3d6 in order

[Mushgnome]

Mar 25, 2016 21:36:27 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

Possibly, but in that case why would they write "This supposed player would have progressed faster as a Cleric" (underlining added for emphasis), when any and all players/characters would progress faster as a Cleric than a M-U?

I'm not sure why the 3LBB's are so poorly edited, but if you substitute "Xylarthen" for "this supposed player" then the sentence "scans" a little better: "Xylarthen would have progressed faster as a Cleric [because all clerics progress faster than all MU's], but because of a personal preference for magic opted for that path."

Prime Requisite hasn't been explained yet at this point in the book, so I think it's a stretch to interpret Xylarthen as an example of that not-yet-introduced concept.

[Deleted]

Amen. Jeesh, people, don't overthink a quirk of Gary's writing.

[ritt]

When I don't roll 3d6 in order I feel like I'm cheating.

[cooper]

Also, there is some "system mastery" assumptions back ported from Greyhawk and Ad&d+ that don't actually apply to 0d&d. Stats don't really matter that much. For a character magic items and actual level matters far more than even straight 18s so there is little reason to put a premium on stats even for someone power gaming.

[Stormcrow]

Mar 27, 2016 13:45:02 GMT -6 cooper said:

Stats don't really matter that much

... to other rules in the book, but they mean almost everything to the referee deciding whether a character can do something he wants to do. The referee decides the success of most actions by whether he thinks the described character can accomplish it. Stats ARE the character.

[magremore]

Mar 26, 2016 8:52:53 GMT -6 Mushgnome said:

Mar 25, 2016 21:36:27 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

Possibly, but in that case why would they write "This supposed player would have progressed faster as a Cleric" (underlining added for emphasis), when any and all players/characters would progress faster as a Cleric than a M-U?

I'm not sure why the 3LBB's are so poorly edited, but if you substitute "Xylarthen" for "this supposed player" then the sentence "scans" a little better: "Xylarthen would have progressed faster as a Cleric [because all clerics progress faster than all MU's], but because of a personal preference for magic opted for that path."

Prime Requisite hasn't been explained yet at this point in the book, so I think it's a stretch to interpret Xylarthen as an example of that not-yet-introduced concept.

But Prime Requisites are mentioned before the example, and "Bonus and Penalties" are mentioned very soon after (the next paragraph), and those are then "explained" (or listed as a specific thing, anyway) on the next page.

With all of the great discussions lately about the evolution of the rules, I haven't noticed anything about the origin of the Prime Requisite XP adjustments. Was this maybe something that was added a bit later? 

And while this is, yes, a minor quirk to what otherwise seems to be a pretty straightforward rule, not all of us were lucky enough to be around to play in the original games, so close-reading the LBB is the primary starting (and oft returned to) point for those of us looking for (and so often finding) inspiration in the earliest ways of playing.

[cooper]

Mar 27, 2016 15:43:30 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Mar 27, 2016 13:45:02 GMT -6 cooper said:

Stats don't really matter that much

... to other rules in the book, but they mean almost everything to the referee deciding whether a character can do something he wants to do. The referee decides the success of most actions by whether he thinks the described character can accomplish it. Stats ARE the character.

Even accepting this as true, the 'system mastery' is in placating and cajoling the dungeon master and not in optimizing stats. A cajoled dungeon master could allow a 16 dex character to do something that he would not allow an 18 dex character to do if the DM were so inclined. Or he could determine succes as rolling under your stat on a 2d6 roll, a 3d6 or a 2d20 take the lowest.



Whatever the case, stats do not play an important roll for system mastery in 0d&d beyond XP bonus for any particular class. Meaning that the survival/class differences for being a fighter with an 18 intelligence and 12 strength or a wizard with an 18 intelligence and 12 strength are not just negligible...but non existent. Both classes benefit from either arrangement other than in XP accrued.

There is much more flexibility to playing s strong dumb wizard in 0d&d than playing a strong dumb wizard in Ad&d (spell learning, max level, etc). There is no hindrance at picking a wizard if you have a 3 int only in archetype.

