Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Link6746 12-29-06, 12:06 AM	When elf was a character class? When a blackguard was an evil paladin? When cleric wasn't the U'BE'Rness that it is now? When armor gave you negative AC? when things always came out in an advanced version and a basic version, instead of having 999+ suppliment books and just one player's kit? when you could get DnD for just 30 dollars, instead of 50 dollars a book (why I stick to fan-made material, myself). When levels took months of play to attain? please continue on this thread. it's a nostalgia thread for DnD (posted here because I could not find a "General" forum.)
j0lt 12-29-06, 05:01 AM	Yeah, and THAC0! THAC0 was great!!! :waits: /sarcasm
zvbxrpl 12-29-06, 07:20 PM	Wait, elf being a character class was a GOOD thing? I thought it was stupid and illogical, but whatever. Also, I don't know what store is charging you fifty bucks a book, but you need to go shop someplace else.
hazhar 01-02-07, 10:45 AM	:confused: what happened if your elf character multiclassed? they became a half-elf?
j0lt 01-02-07, 08:50 PM	:confused: what happened if your elf character multiclassed? they became a half-elf? 10 points!
Ranger REG 01-03-07, 01:49 AM	When elf was a character class? Nope. When a blackguard was an evil paladin? It's called ANTI-paladin. When cleric wasn't the U'BE'Rness that it is now? You mean go back to clubs and maces, especially for clerics of Odin? When armor gave you negative AC? Where bonus (a "plus") to armor makes AC more negative? when things always came out in an advanced version and a basic version, instead of having 999+ suppliment books and just one player's kit? So advanced players can ridicule the basic players for playing D&D with "training wheels"? when you could get DnD for just 30 dollars, instead of 50 dollars a book (why I stick to fan-made material, myself). 30 dollars a book? You haven't been old enough, SID (still-in-diapers), when you can buy three core volumes of AD&D for just $45 total. Crawl away, little one, crawl away and come back when you're growing hair in dark places.
spyone 01-04-07, 07:20 PM	When the DMG was the only book that cost over $15, and that was because it had twice as many pages as any other book. :) Looking back, however, I note that in 1987 a Player's Handbook was roughly 5 hours pay at a minimum-wage job. Which in today's money is around $25. In 1980, it was more like 6 hours pay, which is $30 now.
Partisan 01-08-07, 06:39 PM	When fighters were the only ones who could role a D100 for Str 18/00! :evillaugh
ScottTheGM 01-16-07, 11:25 AM	When Jeff Easly's art looked modern and ultra-hip.
TFVanguard 01-16-07, 04:55 PM	When Dragon Magazine was filled with differential equations to explain the damage arcs of arrows? (No, I'm not kidding) When the D&D system period was one product sold in a baggie? When women were point-blank told by the creator of the game that the only place for them was to bring chips to the table? When 'wanna-be thespians' were point-blank told by above creator that they weren't role-playing if they weren't rolling dice? When Dragon magainze WASN'T just hawking the new product of the month? When you could buy Dungeons and Dragons, Indiana Jones, Boot Hill, Star Frontiers, and Gamma World all in the toy department of Sears? When Sears HAD a toy department? When Tom Hanks was the 'face' of the adolescent gamer? When Dungeon magazine spun off of Dragon Magazine? When David Arnesen and Gary Gygax got along? When Sean Reynolds was just the TSR guy who had to put up with USENET?
ScottTheGM 01-16-07, 05:23 PM	When Tom Hanks was the 'face' of the adolescent gamer? Ah Mazes & Monsters. I'm gonna watch that onight. Thanks for reminding me. LOL. What were those...d30s?
TFVanguard 01-16-07, 05:40 PM	Oh, it's been years since I've seen that... I can't remember. And, honestly, I can't bring myself to watch it again. :P
Ranger REG 01-16-07, 08:42 PM	Oh, it's been years since I've seen that... I can't remember. And, honestly, I can't bring myself to watch it again. :P Yeah, I prefer nailing my privates to a 2x4 over watching Mazes and Monsters again. :devil:
ScottTheGM 01-17-07, 11:08 AM	So I tried to watch it last night. I hadn't pulled out a VHS in years! So yeah...they were d30s. And I made it exactly that far to confirm that...and had to shut it off. Bias against RPGs aside it's just a really bad film. I'd rather watch Prince of Thieves. But, back to longing for the days when... ...you could start a campaign by saying "you find the entrance to a dungeon; what do you do?"
TFVanguard 01-17-07, 07:03 PM	When it never occured to the module writers that the PCs might 'parley'? When 15 orcs in a 10x10 room was a common occurance? When a great wyrm lived in a 20x20 cave which only had a 3' wide door as an exit?
