I've just started back, so I have no idea how this is supposed to work. I went with First edition because it was what I knew, and because I actually like the complexity. I do know this--DMing is really, really hard and I'd forgotten how much prep work it takes. Think of it like this--you're the director of a film, but you have no idea what your actors are going to do. Anyway, anyone got any thoughts on the above question?
Your post got me really curious, and I have an eight year old son who is mad about pseudo-D&D computer games. I've never played D&D myself, but definitely qualify as a Nerd (I played Advent on a mainframe for crying out loud. The terminal was a yellow paper teletypewriter.). Do you think I could learn D&D and teach him at the same time? Any recommendations on how to get started?
« The Wolfson post | Main | This is better » Only built for elvish linx pt.311 Aug 2008 04:44 pm
I've gotten a lot of questions from folks like this:
Comments (51)Comments on this entry have been closed. |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
FYI, the older books are available as cheap, legal PDF downloads at DriveThruRPG.com
$5 or so per book. The quality leaves a bit to be desired.
My boyfriend's brother is a huge D&D fan. He suggested taking up the 4th Edition, as it has been redesigned to be easier to learn for those outside of the lifelong inner circle. For all I know I'm totally off the mark...
The key is learning how to be an effective DM. This isn't just about designing a good campaign, but also about understanding which of the rules are worth fudging because you both are newbies. There should be all types of information available on the web.
I found this just putzing around, and from a quick read it's informative.
One comment about D&D preparing you for later life: When I got to grades where I started to have electives and was able to choose what to take, it kinda felt like building a character in D&D had felt.
I think that's a good sense for a kid to have - that their choices today set the stage for the future and equip them for later challenges.
Also, the progression of spells and abilities strikes me as being similar to the progression of math and science towards harder, but more advanced and interesting, topics. It might help prevent the "why am I learning this I'll never use this" feeling.
See it as community storytelling with the DM as facilitator. The game you pick is the type of story you want to tell.
What do you want to do?
The problem with computer versions of D&D is that they pretty much reward "power gaming". You want a fighter with 18 str and the only thing better than finding a +1 sword is finding a +2 sword. Indeed, progress is measured by the stuff you find. + armor, + shield, + gauntlets, so on and so forth. The only real question you have is what kind of power gamer do you want to be?
When you play at a table top, however, it's not about finding a +1 sword. It should be about everyone at the table having a role to play and everyone working and playing together... and that doesn't necessarily even involve fighting.
I've played games (vampire, not D&D) where the entire session took place in a car to the airport. Two hours of people arguing while in character.
What story do you want to tell? There's a game for that.
Let me second the suggestion to use 4th edition-- the rules are presented in clear, current English. I have played all of the editions (1-4 plus basic) and was impressed by 4th edition's clear guidelines and emphasis on reducing the required prep time for the GM.
Like everything else, D&D (and roleplaying games in general) have a solid presence on the web. If you want to browse around for some help, Gnome Stew and RPG Bloggers have a lot of friendly faces eager to help you get started.
I'd give it a go with 4.0. For a n00b it's pretty simple compared to 3.5. True, the experienced players want the excitement of multiclassing, and 4.0 is a significant down-grade in terms of accurate simulation, but it's significantly simpler to start, the books are much much clearer than 3.5, and, heck, they were working on it for years, it must be good!
It's worth asking if your interest is in D&D specifically or tabletop roleplaying in general. D&D is a great game, but there are easier games that require a lot less prep-work on the part of the DM and that focus more on group storytelling.
I'll third the 4th edition recommendation if somebody is thinking to learn with no prior experience. It's significantly streamlined and has more obvious parallels with CRPGs that make it a little easier for someone with that kind of experience to pick it up.
The game is perhaps less varied with the types of characters you can create, but it is much better balanced and combat is much more interesting in a tactical sense... that definitely eases the challenge some.
I would also recommend going with prepared adventures instead of making your own to start.
Screw the books. Screw rules.
Sit your kid down, tell him hes Superman (or whatever gets him going) and that he is (make up your story here). Change the story to match what he does.
If you both have fun, then worry about rules.
You're really thinking about this too hard. I used to DM a lot. It's all about engaging the players in an interesting story. When I didn't have time to prep, I would just make it up as I went along. Really, it's fine. A major theme or two and then just keep the action moving.
And if the player asks if they can do something rilly stoopid, roll every die you can get your hands on, stare at the results for a second, and then say, "nope!"
I've never played an RPG (or an online one, other than progressquest), but I had to share this in case you hadn't seen it:
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612
The simplest answer is "use a module." There's an enormous amount of prep work required for the DM, no matter how you slice it, but using a module takes care of the entire "design" portion of the DM's responsibilities. A basic module like Keep on the Borderlands is especially useful because the campaign objectives are pretty modest.
Oh, and the site I mention above in the first comment also, I think, has PDFs of the early D&D Basic Sets.
Those might be even better than the AD&D books of any version.