[Deleted]

Mar 27, 2016 15:43:30 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Mar 27, 2016 13:45:02 GMT -6 cooper said:

Stats don't really matter that much

... to other rules in the book, but they mean almost everything to the referee deciding whether a character can do something he wants to do. The referee decides the success of most actions by whether he thinks the described character can accomplish it. Stats ARE the character.

Not necessarily and not the way Gary and Rob played "back in the day." Level is MUCH more important than stats.

[starcraft]

I always enjoyed the 3d6 straight up method more than most in my groups (we played Holmes with a dash of ODD - we had a jumble of materials from odd dragon mags to Holmes to modules... we were poor and ignorant!).

In any event, it became a cool RP opportunity to roll a character like say: 13 10 6 11 9 7 and try to figure out this guy's story...

So Barko the Bold is a strapping young lad who was well educated by his local temple priest but never developed much int he way of common sense. His quirky nature was a bit off putting and he was awkward in social situations....

And so you have your strong, hearty, average agility fighter with reasonable brain power and dreadful wisdom and charisma.

We never held people to a certain class (Hey joe you rolled the best strength, you're the meat shield...) but like i said it made for a spark of creativity. Likewise when your 14 intelligence magic user had a 4 strength you could make him a cripple or just a book worm. The 16 wisdom cleric with the 5 constitution was suffering from some chronic disease...

Whatever, it just made for fun characters and little bits of personality for them between bashing, slashing and spell slinging... and lots of dying too!

[howandwhy99]

Mar 27, 2016 15:43:30 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Mar 27, 2016 13:45:02 GMT -6 cooper said:

Stats don't really matter that much

... to other rules in the book, but they mean almost everything to the referee deciding whether a character can do something he wants to do. The referee decides the success of most actions by whether he thinks the described character can accomplish it. Stats ARE the character.

This is the mistake of the late 80s "end of the Gygax era" D&D. The Referee doesn't decide what any character can or cannot do after deciding on their rules. It is all predetermined and carried out within the game system. Not until WSG or DSG do we have anything remotely like "DM makes it up" so-called Ability Score rolls. Remember, these are ability scores, stats, not attributes. They are a generalized rating of information to the player of an underlying game system. Not personality traits. This was an important distinction back then when roleplaying meant something altogether different than acting or storytelling.

[tetramorph]

howandwhy99, your comment above is consistent with many of your comments here.

You have a high value and commitment to the rules as pure abstract arbiter.

How would you relate that to the free kriegspiel tradition that many would claim as the real ancestor of original edition D&D and that many on this board are committed to as the general play style of 0e vs., say 1e and rules-based tournament style play?

[howandwhy99]

It isn't and I don't. D&D is a roleplaying game in line with the 1970s wargame simulation school. Like any game, no referee is ever meant to improvise.

[tetramorph]

Apr 5, 2016 11:01:59 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

It isn't and I don't. D&D is a roleplaying game in line with the 1970s wargame simulation school. Like any game, no referee is ever meant to improvise.

Oh.

How exactly does one simulate fantasy?

Especially if a referee is never meant to improvise?

[Stormcrow]

Apr 5, 2016 9:10:09 GMT -6 @howandwhy99 said:

The Referee doesn't decide what any character can or cannot do after deciding on their rules. It is all predetermined and carried out within the game system. Not until WSG or DSG do we have anything remotely like "DM makes it up" so-called Ability Score rolls.

If you're rolling against ability scores to do something, then the DM isn't making anything up.

D&D is a roleplaying game in line with the 1970s wargame simulation school. Like any game, no referee is ever meant to improvise.

April Fools Day was four days ago.

[howandwhy99]

@tetramorph said:

Oh.

How exactly does one simulate fantasy?

Especially if a referee is never meant to improvise?

The game is set up behind the screen before play and generated from there on randomly as needed. Players decipher the game as the act of play, like in any other game. And "fantasy" is not simulated, it's where the playing occurs in the player's minds instead of a board in front of them. It has nothing to do with genres, or narrative culture to begin with. It's a game, a design exterior to the players who attempt to manipulate it order to achieve goals, those things we track with points.

@Stormcrow said:

If you're rolling against ability scores to do something, then the DM isn't making anything up.

