tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post2546323350411429350..comments2024-02-25T08:15:34.559-05:00Comments on The Society of Torch, Pole and Rope: “Conan Could Climb” SyndromeMichael Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13217338828086458862noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post-55176194389082043562009-04-03T17:53:00.000-04:002009-04-03T17:53:00.000-04:00I travelled a similar road as well. The big differ...I travelled a similar road as well. The big difference was—having started with Traveller—the NWP system seemed like a sad kludge to me from the start. I still happily embraced it as better-than-nothing at the time, though.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16733274876782876659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post-52157038173315904492009-03-20T09:35:00.000-04:002009-03-20T09:35:00.000-04:00Justin, I thought you meant with regards to action...Justin, I thought you meant with regards to action adjudication, not class/racial limits. These limits have been in almost all versions of D&D - so I'm at a loss why this is significant or particular to OD&D, especially since the concept of racial/class limits are already in most RPGs that I've played . I don't think this is anything peculiar or bad about OD&D.<BR/><BR/>(Original comment deleted and reposted to add the disclaimer that I speak from the experiences I have with the few RPGs that I've played and loved.)Michael S/Chgowizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02052820400496340137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post-86400256526426672812009-03-20T09:34:00.000-04:002009-03-20T09:34:00.000-04:00This comment speaks volumes about this whole discu...<I>This comment speaks volumes about this whole discussion.<BR/><BR/>I don't mean that as an insult, BTW. It's just an observation from someone who's read/played a lot of RPGs that, well, have no such thing as "racial/class limits".</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sorry, Beldaire, I'm definitely not the be-all, end-all expert - my "readings" are definitely limited to a few RPGs that I've enjoyed playing over the years. I don't take it as an insult, but at the same time, that's what I have observed from most of the RPGs that I've played.Michael S/Chgowizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02052820400496340137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post-41290896874991042082009-03-20T09:28:00.000-04:002009-03-20T09:28:00.000-04:00"...especially since the concept of racial/cl...<I>"...especially since the concept of racial/class limits are already in most RPGs. I don't think this is anything peculiar or bad about OD&D"</I><BR/><BR/>This comment speaks <B>volumes</B> about this whole discussion.<BR/><BR/>I don't mean that as an insult, BTW. It's just an observation from someone who's read/played a lot of RPGs that, well, have no such thing as "racial/class limits".Jack Badelairehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10932441028544500024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post-68079266029848540522009-03-20T09:08:00.000-04:002009-03-20T09:08:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Michael S/Chgowizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02052820400496340137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post-40545170498702054542009-03-20T02:29:00.000-04:002009-03-20T02:29:00.000-04:00@Chgowiz: I'm curious where you see specific mecha...@Chgowiz: <I>I'm curious where you see specific mechanics that say out and out "you can't" versus mechanics of "It's up to the DM to figure out how to adjudicate this"?</I><BR/><BR/>"[Fighting-Men:] They can use only a very limited number of magical items of the nonweaponry variety, however, and they can use no spells."<BR/><BR/>"[Magic-User:] The whole plethora of enchanted items lies at the<BR/>magic-users beck and call, <B>save the arms and armor of the fighters</B>..."<BR/><BR/>"Magic-Users may arm themselves with daggers only."<BR/><BR/>"Clerics gain some of the advantages from both of the other two classesI Fighting-Men and Magic-Users) in that they have the use of magic armor and all non-edged magic weapons (no arrows!)..."<BR/><BR/>"Clerics are limited to men only."<BR/><BR/>"Dwarves may opt only for the fighting class, and they may never progress beyond the 6th level..."<BR/><BR/>"Should any player wish to be one, he will be limited to the Fighting-Men class as a half ling. Half lings cannot progress beyond the 4th level (Hero)..."Justin Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02227895898395353754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post-12896816146942416192009-03-20T01:44:00.000-04:002009-03-20T01:44:00.000-04:00i have a revised and simplified skill system (that...i have a revised and simplified skill system (that factors in race) <BR/>that i use for my dnd home brew<BR/>if you are interested; send me an email at <BR/>louisL2@cox.net<BR/>and i will send you the word fileclovishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03647936958773934755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post-36349913467512188922009-03-18T09:14:00.000-04:002009-03-18T09:14:00.000-04:00Eeesh. I started a whole kefluffle over on Vin'...Eeesh. I started a whole kefluffle over on <A HREF="http://trollbridge.proboards44.com/index.cgi" REL="nofollow">Vin's T&T Trollbridge</A> by linking to this blog post. Evidently people took issue with my worry that fretting about skills is what turned the simple OD&D character creation into the 1040 Long Form it is for 3rd, and I didn't want to see T&T fall into the same trap.