Note: there's currently a Basic D&D set which I bought for my nephew, but I didn't think much of it. Seemed like they left a great deal out of it, and added lots of pointers to things to buy to fill the gaps in order to be able to actually play a game.
I'll echo the 4th Edition posts. WotC made a real effort to reduce and streamline the work for the DM. In particular, the 4th Ed DMG is a superb book for learning how to DM.
If your readers asking the question have someone that can help show them the ropes, I think earlier versions are fine.
If they're coming to it themselves with no one to guide them, I think the later versions got progressively easier to pick up from scratch.
It's been a while since I ran a game, but I got some good reviews when I did. In response to this issue:
you're the director of a film, but you have no idea what your actors are going to do
Talk with your players in advance about what kinds of things they want their characters to do. What kind of glorious feats do they want to accomplish, what kind of personality do they want to display, and in what ways do they want their characters to grow over time? And then have an understanding between you and your players, wherein you aren't going to railroad them or needlessly frustrate them, you'll give them a chance to do cool stuff, and they will in general take up the plot threads you offer rather than insisting on wandering off and doing their own thing. It's about developing a successful collaborative storytelling relationship between you and your players.
One thing I don't like about the latest versions is that they cater to Munchkinism. Characters can be too powerful when starting out.
I mean, come on, half-dragons?
While one can learn to DM from the DMG, it really helps to have played a few games first. I would suggest your reader join a local group and play a few sessions to get a feel for the game and what's involved in creating a good adventure/experience for the players.
And I've never played 4e, but from everything I hear, it's a good system to begin with.
The simplest answer is "use a module." There's an enormous amount of prep work required for the DM, no matter how you slice it, but using a module takes care of the entire "design" portion of the DM's responsibilities. A basic module like Keep on the Borderlands is especially useful because the campaign objectives are pretty modest.
Posted by Cris | August 11, 2008 6:21 PM
I'll second this. Modules are great ways to learn the basics of running games and how they should flow. Check out the Freeport modules from Green Ronin. They're top-notch.
Also, Wizards of the Coast has some online adventures/mini-adventures that you can print out that could out that way. Also, try to talk to someone who's DM-ing now or has in the recent past. There's gotta be at least one worth his (sometimes) her salt hanging out your local hobby/comics store who's willing to help you out a bit.
Another suggestion - find at least two other people to play. (Maybe you could get some other nerd-parents over and make it a play-date?)
One-on-one D&D is basically lame. Admittedly, my first game was precisely that. But it was lame. 4th edition makes it easier to run those kinds of solo adventures, but camaraderie is a large part of the experience, especially the educational experience.
I've played all four (and a half) editions and 4th is the easiest to learn, by far. The size of my regular group almost doubled from new people, just because they had a chance to look at the 4e books and say "ok, this I can deal with."
Think of it like this--you're the director of a film, but you have no idea what your actors are going to do.
You make it sound like a nightmare, but this fact is really freeing if you adjust your perspective. Think about a mystery writer. Not only does she have to come up with the sinister plot, but she has to "salt" it with enough mistakes for the sleuth to solve it.
In role-playing games, you don't have to do that. You just have to know that your conundrum is solvable; the players will figure it out. Even if they're not as smart as you, there's more of them. That said, it's fun to leave clues, and players love the feeling of having figured something important out, even if what actually happened was that you flat-out told them something.
Thinking back on it, I'm not sure I ever actually did finish a game of D&D. The night would start off at like 8:00 with everyone meeting up at someone's house (usually mine) and we would order dinner (Chinese or pizza). At like 9:00 we would realize we needed character record sheets or something, so we would make a trip to Kinko's. We would then start playing at like 10, but would stop because something interesting was on TV at 11. We would start up again at midnight, but then it would just turn into extended jokes about everything and things would break down completely at like 1am. At which point we would just watch MST3K or something...
The simpler the system the better for teaching people from scratch. The less rules you have to deal with as DM, the more you can focus on the thing that really matters - are your players having fun?
Having a group of three to four works in your favor. You'll have someone who can go toe to toe with monsters, sling a few spells, disarm traps and heal. If you've got a player to fill each role, this is great: everyone's character will have something to do and something at which they'll shine more than anyone else, which is really fun.
Remember, you roll dice behind a screen - so if the dice are being cruel and would kill the fun of the game then you can shamelessly lie about things to keep it fun (practice your poker face). It's your job to make sure everyone's having fun, and to facilitate that for everyone - and the mystery of your position is that no one ever knows if the dice are REALLY dictating what's happening. If you make it just perilous enough that the players feel like they're hanging on by the skin of their teeth and overcoming adversity then no one will ever wonder (or care) if you fudged things a bit for the good of the game.
One way to reduce headaches - sit your players down before the first game. A previous poster said you should get your players to tell you what they want from the game, which is good advice. But you're going to need to help your new players out a little bit - new players often don't know how to articulate what they want, or really know for sure what they want at first.
So have them establish why they're a group, and why they adventure together before the first official game. Don't make them start the game by chit-chatting in ye olde tavern about why they need to adventure together this first time. If you have them do this during character creation, you can start the game with some bad-ass action sure to get your younger players excited.