An important rule of designing any game:  Scores that do not refer to the game design are not part of the game mechanics.

What is the dice roll determining? It can't be a "check", that's not even a mechanic. Too many DMs are improvising on the spot what any roll needs to be and what the results are. IOW, there's no game for the players to play behind the screen and the players are being made fools of. The essential component of gaming, strategy, is missing. Why deal with the joke of even rolling dice if the result is irrelevant because what they refer to isn't in place beforehand? Its important to note, games are not improvisational storytelling, they are code breaking. That's why they are designs, not narratives. The whole point of gaming is to enable players to strategize within a design order to accomplish pre-existing goals. This means an unbroken game must be in place before anything can begin.

[Stormcrow]

Responding to forum posts on a phone is difficult. All I'm going to say here is, "wow," and, "what planet do you come from?"

[aldarron]

Apr 5, 2016 17:58:50 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

....Its important to note, games are not improvisational storytelling, they are code breaking. That's why they are designs, not narratives. The whole point of gaming is to enable players to strategize within a design order to accomplish pre-existing goals. This means an unbroken game must be in place before anything can begin.

I'd call that an artificial dichotomy. Both are intricately intertwined forms of symbolic expression and manipulation. I'd go so far to say that that is exactly exemplified at the gaming table. Food for thought anyway.

[Deleted]

Apr 5, 2016 11:01:59 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

It isn't and I don't. D&D is a roleplaying game in line with the 1970s wargame simulation school. Like any game, no referee is ever meant to improvise.

Crom's hairy nutsack, you are so wrong that the light from right will not reach you for a quadrillion eternities after the heat death of the universe.

"In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or
the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and
the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that
way!"

Dungeons & Dragons, Volume 3, "The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures," page 36

[Deleted]

Of course, I cheat by "actually reading the text" and "knowing what I'm talking about."

[increment]

Apr 14, 2016 22:42:30 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Apr 5, 2016 11:01:59 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

It isn't and I don't. D&D is a roleplaying game in line with the 1970s wargame simulation school. Like any game, no referee is ever meant to improvise.

Crom's hairy nutsack, you are so wrong that the light from right will not reach you for a quadrillion eternities after the heat death of the universe.

"In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or
the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and
the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that
way!"

Dungeons & Dragons, Volume 3, "The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures," page 36

Because I'm writing a (way too long) piece about exactly this right now, I do feel obliged to comment that views like that one that Mr. howandwhy99 favors were certainly expressed at the dawn of the hobby by people who argued very passionately that D&D was a wargame - even before anyone knew to contrast that label with "role-playing game," when people were still grappling with what to call this new genre. So back in 1976, say, Mr. howandwhy99 would have been in good company, and his views completely jibe with ideas expressed by some well-respected critics. But of course the people protesting that D&D was a wargame were indignantly reacting to the way that they saw the game being played around them - because, like, everyone else wasn't doing it that way. They were horribly outnumbered.

There was a prominent critic of the day who literally advised that the best way for the referee to remain impartial when running D&D was not to make up anything during the course of play: to design the situation the players would experience before a session began and not to deviate from that plan. However, it would be an understatement to say that his views were rejected even at the time, they were ridiculed.

Ignore history doomed repeat etc.

[Deleted]

"These rules may be treated as guide
lines around which you form a game that suits you. It is always a good idea to
amend the rules to allow for historical precedence or common sense — follow the
spirit of the rules rather than the letter."

CHAINMAIL, Gygax and Perren, page 8.

If we had access to more sets of miniatures wargame rules, at least from the 60s and 70s, I bet as big a beer as I can drink that you'll find similar sentiments expressed therein.

[increment]

Apr 19, 2016 22:08:21 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

If we had access to more sets of miniatures wargame rules, at least from the 60s and 70s, I bet as big a beer as I can drink that you'll find similar sentiments expressed therein.

You would safely be in possession of quite a large beer. Just be aware that when wargaming began to drift towards role-playing, all sorts of "originalist" opinions started appearing in the literature, many inspired by the more rigid culture of board wargaming as opposed to the more flexible attitudes towards miniature wargaming. All I'm saying is that some of the views condemned in this thread echo things people said at the time - albeit, things that were condemned at the time, too.

