Had a reader post on an old post of mine, asking if...with regard to starting a D&D campaign focused on adventure gaming...I would recommend "hacking" 2E (a system the commenter is familiar with) or instead learning 1E. After all, it's not much more than replacing 2E's advancement system with a "gold for x.p." model, right?
Wrong.
2nd Edition AD&D is the birthplace of what I call the customization (or "build") culture. 2E is the first edition of AD&D to support...through its systems...the ability to generate unique and divergent characters. These systems include weapon specialization, schools of magic, priests domains, and rogues' allocation of "skill percentage" points, not to mention non-weapon proficiencies (i.e. skills). Even before the advent of "kits" and the Players Options books (what some refer to as "AD&D 2.5"), 2nd edition was providing players with methods of building characters that were special. Even the methods of ability score generation offered a primitive point allocation variant ("Method VI" of the 2E PHB).
Contrast that with first edition AD&D, in which character creation is a matter of rolling and placing one's ability scores, picking a class-race combination for a set of options, and then buying equipment, generally based on the character's (limited) number of weapon proficiencies. That's it, as far as "choice" goes. Heck, even the spells in a magic-user's spellbook are randomly generated. Pretty quick set-up to get down to play, all things considered.
Why is 2E's customization bad? That's the question that all 2E (and later edition) aficionados are bound to ask. Isn't the ability to create ultra-specific, unique characters a "good" thing? Isn't variety the "spice of life?" Don't we want to give players MORE options, not less? Didn't YOU, JB, say that one of the problems with running a BASIC D&D system over an Advanced one was the LACK of variety for sustaining long-term play interest?
Here's the skinny:
When I sit down to run a game of Dungeons & Dragons, I want the players focused and engaged on the task at hand...specifically, facing the world/adventure, working together to further their common goal of surviving and thriving in a hostile fantasy world. The character is nothing more (or less) than a player's vehicle for exploring the game environment.
Customization promotes an inward-facing disposition. Excessive options for character choice encourages players to focus on themselves, their own individual needs and wants, distracting from the objectives of play. For the players, the more choices presented for character "builds," the more that attention is drawn away from the exploration/experience of game play, focusing players (instead) on the 'game-within-a-game' of character construction.
Character building is not the game.
Couple THAT with an advancement mechanic in 2E that provides different, conflicting objectives of reward-based play among PCs of different class category, and you have the makings of a game that is both divisive and narcissistic. Certainly it is both those over the long-term, and (in my admittedly limited 2E experience) fairly quickly from the start of play.
The potential for making special and unique players also produces ATTACHMENT in players towards their characters...another unwanted development. Attachment is a bad thing. It leads to hard feelings when "bad things" happen to a character. It leads to DMs "fudging" dice rolls (something that leads to a loss of trust in a DM and a complete loss of integrity in a game) in order to "save" favorites...or to forestall bitching-moaning from players. Of course, with the extra burden of a more detailed character creation process, fudging or "dialing down" challenge may already be on the table, because no one wants to wait around for a player to create a new, detailed, uniquely customized character...50 page backstory or not.
Later editions have, unfortunately, only compounded the problem of customization, adding MORE options and MORE choices for the creation of even more "unique" and specialized characters. Feats. Skills. Prestige classes. Class "tracks." Class "builds." Point-buys. For some players, character creation and character development IS the game. It is no wonder that the soap opera style of play favored (and supported) under the 5.5E rules is so focused on creating drama and side-stories and 'character arcs.'
The game, as currently promulgated, ain't about "adventuring."
So, yeah: the advice I gave to the reader was to skip any attempt at "fixing" 2E and (instead) just diving into 1E. It's more than just the divisive experience point system that is an issue...it's the whole paradigm shift to character customization which MORE THAN DRAGONLANCE is the root cause of the game's fall from a fun game of fantasy adventure to amateur improv night at the kitchen table. You don't think there are enough PC "options" in the 1E PHB? There are some 50 different class/race combinations (including bards and multi-class characters)...how many different options do your five to seven players require?
Focus on the GAME, not the character. Character is not the game. Character is the vehicle for playing the game. AD&D is great for people who want pulse-pounding adventure. Why waste that just so you can show off your "original character?"
 |
| Woo-hoo! Look at me! I'm soooo special with my longsword specialization and my horsemanship NWP. Right?! |
Good points, many that I hadn't thought of before. I agree with most of what you've written, and maybe that's what stopped us from buying into 2e. When we made the jump from BX-1e mash-up to RQ and then MERP/RM we definitely found that we spent a lot of time making characters and were shocked at the deadliness of the combat systems. This meant we became cheesed off with the systems, but in MERP we got around that by playing characters out of The Lords of Middle Earth (essentially Middle Earth superheroes).
