with players rolling at all. Yes, it makes the players feel like they're in control of their fates, yadda yadda. But we all really know that it's just a way to generate randomness, and if it increases efficiency and immersion why not just have the referee do all the rolling? I don't believe that players rolling dice is actually essential, despite what most players would say.
During an important single combat, or some other situation in which a mechanical, game-like feel was desired, I would relent and let the players roll dice with knowledge of what they needed to roll. But most of the time a lack of certain knowledge of the probabilities involved in success is a boon.
This also eliminates those periods of waiting for players to find their dice, asking what they need to roll, and building structures from them. I especially hate that last one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 16:50:53 GMT -6
"Back-loaded character?" I dated her for a while...
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on May 7, 2014 16:52:07 GMT -6
The question of how to present the rule for elves finding secret doors is interesting, though: do you put it with the secret doors rules, or with the elf rules? There is an attitude that all the elf rules should be together, or that all secret doors should be together. Today, with PDFs and easy print-on-demand, no reason you can't do both. It's not like someone is painstakingly typesetting the rulebook and you need every precious inch of space. It could be easy to split the class descriptions between the Player's and DM's section, in the same way that some spells had a description in the AD&D PHB and the DMG. In the case of elfs, for instance, this could go as someting like Players section: 1: elfs can progress as both FM or MU, but are limited in level 2: they can use weapons and armor as FM 3: they are more able to note secret and hidden doors. 4: they can split-move and fire and gain advantages against certain creatures 5: are able to speak the languages of Orcs, Hobgoblins, and Gnolls in addition to their own DM section: 1: elfs can progress as both FM or MU, but are lmited tu level 4 and 8 respectively. They use the best HD , FC and ST of either class. 2: elfs can hear noises on a 1-2 and detect secret doors on 1-4 (or just notice on 1-2) 3: they add +X to attack rolls against orcs and goblins This way, the player can make informed décisions, but the numerical aspects are left out to the MD
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 7, 2014 17:30:17 GMT -6
I've never had players put attack rolls, et al on a character sheet. "Don't ask me what number you need. Roll. I'll tell you what happens." Agreed, but many character sheets "out there" do exactly this. They have a little bit of everything you might need and a space to put it. Too much clutter, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on May 7, 2014 22:35:42 GMT -6
You can extend this even farther and dispense with players rolling at all. Yes, it makes the players feel like they're in control of their fates, yadda yadda. But we all really know that it's just a way to generate randomness, and if it increases efficiency and immersion why not just have the referee do all the rolling? I don't believe that players rolling dice is actually essential, despite what most players would say. During an important single combat, or some other situation in which a mechanical, game-like feel was desired, I would relent and let the players roll dice with knowledge of what they needed to roll. But most of the time a lack of certain knowledge of the probabilities involved in success is a boon. This also eliminates those periods of waiting for players to find their dice, asking what they need to roll, and building structures from them. I especially hate that last one. It's funny I actually did this at McDonald's one time for two of my players. We only had one site of dice (my wife carries "Emergency Dice"), and I had the LBB rules memorized for 1st level characters. I rolled everything from attack rolls, to hit dice, to saving throws. It was a lot of fun. I just never thought of doing it for a serious campaign, because what people normally consider "fun". I might just have to try this soon.
|
|
|
Post by Leonaru on May 8, 2014 12:09:45 GMT -6
If I have four or five players of various classes and levels, I don't see the need to check five or six saving throws. I announce what save they have to make and what consequences they suffer if they don't, and they just roll it. Much more convenient for everybody IMO. Then again, my players know the rules and each have a full set of dice, so that's not slowdown.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 9, 2014 6:34:35 GMT -6
The play format is a factor--a play-by-post game will run so much faster if the ref rolls all the dice, but a face to face game will likely be less work for the ref, and more fun for the players, if the players roll.
In either case, I think it's important that the players should see the die result for all rolls except those that they explicitly shouldn't see (wandering monster checks, secret door checks, hireling loyalty, etc.).
Correlating the die results with in games effect is an important piece of information which the players should use to inform their strategy. I.e., The best fighter misses on a roll of 18? Okay, this guy is hard to hit. Or, I just did nothing on a 20 guys, we need silver or magic weapons. Or, that thing just rolled three damage dice, run away! Etc.
Yes, the players can "figure" some averages from outcomes over time without seeing the dice, but the dice give far more immediate feedback. Depriving the players of this information seems perhaps a bit unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 9, 2014 10:18:53 GMT -6
a face to face game will likely be less work for the ref, and more fun for the players, if the players roll. I don't find this to be the case. If I tried to offload rolling to players, I'd have to trust them to look up the results and accurately report what they got at a moment I was ready to process that information. What actually happens is the player asks what to roll, I answer, he rolls, he reports the number, and I look up the results. I can't do anything else during this process. It is much faster if I know there is a roll to be made to make it myself and look up the result without the player acting as middleman.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 9, 2014 11:08:56 GMT -6
I just did nothing on a 20 guys, we need silver or magic weapons. To me, this is an important consideration in having players roll their own attacks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 11:24:59 GMT -6
a face to face game will likely be less work for the ref, and more fun for the players, if the players roll. I don't find this to be the case. If I tried to offload rolling to players, I'd have to trust them to look up the results and accurately report what they got at a moment I was ready to process that information. What actually happens is the player asks what to roll, I answer, he rolls, he reports the number, and I look up the results. I can't do anything else during this process. It is much faster if I know there is a roll to be made to make it myself and look up the result without the player acting as middleman. This.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 11:25:35 GMT -6
I just did nothing on a 20 guys, we need silver or magic weapons. To me, this is an important consideration in having players roll their own attacks. "You know you hit him. You KNOW you hit him, you're absolutely sure of it. And it didn't seem to do a thing."