[Deleted]

Apr 19, 2016 23:34:34 GMT -6 increment said:

Apr 19, 2016 22:08:21 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

If we had access to more sets of miniatures wargame rules, at least from the 60s and 70s, I bet as big a beer as I can drink that you'll find similar sentiments expressed therein.

You would safely be in possession of quite a large beer. Just be aware that when wargaming began to drift towards role-playing, all sorts of "originalist" opinions started appearing in the literature, many inspired by the more rigid culture of board wargaming as opposed to the more flexible attitudes towards miniature wargaming. All I'm saying is that some of the views condemned in this thread echo things people said at the time - albeit, things that were condemned at the time, too.

Ah, I see what you're saying. I definitely agree.

... In your upcoming article will you reference that copy of "Strategy & Tactics" from the late 60s that complains about how "Avalon Hill map and cardboard games are ruining wargaming?" Le plus ca change...

[owlorbs]

Apr 19, 2016 22:08:21 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

"These rules may be treated as guide
lines around which you form a game that suits you. It is always a good idea to
amend the rules to allow for historical precedence or common sense — follow the
spirit of the rules rather than the letter."

CHAINMAIL, Gygax and Perren, page 8.

If we had access to more sets of miniatures wargame rules, at least from the 60s and 70s, I bet as big a beer as I can drink that you'll find similar sentiments expressed therein.

Donald Featherstone - War Games (1962)
"[These collected rules] leave great gaps for personal improvement, and many of them in fact, have been altered by the author since this book was commenced. Therein lies the charm of war gaming, it is an adaptable pursuit that can be moulded to the temperament and character of the player.”

Warriors of mars (1974)
“The rules have been kept to a minimum, the barest necessities required for consistency and clarity. We believe that those who use them will be amply capable of whatever expansion and augmentation they require to make their Barsoom an enjoyable place in which to stage their adventures.” and “Still, all games are in a sense fantasy, and games based on fantasy need know no bounds, so play it as you see it, and have fun.”

[Zenopus]

Holmes also has a great bit in this vein as the last paragraph of rules of the Basic rulebook, probably inspired by the Afterward of Vol 3 of the LBBs (which Mike quoted in part above):

A final word to the Dungeon Master from the authors. These rules are intended as guidelines. No two Dungeon Masters run their dungeons quite the same way, as anyone who has learned the game with one group and then transferred to another can easily attest. You are sure to encounter situations not covered by these rules. Improvise. Agree on a probability that an event will occur and convert it into a die roll — roll the number and see what happens! The game is intended to be fun and the rules modified if the players desire. Do not hesitate to invent, create and experiment with new ideas. Imagination is the key to a good game. Enjoy!

(This text was in the manuscript, only missing the word "quite" in the third sentence; obviously Gary didn't have any problems with the sentiments expressed).

[derv]

Ability scores were primarily meant to guide you in deciding what role to play. That was their main intent and that is the mechanic. In that case, roll them in order and see what role would be best for the scores that came up.

If you want to reverse this method (mechanic), pick your role first and then roll the dice, giving the highest score to your prime requisite of choice. No big deal. I’m not telling you to change any of the six results. You have to use what you rolled.

Ability scores represent a spectrum based on the probabilities of rolling 3d6. This can be seen in the language used to describe them and in the Prime Requisite bonus and penalties. From 9-12 would be average. Nine is described as “low average” and 10-11 is described as “good”. It can be assumed that 12 would be deemed “high average”. Everything else is above or below average. Average scores have no added benefit to the game.

But, ability scores that are outside of average do effect other mechanics in the game. This is clearly presented with Charisma. A high Charisma will give a higher number of possible henchmen with better potential loyalty scores. Adversely, a low charisma will have potential for lower loyalty scores. Then we have the not so clear idea that it will “decide such things as whether or not a witch will turn him into a swine or keep him enchanted as a lover”. My assumption is that this is talking about a modifier to a reaction check. We have something similar in the description of Strength. “Strength will also aid in opening traps and so on.” The “so on” I take to mean stuck doors, rusty gates, weighted hatches, etc. Again, I would understand this as a situational modifier at attempting those tasks. Strength above 12 would get +1. Maybe an 18 strength would get +2. U&WA p.9 says, “Doors must be forced open by strength, a roll of a 1 or 2 indicating the door opens.” The mechanics are there in this case. But, the rules do not cover every contingency.