Another cool thing to do: give all your players a piece of paper and tell them not to show the other players what they write on it. Then ask them to answer the three questions provided about their characters' backstories that no one else in the group would know. Some cool suggestions would be: What is your character's biggest fear? Who's the most important person in your character's life? What your character risk his life to protect no matter the consequences, or what makes him want to be a better man/woman? (The last one might be a bit abstract for your players depending on the age of your group).
This way, before play begins you'll have all sorts of plot hooks to work in the game that will keep your players excited about playing - and lots of things that'll give you an idea of what your kids and their friends want out of your game.
I think when you start back up, you'll find out that the parts of the game players tend to like best are the parts where you don't have to roll a lot of dice. The point of D&D is to role play, and rolling the dice should always facilitate that part of the game. If all your players are doing is rolling dice and fighting monsters, then they're going to approach this like a computer game - but if you use the game to make them use their brains and solve problems tactically, then you're teaching them life lessons and giving them a reason to turn off the playstation and want to play a pen and paper game.
You can use all of the above advice when you run a module or prepackaged adventure, but it's also applicable if you make up your own stuff. If you spend an entire session with your players making up characters, back story and why the group sticks together then I think you'll find creating your own adventures is pretty easy.
But the newer versions of D&D have better rules for making your own adventures and worlds in my opinion - all the guides are geared toward creating appropriate challenge levels for your players. They're more user-friendly, and super easy to adapt your older adventures to - one of my DM's spent a year or so adapting first edition modules to third edition for all of our play sessions, and he swore the newer editions' rules made the modules a lot more fun.
Your mileage may vary, of course. But I'm a preparedness nerd when it comes to pen and paper, and got over my jitters as a DM once I realized all my mistakes would be forgiven so long as I did enough work for my players to have fun.
-neal
I guess the biggest "shock to the system" between CRPGs and tabletop, other than the sheer amount of prep work involved, is that the rules are always open to interpretation.
D&D is the perfect preparation for anyone entering a legal profession because of the sheer number of rules you need to know and understand, and (as a DM) the ingenuity of challenges to those rules you'll get from your players. If a rule says "When moving forward past three enemies while wearing heavy armour, a player needs to make a charisma roll against a DC of 37 to avoid becoming a social pariah", expect your players to pipe up with "But I'm wearing a bandana and they're pirates, surely I get a bonus for that?!"
Strict rules don't work with a tabletop format-the only "unbreakable" rule is to have fun. This can be jarring for some folks and refreshing for others. It all depends on just how much you're relying on the rules to make your game enjoyable, and that's a different threshhold for each person.
This has inspired me to dust off all my old 2nd edition books...
I took a glance at the 3rd edition when it cam out, and I wasn't all that impressed. I know its (3/3.5) supposed to be simplified, streamlined, etc... but it just wasn't doing it for me.
I've taken a look at what people are saying about the 4th ed stuff online, and I'm no impressed at all, despite all the rave reviews. I probably shouldn't judge, as I haven't actually used 3rd or 3th ed, but especially from the D&D forums, I feel like people are missing the point.
4th ed feels like a MMORPG or Warhammer, rather than D&D, with people arguing over rules and trying to optimize their "character builds." Now I like PC RPGs and I'm a big stats guy, so I love to see all the mechanics and naturally I want gravitated toward the DM position. But I don't feel thats what D&D should be about (atleast, thats not what I want my experience to be): Less focus on the "game" and "rules" aspect, and more on the "roleplaying" and "interactive storytelling" aspect.
Sure, 2nd ed has lots of crazy rules, but it tells you in the forward that its a game and you are meant to have fun so feel free to toss out, make up, or customize any rules you like. I feel like the DM should take all the mechanics stuff on himself, and be willing to bend or break the rules as necessary to ensure the best experience. All the players should have to do is sit down, roleplay, and enjoy...
Rather than arguing about whether taing a scimitar with feat X, rather than a bastard sword with skill Y, is the best way to maximize their damage per round.
Triumvere, munchkins are a fact of gaming life. No matter what system you play, no matter what edition, there'll always be someone who will obnoxiously tell you that you're playing the game "wrong" and/or that you haven't "optimized" your character. This has less to do with a particular edition and more to do with some people being jerks. You've got to accept that that's just part of the gaming 'world' and figure out how to steer them away from your table.
I learned on the 1st edition books in my late teens/early 20s.
Later, I DM'd for my kids when the oldest was ten and the youngest was eight--old enough to read the stat sheets and do most of the math functions--and my wife, and have discovered that the kids seem to prefer the 1st edition now that they're playing and DMing with their friends.
But I agree: modules are a BIG help if you're short on time and/or expertise.
A key thing to remember: YOU make the rules. If you don't like the combat system, or think the monsters in the book are too powerful, or want each player's character to have a pet weasel, fix it the way you want it.
EVERY game of D&D is run by house rules; that's what makes it interesting.