|
|
idrahil
Level 6 Magician
The Lighter The Rules, The Better The Game!
Posts: 398
|
Post by idrahil on May 9, 2014 12:53:27 GMT -6
I just did nothing on a 20 guys, we need silver or magic weapons. To me, this is an important consideration in having players roll their own attacks. There used to be a guy on Youtube that would make videos primarily on playing Holmes. He made a case for the players not ever rolling. I was never sold on the idea but his argument was simple and made sense even if I didn't really agree with it: "It's not a board game, it's a role playing game."
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on May 9, 2014 15:17:08 GMT -6
I prefer to keep the dice behind the screen for the reasons Stormcrow and Gronan suggest and the numbers break from the immersive quality of the game, a role playing game as noted by idrahil. This approach is one of the acceptable methods suggested by the description of keeping a record of hit points.
In some campaigns the referee will keep this total (hit points)secret, informing players only that they feel "strong", "fatigued" or "very weak", thus indicating waning hit points. In other campains the Dungeon Master will have players record their character's hit points and keep track of all changes (34 PHB).
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 9, 2014 17:57:41 GMT -6
Players may at first complain about not being allowed to roll dice, but if the dungeon master provides a truly interesting and challenging game, I believe these complaints will fade as the players realize they really do have complete control over their characters.
|
|
luc
Level 2 Seer
Posts: 30
|
Post by luc on May 9, 2014 19:54:02 GMT -6
Back in the 90s all the campaigns for everything that I DM'd (2e and BECMI) I would only give the players an 'abstracted' character sheet with written descriptions of stats and abilities. If they had a stat in the 8-12 range I would just write 'average' for example. I would let them roll for attacks, damage, saves, etc.
I think I did it because I had quite a few new players to the game and it let them concentrate on role playing and the story, without getting into min/maxing, which I'd had some bad experience with prior to that, but at the same time gives them some engagement with the roll of the dice. The rolls add an element to each session that I think you would lose if you take everything behind the screen: the groans as the guy who's been rolling for initiative rolls a 1 AGAIN, or the MU who rolls a 20 when everyone's back is to the wall against the big bad.
Overall, it worked quite well, but I did find that it put more work on me to keep track of everything.
These days I'm happy for the players to keep track of their basics, but its the reason that I've moved to OD&D (with a pinch of BECMI). I can keep almost all the rules in my head, make up what I need (or have forgotten) and just concentrate on keeping the game moving and making sure that all of the players have a part to play.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 10, 2014 7:03:17 GMT -6
I understand the case for a more immersive game, and I don't disagree. Now I'm going to argue the counter case: You can go so far as to give the players no meta-information whatsoever. No mechanical information about class functions, no ability scores, no game stats, no game mechanics, no dice etc. In this case the player has his PC name and background, some equipment, and his latest "status check" from the ref. This is all fine and it may well cause the player to have a more immersive experience. But each incremental step in this direction is ultimately an additional thing the ref must now take responsibility for. I'm not saying that's a problem, I'm just saying it is more work for the ref to maintain all the PC levels/XP, abilities, saves, and other game stats; it's more work if the ref has to translate "it's AC 3" into "your foe is heavily burdened in a coat of black, lacquered plates" or "4 hit points damage" into "a stunning blow to the noggin that leaves you reeling" (I prefer the latter, but it's still more work); it's more work if the ref has to look up saving throws versus breath weapon for each of Eyeban the Terrible, Ethel the Aardvark, and Solomun Chain (plus their retinues), roll a d20 for each of them, then apply the resulting damage to each of their character sheets; it's more work for the ref to update the XP total of a dozen characters after a session; and so on. Individually these may be small things, but in combination--especially with larger groups--the ref's workload can quickly pile on. All I'm suggesting is that it can be easier for the ref to outsource some of these activities to the players so that he has more time available to get on with the game. If I tried to offload rolling to players, I'd have to trust them to look up the results and accurately report what they got The other side of this is that the players would likewise have to trust that the ref is looking up results and accurately reporting what he got. It's the same problem either way. On the other hand, rolling dice in the open eliminates most opportunities for (well-meaning or otherwise) fudge rolls and can even reduce the chances of perfectly innocent mistakes too (because someone might spot them). Rolling in the open may well be a less immersive style of play, but it's not all downside; it has alternate pros. Rolling in the open the ref's role becomes less that of a "Dungeon Master" responsible for managing everything, and more that of an impartial "referee" ensuring that rules are applied consistently. The dice decide what will occur and the ref is, to a larger extent, absolved of responsibility for whatever may befall the PCs. Both are valid and entertaining approaches, and I have used both. At the moment I'm in a "let the dice decide" phase, and finding it to be refreshing.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 10, 2014 13:04:13 GMT -6