<BR/><BR/>I'm endeared more these days with the idea of Cliches from RISUS instead of a Master List of Official Skills. Seems to me that way you can have the predictability of a character class AND the versatility of a set of abilities that goes with it - so Conan might be able to use "Stern Northern Barbarian" to climb a wall OR "Stealthy Cat Burglar".Pere Ubuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03553973043509436168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post-44843472762607381082009-03-16T22:53:00.000-04:002009-03-16T22:53:00.000-04:00Er, well, D20 skills do a workmanlike job of actua...Er, well, D20 skills do a workmanlike job of actually trying to wrap specific rules around stuff like climbing and jumping and riding, if you want that sort of thing. At the core it is <I>okay</I>.<BR/><BR/>But as implemented in 3E, the meager skill point allotment, the complexifying tie in with feats (jeez, those stupid '+2 to two skills feats'), the cross-class hosing penalty, the level caps on stuff like Craft, the hugeness of the D20 range compared to reasonable skill levels, the way at high levels skills effectively become binary (either you have them maxed out or don't bother), the annoyance of Take 20 and Take 10 covering for that making DC assignment complex, every skill being a little subsystem to memorize/slow down play despite the "core mechanism", the roleplay-destroying social skills...<BR/><BR/>I just can't really let any "3E did skills right" comment go by without a spit-take. I'm not looking to start any fights though.<BR/><BR/>@Randolph: I saw that Dragonsfoot post, great idea! I added something to it as well (link from <A HREF="http://rolld10.blogspot.com/2009/02/hey-whats-this-blog-thing-here.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.K. Baileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06623767121412820113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post-24811559605092276032009-03-16T20:17:00.000-04:002009-03-16T20:17:00.000-04:00I'm going to hold off commenting on this subject u...I'm going to hold off commenting on this subject until the entire series has run. I knew that skills, like alignments, always tend to polarize people and spawn homebrewed systems. I expected that many people might have something to say on this matter. Hopefully, by the time the series is finished you'll see where my concerns, considerations, and reasons lie and how I addressed them. I'll freely nitpick the comments then.Michael Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13217338828086458862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post-58497009147994754982009-03-16T18:28:00.000-04:002009-03-16T18:28:00.000-04:00Something I posted on Dragonsfoot a few years agoT...Something I posted on Dragonsfoot a few years ago<BR/><BR/>Thought this up late last night and am going to test in a Moldvay/Cook B/X campaign. In order to maintian the free form style of B/X but give the charaters chances to do and know things I will have each player write the following on their character sheets: <BR/><BR/>Noble <BR/><BR/>Urban <BR/><BR/>Rural <BR/><BR/>Wilds <BR/><BR/>The following x in 6 chances will be assigned by each play as they desire <BR/><BR/>5 in 6, 4 in 6, 3 in 6 & 2 in 6 <BR/><BR/>Some races (at least NPCs will favor some "skill" areas over others such as Elves favoring Noble & Wilds, Dwarves favoring Urban & Wilds and Halflings favoring Rural & Wilds.) Each category is assumed to encompass various skills and knowledge areas that I will likely judge as situations arise. For example: Courtly Dancing would be a Noble skill check. Mountain Climbing or Survival definitely Wilds. Butchering or Tailoring would likely be Rural. Gathering Info Might apply to Urban or Rural. Let me know what you think.Randolphhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03643391983738506935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post-70855463292972782542009-03-16T16:37:00.000-04:002009-03-16T16:37:00.000-04:00@Justin OD&D, on the other hand, is the game o...