A few thoughts on continual rewards

One of the things I learned during my GURPS game was just how brilliant the regular measured reward system used in D&D is.

D&D hands out some cookie, experience, a new level, a new spell, magic items, something at every sessions and this is a powerful incentive to continue the game for longer.

While GURPS can be played this way (c.f Dungeon Fantasy) its not the default play. You often get rewards based on what ought to be there rather than Gygaxian Naturalism. This lack of reward, smaller experience awards (1-5 matters but it feels paltry) , less magic items and less treasure takes away a big incentive to play longer.

This can lead to more player boredom , shorter campaigns and more a tendency to "move onto something else" as happened to me . This isn't bad necessarily, games can go on to long and it can even be a real plus especially in todays entertainment option rich world

Still if a longer old fashioned game is whats desired, well its going to require some accomodation

I think its also why GURPS, while an excellent system (been in the world for 26 years) has never reached the popularity of D&D. Its fun but its not the fun most players are looking for.

Dungeon Fantasy of course works to correct this and does a decent job of it, but its still GURPS and while its a loving tribute, its also in my opinion a bit snide too.

I guess its an issue of the Right Tool for the Right Job. Use D&D to play D&D, Use GURPS to play GURPS

64 pages of feats is a bit much

Yes, 64 pages. Thats 12pt text only , estimated after condensation BTW, its a little over that now and not 100% complete.


Much as I like 3x and enjoy writing for it, comes a point in which a man needs to take a hint from his players (who are suggesting they might have a big group who would enjoy 2e ) and roll back.

When all those pages are only part of one subsystem, basically just the WOTC feats plus a few 3rd party feats and a few homebrew feats. and it doesn't even include the Pathfinder feats, maybe its just a bit much.

Myth, Older Editions were more lethal at low level

Yes with a small caveat (3d6 in order, random HP at L1 instead of maximum and save or die stuff ) its a myth. In fact the opposite is true

Lets use B/X (Lab Lord) Fighter vs Orc as a demo. Note that i am using 3e style AC for simplicity

L1 BX Fighter Gets +1 to hit and damage (from STR) 9 HP (from Con) has AC +6 (mail and shield)

his Orc (as per LL) is AC+4 HP5 and does 1d8 with a to hit bonus of zero

This means our fighter can survive 1 or two strokes from the orc and baring bad luck, will be able to drop his orc, probably in one blow


Now of PF Fighter

He is +4to hit, +2 on damage (from feat, level and STR) has 12 HP with Con and AC +8 (scale, large shield, dex +1)

his Orc (as per SRD) is +3 to AC, 6 HP +5 to hit and does 2d4+4 --


This means while the chance of the fighter hitting and dropping the Orc are higher, the reverse is also true . Its easier for the orc to hit the fighter

Also while 1 good roll (either a good die roll, or a crit) can drop our PF fighter , the B/X fighter can always survive one good shot.

And yes this extra lethality pretty much carries over to all the low level monsters.

The only real mitigation in Pathfinder is the "die at minus 10 and stabilize rules" and of course the presence of more magical healing, the 1st of which is an old school rule and the second can be added via healing potions.

Now if anyone is wondering where that myth probably originated. I'd guess three things

#1 There was less effort at scaling encounters. Often as not no one cared, if you were dumb enough to mess with something bigger than you and couldn't get away, well ya died.

#2 Many of the old classic modules, even such things as the Keep on the Borderlands were Meat Grinders

#3 The hobby was pretty new and many DM's were unskilled and as such did not know how to DM in a way to challenge rather than wipe out players with bad luck.

However, myth or no myth, with a few key exceptions, older editions were less lethal mechanically.

So if you Like E6/E8 so much Why Old School?

Well its a fair question with a simple answer. Old School is my (the DM's) game E6/E8 is more theirs (the players)

Old school provides the classic D&D experience I remember. Its a game of imagination and exploration and roleplaying and combat and treasure of course . More importantly its wild and woolly and personal in ways that the modern rules rigorous games are not.

E6/E8 OTOH is a lot of fun (or at least D&D is at those levels IME as I haven't played with the extra feats) but its modernness can be off putting and its a game with builds and optimization and a host of things that change the flavor of the game.

Its analogous to say reading a print books vs reading on a screen. They are both reading but the book is simply different.

And in case you ask, assuming I run D&D of some kind this year (its not certain and in fact I might even run GURPS or Angel) it will probably be E6/E8 . The likely players (they are 2e ear guys) seem to like this idea a bit better and while maybe its not as cool as introducing them to S&W of LL, it will still be fun.

And having fun is the whole point anyway.

In defense of 2e

I saw an anti 2e rant here on the Gentlemen Gamers excellent blog. As 2e was "My D&D" the one I have had the most fun playing over the years I have to defend it.

To each of his points.

#1 Loss of classes.