ScottTheGM 01-18-07, 10:29 AM	When 15 orcs in a 10x10 room was a common occurance? I kill the orcs and take their pies.
j0lt 01-19-07, 03:44 AM	When classes had racial limitations. "Silly player, you can't be a halfling cleric! It's against the rules!"
ScottTheGM 01-19-07, 11:54 AM	...when the dice corners chipped off and they became little spheres after a few monthes.
j0lt 01-20-07, 04:41 AM	- when a wizard character started out with ONE spell per day at first level.
rigon 01-21-07, 12:32 PM	When I used my imagination, instead of the rules, to make unique characters. R-
Lord_Tirian 01-21-07, 02:38 PM	When I used my imagination, instead of the rules, to make unique characters. R- Sorry to interrupt the thread, but what's different now? The rules still won't hinder you...
j0lt 01-22-07, 12:08 AM	Sorry to interrupt the thread, but what's different now? The rules still won't hinder you... Exactly, they merely provide a framework to guide you. Read the beginning of the Prestige Classes chapter in the DMG. It basically tells you to make your own if you want something different. The PrCs are not set in stone, they are merely examples. Using your imagination to sketch out a character progression is all good and well, but it still has to fit into the rules system.
TFVanguard 01-22-07, 12:17 AM	Actually, I think the problem a lot of people have in d20 right now is that there really IS a prestige class for every character concept everyone thinks of, and everything's directly codified (including pure role-playing ability) in the rules.
j0lt 01-22-07, 01:49 AM	No, that's your interpretation of the rules. The rules are there to guide you, not restrict you. As Monte Cook said: "I'm not going to tell you how to play..." There's nothing wrong with prestige classes. They provide a quick easy way to envision a character. Personally, I prefer the d20 Modern system of the 6 Base Classes and the Advanced Classes, which are more specific than the Base Classes, but less specific than a Prestige Class. For example: I wanted to make an assassin type character for a Modern game. Instead of D&D, where the RAW method is going Rogue > Assassin, I took the Smart Hero, carefully chose the skills that I felt fit the concept best, then looked at the Advanced Classes. Only a few abilities from two of the Advanced Classes really fit, so after the required 3 levels of the Base Class, I'll be taking 2 levels of the Infiltrator (for the Sweep and Improvised Implements abilities), then a couple levels of Field Scientist. If the character is still alive and kicking at that point, probably back to the base class for a few more levels.
Colossus 01-31-07, 12:38 PM	When Savings throws were classified as vs. Spell, PPD, Petr/Poly, Breath Weapon. . . When Priests got Spheres. . . When there WERE Priests. . . When being a specilist wizard MEANT something. . . No Monks, no barbarians and no half-orcs in the PHB. . . Kits. . . like prestige classes, but you start out with them! When being an aasimar/tiefling DIDN't cost you levels. . . When being a Bugbear, Hobgoblin, Minotaur didn't cost you levels. . . When there was a 1st level spell other than Magic Missile worth casting and a 2nd level spell other than Scorching Ray worth casting. . . When Charm Person and Domination lasted. . . well, forever. . . When Druid's got to be Hierophants. . . Individual experience. . . Specialization, Mastery, High Mastery, Grand Mastery. . .
Ranger REG 01-31-07, 08:54 PM	Actually, I think the problem a lot of people have in d20 right now is that there really IS a prestige class for every character concept everyone thinks of,... Isn't that like complaining too many car models to choose from? :smirk: I know the choices are overwhelming but it's not as bad as shopping at Costco, Sam's Club, or any discount warehouse store. and everything's directly codified (including pure role-playing ability) in the rules. Yeah, there is an excessive amount of game mechanics that seems to be replacing RP, but that's what you get when the majority of gamers demanded them. Sad, I know. :nonono: The only thing you can do is disallow them, like the Flaw System from Unearthed Arcana.
TFVanguard 01-31-07, 10:57 PM	Isn't that like complaining too many car models to choose from? :smirk: Sort of. When you're choosing a new car, you DON'T start by worrying about what sort of options you should be adding on to your OLD car, 'cause the dealership has requirements for trade-in values. :) To get nearly any prestige class, you have to start planning for it several levels in advance of actually getting it. For some base classes (those light in bonus feats), this becomes a serious headache. If you're a novice to the game, that alone may put you off. Yeah, there is an excessive amount of game mechanics that seems to be replacing RP, but that's what you get when the majority of gamers demanded them. Sad, I know. :nonono: My bigger problem is that, by codifying them, they're assuming a 'balance value' for them that may not be appropriate for a campaign. As an example, if my henchmen is killed in a campaign, I just lost one of my innate class abilities. Does that make sense? Ah well.
