Me and the DMG

[EOTB]

I can't see why punching or kicking someone in armor is easier than hitting them with a sword.

If you're referring to 1E, it isn't. Your base chance to hit is 10% times their armor class. So you have a 30% chance to score a hit against someone in plate mail, an 80% chance to hit someone in leather armor, and a 100% chance to hit someone in no armor (before other mods are applied).

It's in wrestling and overbearing that armor's restriction on movement hurts the defender.

EDIT - ah, I think I misunderstood you. You're saying that you don't think there should be different risk curve for someone engaged in swordplay vs someone in ultra-close quarters fisticuffs. Different choices, that one. It makes sense to me, but MMV always.

 

[squeen]

MMV?

 

[EOTB]

mileage may vary

 

[Beoric]

[T]his [thread] is intended to be a reflection of how y'all came to understand the D&D system you are currently using.

Oh yeah, I forgot, this thread has a topic.

I grew up playing mostly 1e. Heavily houseruled 1e; I don’t think any of us actually liked the system, we just didn’t know it at the time. By the time I was 16 we had a stable core group of about six people, three of whom I still play with. Most of us were, at that time, pretty physical. Four of us played football, three of us wrestled, three of us did martial arts (including some weapon training), three of us were into hiking, two of us rode horses, two of us went hunting from time to time, and one was an Olympic level swimmer.

A lot of us found some of the assumptions of the more fiddley bits of the rules to be … problematic. Other bits, well, while I could not have articulated it at the time, there are a lot of elements that give combat a narrative variability, but don’t really respond to strategic or tactical considerations. We tended to throw those out or greatly simplify them. We did use all the rules that were tactical in nature, like charging and rules relating to positioning. Most of us preferred to use minis. Most of us didn’t like the multiclass/dual class system, and we used various workarounds. We experimented with Rolemaster for a while, but that had its own problems. There were endless experiments with houserules which were generally failures, I think because we did not recognize the problem.

After University we went through a long period of not playing for a variety of reasons, until one of us introduced the 4e rules. For me, personally, the 4e combat rules scratched the itch that 1e never could. There was not a lot of out of combat support, however, which always bothered me, other than interminable skill challenges, which can die a fiery death. And while I loved the stuff we made up, the published adventures left me cold. I have probably read 150 4e WotC adventures, and can think of maybe 5 that are salvageable.

I went through a brief “event based” structure phase, because that was what was being pushed; and a brief character optimization phase, mostly because the mechanics of it fascinated me. I actually got something lasting out of the CharOp reading, because it helped me learn the guts of the system, and recognize the difference between what WotC thought it was about, and what it was really about. Once I knew how the rules really worked, I was able to modify the play experience by using the existing mechanics in ways the designers had not recognized, or at least did not talk about.

I really enjoy 4e combat because player skill matters. Since the out of combat mechanics in 4e are essentially absent, it is easy to fill the gaps with 1e mechanics, mutatis mutandis. It is much harder to make the 1e combat system do what I want – believe me, I spent at least 20 years trying.

I love the 1e DMG and the MM1, and still probably refer to them more than any other book. But I don’t read them for the combat mechanics. I read them for Appendixes A to C, the henchmen and hireling rules, the hexcrawl rules (although they are frustratingly incomplete), the rules regarding followers and territory development, and probably half a dozen others that have slipped my mind. I read the MM1 for human and humanoid settlement structures, treasure types, numbers appearing, in lair%, and monster lore. I use the d12+d8 system in the back of the MM2 for my random monster tables. I use the utility spells in the PHB and UA to supplement the flavourless rituals that are used out of combat.

TL;DR: My game is 4e in combat, and 1e out of combat. Sort of.

 

[squeen]

Beoric you are truly the Black Unicorn! There is definitely something to what you say---and perhaps an itch to be scratched for folk needing a more tactical combat-D&D over a solid/balanced exploratory framework.

I love that you've done your homework, glued two systems together, and found something that works for you.

Bravo!

(Also, I think the foray into DMG's unarmed combat was totally inline with the gist of this thread.)

 

[DangerousPuhson]

The more I'm reading, the more I realize that D&D tastes are a lot like food tastes.