The only classes that was really dropped was the Assassin, which came back not once but twice (1st in the Complete Thieves Handbook and later as the Assassin of the Scarlet Brotherhood) and the horrbily unblanced Cavalier and Barbarians which also returned in several forms .

Personally vis a vis the Assassin class I could have cared less they dropped as in my opinion the class simply was lackluster and had no specific role in the game As far as the Illusionist, the specialty mage was not quite as flavorful but it did the job just fine.

While Gentlemen Gamer did not mention the Half Orc per se, I suspect that its loss was something that annoyed both us. It just wasn't a real spoiler and again, it returned too.

#2 The idea of the specialty priest and the specialty wizard were and are good ones, the flaw lies in consolidating the spell-lists.

Well I have to disagree. The rules were simpler,easier to understand and just as playable. The specialty priests were actually more interesting than their 1e counterparts. The specialist mage was just fine and yeah sure some of the thunder was stolen by the generalists (no more Alter Reality for instance) the loss was minor compared to the gain in ease of play and rules coherence.


#3 In short, where others see a "simplified", "cleaned up", version of AD&D, I see a waste of squandered possibilities and horrid implementation.

While I would have enjoyed some more of the Gygaxian Weirdness (like the lost Mountebank class) too I frankly don't see what lost. The 2e rules simply were better thought out and maintained basically the same play feel. They were good enough ...

#4 The Code of Ethics

I have to grant him this point with a caveat. Oe was written by and for middle aged men (Gary was 36 when it was published , as old as many of us old schoolers are now ) and 1e was assumed to be college or older game . What TSR discovered though is that it was kids who were often playing it. I started at 11 with Holmes (which had nothing much offensive) and this was quite common .

And unlike the college kids who had their own money, guess who paid the bills. Yep,you gussed it Mom and Dad. TSR probably figured if a code of ethics would placate the wobblers and make more sales this was the right thing for a corporation to do.And yes I agree that some of the flavor was lost (2e was kind of bland) well we players could simply make things up.

As I figure it 2e took AD&D into the bigger world and provided millions of players with a really fun game which is all that any game could hope to do.

And while GG may have hated the system I had some of the best gaming of my life in the late 80's and late 90's and so I say, long live 2e.

How Many Orcs can a Fighter Chop if a Fighter Could Chop Orcs Chop Chop

One of the most interesting facets to compare about editions is how the high level fighter as relates to the world around them.

In earlier variations of D&D a high level fighter while scary was was still recognizable as human instead of a second string member of the Justice League.

Let me explain

Assuming Max at Level 1 , Greyhawk Average Hit points and a 16 Con such a fighter in B/X or LL has has around 78 A 2e fighter would have around 88 hit points and a Pathfinder Fighter has around 121

In each case Orc still has about 6hp.

One on one the difference is small, the orc has no chance. However the big differences here come in fighting multiple foes,

For B/X or LL guy a gang of orcs is scary, say a troop of 20. LL guy will get aced around Orc 17,

late 2e guy will be able to drop around 80 (he can kill 5 per round)

and 3x guy assuming similar “Orcish wave” tactics and decent feats even against the nastier Pathfinder orcs can get near to 200!

Even at super high levels LL guy can only manage another 5 or 6, while 2e guy gets another 25 or 30.

Whats even more “whoa!” is that Pathfinder guy in addition to being able to handle an extra hundred or so he can extend this combat ability to much bigger nasties and is able to cleave his way through things like bugbears and even ogres.

At "near max" level 19 in Pathfinder with decent magic items, no reasonable amount of orcs are actually a threat as even when they hit only 1 time in 20, most of the attacks bounce of the DR 8 (Adamantium Full Plate!)

Now don't get me wrong here, this is not a criticism of 3x or Pathfinder there is a place for both style of gaming in my book, its why we support Pathfinder and Labyrinth Lord alike. Both are a heck of a lot of fun.

What it comes down to is making sure you select the right game for your group and most importantly, having fun.

What Abilities Should an Old School Fighter Have

Its a trickier question than it seems.

The obvious things access to the all weapons and armor and having the best combat abilities.

To my mind the best published fighters are the Late 2e one and the Pathfinder one (with only slight moods)

The Late 2e fighter got

Access to Weapon Specialization
Usually had a Style Specialization (a few slots here were awesome)
Multiple attacks
Good saves especially at high level
and by the time players options came out doubled attacks vs 1hd or less monsters

The Pathfinder fighter can be seen in all its glory here and it is bar none my favorite of all the D20 fighters.

If you want a "great fighter thats still just a regular guy" You won't go wrong with the Labyrinth Lord fighter. Its solid and playable but even at high level still just an ordinary guy.

If used with Fighters with Flair and a good set of background rules, you get a very nice fighter that is quick to roll up, down to earth but still fun and easy to play.