If I tried to offload rolling to players, I'd have to trust them to look up the results and accurately report what they got The other side of this is that the players would likewise have to trust that the ref is looking up results and accurately reporting what he got. Eh? As referee I make no claims to be abiding by what the dice say. I will be fair, not bound. I might decide that this particular attack roll won't use the combat tables for whatever reason, and roll a dice looking for 50/50 chance outcomes. I might decide that there's absolutely no chance that something a player does will work, d**n the rules, and not even roll at all while I steadily look him in the eyes and tell him he fails. The game is run by ME, not my dice, not my players, and not the rules. What I choose to use as tools is my business alone. No one's suggesting that the referee do all of this. Players can keep track of their own XP and HP numbers. In a fight the referee needs to know the class, level, and armor of each player-character, plus the hit dice, hit points, and armor class of their opponents. This isn't a lot to have to track. And no one's saying the referee needs to translate game terms into poesy descriptions. And if a whole bunch of player-characters have to save against the same thing, let 'em roll! There's no reason you have to pick one method and stick to it always. It'd be faster to tell six players to each roll a 20-sider and then list off the numbers they'll each need, then let them do the rolling and figuring, than it would be for you to do six rolls with look-ups for each one. Players are tools you can use as well. You don't have to instruct a screwdriver how to drive screws; you make it do what you want. Players can track numbers that are personal to their characters; they don't need to track numbers that come from the general game mechanics. They can track how many hit points they have; they don't need to know what their percentage chance of hitting a creature is. It's HIS hit points; it's not HIS attack table.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 10, 2014 19:15:50 GMT -6
The game is run by ME, not my dice, not my players, and not the rules. What I choose to use as tools is my business alone. This is "dungeon master" talk. You choose to take on more responsibility and do more heavy lifting than is minimally necessary. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. I do it sometimes too. But nor is there anything wrong with a referee taking less responsibility and letting the dice do more of the heavy lifting. It's a different style of play yes, but neither is inherently superior to the other. In my view it's fun to try both and see how they differ. No one's suggesting that the referee do all of this. I described one extreme end of a spectrum of possible refereeing styles to illustrate a point. At one end the ref assumes responsibility for as much as he can. At the other end the ref assumes responsibility for as little as he can. Clearly most actual play falls somewhere in between the two extremes. Where you position your own game along that spectrum is a matter of preference or experimentation. No single position is more "correct" than any other.
|
|
|
Post by jdn2006 on May 26, 2014 15:11:07 GMT -6
You can extend this even farther and dispense with players rolling at all. Yes, it makes the players feel like they're in control of their fates, yadda yadda. But we all really know that it's just a way to generate randomness, and if it increases efficiency and immersion why not just have the referee do all the rolling? I don't believe that players rolling dice is actually essential, despite what most players would say. During an important single combat, or some other situation in which a mechanical, game-like feel was desired, I would relent and let the players roll dice with knowledge of what they needed to roll. But most of the time a lack of certain knowledge of the probabilities involved in success is a boon. This also eliminates those periods of waiting for players to find their dice, asking what they need to roll, and building structures from them. I especially hate that last one. Having the DM roll the dice and track much of the background details gives a video game experience, where the player decides where to go and what to do. Plenty of people have bought and enjoyed video games - including a number based on D&D - which did all the die rolling for them.....
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 27, 2014 10:21:15 GMT -6
Having the DM roll the dice and track much of the background details gives a video game experience, where the player decides where to go and what to do. Plenty of people have bought and enjoyed video games - including a number based on D&D - which did all the die rolling for them..... I don't agree at all. The "video game experience," which is usually meant in a derogatory way, is a problem not because it crunches the numbers for you (which is what computers are good at) but because it takes away any choices except those the programmer has provided for you. If you want to climb a nearby tree but the programmer didn't account for this, you simply can't climb the tree. This problem does not occur with a dungeon master who rolls all the dice.
|
|
LouGoncey
Level 4 Theurgist
"Lather. Rinse. Repeat. That's my philosophy."
Posts: 108
|
Post by LouGoncey on Jun 22, 2014 20:27:22 GMT -6
One of the things I keep in the back of my mind is that IT'S A GAME. One of the ways to show that it is a game is to roll dice. When the DM rolls all of the dice, it seems like he is keeping the fun all to himself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 8:57:44 GMT -6
I did a video about a similar topic and one thing I found was a letter by a Sandy Easton printed in the Europa fanzine that basically amounted to him saying that learning the rules ruined the game for him. I can see where he's coming from.
As far as keeping track of things, I always track hit points, XP, treasure, and encumbrance for my PCs. There was a poll on Dragonsfoot where I think over half of the DMs didn't even have copies of the character's character sheets. I just don't see how you could run a campaign like that.
|
|