I hate cilantro on a genetic level, and any bit of cilantro in anything spoils it for me.
I hate raw mushrooms, but enjoy them when they are cooked.
I hate reheated pizza, but fresh pizza is amazing.
I love bacon in any form and its addition improves everything.

An yet as definitive as I know my tastes to be (so much that I can tell you if I'd like or hate something before trying it), you'll get the different hatreds, caveats and appreciations depending on who you ask - no two people are alike. There is no universal formula for D&D, just as you'll never find a food that everyone, everywhere loves universally.

 

[Beoric]

folk needing a more tactical combat-D&D over a solid/balanced exploratory framework.

That's not it exactly, my games aren't at all combat focused. Exploration is a big part, and I am working on seeing how the 4e rules can be applied to create a more satisfying dominion play experience. But when there is combat, I prefer it when player choices play a larger role in the story of the battle.

Incidentally, I think virtual tabletops with dynamic lighting are an excellent addition to the exploration experience. There is something about starting on a black screen, seeing just your characters and a circle of torchlight, and slowly opening up the dungeon as you explore, that really makes me feel like I am there in the darkness, dependent on my flickering torch for survival. As a DM is makes certain devices to confound mapping more difficult (and sometimes impossible) to pull off, but I never got much out of those anyway, so it is a more than fair tradeoff.

 

[squeen]

That's not it exactly, my games aren't at all combat focused.

I wrote that poorly. What I meant to say was "...a more detailed tactical combat-D&D integrated into a solid/balanced exploratory framework".

My bad.

@DangerousPuhson : (bacon + cake?)

 

[DangerousPuhson]

(bacon + cake?)

Classic cakon

 

[Beoric]

One other thing that really bugged me about 1e was that the lack of wilderness skills for rangers. We always took it that the existence of skills for climbing, moving silently and hiding for thieves, and the absence of same for rangers, implied that rangers couldn't do any of hose things. I liked playing rangers, and thought they should be able to climb natural features and stalk prey, but I always had to MC thief if I wanted to do any of that stuff. I was happy when the DSG and WSG came out and allowed a nonweapon proficiency for Mountaineering (although stealth was still an issue, and I could never figure out what direction the bonuses were supposed to go since they were opposite in the two books).

For you 1e players, how did you handle this? Who used non-weapon proficiencies? Who used a basic "roll under" mechanic?

 

[EOTB]

I use the basic roll-under mechanic.

1E has secondary skills, which aren't directly applicable to your question but do show what the design wanted to granulate and what it didn't. I don't like playing in NWP games. Players seem to fixate on finding ways to use their NWP that aren't very organic.

As for rangers or any other class, I let them do anything that is in the archetype for the class, using the roll-under rule on DMG pg 110:

There will be times in which the rules do not cover a specific action that a
player will attempt. In such situations, instead of being forced to make a
decision, take the option to allow the dice to control the situation. This can
be done by assigning reasonable probability to an event and then letting
the player dice to see if he or she can make that percentage.

So if you're a ranger and want to climb a tree, your percentage is probably 100% if you have a rope for primitive fall protection, the tree is healthy and of a type good for climbing, and you have no time pressure. It might go down to 50% if someone is shooting arrows at you, the tree is dead with compromised wood, and there's only a couple of rounds before the branch of someone you're trying to reach, breaks.

I'd much rather have this sort of system.

 

[squeen]

Not quite the same question, but I posted one similar over at K&K. I basically asked what are non-thieves' chances of doing some of those basic thief skills (e.g. climbing a wall)? I asked because it came up in my last game. You should read the thread directly, but here is my summary of their responses in a Table. The general feeling was that the Dungeon Survivial Guide is quite poor (1e's bottom-of-the-barrel).


Most interesting to me was how folks linked moving silently with surprise (e.g. rangers). You might also want to give ranger's a better chance to hear noises in the woods.

So you are right in a sense that the DMG does fall down a bit on the chance to elaborate on rangers.
Perhaps Gygax thought this in the PHB was sufficient:



Lastly, I was surprised Malrex wasn't the one to ask this question!