We might want to distinguish between improvisation and ad libbing. Yeah, I’m splitting hairs. But, I think there might be some misunderstanding with how people are using the term “improvise“. A GM can improvise a means of adjudicating a situation that is not explicitly laid out in the rules, without bias, if he is consistent in how he is doing so based on the rules. Ad libbing would be ignoring an explicit rule and giving a player a pass just to keep the story moving or just making a number up out of thin air that has no rhyme or reason that is consistent with the situation or what past precedence has already established. For instance, last time you were able to jump over the crevasse on a roll of 1-3 (with a +1 for high dexterity) and succeeded, yet this time you need a 1 (with no modifier for dexterity because it isn’t in the rulebook) because rolling 1-3 seems too easy.

To me, improvisation involves taking the rules and applying them to different situations as they occur. Most things in OD&D are d6 rolls. But, there’s nothing stopping you from using a d10 or d20. Just be consistent. Consistency in a game is the important part that permits a player to “decode” or "decipher".

[llenlleawg]

Curiously, in Jim Ward's Metamorphosis Alpha (1976), there are two ways to generate stats, and neither is "roll in order": (1) the player names the stat for which he is rolling, and then records the results [the standard way] and (2) the player rolls for all the stats and assigns to taste. The latter is presented as an option to allow for "more balanced characters" and "more flexibility" (Ward's language). Admittedly, stats have a *lot* more mechanical impact in MA than they do in D&D, and MA allows other cases of player choice (the player, e.g. rolls for the number of mutations, but he chooses the mutations he wants; also, he chooses what kind of PC — human, mutated humanoid, or mutated creature — before rolling, since "leadership potential" is a stat only humans have), so it may boil down to that.

Does anyone know if in Jim Ward's D&D games at this early stage (i.e. circa 1976), he allowed the same flexibility (assigning stats) as he allowed in MA?

[derv]

Apr 5, 2016 10:32:48 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

How would you relate that to the free kriegspiel tradition that many would claim as the real ancestor of original edition D&D and that many on this board are committed to as the general play style of 0e vs., say 1e and rules-based tournament style play?

This is fairly off topic to the discussion, but I thought it might be insightful to the question you posed. Currently, there is an interest among professionals in the use of Matrix games. These are war games that rely heavily on narrative through roleplay and they preferably require knowledgeable referees to oversee. Professionals are using them as an analytical tool. These Matrix games are characterized in this article I'm linking to, as existing "in a space between conventional rules-based wargames and role-playing games".

The book Matrix Games for Modern Wargaming by John Curry and Tim Price can be found here. It can also be found on Lulu and Amazon.

Part of what's interesting with this model, as well as Free Kriegsspiel, is the back seat that formal rules take to how the game is adjudicated. Matrix games tend to take on more of a cooperative discussion between the players and ref. A well reasoned explanation may justify different courses of actions being taken. The ref must decide on possibilities, probabilities, and recourse. Sounds familiar.

[increment]

Apr 23, 2016 3:32:56 GMT -6 llenlleawg said:

Does anyone know if in Jim Ward's D&D games at this early stage (i.e. circa 1976), he allowed the same flexibility (assigning stats) as he allowed in MA?

Off the top of my head, I don't recall if Ward went on the record about this at the time, but by 1976, in practice, there were lots of people who insisted on 3d6 in order for D&D and lots of people who didn't. You can find people rolling 3d6 + 1d4. You can find people rolling a d20 to determine where between 15 and 18 a character's stats will fall (I'm looking at you, Steve Perrin). You can find people who would habitually sit down and roll up dozens of characters and then pick the one they were going to use for the adventure tonight, arguing they had generated that character randomly and fairly. And you can find people bitterly condemning these practices and referees not permitting characters rolled outside their personal supervision. There was no consensus in the community about these matters.

[Deleted]

And by "no consensus" he means "screaming nursery school style slap-fights."