The state of Post-OSR content

[squeen]

In the home campaign, the thief has a knack for taking out the big baddies. Twice with a backstabs (once with a magic sword that exploded when he did it), once with a poisoned arrow as the baddie was trying to flee for the nth time, once with a found tech-wand with buttons (I let any class use those) that unleashed a disintegrate ray, there are others...which he'll gladly list the rest for anyone willing to lend him half-an-ear.

Also, he is constantly having the magic-user turn him invisible so he can sneak...used to have an elvish cloak (until it burned). Does have an robe of climbing that he got in the Caves of Chaos...although it's missing about 10'.

Like Bilbo, he been a busy little hobbit. Great fun.

 

[Beoric]

In a typical 4-hour session with average combat opportunities, a thief should get at least one backstab attempt if they're halfways trying. If that truism isn't true, the DM should be turning coal into diamonds instead of playing games.

Not sure any of the early editions give much guidance on this point, so how is a DM to know? Without such guidance I think it is not unreasonable for DMs to default to it being implausible for the opponent to allow a thief he sees to walk past him and get behind him, and the DMG is very clear that hiding in shadows requires shadows or some other impediment to vision.

I stand to be corrected, but I don't think that Two Orc's ruling that "surprised, unaware, prone or restrained opponents can be backstabbed" is made express (leaving aside how often opponents are prone or restrained in 1e, and noting that those are later edition keywords). So how is a DM to know how to run this, other than "the ability is useless unless the DM is generous"?

EDIT: Also,

If someone is grappled and helpless, hit points (and initiative/delays) don't apply. You just kill them with your knife. If you have 50 hit points and someone says "stop or I'll shoot" - there's basically no way their attack will kill you; you lose some je ne sais quoi (i.e., hit points) avoiding it, and now you have 50-1d6 hit points remaining (presuming their shot "hit").

So with respect to "restrained", according to EOTB your thief has the same capabilities as a 0 level linkboy. (Although I note white I was searching for that quote I noticed that one can become restrained through the grappling rules, which I guess answers that question.)

 

[The1True]

I noticed that one can become restrained through the grappling rules

Oooooh yeah... 1st ed grappling rules. yeeeurgh Call the I-fixed-it guy...

 

[PrinceofNothing]

"Dependent" is probably the best adjective to describe how the two most easily identifiable cultures in "early rules" fandom co-existed, and continue to co-exist. It isn't that there was one culture under one game; there was neither one culture nor one game. It wasn't symbiotic because neither wanted the other and btb people aren't looking for variants - they're looking for content to use with the rules they're not fixing. It's not really parasitic either - that's pejorative in a way that's neither fair nor accurate. But I've-fixed-it guys depend on something to fix. Until something arrives to be fixed they are Archimedes with a lever, and no earth. Because they can make a lever, but not an earth. Greenfielding is not their specialty.

Spectacular analysis.

 

[EOTB]

Not sure any of the early editions give much guidance on this point, so how is a DM to know? Without such guidance I think it is not unreasonable for DMs to default to it being implausible for the opponent to allow a thief he sees to walk past him and get behind him, and the DMG is very clear that hiding in shadows requires shadows or some other impediment to vision.

I stand to be corrected, but I don't think that Two Orc's ruling that "surprised, unaware, prone or restrained opponents can be backstabbed" is made express (leaving aside how often opponents are prone or restrained in 1e, and noting that those are later edition keywords). So how is a DM to know how to run this, other than "the ability is useless unless the DM is generous"?

You are right, it is implausible for "the opponent to allow a thief he sees to walk past him and get behind him". And yet in the PHB combat example the thief negates this by moving out of their sight so their attention fixes on something other than him - he can now sneak around. That's your guidance. As for shadows, the game doesn't say Hide in Shadows is a requirement for backstab. It helps with surprise. In dungeons and crowded city streets there should be no shortage of opportunities

There are many ways to magically supplement the backstab ability even further so that it's trivial to achieve even in broad daylight on a prairie. Has the DM never included the ubiquitous ring of invisibility in a treasure hoard?

At some point, dungeon mastering means someone doesn't have to tell you to rethink something, if what you're doing seems to produce a result contrary to intent. Backstabbing is in the combat examples. It's listed with commonly used skills such as climb walls and hear noise. If a DM notices that the way they apply the game means backstabbing succeeds a handful of times over years of playing, I'd hope they don't say "well, no one's told me to do otherwise".