I had forgotten about modules. They rock, especially for the starting DM.
I liked the diceless and near-diceless systems that came out in the early 90s, for me, D&D was always a little unrealistic. (Yes, it's all unrealistic, but there's no way to fully rationalize a 150 hit point human being).
Ah, you've got me wrong. Its not a criticism of the players; the system is set up like Diablo II - put too many points into the wrong skill set and you end up with an ineffective character. The players are right to try to optimize their skills. Its just, that isn't roleplaying.
Once again, I'm in no position to talk as I haven't played in years, and I haven't tried the new editions. But lets put it this way:
In 4th edition, your fighter has all kinds of amazing powers (at-will powers, encounter powers, etc...) which he can employ a certain number of times withing a given interval. In 3rd edition, he got all kinds of "feats" and skills he could preform. In 2nd ed., going by the core rules, your fighter does one thing: stab people with a sword.
While that might seem limiting, what it really means is that anything outside of that he wants to do (any crazy idea the player might come up with) was potentially possible with the DM's approval. You think about it, maybe call for a die roll, and then you try to reward good ideas and punish bad ones. Special powers, outside of spellcasting and the rather logical set of theif abilities, were fairly few in number and potential actions relatively undefined.
Whith the new stuff, its seems a lot more like: here is a list of the special powers I can use. Here is the list of optional abilities I have elected. How can I combine this special choices for maximum efficiancy? Very tactical, yes. Fun, no doubt. But not really the kind of game I'm loking for.
Modules are great and they can provide some much needed structure and story.
I might stick to the earlier rules if those are what you are familiar with. And I agree with a lot of the comments here, feel free to alter, use, discard rules as you see fit in order to make the game more engaging for you and your family. Here's the thing. I have known DMs who are complete sticklers with the rules and rolls. There was one DM who had worked to get the Giant/Underworld/Drow series together for his party. The started off and didn't play well (got snagged by those sleeping giants in the entryway - you know what I am talking about) so he killed them all and they never played the series - that was it.
Myself, I played with one friend of mine when we were in our early to late teens, I was DM and he had the characters and it was a blast. And sure, some rolls were fudged and some characters had strong stats and some encounters might have been changed, but we made it through the whole series and it ruled. The story is so fantastic and the details and monsters and locations are so vivid that it didn't matter.
So I think at this point, younger kid, first time getting into it, I would highly recommend being relaxed with the system. Not a walk through mind you, but don't kill him off at the outset because of a bad die roll (and dare I start up a d20 vs. 2d10 conversation here?). I think there are great things to be learned through D&D in a very cool setting. You learn how to develop skills and characters, how to manage, how to think strategically, when to run or hide or fight, how to plan ahead.
I think the computer games are fun in that lets spend 12 hours a day for the next week drinking coffee and beer and see if we can get through this game and crush that demon kind of way. But real D&D is a different thing - you need imagination and patience not endurance and a good CPU.
I think the biggest thing you can do is relax, have fun, make sure you have a decent handle on the module and the basic rules and use this time as a way to conect with your kid and hopefully get him interested in the game. The rules are a guide. Look at the way the first DM guide was written, there is a ton of text and then dice tables. The newer rules might have "improved" some aspects but then again, maybe not.
And what about checking out The Temple of Elemental Evil (T1 - T4)? Any of those modules by Gygax back in the day are exceptional and you won't go wrong.
"and have discovered that the kids seem to prefer the 1st edition now that they're playing and DMing with their friends."
It's because 1st edition has boobies.
Heh, you know, I bet someone could write a cool video chat gaming platform for playing D&D over the net.
With the graphics tricks now possible (or soon possible) with web cams, it would probably even be possible to give the players a resemblance of their characters.
For instance, there is software that can put glasses or a hat on your head, live, while you talk. And the background can be replaced with imagery.
Why not instead overlay some armor, and use a dungeon or inn as the backdrop? The player's facial expressions and gestures could show through, and their voice would come through too.
While that might seem limiting, what it really means is that anything outside of that he wants to do (any crazy idea the player might come up with) was potentially possible with the DM's approval.
Except, say, attack two guys with one sword blow. Or do more damage in an attack than 1d8.
Or roll between two guys, avoiding their blows, and swipe at their hamstrings.
The simple fact is that "make a melee attack" isn't a catch-all term for every kind of combat action, it's very limiting, and that's why I find that it takes 4th edition, or at the very least 3.5 with the Book of the Nine Swords, to have the kind of flexibility you're talking about.
After all, if your DM says "no, you can't do those things; you can only attack with your sword", you're screwed under 2nd. In 4th I can open the Player's Handbook and point to the power I'm using.
"Or roll between two guys, avoiding their blows, and swipe at their hamstrings."
That's called "a DM with an ability to describe events".
If you're saying bland crap like "I make a melee attack", you're doing it wrong. No matter what edition you're using.
From looking at some of the RPG boards, I'm gathering this is a hot button issue with in the gaming community... I'm not looking to start a big argument over which system is better; I just found out about 4th edition a few days ago, and those were my impressions.