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Have we become incapable of making snap rulings at the table in situations like this? Can you not just say "I'd say there's probably a 5% chance of that happening, so roll a % die" or "no, non-thieves don't know how to use thieve's tools"?

Also seems weird that you can untrained open a simple lock, but can't pick a pocket - do you need to go to a special "grabbing school" or something to be able to take something from someone's pocket?

To me this just seems excessive, especially considering the retro-clone predilection toward simple, streamlined rules.

 

[squeen]

Have we become incapable of making snap rulings at the table in situations like this? Can you not just say "I'd say there's probably a 5% chance of that happening, so roll a % die" or "no, non-thieves don't know how to use thieve's tools"?

EOTB's reply (from the 1e DMG) is what you what then.

Mine is a little cheat-sheet for myself that just summarizes what already exists in the 1e universe. It's to assist me with those at-the-table snap rulings, since I'd like to stay consistent (and have a bad memory). My House Rules, if you will---just sharing!

And yes, my players KEEP TRYING TO DO THIS! (smacks-palm-to-forehead).

If you'd like a 1% chance for an untrained person to pick a pocket---go for it. I might even allow up to 25% if the target was way-drunk.

Again, you should read the K&K thread. I think it was insightful.

 

[EOTB]

It doesn't take a thief to remove something from someone's pocket; pick pockets is the ability to do so preternaturally, removing any chance of the victim feeling the picking.

 

[Beoric]

I don't like playing in NWP games. Players seem to fixate on finding ways to use their NWP that aren't very organic.

Yes, that can happen in any game with a skill system. However, I have found it to be the easiest bad habit for players to break, given the right incentive. I explain to my players that for many actions, the skill system is a safety net. If they can figure something out methodically by question-and-answer with the DM, they may succeed without having to take the risk. For example, if the players puzzle out how a trap mechanism works and figure out how it can be disabled, they don’t have to make a Thievery check.

I do this because of an article I read, I don’t remember where, which said this was the intention with respect to the Thief’s abilities. The intention was that by default traps should be discovered and disabled by player skill, and the Thief’s abilities were really intended as a sort of Hail Mary pass. Which is why Thieves are so crappy at some many things at low lever; you aren’t supposed to be relying on them in the first place.

Note I don’t just use this for traps, and finds that it works for many other skills as well. And players looking for an edge (aren’t they all?) generally get on board pretty quickly. It helps if the stakes are high and the DCs are difficult.

As for rangers or any other class, I let them do anything that is in the archetype for the class, using the roll-under rule on DMG pg 110:

There will be times in which the rules do not cover a specific action that a
player will attempt. In such situations, instead of being forced to make a
decision, take the option to allow the dice to control the situation. This can
be done by assigning reasonable probability to an event and then letting
the player dice to see if he or she can make that percentage.

So if you're a ranger and want to climb a tree, your percentage is probably 100% if you have a rope for primitive fall protection, the tree is healthy and of a type good for climbing, and you have no time pressure. It might go down to 50% if someone is shooting arrows at you, the tree is dead with compromised wood, and there's only a couple of rounds before the branch of someone you're trying to reach, breaks.

I see a couple of problems with this. The first is the statement in the quote that this applies where “which the rules do not cover a specific action”. The problem is, the rules DO apply to the actions we are discussing. They grant the Thief an ability to climb walls, and they grant the Barbarian an ability to climb cliffs and trees, but they do not grant that ability to the Ranger. Every group I ever played with interpreted this as meaning only a Thief could do these things, and from my interactions online I don’t think this is uncommon.

Another problem is that there is a risk with ad hoc decisions of this nature that you could accidentally grant a better chance to the non-Thief than the Thief gets.

Say a ranger wants to climb a cliff in a natural setting. The cliff is dry and rough, with many projections; in other words, it is pretty much like a modern climbing wall. A DM could easily make an ad hoc decision that a ranger ought to be able to climb that without bothering to roll. Maybe you wouldn’t make that call, but it is easy to see that someone might.

But per DMG p.19, the Thief has the same chance to climb a dry surface that is “rough and with ledges or many projections” as he has to climb a dry surface that is “very smooth – few cracks”, the only difference being the rate of speed. For a 1st level Thief, that is 85%, less in leather armor.

