Origins of D&D ideas: monsters, classes, spells, etc.

[Machpants]

Yeah in now way did the DnD/1E thief cover that. No magic for a start! However the original thief was very uninspiring, and lacked anything useful skills wise cos their chance of success was so, so low. At least my first PC with his 2 HP and one (randomly rolled) spell could do something useful, even if it was bribing goblins with joy rides on his floating disk!

[geordie racer]

joyrides on his floating what !?! oh - disk

[Machpants]

LOL sorry it is my Kiwi accent, easy mistake to make

[jmucchiello]

The AD&D thief was never quite at the right power level. If you had a DM who never let you get a backstab, you were also only just a step above the MU in combat ability.

[finarvyn]

The AD&D thief was never quite at the right power level. If you had a DM who never let you get a backstab, you were also only just a step above the MU in combat ability.

This was always a tricky thing to DM. Without the thief, D&D combat can be quite abstract and location of the combatants isn't that important -- you were either in melee (front row) or shooting spells/missiles (back row). The addition of the thief was the first step on the road to tactical combat, since now you had to be more careful about character placement so that the thief could maneuver strategically to get his back attack. A subtle change but a distinct one.

And I agree that the thief was always low power and not quite in balance with the other classes. Not quite enough armor or hit points to go toe-to-toe with beasties and no magic to blast from afar.

[geordie racer]

The AD&D Thieves I've played had more in common with the unfortunate Slith in Lord Dunsany's Book of Wonder than any of the other Appendix N thieves. Don't think I ever got one to 3rd Level.

[jmucchiello]

The AD&D thief was never quite at the right power level. If you had a DM who never let you get a backstab, you were also only just a step above the MU in combat ability.

This was always a tricky thing to DM. Without the thief, D&D combat can be quite abstract and location of the combatants isn't that important -- you were either in melee (front row) or shooting spells/missiles (back row).

Funny, I played with miniatures and character placement on a grid in 80s. It was those DMs that just described stuff with no visual reference who usually had trouble giving the thief his proper backstabs.

The addition of the thief was the first step on the road to tactical combat, since now you had to be more careful about character placement so that the thief could maneuver strategically to get his back attack. A subtle change but a distinct one.

The first step to tactical combat in a game that was derived from tactical combat???? WHAT? Didn't Chainmail encourage miniatures and facing in 74 when there was no thief??? That is a skewed view of things I think.

[GnomeBoy]

The first step to tactical combat in a game that was derived from tactical combat???? WHAT? Didn't Chainmail encourage miniatures and facing in 74 when there was no thief??? That is a skewed view of things I think.

One has to conclude (if one is me), that almost everyone tends to think the style of game they started with is the "right" way to play, and everything else is either a variant at best or a bastardization at worst.

Pretty early on we discovered that a map or a grid and movement thereon minimized arguments over who was were and when. It is -- of course -- the right way to play!

[jmucchiello]

Pretty early on we discovered that a map or a grid and movement thereon minimized arguments over who was were and when. It is -- of course -- the right way to play!

Right on. But Chainmail was the original combat system.

[finarvyn]

The addition of the thief was the first step on the road to tactical combat, since now you had to be more careful about character placement so that the thief could maneuver strategically to get his back attack. A subtle change but a distinct one.

The first step to tactical combat in a game that was derived from tactical combat???? WHAT? Didn't Chainmail encourage miniatures and facing in 74 when there was no thief??? That is a skewed view of things I think.

Oh, I'm well aware of the history of the game.

Let me backtrack a little. Our group played Chainmail before OD&D came out, so we were aware of how miniatures wargaming worked. In '75 when we discovered OD&D we did it without miniatures, even though it was suggested that the combat system from Chainmail could be used, because we immediatly went to the "alternate" system which was abstracted and less Chainmail-like. So, while OD&D has roots in Chainmail we didn't play it like a miniatures game back then. The DM had his map and the players had their imagination. I still run most of my games that way.

Often we would simply describe a situation, sometimes sketch a room on a sheet of paper and use dice and other trinkets as minis, but not using inches scale and such and rarely using actual miniatures. I'm sure I don't speak for many others at the time, but we saw OD&D as a whole new thing and not just an extension of Chainmail or "miniatures warfare in the dungeon." At the time things like flanking really didn't have much impact on the game, but then when the thief came into play suddenly the facing of individual figures became significant in order to apply backstab rules.

I assume that some others played OD&D as a miniatures warfare game from the onset. My group wasn't one of those.

[finarvyn]

Pretty early on we discovered that a map or a grid and movement thereon minimized arguments over who was were and when. It is -- of course -- the right way to play!

