Maladaptive RPG behaviors (PL, nocker, stay out)

[zugschef]

"i wish to report a burglary."

[shadzar]

And how is the thief not a fighting man? Those are general categories, which have subcategories (ie, the actual classes) within them. Hint: the Hobbit class is a Thief class.

maybe you need to learn to read?

read the quoted portion of the book as i am NOT going to copy/paste the entire text illegally. then get a copy of that book and you can read further and tell me exactly what page number you see hobbits listed as thieves?

the term HOBBIT is mentioned on and ONLY on page 6, in the quoted portion i provided.

the following words do NOT appear at all in the book:

thief
thieves
rogue
subclass
sub-class
subcategory
subcategories
race

[squirrelloid]

And how is the thief not a fighting man? Those are general categories, which have subcategories (ie, the actual classes) within them. Hint: the Hobbit class is a Thief class.

maybe you need to learn to read?

read the quoted portion of the book as i am NOT going to copy/paste the entire text illegally. then get a copy of that book and you can read further and tell me exactly what page number you see hobbits listed as thieves?

Apparently you've never heard of fair use. You're nowhere close to the limit. But whatever.

Clearly its not the basic D+D I'm familiar with, but I'm not actually convinced it's a playable game yet!

And requiring me to own a copy of a rare and mostly useless publication is beyond the realm of reasonable. The burden is on you to prove there is no thief role, by that name or otherwise (see end of post), because that is an extraordinary claim given the subsequent history of the game.

the term HOBBIT is mentioned on and ONLY on page 6, in the quoted portion i provided.

How do you play one then? This doesn't sound like a complete product. I mean, it just told you that you can play one, and even told you something about them, so surely it must have some rules to cover that. Why can't you play one as a magic-user? Why are they fighting men? These are apparently questions that go unanswered because the hobbit is otherwise Sir Not Appearing in This Book.

If Hobbits are just a MTP race, then clearly they can do burglary things by MTP as well, because we're playing MTP here since there *are no rules* that cover them at all.

the following words do NOT appear at all in the book:
...
race

So what are elves, dwarves, and hobbits then? If they aren't classes and they aren't races...

--------

How about "lock" or "trap"? Do those appear in the book? Who has abilities that deal with them?

How about "burglar"?

At the end of the day they don't need to be called "thieves" specifically or given any separate title at all, they just need to do thiefly things. If anyone can do any of open locks, find and disarm traps, sneak around (hide/move silently), pick pockets, tumble, backstab, or bluff, then the role is clearly there. It doesn't even need to be all of those (note the use of 'or' instead of 'and'). Putting a name to the role later does not magically make it not a role in the original rules, because if you have access to abilities that do some of those things, you can totally play one.

[Wrathzog]

Welcome back, Shadzar, you beautiful snowflake.

[shadzar]

Clearly its not the basic D+D I'm familiar with

i dont know dumbass? learn to read maybe?

.....

i gave the relative bit again in case you are too stupid to fucking find the actual post on the previous page.

do you have that book?

why not do your own research and find the 100 or so other posts on this forum that mention D&D in its various editions like was also previously said and get an education about it, then read the post where you started being stupid at, and then see what was said.

TOZ, Cynic? (maybe Radiant Phoenix?) and a few others have given the full text on characters from that book, which is only 1/2 page, so no i am not posting any more as it is such a small amount it would likely violate fair-use to post the other 2 paragraphs on "Characters".

you cant discuss something you know nothing about and not willing to learn about. at least when i post about 3rd it is something from experience or memory, or i ASK what the hell some stupid ass feat does.

again, the game did NOT have rogues, they were added later. why this is important to the thread anymore i would have to go back and read my post now as you have side-trekked the entirety of the thread because you are too stupid to accept you are wrong and admit it.

ahh the post still shows in the "Thread Review", so the fact thieves didnt exist was in reference to "trap options"

so lets read back shall will without having to page flip through the thread...

the rogue was NEVER intended to exist, because ALL PCs were the grave-robbers as adventure and treasure was what the game was about as opposed to historical re-enactment of the mini-wargames.

I'm pretty sure my D+D box includes a thief class.

now read this post carefully and learn where your stupidity in reading lies and then figure out your own damn mistakes and fuck off.

[Foxwarrior]

I like the part where "NEVER" means "not immediately".