Who told them to run it exactly as they chose to ref it? Nobody. That was an inference they made. And yet they need explicit instruction to run it otherwise when that inference sucks in play. If someone has put 1,000 hours into practicing an activity and they still fall back on "nobody told me to do it differently" - they need to find something else, they are not cut out for this.

And yes, you are right on tied up people - no need to backstab them. They can just be killed. Backstab is to take down people who could do you harm, not kill people trussed up and helpless.

 

[EOTB]

Oooooh yeah... 1st ed grappling rules. yeeeurgh Call the I-fixed-it guy...

 

[squeen]

Mary Poppins! When did you blow in to town?!

 

[Guy Fullerton]

This reminds me to a) run more sessions in urban environments, and b) appreciate how Gygax keyed Hommlet, and how Bledsaw keyed some of the JG cities. The low level thief ability percentages shine just fine in open urban environments.

 

[The1True]

So we're clear: I havn't seen satisfactory, 1st-party grappling rules in any of the editions. Every barbarian I've ever known has tried to jump on a gargantuan monster's back and ride it while he hacked away, and the resulting rules hunt/dispute has always been epic and in the end, come down to the nimbleness/dickishness of the DM not the rules system.

 

[The Heretic]

I only really began to learn to play when I started the tutorial intro in the Beginner box of the BECMI ("what, you mean AC actually has a purpose?!?").

Did any of the previous sets (Holmes, Moldvay) have introductions to the game? Or did they go straight to the rules like the AD&D books did?

 

[Two orcs]

So we're clear: I havn't seen satisfactory, 1st-party grappling rules in any of the editions. Every barbarian I've ever known has tried to jump on a gargantuan monster's back and ride it while he hacked away, and the resulting rules hunt/dispute has always been epic and in the end, come down to the nimbleness/dickishness of the DM not the rules system.

ACKS has simple rules for both grappling and in the Heroic Fantasy supplement simple rules for clambering on top of larger opponents, which is extra easy and useful for thieves as the climbing ability aids in it and while you're clambering you can backstab. Clambered monsters have a harder time hitting people clambering on them, and if they lack arms they can't attack them at all but have to resort to trying to shake them off.

ACKS grappling rules are basically: attack-4, if you hit the opponent makes a save vs. paralysis, if they fail they are grappled. Breaking free is possible each round with either a save vs paralysis or an open doors check. Grappled opponents can be backstabbed (at +6) (or hit at +4 by others) and the person doing the hold can automatically hit them with a brawling attack. Basically, you need to beat them to stop them from struggling. Large monsters have +4 to their save per size category difference.

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

I use a variant of these rules in my home games. The grappler makes an attack roll, and if they hit, each party in the grapple rolls their hit dice. If the grappler rolls higher, the person they grappled is pinned and helpless until something changes. If they fail, they are stunned for a round. I use group initiative, so if multiple opponents want to grapple a single foe, they each make attack rolls and anyone who hits may sum their hit dice together to determine if their side wins (if they still lose, they are all stunned for a round). Allies of the person being grappled may pile in to add their hit dice to the defender's pool on their turn, allowing a reroll if their ally is already pinned.

It's swift and very simple to resolve. I adapted this system into a psionics system as well, where psionic attacks are at their core basically mental grappling.

 

[Beoric]

In 4e it is a strength attack vs. reflex defence to grab a creature; this is the equivalent of grabbing someone's arm or their hockey jersey, so if you want to do more you need to make a different attack or a secondary attack (in most cases using the improvised rules on p. 42 of the 4e DMG). So you might try to trip someone instead (str or dex vs. fortitude or reflex, depending on the circumstances), or throw him after you grab him (using essentially the same mechanics). If you grab someone they stay grabbed as long as you hold on, unless your grasp is broken for some reason, or the opponent successfully escapes the grab (better of str or dex vs. better of fortitude or reflex). You can adjudicate pretty much anything with creative application of the p. 42 rules.

Unless you invest in improving your skill at this, it becomes harder to do as you and your opponents get to be higher level (sort of like the way a skilled fencer doesn't necessarily improve at boxing or wrestling), and characters tend to stick with what they are good at.

Some classes, notably monks and fighters, have specialized, practiced maneuvers that accomplish more complex grapples with better chances of success, assuming the character chooses to learn the maneuver. Others use weapons to do similar things, like tripping or knocking down opponents with spears or polearms, pushing them with shields, or entangling them with chain weapons.