Right on. But Chainmail was the original combat system.

Maybe. This is a point somewhat under debate, mostly because of the use of "alternate" to describe the traditional d20 combat charts in OD&D.

Many have suggested that Dave Arneson began with Chainmail and migrated from there to other combat systems, but many of his players of the day don't remember Chainmail rules ever being used and Dave was always a little cagey about his answer to that question. Gary certainly played Chainmail before OD&D (since he co-wrote it) but there is some question as to whether he used actually Chainmail once OD&D came into being, as he favored the "alternate" system from early on. Certainly most of the folks I knew in the 1970's immediately began using the "alternate" system when they first began playing OD&D. (This is, of course, a small sample size and not intended to be a definitive answer for anything.)

OD&D references to Chainmail may simply be a bone thrown to the folks who played with the Fantasy Supplement in pre-OD&D days and not actually a reference to the way that OD&D was played. So, the "Chainmail was the original combat system for OD&D" statement may be more of an urban legend than actul fact.

[DCCfan]

I started in the late 70's and the people I played with only used a mini or token if an argument started about who was where. We usually had at least one player mapping the dungeon as we explored. That always helped us visualize the rooms and how they connected together. I can also remember sketching a room once in awhile if it was big and had a lot of stuff going on... waterfall, pillars, ledges, pits, etc. I don't remember chainmail at all.

[smathis]

If we want to talk about minis, grids and D&D, here's a doozy.

When I was a youngun, our copy of AD&D had some measurements in inches -- as I recall. I myself had a decent amount of experience in wargaming. But of the board variety. Like Gettysburg and such. Not minis on terrain with thread and rulers.

So our group, ranging in age from 10-12 or so and having no one to "learn" this roleplaying stuff from, assumed that the double ticks meant yards or something. So when we saw 3'' in the book, we assumed it meant somewhere in the ballpark of 9 feet.

And how, one might ask, did we reach this conclusion?

Well, we had a discussion about it during a game. And we reached the conclusion it was because D&D was written by a bunch of British guys. And that was the way British people noted meters.



Kids.

[jmucchiello]

OD&D references to Chainmail may simply be a bone thrown to the folks who played with the Fantasy Supplement in pre-OD&D days and not actually a reference to the way that OD&D was played. So, the "Chainmail was the original combat system for OD&D" statement may be more of an urban legend than actul fact.

All of this is splitting hairs. I'm sure Gary played Greyhawk games before OD&D was physically written using the Chainmail combat system. So whether he stopped using Chainmail later is irrelevant. Chainmail was the original combat system. 1e AD&D lists all distances in inches for tactical use. I was calling you out on how the thief "added" tactical combat to a game derived from a tactical combat game. You can't argue that.

[GnomeBoy]

I started in the late 70's and the people I played with only used a mini or token if an argument started about who was where. ... I can also remember sketching a room once in awhile if it was big and had a lot of stuff going on... waterfall, pillars, ledges, pits, etc. I don't remember chainmail at all.

Yes. This describes my situation as well.

I know Joseph has said he's designing DCC RPG to eschew miniatures and tactical minis usage. While I don't see re-grafting 3.x's combat grid elements back onto DCC, I will use sketches ("not to scale") and minis, just to avoid needing to remind people of what's where, and save myself from "that one guy" who thinks he can crisscross the room multiple times in a round to do everything there is to do and not let anyone else play. Surely, I'm not the only DM who's had "that one guy" in a game...?

[finarvyn]

I was calling you out on how the thief "added" tactical combat to a game derived from a tactical combat game. You can't argue that.

Put that way: no, I cannot.

[geordie racer]

Daniel 'Delta' Collins is looking into the origins of thieves learning from scrolls in Appendix N on his blog:
-Grey Mouser
-Cugel the Clever
- analysis

[Noodles]

I'm saying nothing new here, but to me a 'thief' is something anyone can be. I prefer my D&D with no thief class allowed. To me the game is more fun when traps are handled with something more than a die roll and being stealthy can be attempted by anyone.

[GnomeBoy]

... traps are handled with something more than a die roll and being stealthy can be attempted by anyone.

As I understand it, that right there is a pretty accurate take of things DCC RPG is setting up regarding 'thieves' and 'thiefly' abilities...

[Noodles]

... traps are handled with something more than a die roll and being stealthy can be attempted by anyone.

As I understand it, that right there is a pretty accurate take of things DCC RPG is setting up regarding 'thieves' and 'thiefly' abilities...

Good to hear!