"Except, say, attack two guys with one sword blow. Or do more damage in an attack than 1d8.
Or roll between two guys, avoiding their blows, and swipe at their hamstrings."
But, why can't you do those things? As you say, its up to the DM, and if he says no, well... you might be in for a boring game. But I don't see how those are "powers" or why you should be restriced in the ways or frequency with you use them. I don't like the idea of a list that says: "here are the things you can do." So, what if "the hamstrings" attack isn't on my list? I can't try it? Can my thief do it, or does he not have access? Seems like a reasonable system for magic powers, but not for physical stuff.
From what I can see of the newer version (again, haven't played it yet so I'm flying on just basic rules interp):
I think the 1/game, 1/encounter, at will abilities might be more intuitive for younger players. Keeping track of spells/day and planning that stuff out is kind of hard for even veteran gamers - but knowing you can do something once per time you play the game, once per fight, etc. strikes me as an easier sell for kids.
Plus, with younger players its probably better to use a system where doing feats and crazy abilities are part of the system rather than rules you house rule into effect.
But again, YMMV.
WARHAMMER QUEST!
Sorry for the caps, but I really suggest easing into table-RPG hobby with this game. It's basically a cross-between a dungeon-crawl boardgame and true RPG.
Best of all, all the roleplayevents are more or less taken care of by the game (and hilariously so), so there's somewhat feel of GM'ing without the hassle.
Only problem is that it's out of print, and even a banged-up copy on ebay will run you about $150+
But, why can't you do those things?
Because a basic attack is against one opponent, and you only move once per round. In that sense you can't do those things because they're against the rules, and therefore the DM will be disinclined to let you.
Why have rules of a game, after all, if they're all to be ignored?
So, what if "the hamstrings" attack isn't on my list? I can't try it?
So you try it. You've slashed the hamstring of a drow, or whatever. But he's still running around the battlefield all normal?
That's not realistic. Such an attack should hobble him. So your DM adds a "hobble" condition, which really, was the point all along, because an attack to the ankle probably isn't very damaging. But now you're moved beyond the basic melee attack - you've done a special attack that has a secondary effect.
You've just used a power. So instead of making up 2nd edition powers as you go along, and the DM trying to keep everything balanced at the same time (you're getting dirty looks from the bard, who wasn't allowed to make up any powers at all), why not have a book where the powers have already been made up and balanced, and you can just look them up?
Why not play 4th edition?
That's called "a DM with an ability to describe events".
But, look. It's just a fact - one melee attack, with one sword, against one opponent supports a limited number of embellishments. A statement like "I leap up on to the table, swing on the chandelier, and put both boots into the chest of the orc barkeep" sounds great, but it's not an action that can be encapsulated, mechanically, as a basic melee attack. It's a different kind of action.
And, significantly, it's an action that you can take in 4e, or 3.5e with supplements. I never saw a way to do such a thing in any previous edition.
As a rule I always embellish attack actions, but I'm limited there. Players have to know what the attack roll was and how much damage (if any) they just took. And a basic attack simply can't represent really fancy maneuvers.
The "flavor" and the mechanics simply can't be divorced in the way you guys are talking about - at least, not in a way that doesn't come of as terribly unfair and unbalanced.
So, what if "the hamstrings" attack isn't on my list? I can't try it?
So you try it. You've slashed the hamstring of a drow, or whatever. But he's still running around the battlefield all normal?
That's not realistic. Such an attack should hobble him. So your DM adds a "hobble" condition, which really, was the point all along, because an attack to the ankle probably isn't very damaging. But now you're moved beyond the basic melee attack - you've done a special attack that has a secondary effect.
You've just used a power. So instead of making up 2nd edition powers as you go along, and the DM trying to keep everything balanced at the same time (you're getting dirty looks from the bard, who wasn't allowed to make up any powers at all), why not have a book where the powers have already been made up and balanced, and you can just look them up?
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't you just resolve this by having the attacker role to hit a specific target (-4 to hit, IIRC) and then declare the enemy immobilized if it hits?
That doesn't really seem like that much of stretch of the rules, or of the immagination. And I don't see why the bard couldn't do the same thing, provided his weapon was of the appropriate type.
Once again, correct me if I'm wrong, but with 4th ed rules such a "power" would need to be on your list of abilities in order for you to use it? So the bard probably wouldn't be able to do it (are there even bards in 4th ed?) at all. I suppose you could say that a non-fighter laks the training or skill to preform such a feat, but then the bard already has a bunch of skills/powers so what's he complaining about?
I still don't see how it's a "power", either. I mean, there is no reasonable explaination for why such a thing would be limited to, say, on use per encounter. I could run around trying to stab everyone in the foot if I wanted - though at -4 per swing it probably wouldn't be the most efficient way to go. I don't think "stab enemy in the foot" needs to be catalouged and written up as a special rule. If it makes sense as an attack option in a specific situation, then I'd allow it.