 

[The1True]

Except for @Beoric it feels like I just read a bunch of I-Fixed-it... and the 4e reads a lot like the 3e grapple rules which everyone finds overly-abstract. PF actually came close to sorting it out but yeah; still a rules hunt no matter what system you're dealing with.

I'm wandering away from my cheap jab at AD&D RAW (which the Blue Bard is slowly changing my attitude towards) now, but I've been on both sides of the screen for the old monster-clamber and I suspect half the problem is it's one of those mid-combat maneuvers that just gets up a DM's nose, making us less lenient/likely to hand-wave the details, leading to the inevitable lawyering.

 

[squeen]

Here's what I want to get out grapple/overbearing:
(a) enough low-level monsters can take down an high-level PC, i.e. numbers matter
(b) AC either doesn't help or counts against you
(c) encumbrance is quasi-fatal

I think the AD&D system achieves these objectives as-written (there are actually two versions DMG and UA). What I want to do is program them into my combat simulator and see if that's in fact the case. Either way, I think it's important you just use them frequently to become fluent---that's far more important to making them feel "well oiled" rather than making them simple (i.e. resemble other mechanics you are already comfortable with).

With regards to (a)---how many movies have you see our hero, who can take out anyone one-versus-one, surrender when surrounded and outnumbered in an open area? That's the effect I want.

With regards to (b)---I want a fighter in +2 platemail, with a +2 shield to still be worried about fighting 100 goblins in a cavern.

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

Provided to me by a neo-trad player as a self-characterisation of their style within neo-trad, tho' written by someone other than the person providing it to me. I'm trying to get the exact source. Still, extremely interesting.



Edit: The source: https://imbrattabit.wordpress.com/2019/12/09/what-does-it-take-to-be-a-neotrad-role-playing-game/

 

[squeen]

Chekhov's Gun seems like bad, bad, bad, bad, (bad) design for any RPG.

To be honest, the whole thing sounds awful.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Wow, OK, well as someone who plays on a modern system in the "neo-trad" style, I can say the my group encompasses NONE of those points.

Asymmetric gameplay: I offload a buttload of my DM dice rolling on the players - anything that doesn't need to be kept hidden, and even some of the stuff that does. I do this because 1) players love rolling dice, 2) the whole table can see that the results are fair and untainted, and 3) the players can blame bad rolls on themselves instead of me.

Clear agency for PCs: My players develop their own independent character concepts - they can make whomever they want, usually with no "mission" beyond "this character sounds like a fun concept to play". The job of figuring out how to shoehorn them into the existing group/plot is left up to the individual player to develop in collaboration with the group. Any link they have to the game is developed organically during play.

Shared party creation: This may be the case in clearly-defined objective adventures, but is entirely not applicable in a sandbox campaign, where the party's objectives ebb and flow and change on a whim.

Chekhov's gun: There are plenty of game mechanics that my group ignores, and even more that don't make it into play "every session". Also, character sheets are standard templates - they're meant to include as much as possible to cover as many situations as possible, but that doesn't mean they include everything needed in every session, nor does everything they hold get employed regularly (for example, encumbrance rules, drag weights, character heights etc.).

Bounded bookkeeping: Entirely DM subjective. Some depend on tables for everything, others have never touched one in their life. The only reason I don't consult rulebooks is because I have the rules memorized, not because I have an aversion to using tables and long lists.

Wide GM support: As a DM, I don't keep abreast of player-driven rules like spell effects and feats and class powers and whatnot. I leave that to my players, who are far more intimately familiar with their character's mechanics than I am. Also, tell that "neo-trads don't use battle grid" bullshit to my giant-ass collection of miniatures, terrain pieces, and battle boards.

No rule zero/golden rule: Yeah...no. Having fun is paramount to play, always.

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

Yeah, this is a very consciously extreme style within neo-trad, not the summation of the play culture and every style within it. I think this does show how the extreme forms of the ideals and values of neo-trad are starkly different than the extremes of trad. The extreme counterpart in the trad style would probably reject most of these and instead be the DM who never shuts up about character arcs and the need for "roleplaying, not rollplaying" and makes things happen constantly on a whim because it "fits the story best".

 

[squeen]

@Pseudoephedrine : What png's? Portable-Network-Graphics?


"I loathe the self-centered angst-ridden crap that gets passed off as suitable fare in a game of heroic action-adventure." - EGG on ENWorld