@Justin <I>OD&D, on the other hand, is the game obsessed with saying "you can't do that". The introduction of the thief class in '75 certainly expanded the "you can't do that" list, but even in '74 examples of that design ethos can be found all over the place. </I><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure how you see that in OD&D. In any game I've run, a sanity check of reasonableness and then an attribute check to do some "extraordinary" is what I use. I've learned that from the early versions. I'm curious where you see specific mechanics that say out and out "you can't" versus mechanics of "It's up to the DM to figure out how to adjudicate this"? Can you point them out? I'm really honestly asking this question, it's not a snark.Michael S/Chgowizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02052820400496340137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post-64938272817012704992009-03-16T16:15:00.000-04:002009-03-16T16:15:00.000-04:00My problem was that by defining concretely what a ...<I>My problem was that by defining concretely what a character CAN do, you’re also defining what he CANNOT do, or at least not do well [...] The victories are always that much sweeter when accomplished by someone who had the slimmest chance at success.</I><BR/><BR/>So you're tired of having a chance for failure, but you think the victories are that much sweeter when accomplished by someone who only had a slim chance at success?<BR/><BR/>'Fraid you're screwed. ;)<BR/><BR/>I can understand the desire to have a game that doesn't say, "You can't climb." or "You can't use a sword." It's definitely a limitation.<BR/><BR/>But the conclusion that the 3rd Edition skill system is the root of that problem seems ludicrous to me. With the exception of a few Trained Only skills (which I dislike for precisely this reason), 3rd Edition's core design says: Everybody can climb. Everybody can ride horses. Everybody can wield swords.<BR/><BR/>But some people are better at it than others. (Which has always been the case with the game and always will be the case, unless you're seriously suggesting the abolition of all leveling mechanics.)<BR/><BR/>(And I won't deny that some feats from the supplements -- particularly third-party feats -- tended to expand this list. Those are badly designed feats.)<BR/><BR/>OD&D, on the other hand, is the game obsessed with saying "you can't do that". The introduction of the thief class in '75 certainly expanded the "you can't do that" list, but even in '74 examples of that design ethos can be found all over the place.Justin Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02227895898395353754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post-51730495226060732932009-03-16T14:59:00.000-04:002009-03-16T14:59:00.000-04:00Great post! I agree wholeheartedly. There should b...Great post! I agree wholeheartedly. There should be nothing a PC *can't* attempt because of a lack of "skill points", etc. Far better to let the players' in-game description of what they're doing rule the day, with an ability check for the direst situations...Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01682401446176099294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post-76908472408620159292009-03-16T12:44:00.000-04:002009-03-16T12:44:00.000-04:00I agree with Mike on the CAN/CANNOT do reading of ...I agree with Mike on the CAN/CANNOT do reading of non-weapon proficiencies. We simply didn't pay much attention to NWP, and I don't know how I'd design a system to replace them.<BR/><BR/>I also agree with Herb here: <I>"The trick is not to define what a character can do but what he is BETTER THAN NORMAL at."</I><BR/><BR/>IMHO, 3E manages this quite decently. However, I'd rather have a binary skill system (where you are either trained or not) and fewer and broader skills. 4E skills come closer to what I'd prefer. They don't allow much simulationism, but they work pretty well for a game.jdebetolazahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16268415411507646640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post-72132628287271170532009-03-16T11:53:00.000-04:002009-03-16T11:53:00.000-04:00Even though I'm currently using the 3E SRD as the ...Even though I'm currently using the 3E SRD as the chassis for a 3.5/Diminutive20 mash-up system (the players <A HREF="http://wealsoran.com/music/uploaded_images/images_do_not_want-741689.jpg" REL="nofollow">broccoli dogged</A> at the thought of 'old D&D') I find that pacing and aesthetic requirements are dragging me slowly in the direction of a skill-less system.<BR/><BR/>I'm honestly thinking of kicking skills into touch and just using ability checks (which have been around since the year dot).Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04072272223837426211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post-11748656047548099302009-03-16T11:43:00.000-04:002009-03-16T11:43:00.000-04:00What Herb said. Look outside the (white) box!T&...What Herb said. Look outside the (white) box!<BR/><BR/>T&T have the solution! :)<BR/><BR/>I'm a die hard T&T fan and didn't see that one...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post-19352744809630812552009-03-16T11:41:00.001-04:002009-03-16T11:41:00.001-04:00But! Conan is obviously not a Fighter! He *is* a T...But! Conan is obviously not a Fighter! He *is* a Thief, so of course can he climb!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post-73888909695255605602009-03-16T11:41:00.000-04:002009-03-16T11:41:00.000-04:00My problem was that by defining concretely what a ...