Don't get me wrong; I like some of the new ideas (the skill system from 3rd seems to have some neet ideas, and I like the attempts to differentiate weapon types via exploits in the 4th. I have never been entirely happy with the way some of the character classes were set up, or the spell casting system, either). I just think the effort to categorize and standardize all your possible options seems confining.
Triumvere -
balance has always been a problem with the rules. The bigger (and fundamental/unavoidable) problem is that D&D has always had an abstracted damage system, unlike (say) the R. talsorian cyperpunk games or original Mechwarrior where you roll 5-6 times after a hit to detemine whether it was your right index finger that got blown off or the left. D&D, evolving from a miniatures wargame, just has hitpoints.
So to say "I want to hamstring this guy" under 2e, you have no way of figuring out if that is balanced vis a vis other attacks, or if it should be possible at all. The D&D system works by saying "you got hit, you take damage, when you've taken too much, you die". Period. Which is why, of course, Vorpal and Sharpness weapons were so odd because there was no way in 2e to do similar damage normally.
From what I read in 4e, is that the authors have finally truly embraced the abstract model and hitpoints now have no discernable 1:1 mapping onto reality- its more like "your resistance to the plot" / "general ability to keep doing what you're doing in the face of physical injury from any source". The fact that you can "healing surge" on your own for half your HP *many many times a day* and that any healing will take you from any number of negative HP (that doesnt kill you outright) to positive means that HP doesn't apply to physical damage.
Bringing all of this home, BECAUSE the core mechanic of the world has no mapping of mechanics damage to "precise injury", the correct rule of a DM is to say "no you can't do that" or something similar, because its outside the rules and unbalances the game away from other classes.
----
The general criticisms and praise of 4e are the same- its a tabletop CRPG and a fundamentally different game than 3e D&D, such that you can't port over a 3e character to 4e (unlike the backwards compatibility of 3e to 2e). I like a lot about it, but there are definite losses. Its best to consider 3e and 4e as two different games.
"So to say "I want to hamstring this guy" under 2e, you have no way of figuring out if that is balanced vis a vis other attacks, or if it should be possible at all."
"Bringing all of this home, BECAUSE the core mechanic of the world has no mapping of mechanics damage to "precise injury", the correct rule of a DM is to say "no you can't do that" or something similar, because its outside the rules and unbalances the game away from other classes."
Two thoughts:
1) Does everything need to be "perfectly balanced"? A lot of the comments come down to: We can't do that because their isn't a rule for it! and We can't go outside the rules because it might be imbalanced! Hrrrm. But it thought that was the DM's job... making calls with a mind toward making things fun and keeping things moving. If something turns out to be a mistake (ie the fighter tries to hamstring everyone everytime) you find a way to punish his for it (a-ha! but the enemy is wearing steel boots!), add a die roll or two to make it harder to do or, at very worst, declaire "we ain't doing that no-more". (though I would consider it a failure if things got to that point.) I appreciate that 4th ed is exquisitely balanced. But, in order to reach that kind of balance means heavily restricting the options availalbe to each class. Hence the lists of carefuly detailed powers. Not really the game I'm looking for.
2) What's imblanced about it, again? Like I said before, their is no reason to believe that "hamstringing" need be restricted to a single class. As long as you make the manuever risky enough that it isn't better than the default attack all the time, then I don't see the problem. Probably a good thing to try against that ogre, though you'll need to get into position first... But lets stop and say that it *is* a fighter only thing. I thought one of the major complaints about 3rd ed (and I assume 2nd) was that the fighter was "boring" and "underpowered" compared to the other classes? "we don't dare go outside the rules because we might upset the balance" kinda falls flat if the concensus is that the rules as written aren't balanced in the first place. In anycase, again, this is not about making codified "powers" and "moves" but allowing players to improvise, roleplay and do fun, crazy stuff. Thats an equal opportunity proposition that applies to all classes.
Maybe I was wrong; maybe this does have more to do with the players... are they their to hang out and "role play" or are they their to argue rules and level up their characters?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't you just resolve this by having the attacker role to hit a specific target (-4 to hit, IIRC) and then declare the enemy immobilized if it hits?
Does 2nd edition have a called shot system? I know 3rd, 3.5, and 4th don't.
But, I mean, you've still gone beyond the basic attack; now you've made a special called-shot attack. You don't have to call it a "power", but it's still more than just your basic attack. What you wanted to do was too big to "fit" into a basic attack, so now we have this called-shot mechanism. (Hope you're putting some thought into balance. What's the called shot modifier to take someone's head off at the neck, bypassing their HP altogether?)
I mean, there is no reasonable explaination for why such a thing would be limited to, say, on use per encounter.
There's ample reason. Such an attack might take so much concentration and effort that it's too physically exhausting to use more than once every few minutes. Or perhaps it's an encounter power because it relies on a trick or misdirection, and once you've used it, the bad guys are onto you.
There's a ton of reasonable explanations, when you sit and think about it - so remind me again whose imagination is limited, here?