Thomar_of_Uointer 02-01-07, 10:46 PM	Oh, I liked the alignment system. Makes a whole lot more sense than the arbitrary thing we've got now.
j0lt 02-02-07, 02:19 AM	Oh, I liked the alignment system. Makes a whole lot more sense than the arbitrary thing we've got now. :confused: By arbitrary, do you mean your actions aren't restricted by an alignment that's written in stone? With the newly described alignments (which are the same as they've always been AFAIK), the GM can change a PC's alignment based on their actions, as opposed to the old way when a GM would just stop you and say "You can't do that." Everybody loves being told they can't do something, right?
TFVanguard 02-02-07, 11:56 AM	Yeah, something about the 'rules say you can't role-play like that' concept doesnt' seem all that 'player-friendly' to me, and kinda reinforces the whole 'wargame' aspect of D&D. I'm not a fan of alignments anyway, but to take it another step and FORCE players into narrow choices based on an interpretation of it seems rather ludicrous. "There are nine types of people in the world, which one are you?"
Thomar_of_Uointer 02-02-07, 12:58 PM	:confused: By arbitrary, do you mean your actions aren't restricted by an alignment that's written in stone? With the newly described alignments (which are the same as they've always been AFAIK), the GM can change a PC's alignment based on their actions, as opposed to the old way when a GM would just stop you and say "You can't do that." Everybody loves being told they can't do something, right? No, I meant the system was set up arbitrarily, using the original Law-Chaos axis, but then adding in Good-Evil (which is what Law-Chaos was in the first place).
j0lt 02-03-07, 01:33 AM	So in 1st. edition D&D, there were only 3 possible alignments? As far back as I can remember (AD&D 2e), there's always been the 9 possibilities between good/evil and law/chaos.
Ranger REG 02-03-07, 02:11 AM	To get nearly any prestige class, you have to start planning for it several levels in advance of actually getting it. For some base classes (those light in bonus feats), this becomes a serious headache. If you're a novice to the game, that alone may put you off. Meh. What better way to separate men from mice? :smirk: Just like in real life, you need to meet certain qualifications before you belong to a member of an elite or specialist group. But if you don't like prestige class. That's cool. You don't have to get them. As a DM, you don't have to offer them in your campaign. My bigger problem is that, by codifying them, they're assuming a 'balance value' for them that may not be appropriate for a campaign. As an example, if my henchmen is killed in a campaign, I just lost one of my innate class abilities. Does that make sense? Ah well. If the class markup is focused on the relationship between a character and a companion or a mount, it makes perfect sense. Of course, such a loss is not permanent. After you undergo a "grieving period" (I know, something this sentimental is difficult to portray in a ... for lack of better words ... role-playing game, you set out to find a new companion or a mount. Rare does a class would permanently penalize you because you lost your one and only companion. ;)
Drohem 02-03-07, 12:21 PM	when a Fighter of higher level could slaughter hordes of creatures less than 1 Hit Die.
TFVanguard 02-07-07, 12:37 AM	The problem is, why codify the 'relationship' as per COMBAT rules to begin with? Shouldn't it be something that develops SOLELY through role-play and the campaign? What if the campaign goes in a way where these relationships and external bonuses don't WORK? Is the penalization fair? Would a bonus be fair the othre way around? Would it even MAKE SENSE? And why should non-interal traits of a character be codified as part of the class? I've never seen good justification of that.
j0lt 02-07-07, 10:07 PM	The XP penalty is there so even min-maxers feel the loss. A lot of D&Ders play what is more of a low-scale wargame (roll-playing) as opposed to role-playing. The rules need to fit both.
spyone 02-08-07, 09:45 AM	So in 1st. edition D&D, there were only 3 possible alignments? As far back as I can remember (AD&D 2e), there's always been the 9 possibilities between good/evil and law/chaos. Not in 1st edition AD&D, but in D&D aka "the Basic Set" that was all there was (Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral). And all elves were Fighter/Magic Users. And all Dwarves were Fighters, and all Halflings were thieves. "Basic" was a very good word for it. :)
TFVanguard 02-08-07, 12:31 PM	The XP penalty is there so even min-maxers feel the loss. A lot of D&Ders play what is more of a low-scale wargame (roll-playing) as opposed to role-playing. The rules need to fit both. Do they? I think when you write the rules explicitly to handle 'war-gaming', you shouldn't be that surprised when that's what you get.
rigon 02-08-07, 04:37 PM	Not in 1st edition AD&D, but in D&D aka "the Basic Set" that was all there was (Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral). And all elves were Fighter/Magic Users. And all Dwarves were Fighters, and all Halflings were thieves. "Basic" was a very good word for it. :) Halflings were basically fighters with some thieving ability, mostly oriented for woodland settings. R-
j0lt 02-08-07, 11:24 PM	Do they? I think when you write the rules explicitly to handle 'war-gaming', you shouldn't be that surprised when that's what you get. How else can the rules be written? You can't codify role-playing/interaction. The rules are only part of the game. The other part is up to the DM/GM and players to do.