ReplyDeleteI wonder whether TSR changed the focus because they realised that they could shift more product, or whether it was an accident?
Looking retrospectively, UA and OA both have hints of the things you mention above. To take UA as an example, we found the character rolling methods to be ridiculous and you might as well have allowed the player to pick any class to start with.
I don't think the shift was (originally) done in a way to "shift product."
DeleteThere is a natural inclination, with the long term campaign, to elaborate on the setting and rules, ADDING TO what one has, as the participants dive deeper and deeper into their game play. This falls under the heading of (what I call) "world building:" you WANT your setting to be a deeper and richer environment, to better engage the interest of the players. Introducing a new class (thief-acrobat or barbarian) with some unique traits can be part of this. Creating a random table discussing social status and birth order can be part of it. Creating an "apprentice tract" (with cantrips) can be part of this. Adding a "trainer" into a game that can be found who will teach a player how to "specialize" with a weapon (or how to turn their high level druid into an elemental master) might be another.
When this evolves "organically" in play, the players can adapt it bite-sized chunks that feel "natural"...adding to the verisimilitude of the campaign. It is not a "system" to be "gamed;" instead it is "discovering" a new aspect of the fantasy world being explored.
But putting the options at the forefront...during the chargen process...is asking for the system to be gamed. It is shifting the focus of the player from exploring the world to determining what would be the best option for the character they envision. What is the best weapon in which to specialize? What is the optimal way to build a magic-user? How can I get clerical spells AND use edged weapons? What kit gives the best mechanical bonus to the character I'm designing? Etc.
For me, it feels like it was just an attempt to give the players MORE, perhaps because 2E had SUBTRACTED so much from the game ("problematic" races and classes, psionics, etc.).
And by instilling that expectation, each subsequent edition had a need to fulfill and/or refine that expectation. People have now come to expect skills (thanks to 3E), so every iteration after must include some sort of skill system. Because you can't go back...you'd be disappointing those who've come to rely on it.
And that would take balls.
Given this, I wonder how you feel about my specialisation system, sage studies.
ReplyDeleteYour sage studies, which are unique to your campaign, fall under the category of what I call "world building." You run a unique (if derivative) game with its own systems in place, and those systems are designed thoughtfully and with an eye to increasing verisimilitude and engagement for the players. While I haven't played in your game since you instituted your sage studies, it feels more akin choosing a weapon proficiency (upon advancement) rather than wholesale "character building"/"my guy" stuff from the beginning.
DeleteAnd your little "random weirdness" that you give to all your PCs is just that...random. Not something to be chosen or 'gamed' by the player from the outset of their character's career.
Contrast that with the 3E player who chooses to play a human ranger with 'monkey grip' and 'improved critical' dual-wielding two-handed falchions at 1st level. Come on, now.
Or, to put it another way: that a magic-user gets to CHOOSE a spell to learn (upon advancing) is not a sign of degenerate customization. I see your sage abilities in a similar light.
Delete; )
Thank you. I appreciate that insight.
DeleteWell said. Mechanical focus on character building (at chargen) seems like a relatively minor thing, but it changes the focus of the game in lots of ways. If the game promises that you can make lots of different builds, players will want those builds to be somewhat effective/balanced, so their decisions in character building don't feel pointless. If "balance" becomes the design goal, the things that break the balance need to be smoothed out - disparate character advancement and single character power spikes from magic item acquisition become undesirable. For all player build choices to feel good, the game design wants to keep characters at comparable levels of power throughout their careers. Magic items want to be either "budgeted" by the game, or relatively insignificant compared to the power of character abilities.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, if character building includes lots of decision making, it takes lots of time, enough time that sessions tend to stop when a character dies. Games don't run well when sessions continually stop for 45 minutes, so the game tends to include mitigation of death (layers of saves, lots of time for stabilization, etc).
If we follow those trends in pursuit of making character building feel good, the game design tends towards less risk (of death) and less reward. Players will expect that they'll get to "play their build" in the way the mechanics (mostly combat mechanics) describe. So adventures tend to include balanced combats to fulfill that promise and less challenges outside the scope covered by explicit character options.
By trying to give the players more options through character building, the game tends to become narrower. Things that players might do to upset the balance between builds now need to be avoided, ironically reducing options for players in actual play. Players end up viewing character creation as the main "lever" they get to pull to affect the game world as the in-play choices become narrower. With that mind set, players demand more detailed, specific character creation options to facilitate creation of more specific character concepts.