And your point only speaks to climbing. Stalking skills are still absent from the ranger, whom I imagine to be an accomplished hunter. Surprise is a limited proxy, since there are many instances when moving silently or hiding are useful other than when you stumble into an encounter.

Moreover, you don’t seem to do anything all that different from what happens with a properly adjudicated skill system. When a player declares an action that is something you think the PC ought to be able to do, you decide whether it is something that is easy enough to be accomplished automatically, or if there is risk. If there is risk, you decide the matter by the roll of a die, either by using a roll-under mechanic or by making an ad hoc decision as to the probability of success.

With a skill system, if the player declares an action that is something that the DM thinks the PC ought to be able to so, the DM decides whether it is something that is easy enough to be accomplished automatically, or if there is risk. If there is risk, the DM decides the matter by the roll of a die, using the established skill system and determining the probability of success using established guidelines.

The only difference is whether, when there is a risk of failure, the probability of success is determined systematically or in an ad hoc fashion.

1E has secondary skills, which aren't directly applicable to your question but do show what the design wanted to granulate and what it didn't.

4e digression, which is probably relevant to 5e: I do something similar in my 4e game using backgrounds. I assume the PC has proficiency in matters related to the background from which they have chosen a background benefit, and possibly others if they seemed to have developed them somewhat; it is a bit ad hoc.

Conversely, I assume that they are not proficient in matters unrelated to their background or to adventuring in general. The assumption is that adventurers are trained at adventuring, so that, for instance, a ranger can’t use the nature skill as a proxy for farming unless he has a farming background. This is actually a diversion from the rules as written, but I prefer it.

 

[EOTB]

When the DMG was written there wasn't a barbarian class. If it wasn't in the PHB or MM, it didn't exist. (Other than back-references to OD&D). You didn't wait until 1985 to figure out how to handle climbing cliffs and trees.

Right, I only used a tree-climbing reference, but isn't that enough? It was to illustrate the principle. For hunting I'd probably think about the season, etc., and arrive at a chance. Honestly, I probably wouldn't even make a ranger roll unless the location was desolate or they were insistent on a particular type of protein ("I need to find a white hart" or some such would have low odds). I presume rangers eat the entire time they're on extended patrols.

I just don't worry all that much if any given skill roll might be off a bit? If background-type activities are adventure-critical I'll take 10 seconds to think it over instead of 2, but I value play velocity very much, and high degrees of precision very little. It's unlikely I'll give a non-thief higher than an 85% chance to climb something but insist the thief roll their thief skill at straight values. I also don't downgrade moving silently to moving quietly, so while there are many classes that can move quietly, and some that can move very quietly, only a thief is preternatural in that ability. Which i define as moving silently even in areas where other classes can't move quietly if they want to and try very carefully. Most people are rolling just because there is a score, and therefore never not roll (because there is a score). The narrative process you describe as a skills system-bypass breaks down for purely physical stuff, right? Which is why the thief might not have to roll on a find traps check, but hunting isn't a puzzle to be solved.

Again, I tend to allow players to trade rolls for time on common situations in their archetype, so unless something is done under duress I usually don't require rolls for basic stuff anymore. They might have to chance a wandering monster roll in a dungeon by taking extra time, instead. I reserve the right to say something about the situation means the time-roll rule doesn't apply. Start off by asking yourself "what would be a situation where an average person could do what the player wants their character to do?" Keep in mind the PCs are likely above average. Then decrement if necessary for how far the PCs situation is from the idyllic (or decide it's close enough to let it slide). I can do this pretty fast, so it works for me. I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough that 6th graders often touched the gym ceiling with just one guy at the bottom holding the rope. Can the PCs take the time to replicate the 6th grader's situation?

Moreover, you don’t seem to do anything all that different from what happens with a properly adjudicated skill system.