[shadzar]

I like the part where "NEVER" means "not immediately".

we dont have any proof Holmes didnt add too much, nor that rogues were added to distance the original from Arneson. CAnt ask either Gygax or Arneson at this juncture, but NEITHER had rogues in the game at first as, well, as was said.. it was about being graverobbers, or the current term "dungeon delvers".

the rogue is still superfluous as a class, like many others as they are all and only variants of the base 3 classes first created.

rewriting the cosmology you can remove or combine divine and arcane magic similar to Conan and you just have casters and non-casters and leave "healers" to be NPCs..and the game still works.

remember Gygax wanted to make a game making company, not a company that makes a game. D&D was supposed to be a one-shot thing until it took or like a bat out of hell and sold all 5000 copies of the first print run in record time. he just followed the money, but still went on to make other types of games as did TSR.

so yeah.. what was intended is the supplement to Chainmail and that was it for D&D. i cant find an archive of the article where he or someone at TSR cites this as websites die over time, and my DMA is having loading issues.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

God damn it.

The thief class was added in Supplement I: Greyhawk, in ~Feb 1975, printed at the same time as the 2nd printing of TSR 2002 (1974)(White Box, OD&D, whatever specific niggling term Shadzar is certain to correct subsequently). The book consisted of rules used in Gygax's home campaign, and a combat system so as to eliminate the need to own Chainmail.

Hobbits: Hobbits can be either fighters or thieves, and as thieves they have better chances at doing most things (see STATISTICS REGARDING CLASSES) and are not limited to how high in levels they can progress.

Note that hobbits had a fighter level limit of 4.

So Hobbits were meant as thieves, which was a role acknowledged in Gygax's home campaign, and when Shadzar says NEVER he actually means for a few months in 1974.

[shadzar]

that is as stupid as warforged from Eberron being in EVERY fucking D&D game because 4e placed them in the core books, even though they dont fit with how everyone wants to play, but the "everything is core" mentality means you have to allow everything that doesnt fit...and not everyone lieks eberron.

WRONG

GREYHAWK, was NOT D&D, though AD&D went with it to remove Arneson, and lazy writing created Oerth (Earth) as the planet for it.

notice your own word.. SUPPLEMENT... as in shit you CAN use if you want, but NOT required to play the game.

i guess BoEF is required to play D&D since it has the D&D logo on it as well the WotC logo, so ALL players msut use it even 12 year olds? is that what you suggest?

supplements be they brown, green, blue, hardcover, etc, are just that. things you MAY add to the game, not required for it. thus a supplement is supplemental.

and all should well know by now when i speak of D&D, i speak on the core rules needed to play the game, not supplemental shit of any kind, because that is just homebrew shit sold for profit.

GREYHAWK is set IN D&D, likewise BLACKMOOR, not D&D is set in either of those (until Gary fucked it up and tried to make his own world everyone's world, and the same goes for the problems related to Realms and its canon....)

the original D&D is the 3 books, Vol. 1~3.. the rest is add-ons and not required to play.

likewise the "box set" that was mention by the person that doesn't know what Volume 1 Men & Magic is, is likely not the Immortals set, as that would not allow you to play the game exactly, and not required for them to play, but i would guess is the Moldvay/Cook version. in either case, be it Mentzer or Holmes.. the Red books or blue book is all required to paly the game, and ALL that can be called D&D, not that the rest amounts to D&D.

you are spouting off like you want to say D&D sucks because the Realms sucks.. sorry to inform you but the Realms is NOT D&D, just a part you can add to it.

GREYHAWK =/= D&D =/= BLACKMOOR

the two REQUIRE D&D, but D&D does not require them.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Like I've said before, Shadzar so embodies the No True Scotsman fallacy that I think he employs a team of workers around the clock to ensure his goalposts never stop moving. D&D is exactly what he defines it as at the moment.

Shadzar is an idiot, and this time back he's not even funny. Quit engaging him.

[squirrelloid]

You know, I asked some very basic questions because I don't own the fucking 1974 printing of a book that is so irrelevant to the hobby at this point as it might as well be non-existent. Heck, I don't own any of the OD+D print runs. I assumed those became D+D, of which I do own the first box (and which has a Thief class). FWIW, I don't consider OD+D to be the core rules to anything. I would grant that title to the 5 D+D boxed sets, or the 3 AD+D core books, or the 3 3e core books, because those are all viable editions of the game. OD+D is an irrelevancy.

Those questions I asked could easily have been answered without copying any text at all. But let's cut to the chase, since you seem to have not read anything I actually wrote and just ranted about not reproducing text some more.

How about "lock" or "trap"? Do those appear in the book? Who has abilities that deal with them?

At the end of the day they don't need to be called "thieves" specifically or given any separate title at all, they just need to do thiefly things. If anyone can do any of open locks, find and disarm traps, sneak around (hide/move silently), pick pockets, tumble, backstab, or bluff, then the role is clearly there. It doesn't even need to be all of those (note the use of 'or' instead of 'and'). Putting a name to the role later does not magically make it not a role in the original rules, because if you have access to abilities that do some of those things, you can totally play one.