<I>My problem was that by defining concretely what a character CAN do, you’re also defining what he CANNOT do, or at least not do well, and I, for one, have grown very tired of falling off horses.</I><BR/><BR/>The trick is not to define what a character can do but what he is BETTER THAN NORMAL at. Take a look at the talent system for T&T 7.<BR/><BR/>T&T has always had a core mechanic of Saving Rolls. Tell the GM what you want to do, he decides how hard it is (the SR level which maps by a simple formula to a number) and what stat controls it, you roll two dice (doubles add and roll over) and try to beat the target number.<BR/><BR/>In 7th edition talents were added. They're a free form skill system where you add a random roll to that stat when creating it. Then, when you need a SR if that talent fits it you use it instead of the stat. Just like stats talents can be increased.<BR/><BR/>I've adopted this for my LL game although with some changes. Anyone can still try anything, like climbing and riding a horse, but great feats of climbing like Conan or great feats of horsemanship like Ivanhoe will now be easier for someone built like those characters while the guy who specialized in "convincing people to do things against their better judgement" (which one player has actually taken) won't do so well but damn can get get info out of the one armed man in the tavern.Pulp Herbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02486803457210325703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post-32477754533038016952009-03-16T10:33:00.000-04:002009-03-16T10:33:00.000-04:00Backgrounds and "implied" skills are what I've bee...Backgrounds and "implied" skills are what I've been using. For instance, my wife's character has been a fighter and of nobility based on the few ideas she gave me at the beginning of our game. So if she tried to do something that a thief would do, or a mage would do, I'd give her the same "chance" as an "ordinary person" would get - maybe 1 or 2 in 6. If it's regarding something of a fighter, martial, physical or nobility, social aspect, I give her the benefit of the doubt and move on.<BR/><BR/>If there is something specific in my game (plot, encounter, event) that relies on a "skill" or knowledge, I'm going to either give my players a way to gain that knowledge/skill (NPC, quest, etc) or I'm going to make it that "ordinary Joe could do extraordinary things" and see what happens. I don't want my game to hinge on a successful skill check of Horse Riding... I want to hinge on player skill of RPG or character ability to play through something and do what they can do.Michael S/Chgowizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02052820400496340137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post-4629077730997677232009-03-16T10:26:00.000-04:002009-03-16T10:26:00.000-04:00Good call on BoL, Banesfiner. Been reading the re...Good call on BoL, Banesfiner. Been reading the revised PDF this weekend myself and it is a thing of beauty.<BR/><BR/>As for D&D "skills", maybe try a variation of TLG's SIEGE System; a "skill" attempt is a roll modded by a relevant ability score modifier, plus the PC's level if it is appropriate for that PC's <I>Background</I>. i.e., Conan gets to add his level for climbing and stealth, but not for trying to fast-talk his way past some palace guards. The Grey Mouser adds his level when fast-talking some rube on the street or fencing some stolen loot, but not when he's trying to find food in the wilderness.Jack Badelairehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10932441028544500024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post-29623189480911508742009-03-16T09:33:00.000-04:002009-03-16T09:33:00.000-04:00Check out the "skill" system in the 'Barbarians of...Check out the "skill" system in the 'Barbarians of Lemuria' rpg.<BR/><BR/>Instead of individual skills, you pick 'careers'. For example, Conan might be a: Barbarian-2, Thief-1, Mercenary-2.<BR/><BR/>The GM (and player) judge if that career would have the necessary skills for the task at hand.<BR/><BR/>For example, if Conan needed to climb, the GM would probably allow either his Barbarian career (mountain climbing) or Thief career to apply (which ever is higher).Banesfingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06938723674120202818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4727301007280965202.post-6839645717162482642009-03-16T09:30:00.000-04:002009-03-16T09:30:00.000-04:00It sounds like your progress through the various s...It sounds like your progress through the various stages of skills/no skills is quite similar to my own. My guess is that a lot of players had the same experience for mostly the same reasons.<BR/><BR/>I look forward to seeing what you come up with for LL. I'm currently at a bit of a loss as to how to deal with some things, and all of my ideas begin to look like they'll evolve into a full-blown skill system. Which is exactly what I don't want.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com