Edit - I'll rephrase this. Yes, there is something done differently. The key is in the word choice of "properly adjudicated"; i.e., "a set of numbers I don't own". I understand many players want that explicitness because a lot of DMs say "no" unless forced by the book to say "yes". Those DMs are fucked up. I can't help that, but I'm not going to adopt a skill system to calm the nerves of players who've had fucked up DMs. Because one thing that is different when using a 3rd party's decisions instead of my own is that everything slows down. And often I'm more lenient than they are anyway. So to use a 3rd party's decisions cost me time - in players fiddling over what skill they should take and the opportunity costs of what they don't chose, in a skills-deficit over what I would allow myself if we weren't choosing between dancing and blindfighting at 3rd level (what - you never took the SWIMMING nwp?), and in players become fixated on that predermined set of odds and using it to silently negotiate against themselves when it may not even apply.

 

[squeen]

Nice posts both of you. Beoric brings up many good points.

Two things EOTB says in counterpoint ring true with me. First, as said above, I often grope around for self-imposed rules for consistency. At face-value, it may seem like skills are a solution I would like. That's not so. But the difference, as EOTB says, is the DM is arbitrator for self-imposed rulings, whereas the players OWN the skills---and generally lean into them heavily. In my experience, this massively changes the play-dynamic and the overall game into something far more mechanized and action-quantized. I like the former (aides) because they help me maintain a smooth-running and consistent game. I generally dislike the latter because they can hand-cuff the DM and box-in the player's actions mentally.

Secondly, ...err...I forgot my second point.

Anyway. I feel like the whole 1e DMG, although it is taken as gospel by many, is in fact much more a collection of tips by Gygax for DMs to use in those areas for which the core-mechanic (combat?) of the game are fuzzy. He knows you are going to have to make a bunch of rulings for wierd situations you players get themselves into, and he's giving you the benefit of his experience. One might expect it to read like New Rules, but it's more nuanced than that. Sure some things are cast in stone (e.g. attack tables), but what makes it such a weird, rambling book, is that it's almost autobiographical in nature, i.e. "Things I've Had to Deal With While Running Dungeons & Dragon's Games, by E.G. Gygax" might easily have been the title.

EDIT: Also skills (in modern games especially) come across to me as a player power-grabs. Players having influenced the rules---trying to rig the system for an additional leg-up. Sorry Charlie! Play it straight!---get advantage the old-fashioned way, by successful play. No fair cheating at role-up time. We all start the game equally at GO. You don't get to sneak Park Avenue into your portfolio in anticipation we will land there. And before anyone says it: if you don't mind those kind of systemic short-cuts...then that's your business. It's not for me.
(Also, I'm going to recklessly incantate the magic-words "special snowflakes", just to see if they summon the daemon DP.)

 

[The Heretic]

EDIT: Also skills (in modern games especially) come across to me as a player power-grabs. Players having influenced the rules---trying to rig the system for an additional leg-up. Sorry Charlie! Play it straight!---get advantage the old-fashioned way, by successful play. No fair cheating at role-up time. We all start the game equally at GO. You don't get to sneak Park Avenue into your portfolio in anticipation we will land there. And before anyone says it: if you don't mind those kind of systemic short-cuts...then that's your business. It's not for me.
(Also, I'm going to recklessly incantate the magic-words "special snowflakes", just to see if they summon the daemon DP.)

This is very true. If you are playing with min/maxers, they will take advantage of the skill system to get ungodly high skill bonuses. This with limitations in the system itself (rolling a d20, not 3d6 or some other mix of dice, means you don't have a nice bell curve to work with) can make the system into a disaster.

Another problem is that if you base skill points on hit dice, you get monsters with ridiculous skill ranks. There was a colossal toad statted out, with Spot at something ungodly high (+30? +50?) because of the amount of hit dice the toad have. That was ridiculous. I would have thought that the toad probably would have trouble noticing anything tiny like a human, and even with the size modifiers the spot skill on this toad seemed too high.

A player in a previous power-gamer group I dm'ed told me about his experience playing D&D online. He created a half elven sorcerer and put everything in Charisma to get a super-high diplomacy skill. The in game effect of this was that you would get better rewards the higher your diplomacy skill. Eventually they realized that this was a mistake and nerfed it in a patch. He was so ticked he stopped playing the game.

 

[The Heretic]

(Also, I'm going to recklessly incantate the magic-words "special snowflakes", just to see if they summon the daemon DP.)

(also truly I'd say the boomers are the worst special snowflakes ever, but I will comment no more on that).