Pen & Paper - Spielsysteme > OD&D/AD&D/Klone & OSR

OSR Smalltalk

<< < (520/549) > >>

Tomas Wanderer:
Es gibt einen interessanten Absatz von Gygax dazu in "Vancian Magic Supplement" S. 47 (Es sollte - soweit ich mich erinnere - noch frühere Äußerungen von ihm dazu geben, aber ich finde sie leider gerade nicht.):

"Combat is the most frequently abused area, for here many would-be game inventors feel they have sufficient expertise to design a better system. Perhaps someone will eventually do so, but the examples to date are somewhat less than inspiring of confidence. The “critical hit” or “double damage” on a “to hit” die roll of 20 is particularly offensive to the precepts of D&D as well. Two reciprocal rules which go with such a system are seldom, if ever mentioned: 1) opponents scoring a natural 20 will likewise cause a double damage hit or critical hit upon player characters; and 2) as a 20 indicated a perfect hit, a 1 must indicate a perfect miss, so at any time a 1 is rolled on the “to hit” die, the attacker must roll to find if he or she has broken his or her weapon, dropped it, or missed so badly as to strike an ally nearby. When these additions are suggested, the matter is usually dropped, but the point must be made that whole game system is perverted, and the game possibly ruined, by the inclusion of “instant death” rules, be they aimed at monsters or characters. In the former case they imbalance the play and move the challenge which has been carefully placed into D&D. In the latter, “instant death” no longer allows participants to use judgment when playing. Certainly some monsters are capable of delivering death at a single stroke, but players know these monsters and can take precautions. If everything that is faced has an excellent chance to kill characters, they will surely die before long. Then the game loses its continuity and appeal, for lasting character identification cannot be developed."

word

Skaeg:

--- Zitat von: Tomas Wanderer am  5.01.2026 | 21:00 ---word

--- Ende Zitat ---
...  of god.
In your eyes.
Obviously.

(Lassen wir mal beiseite, dass es eben nicht um "excellent chance" geht: Witzig, dass er auch spezifisch die Krit-Regel 'runtermacht, die seine hiesigen Jünger hier als noch akzeptabel erachten.)

Vash the stampede:
Bei all dem hier geschriebenen, muss ich an das denken, was ich neulich auf Wikipedia fand, als zum kürzlich verstorben Tim Kask nachlas:

--- Zitat ---He resigned from TSR in 1980, and later revealed that he had disagreed with the creation of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. He had originally written in the foreword to Eldritch Wizardry that "D&D was meant to be a free-wheeling game, only loosely bound by the parameters of the rules." Later he wrote, "It all starting going bad with the publishing of AD&D, The Player’s Handbook. Here come the rules lawyers, the nitpickers and the homegrown experts. The fun started to leech away within months. Now there were dicta, dogma and regulations; gone were the days of guidelines."
--- Ende Zitat ---

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Kask

Vinter:

--- Zitat von: Tomas Wanderer am  5.01.2026 | 21:00 ---Es gibt einen interessanten Absatz von Gygax dazu in "Vancian Magic Supplement" S. 47 (Es sollte - soweit ich mich erinnere - noch frühere Äußerungen von ihm dazu geben, aber ich finde sie leider gerade nicht.):

"Combat is the most frequently abused area, for here many would-be game inventors feel they have sufficient expertise to design a better system. Perhaps someone will eventually do so, but the examples to date are somewhat less than inspiring of confidence. The “critical hit” or “double damage” on a “to hit” die roll of 20 is particularly offensive to the precepts of D&D as well. Two reciprocal rules which go with such a system are seldom, if ever mentioned: 1) opponents scoring a natural 20 will likewise cause a double damage hit or critical hit upon player characters; and 2) as a 20 indicated a perfect hit, a 1 must indicate a perfect miss, so at any time a 1 is rolled on the “to hit” die, the attacker must roll to find if he or she has broken his or her weapon, dropped it, or missed so badly as to strike an ally nearby. When these additions are suggested, the matter is usually dropped, but the point must be made that whole game system is perverted, and the game possibly ruined, by the inclusion of “instant death” rules, be they aimed at monsters or characters. In the former case they imbalance the play and move the challenge which has been carefully placed into D&D. In the latter, “instant death” no longer allows participants to use judgment when playing. Certainly some monsters are capable of delivering death at a single stroke, but players know these monsters and can take precautions. If everything that is faced has an excellent chance to kill characters, they will surely die before long. Then the game loses its continuity and appeal, for lasting character identification cannot be developed."

word

--- Ende Zitat ---
Der Kommentar ist für mich mehr ein Ausdruck von gekränkter Eitelkeit als eine Sorge um die Spielbalance. D&D ist/war nie ein Spiel von ausgeprägter Spielbalance. Man muss sich nur das Machtgefüge von Kämpfer und Magier anschauen. Auch die Save or Die Mechanismen waren nicht unbedingt ein Garant für ein balanciertes Spiel. Und die Implementierung des Thiefs nicht elegant. Inwiefern dann die beschrieben Crit-Hausregeln eine (nicht vorhandene) Balance zerstören, ist dann doch ein Rätsel. Ja, Gygax hat D&D erfunden und ist deshalb zurecht eine Spieldesigner-Legende. Aber auch Legenden sind nicht frei von Makeln und Irrungen. Insofern sollte man D&D-Regeln nicht grundsätzlich als in Stein gemeißelt betrachten. 

Mr. Ohnesorge:

--- Zitat von: ghoul am  5.01.2026 | 19:12 ---Kannst ihn ja durch spielen hochleveln.
Wenn du nicht spielen willst, bleibt nur RTFM. ;)

--- Ende Zitat ---

Gib‘ ihm doch einfach einen vom Level passenden Charakter.

Navigation

[0] Themen-Index

[#] Nächste Seite

[*] Vorherige Sete