That's all I want to know Shadzar. I don't care if "thief", "burglar", or any specific name for the role is used. I just want to know if the role is present. Is there a character who has access to skills that disarms traps, sneaks around, or opens locks?

[squirrelloid]

notice your own word.. SUPPLEMENT... as in shit you CAN use if you want, but NOT required to play the game.

Oh, fwiw, OD+D is just a supplement to Chainmail. It's not even playable on its own, because it has no combat system until that later supplement you're denigrating.

So if supplements don't count, OD+D is an irrelevancy and we should all go back to playing chainmail.

(Hmm.. the internets seems to think OD+D also required Avalon Hill's Wilderness Survival... I think my parents have a copy of that somewhere... Would OD+D be a supplement to that, or is that a supplement to OD+D? Is OD+D at all playable on its own merits?).

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Is there a character who has access to skills that disarms traps, sneaks around, or opens locks?

The closest is elves detecting secret doors. Otherwise it's poking around with 10' poles or throwing minions at traps. That role was the first thing added, though.

And to bring it back to the topic of the thread, grognards (particularly this level of literalist bullshit) are certainly bad for the hobby. If someone only accepts as valid an amateurishly written scant handful of nearly 40 year old pamphlets trivially available online then it's not really bringing any money into a hobby, nor providing an impetus to create product for it.

[shadzar]

Oh, fwiw, OD+D is just a supplement to Chainmail. It's not even playable on its own, because it has no combat system until that later supplement you're denigrating.

CHAINMAIL and GREYHAWK had a bit different rules for combat IIRC...but YES D&D is a supplement to CHAINMAIL, and like ALL editions of D&D starts the failing of assuming you have everything that came before it in order to play.

you dont need that avalon hill product, but legalities made it something TSR could(?) print at the time, or jsut chose not to since the box was only $5 and you could buy the other books like CHAINMAIL at the same wargame shop you bought D&D from....

ergo enter Holmes, to remove CHAINMAIL being needed to add the rules into a book package AKA Red Box set so people could purchase it all at once.

i would have to find a copy of CHAINMAIL again to see what is REALLY needed to play OD&D, but i am sure others can tel you quicker.

as for combat...

Vol 3 pg 25

LAND COMBAT
The basic system is that from CHAINMAIL.....

Melee can be conducted with the combat table given in VOLUME 1 or by the CHAINMAIL system,

so back to men and magic .....

Vol 1 Men & Magic pg 19

ATTACK MATRIX 1.: MEN ATTACKING

CHAINMAIL is NOT required to play OD&D....as this states.
__________________________
Vol 1:
-2nd level spell Wizard lock
-doors were wizard locked, barred, or gates were "secured"

-2nd level Cleric spell Find Traps
-for both mechanical or magic traps

wizards opened locks, and clerics found traps. fighting man could break down mechanically locked items such as doors, gates, treasure chests.. what have you.

EDIT: dwarves notice traps.

STRENGTH is used to open traps...

guessing bear trap type was the only kind of trap that time or something that you got caught in and could open to get out of. no signs of poison arrow traps or other mention of traps in Vol 1: Men & Magic.

Vol 2:
-trap/secret door finding wands useable by M-U only...
-intelligent swords might be able to detect traps...(if the power is rolled on the table)


did i miss any question in those two posts you asked about?

[wotmaniac]

For some reason, this particular piece of drivel jumped out from out of the rest of the drivel:

BoEF [...] has the D&D logo on it as well the WotC logo,

This is factually wrong on both counts. It doesn't even have the official "d20" stamp -- but what it actually does have is a photograph of an icosahedron (showing the "20" face), where the "d20" stamp normally would be.
Now that's some ghetto-ass shit.


<looks at thread title>
<looks at shadzar's posts>

[Mistborn]

<looks at thread title>
<looks at shadzar's posts>

See this is what this thread is for.

shadzar has been on my IL for a while so does anyone else want to write up a post about Maladaptive behaviors in RPGs that pertains to shadzar specifically.

[Previn]

<looks at thread title>
<looks at shadzar's posts>

See this is what this thread is for.

shadzar has been on my IL for a while so does anyone else want to write up a post about Maladaptive behaviors in RPGs that pertains to shadzar specifically.

A post? More like several papers I'd think.

[wotmaniac]

a dedicated forum, perhaps?

[Archmage]

It's somebody's anthropology thesis paper, at the least.

[Guyr Adamantine]

Most of the akashic records' contents pertain to Shadzar's oeuvre.