Hopefully the the logic of this extrapolation makes sense - I didn't want to be more verbose than I already was.
It feels like a restating of my own thoughts (other than the bit about unintentional irony). As such, I agree!
Delete; )
"Character building is not the game."
ReplyDeleteCorrect, that would be Traveler ; )
I think it was inevitable that D&D would make the shift to customization as many early RPG competitors embraced that as to why they were superior to D&D.
Comparison of one's self to others is (generally) a bad way to go...always best to be the best YOU that you can be.
DeleteI believe that...perhaps more than looking outside to what rival products considered to be "superior" (did TSR ever do more than look down their noses at such products?)...a large part of the focus shift was due to a design staff that consisted of authors (and wannabe authors) educated in the ways of story and character development. As opposed to people whose primary calling to the hobby was one of game play, game design, and game theory.
But, yes, you're right about Traveller.
; )
From my understanding (never played it) Gygax went all in on customized two hours charachter creation in Dangerous Jurneys, his follow up Fantasy RPG so I feel thats the way the winds were blowing in that time period and most designer embraced it.
DeleteIt was definitely an element of RPG design post-1985, only broken (a bit) by the indie RPG explosion of the early 2000s. James Bond: 007 really leaned hard into it, presumably as a way to differentiate one secret agent from another (something the Top Secret RPG largely failed to do). While early Chaosium games had skill systems, many of these systems (see Stormbringer and ElfQuest) were tied directly to random chance or choice (what profession are you, or what species of elf). But actual customization REALLY hits its stride right before 1990 with games like Shadowrun, Ars Magica, etc. 2E (and Dangerous Journeys) are par for the course in this regard.
DeleteAnd they never needed to be.
Let's take the statement "Character building is not the game." at face value.
ReplyDeleteTo which I say. "Why not?"
Certainly I never recall a mandate that has said you must play *D&D a particular way. Some people like to explore dungeons. Some people like to explore characters. Why is one correct and the other not?
Character building can absolutely be the game. I have seen, and done, this in every edition of D&D I have played, which was at last count all of them.
I get the some people don't want to do that. Cool.
I also find Hex crawls dull and tedious. But neither is objectively better or worse.
Presently I am going through every book in Gygax's Appendix N. Most are re-reads, some are new, others are re-reads after many decades. But they all have interesting and unique characters. Even Lovecraft, who is notoriously situation rather than character focused has a few "names" people can point too. Character building is built into the DNA of D&D from it's earliest days. As is exploration.
But after 47 years of game play I am not ready to say one is better than the other.
The Character can absolutely be the Game.
At least for many people.
Mm.
DeleteWhile I make pronouncements in blanket terms, in should go without saying that this is my blog so the parenthetical note "in my opinion" should probably be inferred at all turns. That said...
While people are allowed to play D&D any way they like, I would argue that not all of those ways are created equal. Any game can be played in a way different from how the designer intended...and enjoyed by the people playing it. But most games were designed with a purposeful method of play in mind, and deviation/distraction from that purpose is still (in my opinion) "wrong." You can say "sub-optimal," I suppose, but that is soft-footing it. You can play lawn darts like horseshoes (or vice versa) and have fun and laugh a lot with your friends, but in the end you aren't playing the game the way it was intended...and part of the GAME of a game is following the rules.
To say that every edition since Gygax and Arneson were cut has been a BASTARDIZATION of their original design purpose may be too strong a word (especially as I do NOT believe that was the later designers' intention), but the game has clearly evolved into something unrecognizable from what was originally intended as an "adventure" game. If you can't see that after 47 years of being in the hobby, well, I'm not sure what to tell you.
However, I've read many of the "Appendix N" books myself, and of those that I've read, most fall into the category of "short story." That is, they are adventure stories about a protagonist who does not change or grow or develop all that much, but instead meets a series of situations that they must deal with. This is certainly the case with Conan, Elric, Leiber's duo, and Vance's Cugel. The Hobbit and Zelazny's Amber series have a longer arc, but are still just adventure yarns of discovery and exploration approached from two different angles (one an "everyman," the other a godlike immortal). I would say that NONE of the characters are particularly interesting...what IS interesting are the ACTIONS they take in pursuit of their goals and interests which are (for the most part) "adventure oriented."