Like I said before, their is no reason to believe that "hamstringing" need be restricted to a single class.
It's not; it's "restricted" to those people who have devoted the time and effort into training to do those things, at the expense of other things - fighters, and people who've picked up fighter powers via multiclassing.
It's the exact same restriction as how I'm "restricted" from tight-rope walking - the fact that I don't know how to do it, because I've spent all my time learning biochemistry and Java.
What's unreasonable about that, in your view?
Yeah, it was one of the many "optional" rules I believe. It was dropped for 3.0 for streamlining reasons, and for the potential for "logical" cosiderations to "break" the abstract AC system.
Like I said, I suppose you could limit a "trick shot" like that to the fighter, cause he's "trained", but all that really does is make it into a class perk. Realistically, while we might assume the fighter is more likely to hit, there is nothing beyond "the rules" to stop the theif or the wizard from "aiming for the head" (or, in this case, the foot).
Here's an argument against called shots: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/calledshots.html . Personally, I'm not buying it; it realys on a lot of slippery slope thinking and makse a lot of assumptions for which there are counter arguments for.
One of the assumptions is that I have to apply the rules evenly for "minion" type guys as beig bad "boss" type guys. But 4th ed as already thrown that idea out the window by making "minions" so abstract that they all die in one hit. While I don't like the mechanics of it, I kinda like the idea of having a large number or more or less one-hit-kill baddies that PCs can carve their way through (pretty easy to set up in 2nd ed, just fill the dungeon with a bunch of basic goblins or lvl1 NPCs, they'll all pretty much go down with one swing from a mid-level PC). If Ragnar the Barbarian wants to hamstring Johnny the Minion, why not? He was just going to eat it with one or two hits anyway. And its not hard to come up with a semi-plausable reason you won't allow it against key characters like Boris the Anti-paladin.
Basically, you are asking: how can I codify and standardize this? Where I am asking: "Wow. cool player suggestion! How can I simulate this?"
Realistically, while we might assume the fighter is more likely to hit, there is nothing beyond "the rules" to stop the theif or the wizard from "aiming for the head" (or, in this case, the foot).
Sure, once they've put the time in and trained to aim that way (taking up time they could have used to train a new spell or thieving skills). 4e represents that commitment of time with the multiclass system. You're not making a case for why that doesn't work.
(pretty easy to set up in 2nd ed, just fill the dungeon with a bunch of basic goblins or lvl1 NPCs, they'll all pretty much go down with one swing from a mid-level PC).
But they won't present a threat in return. They simply can't land a blow on your PC. Under 4e's minion rules, they're still threatening - they deal as much damage, and as reliably, as any other foe of the same level - but they still have that satisfying "down in one blow" feel.
And its not hard to come up with a semi-plausable reason you won't allow it against key characters like Boris the Anti-paladin.
Isn't Boris exactly who you'd want to use it against? Why the DM interference, here? What, he just happened to bring along armored boots just in case Hamstring Harry showed up at the dungeon that day?
You've piled on house rule after house rule, and a whole boatload of heavy-handed DM'ing, just to do something that 4e handles much more smoothly.
Where I am asking: "Wow. cool player suggestion! How can I simulate this?"
Simulate it as an attack roll that automatically fails. Then, afterwards, his character can actually spend the time it takes to train to do a special maneuver. Why not have the fighter shoot a fireball by waving his hands like a wizard, if we're going to let players make up their own powers on the spot?
"It's the exact same restriction as how I'm "restricted" from tight-rope walking - the fact that I don't know how to do it, because I've spent all my time learning biochemistry and Java.
What's unreasonable about that, in your view?"
There's a huge difference between hamstringing a person and tightrope walking. For example, you can hamstring a person by accident, if you're careless with a sword. It can even happen during strenuous activity. Tightrope walking doesn't happen by accident, and requires ongoing effort to maintain balance.
To just attempt it intentionally requires only a minimal amount of anatomical knowledge, which in a violent D&D world could probably be acquired simply through knowing someone who had suffered such an injury. They'd probably be fairly common.
"But they won't present a threat in return. They simply can't land a blow on your PC. Under 4e's minion rules, they're still threatening - they deal as much damage, and as reliably, as any other foe of the same level - but they still have that satisfying "down in one blow" feel."
Not necessarily true. 2nd ed. AC does not scale the way to hit modifiers do, and the damage one puts out is fairly standardized (eg. as shortsword does a bas 1d6 dmg regardless who wields is, plus a few points for strength and maybe weapon specialization - if you've implimented that optional system). Higher level caracter's protection comes primarily from having more armor and more magic, as well as more hp. Thus, while "minions" are not going to pose a threat individually, they might and a hit or two... and if they show up in large number, they actually could be lethal.
"Isn't Boris exactly who you'd want to use it against? Why the DM interference, here? What, he just happened to bring along armored boots just in case Hamstring Harry showed up at the dungeon that day?"
