Post by korgoth on Sept 1, 2007 12:05:16 GMT -6
So, I was pondering the issue of thieves in OD&D. An issue struck me: is the notion of Thief as character class tied to a notion of the "expert"? The expert being the guy who possesses a technical knowledge that most people do not possess and therefore can do things that others cannot.
In other words, there are two possible poles I can see: one says that what a Thief does is something that is beyond most people, and only someone with specialized training and cultivated expertise can do it. This is the "expert argument". The other says that the Thief is so-called only because he actually does what he does, not because he possesses a particularly specialized knowledge. Almost anybody can sneak into a house, after all; only a Thief actually does so.
What muddies the waters a bit, to my mind, is that both are sort of correct. Several things that Thieves do (thinking in the Supplement I sense) do require specialized technical knowledge: picking pockets, opening locks and removing traps. Several things do not per se require expertise: climbing, moving quietly and hiding. Now, you might say that moving "silently", climbing "sheer surfaces" and hiding in "shadows" do require expertise.
Now, suppose you do allow Thieves. I imagine that you nonetheless still allow people to move quietly, climb things a normal guy could climb, hide behind something that is actually concealing, etc. But the Thief is the expert who can do certain special things other cannot.
If you don't allow Thieves, then I imagine you still allow people to be stealthy and athletic, but nobody can do the "ninja stuff" like hiding in nothing more than shadows. But what about picking pockets and doing mechanical stuff?
On the No Thieves option, it seems like one thing you could say is that Picking Pockets, just like armorsmithing or leatherworking or chirurgery, is a professional skill possessed by non-adventuring professionals. Maybe a character could know how to do it, just like sometimes you'll have a character who knows how to do something else somewhat obscure as part of his background. But it's a type of expertise that's really tangential to the adventurer.
You could say the same thing of the "Boxman". Picking Locks and Removing Traps may very well be a legitimate form of expertise, but you might say that this expertise is just as obscure as that of the sage or taxidermist. Again, a charcter could be a skilled locksmith by his background, but in general you could say that the average adventurer does not have locksmithing in his repertoire.
Thus, if you go with the No Thieves option, there are still thieves. You still have experts in pick pocketing and locksmithing, but most of them are back in town. And anybody can wear leather armor (no clanky metal bits) and sneak into a place; once they're there, they may even make off with some valuables. That person, adventurer or scoundrel (or both), is in a sense a thief, but not a Thief.
If that makes any sense.
In other words, there are two possible poles I can see: one says that what a Thief does is something that is beyond most people, and only someone with specialized training and cultivated expertise can do it. This is the "expert argument". The other says that the Thief is so-called only because he actually does what he does, not because he possesses a particularly specialized knowledge. Almost anybody can sneak into a house, after all; only a Thief actually does so.
What muddies the waters a bit, to my mind, is that both are sort of correct. Several things that Thieves do (thinking in the Supplement I sense) do require specialized technical knowledge: picking pockets, opening locks and removing traps. Several things do not per se require expertise: climbing, moving quietly and hiding. Now, you might say that moving "silently", climbing "sheer surfaces" and hiding in "shadows" do require expertise.
Now, suppose you do allow Thieves. I imagine that you nonetheless still allow people to move quietly, climb things a normal guy could climb, hide behind something that is actually concealing, etc. But the Thief is the expert who can do certain special things other cannot.
If you don't allow Thieves, then I imagine you still allow people to be stealthy and athletic, but nobody can do the "ninja stuff" like hiding in nothing more than shadows. But what about picking pockets and doing mechanical stuff?
On the No Thieves option, it seems like one thing you could say is that Picking Pockets, just like armorsmithing or leatherworking or chirurgery, is a professional skill possessed by non-adventuring professionals. Maybe a character could know how to do it, just like sometimes you'll have a character who knows how to do something else somewhat obscure as part of his background. But it's a type of expertise that's really tangential to the adventurer.
You could say the same thing of the "Boxman". Picking Locks and Removing Traps may very well be a legitimate form of expertise, but you might say that this expertise is just as obscure as that of the sage or taxidermist. Again, a charcter could be a skilled locksmith by his background, but in general you could say that the average adventurer does not have locksmithing in his repertoire.
Thus, if you go with the No Thieves option, there are still thieves. You still have experts in pick pocketing and locksmithing, but most of them are back in town. And anybody can wear leather armor (no clanky metal bits) and sneak into a place; once they're there, they may even make off with some valuables. That person, adventurer or scoundrel (or both), is in a sense a thief, but not a Thief.
If that makes any sense.