TFVanguard 02-10-07, 09:16 PM	Simple. don't codify role-playing and interaction in the same way you would the 'war gaming' aspect. That's my complaint, by making EVERYTHING a function of experience points, you make everything in the game arace for more of them.
j0lt 02-10-07, 11:01 PM	That's not really true. I've never been in a game where anyone did anything "just for the XP". This is the DM's responsibility, not the game designer's. If the DM constantly announces XP bonus for doing things, everyone will do as you've mentioned. A good DM will be able to discern true gaming from metagaming. The d20 system doesn't codify role-playing or interaction aside from the odd skill use (bluff/diplomacy/gather info/etc...). Even with those skills, my DM used to force us to come up with dialogue, which would determine what kind of additional bonus or penalty to our roll we would get.
Altair_the_Vexed 03-07-07, 04:58 PM	I long for those days... so I've been picking through my old skool D&D Rules Cyclopedia, extracting the rules I like and using them in d20. Like doubling the level up XP (then nerfing the wealth by level)... Like making up Weapon Mastery charts for d20 weapons... Like turning some of the odd-ball special abilities into feats... In fact, turning some of the non-SRD d20 special abilities into feats, too... Sure "Castles and Crusades" gives people an old skool D&D-ish game, but it does it at the expense of what makes d20 good, too.
ArcTan 03-07-07, 05:24 PM	when things always came out in an advanced version and a basic version, instead of having 999+ suppliment books and just one player's kit? ...You do know that the Races of books and the Complete books pretty much are the equivalent of the old "kit" books, right? They're almost all player info and almost no DM info. please continue on this thread. it's a nostalgia thread for DnD (posted here because I could not find a "General" forum.) http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=42
ArcTan 03-07-07, 05:28 PM	No, I meant the system was set up arbitrarily, using the original Law-Chaos axis, but then adding in Good-Evil (which is what Law-Chaos was in the first place). The current two-axis system makes a *lot* more sense than the old "Law = good, Chaos = evil" thing, especially after having been refined through Planescape, which fleshed out an entire setting based on it. Not that I think alignment's a great thing for the game in general, but the current descriptions of what alignment *is* are better than they've ever been. (No more crap about CN meaning you're a psychopath or LN meaning you absolutely always keep your word or TN meaning you constantly switch sides based on who's winning.)
TFVanguard 03-07-07, 06:34 PM	That's not really true. I've never been in a game where anyone did anything "just for the XP". That's not QUITE what I meant. A lot of d20 centers around 'experience points for stuff' - which means that things which AREN'T somehow related to a character's actual innate or learned abilities still require experience points in some way. (d20M and d20F are very bad at this). IE, 'for your tenth level ability, you get a new shiny mecha... meanwhile , which gets destroyed in the next adventure, screwing you.'
j0lt 03-08-07, 08:58 PM	That's not QUITE what I meant. A lot of d20 centers around 'experience points for stuff' - which means that things which AREN'T somehow related to a character's actual innate or learned abilities still require experience points in some way. (d20M and d20F are very bad at this). IE, 'for your tenth level ability, you get a new shiny mecha... meanwhile , which gets destroyed in the next adventure, screwing you.' Okay, you've got some DM/GM issues. Name one class that does anything like that. Ranger? Druid? Animal companions are part of the class, so they get lumped in with the class abilities. If they die, you CAN get a new one.
rigon 03-08-07, 10:02 PM	Sure "Castles and Crusades" gives people an old skool D&D-ish game, but it does it at the expense of what makes d20 good, too. How so? R-
cat_god 03-15-07, 02:47 PM	When adventures were poorly made, had very little logical sense, and there were locked doors with wild animals behind it in an ancient dungeon? Yeah, a little bit.
dragonearwax 03-15-07, 11:54 PM	I know this maybe alittle off topic, but the Talislanta fantasy RPG has been d20 for 20 years.I think it's funny that Talislanta was published by wotc,and that the 3rd edition of Talislanta was worked on by Jonathan Tweed,the guy who wrote the players handbook 3.0/3.5 along with Monte Cook,and Skip Williams.I also think it's fun that wotc dropped role-playing games altogether in 1994 for the their money making card game Magic the gathering.I also think it's funny that you guy buy book after book crammed full of rules/charts and stats,but thats what wotc does and always has.They abandoned rpg's until they got their claws into something else to make them money the wonderful Dungeons & Dragons game.
j0lt 03-17-07, 01:59 AM	Ithinkyoushouldputspacesbetweenyoursente nces.
spyone 03-17-07, 10:17 PM	I saw it put best in someone signature here on these very boards. It said: capitolization and punctuation is the difference between saying, "I helped my uncle jack off a horse" and "I helped my uncle, Jack, off a horse." :)