Originally the D&D game (and the AD&D game that codified its many supplements) was meant to allow players to experience fantasy adventure with the character as the vehicle, the asymmetry of PC effectiveness being intended to both emulate different fantasy tropes (adjusted for playability...for example, no wizards with sword) and to more tightly bind the players together in a cooperative team. THAT was the game. Every step towards character customization as a foundational building block (i.e. as opposed to organic growth that comes with time and experience) is a distraction from that purpose.
If you don't like that the character classes present in the game don't meet your aesthetics you can A) create character classes that do (though this may change the game in ways the designer would not have considered favorable) or B) play a different game that has aesthetics you prefer. For me, I find both those options preferable to watering down the core design focus of a splendid, functional game, solely to meet the demands of disgruntled players who can't get on-board with the proposed setting of the game.
But that's me. You do you, man.
I don't know what the hell this post has to do with Appendix N, which seems like derailing here, but…
DeleteI'll make a blanket statement and I'll build on JB's words: "Customization promotes an inward-facing disposition. Excessive options for character choice encourages players to focus on themselves, their own individual needs and wants, distracting from the objectives of play."
JB is a very nice fellow. I am not, so let me translate what "inward facing" means: that those who are more interested in themselves than they are in furthering a "common goal of surviving" are basically selfish, self-oriented pricks. Plain-spoken.
Thus, Timothy, to answer your question, why is one correct and the other is not… it is because—though I wouldn't expect an American to understand this, in a world where bombing the shit out of people and killing them has to be framed to them in language that describes how they have to pay more at the pump—being a fucking selfish prick isn't INCORRECT, while being a group player is CORRECT. Just using the caps so that you're able to read the words clearly.
I'll disregard the whataboutism of "hex crawls," which again, has nothing to do with this post.
I only just realised what you are, Brennan, and why we don't get along.
Damn, it really ruins the aplomb when you mean "is" incorrect and you say the opposite. Sigh.
DeleteTimothy, when you say that character building can be the game, do you mean the type of lonely fun that all D&D players and GMs engage in? I think that is harmless enough. I'm sure JB has even had fun rolling up pregens or NPCs for modules before.
DeleteI think JB concern is where players see their individual characters as more important than the party, or where they plan for a predetermined character path which exists independently of the adventures.
Incidentally, I don't let magic-users learn spells that they haven't found while adventuring or from a teacher, and I don't use weapon proficiencies because I want characters to be able to use non-standard weapons they find, especially magic ones.
Thank you so much for your comment, Alexis. Nuff said!
DeleteI love customization... when it happens during play. It's far better for a player to earn their character's uniqueness by surviving encounters with dungeon weirdness than start out as precious snowflakes. That's why I like including options to mess with character-altering things in my adventures, whether that's polymorph pools, unique curses or blessings, or even just unique magic items and NPC allies they can only find should they choose to engage with that specific dungeon.
ReplyDeleteI agree. My son's group drank a questionable magical substance. I didn't know how to handle it, so I decided to roll up two random potions and then roll on the potion miscibility table. Turns out the results on that table aren't as bad as I thought! This was way too good a result. One of the characters now has the effect of a permanent potion of speed. I definitely didn't intend it to be a boon, and wouldn't rule that way again, but that's a pretty good "customization"!
DeleteIncidentally, some of the players got greedy, taking multiple drinks. For each subsequent roll, I imposed a severe penalty (I think I did -50 points to the roll). On a third taste, one character exploded from the inside and died. He was an elf. So it goes. Now the party is going to try to suck up to the elves who they know to have a rod of resurrection.
AD&D 2nd ed. is and allways will be the love of my rpg life. But... when we came back to the system 2 years ago after trashing 5e once and for all, it did not stand the test of time, to be honest.
ReplyDeleteThe skill system feels put on and didn't get better with the Class Guides. Still mixing high and low roles with percentual roles does not provide the feeling of real improvement compared to 1ed. I never had any problem with Thac0, not a single moment, but experiencing my players that never played AD&D 2nd ed. before, was plain enlightening. Guys who studied, who played other systems and pc games for years, had so much difficulty because of the little math it depends on. For an optimized 1e this should have been done better.
The art and the structure, the usage of color to highlight information and the early Complete Class Guides where awesome and a great addition. I never felt the system was about customization or inward facing, though. Or not as much by far as any (A)D&D edition since then.
Without the power creep with later Class books, with an easy to use skillsystem that provides skills for XPs or as background only (like Adventures Dark & Deep) and with an allways role high system like Castles & Crusades AD&D 2nd ed. could still be the one and only system for me.
Ah, so great memories. And a good time to grab some of the old books from that era. I will allways remember reading the first pages of Faiths & Avatars - to this day my favorite classic of all time.