Yeah, Boris you'd want to hamstring. You'd probably want to insta-kill him with a deathspell too. I'd probably find a ways to subtly prevent that (a protective amulet, a high save, or even a fudged role) without being too heavy handed about it; its in the intrest of fun, really. You don't want the bad guy (or the PCs, for that matter) to go down too quickly.
But logicaly, Boris is going to be a lot harder to hamstring than Johnny the Minion, isn't he? He's a much better fighter, after all. And, yes, hes got his steel boots on... along with his suit of magic full plate armor. Its part of a set.
"You've piled on house rule after house rule, and a whole boatload of heavy-handed DM'ing, just to do something that 4e handles much more smoothly."
Only see one house rule so far - you can try a trick shot if you want, but I'll decide how feasible it is and what the effect is. If you think my controling the outcome is heavy handed, well, I suppose thats vaid. Especially if you the kid of guy that want all the rules and options written down and agreed upon in advanced. But frankly, I find "sorry! you can't do that because you didn't spend X skill ponits to purchase skill Y" to be heavy handed myself.
Wow. Sorry for the typos. There should be a "land" in that fist bits, and a "valid" at the end there.
By the way, how do I do quotes and italics and such?
There's a huge difference between hamstringing a person and tightrope walking. For example, you can hamstring a person by accident, if you're careless with a sword.
In ten years of fencing, kendo, re-enactment fighting with the SCA, and foam-sword LARPing, I've never once hit anyone in the ankle by accident. It may have something to do with the fact that I'm 6'2", and therefore I can't reach anybody's ankle with a one-hand weapon without kneeling. Doing that in combat without exposing one's head to an easy attack - we could model that as an attack of opportunity - is something I'd never be able to pull off without hours of training.
But frankly, I find "sorry! you can't do that because you didn't spend X skill ponits to purchase skill Y" to be heavy handed myself.
You don't let fighters cast fireballs just by copying the same hand signs as the wizard, right? I mean, you enforce the "you can't do that" rule when it comes to magic, right?
I don't see why wizards should have exclusivity in their class features, but fighters shouldn't. I understand that's a constant every D&D game up to 4th, but it's stupid. It means that, effectively, everyone but the fighter is a fighter-plus, plus magic, plus rogue skills, plus whatever.
Anyway. It was never my intention to sway you over to 4th. If you're enjoying the games you're playing now, more power to you. Fun is the point, after all, and if you have fun with 2nd I'm glad, and I hope you keep doing that.
I'm just trying to give you the reasons that, among my group, we're super-excited to finish up our 3.5 campaign (where nearly everybody is using elements from Book of the Nine Swords) and start a 4e adventure. Hell, I'm even writing my own virtual game table, so we can start playing online.
Hey, 4th ed looks like a lot of fun, from what I've heard abou the combat stuff. I love tactical combat games, so I'd probably have a blast.
It's just that if I'm going to run a game, I feel the 4th ed. is to constraining in a lot of ways and doesn't get me where I want to go.
As to fighters vs. wizards. I guess I'm a "simulationist" (I just learned that one - god, I hate jargon.)(fun is the top priority, so "realism" or "the rules" might go out the window depending on the situation.) So, yeah wizards are probably goning to go from pathetic to godly becasue, well, they're wizards. In contrast everyone can "fight" - the fighter just does it better.
He's tougher. Has better armor. Gets more attacks (IIRC the warrior classes are the only ones that get multiple attacks per round in 2nd ed.) He gets to use more weapons. (and he has a better chance to pull the trickshot above, as he as a greater base chance to hit).
Of course, you don't want the fighter to be boring, so I'm trying come up with a skill/proficiency system that helps with that. Not a "powers" system, mind you, but rather various bonuses for things.
Having missed 3rd ed., there is a lot I don't know. But from reading people's complaints I can kind of see where a lot of the probems were coming from - design flaws: allowing magic classes to make their own magic items freely (can be done in 2nd ed, but with a lot of DM restrictions) including scrolls that allow them to bypass spell limits. Giving automatic access to spells upon level ups (no such thing in 2nd ed, DM has complete control over the spellbook). "stat buff" spells that turn clerics into musclemen. (don't remember any of those in 2nd ed). Various skill system issues. (you can't really "powerplay" 2nd ed, as far as I can tell - there isn't really anything skills or powers to optimize. Furthermore, you don't gain ability points. at all).
A lot of it also seems to stem from lax, unimaginative DMs and a reluctance to alter the rules infavor of game balance: the biggest complaints were about shapeshifting/polymorph allowing druids an the like to change into legendary monster and such. Why? It a druid. The best they should be able to manage is a bear. A "natural animals only" rule is logical and thematic. Polymorph giving you problems? Easy to fix. You could put special reagent requirements on it, or say that it doesn't give magical abiliites, only the basic physical form. Scrying and divination were anoter big complaint. As was fly/teleport. But a lot of that can be solved by campaign and dungeon design (anti-scrying wards, etc...) It seems like the DMs just weren't trying very hard.
Thats not to say 2nd ed was perfect or anything. There are a lot of issues there too.