|
Post by Gandalf Istari on Aug 3, 2005 10:54:01 GMT -5
Does anyone else find the starting percentages for thieves' skills in 1e to be rather silly? Let me explain.
Consider this quote from the DMG, pg.12:
"When a player character selects a class, this profession is assumed to be that which the character has been following previously, virtually to the exclusion of all other activities. Thus the particular individual is at 1st level of ability."
While EGG is making a point about Secondary Skills here, it is still quite applicable to the point that I want to make about thieving skills. If we assume that all of the classes have spent years under apprenticship and tutelage before becoming 1st level characters, as EGG states we should here, then does it make sense that thieving skills start out so abysmally low? If a thief has been practicing thieving for years, why does he suck so bad at his skills?
Consider the ranger's ability to track. At 1st level, they are able to track outdoors at a 90% success rate, with positive and negative modifiers being applied only for circumstantial things like weather, terrain, etc., and not due to the level of the ranger in question.
Nearly every class has things that they can do that are automatically successful, or nearly so, at 1st level, while the thief attempting to employ his skills is going to be quite likely faced with failure well more than 1/2 of the time. Magic Users' spells always work, unless they are interrupted during casting. Even if someone saves against their magic, a magic user's spells always work. There is not percentage for spell failure. Same with clerics. Paladins have obvious abilities that work right from the get go at level 1, as do rangers, bards, druids, monks, etc. But thieves are curiously stuck with a slow progression for their skills, wherein they are practically doomed to failure until at least mid level.
I can remember back in the day, players with low level thieves wouldn't even bother using some of their skills, because they were simply a recipe for disaster. Picking a pocket at level 1? No way! The chance of getting caught was so great that the skill went unused until it was at least 60% or so. Same thing with Hide in Shadows or Move Silently.
Now this leads to an interesting conundrum. If thieves are supposedly exercising their thieving skills as they level up, which results in their experience point and level gains giving them better thieving skill percentages, then how exactly is this the case if thieves aren't using their skills very much (or not at all for some skills) along the way? In other words, if a thief is scared to use his Pick Pockets until it gets high enough to where he has a better than even chance to be successful, then how exactly is his skill rising since he hasn't been using it?
I've decided to give thieves a higher starting percentage (in the range of 50-70%) for most of thier skills (with Climb staying the same), but each skill progresses much more slowly as the character gains levels. Thus, a 1st level thief might have a 60% chance to Pick a Pocket. High enough that he's willing to take the chance, but still low enough that there is danger in using his thieving skills. Rather than the skill increasing by 5 or 10 percentage points thereafter, it increases at something like 2-3% each level.
This has seemed to be working out from a few short play sessions I've run with my wife. I'm wondering if anyone else has played around with starting thief skill percentages, or finds them to be incongruous as I do?
EDIT: On retrospect, I realized this thread might have been better off in the House Rules forum, but since I wasn't particularly looking for comments on my own house rules and instead was more curious if others found the thief skill percentages too low, I posted this here. Feel free to move it if need be.
|
|
|
Post by Semaj The Silent on Aug 3, 2005 20:40:58 GMT -5
One thing I can think of is this:
As for ranger tracking ability...I grew up in the woods, and after awhile it's not hard to spot tracks and follow them. I'm no Strider, but it's an easy ability to pick up. Likewise, clerics and paladins enjoy a certain amount of...well, certainty...in their relationship with their god. Additionally, MUs practice and practice their spells until they can do it automatically.
Thieves, however, deal with all sorts of uncertainties when it comes to reality. Senor Murphy is always sticking his nose in where it's not wanted, so there's an element of uncertainty when it comes to picking pockets, etc. Observe a stage magician...it all looks so fluid, but it's only after years of practice.
From a game mechanics perspective, if you start the percentages higher, then how soon will you reach 100% in everything? The skills have to start lower to give room for development.
Interesting idea though. I've never really thought about this before.
|
|
|
Post by Gandalf Istari on Aug 3, 2005 21:14:42 GMT -5
As for ranger tracking ability...I grew up in the woods, and after awhile it's not hard to spot tracks and follow them. I'm no Strider, but it's an easy ability to pick up. Likewise, clerics and paladins enjoy a certain amount of...well, certainty...in their relationship with their god. Additionally, MUs practice and practice their spells until they can do it automatically. Thieves, however, deal with all sorts of uncertainties when it comes to reality. Senor Murphy is always sticking his nose in where it's not wanted, so there's an element of uncertainty when it comes to picking pockets, etc. Observe a stage magician...it all looks so fluid, but it's only after years of practice. I've always been under the assumption though that the thief has been under years of tutelege prior to becoming level 1, just as the fighter or the MU or the cleric has. Indeed, this is what makes them level 1 in the first place. If the thief has been practicing his skills as long as any of the other classes to get to level 1, then I honestly don't understand why his skills are so bad to start. If the stage magician makes his act look so fluid after years of practice, why should we not assume the same for the thief? Your point about the uncertainty of the thieving profession is well taken (i.e., your point about the thief constantly sticking his nose in where it doesn't belong, thus a larger amount of risk coincides, if I understand you properly), however, the fighter, the MU, the cleric, etc. do the same on a regular basis when they adventure around, raid dungeons, foil plots to kill the king or capture the princess (or successfully complete such plots, hehe). In other words, I don't think the thief class is any more of a pesky intruder into affairs that are none of their business than any of the other classes. I did address this in my post. Lets say you started a thief with a 60% chance to Pick Pockets. As I stated previously, rather than 5 or 10 percent gains in this skill each time the thief levels up, lower this progression to 2-3% each level. By 10th level, at 2% per level increase over the course of 9 levels (10-1), the thief would still only have a 80% success rate at Picking Pockets, which is exactly the percentage they end up with in 1e anyways at that level. Ultimately, the higher end of thief skill progression would stay the same, but the lower end would change. There is still room for development, because the thief progresses slower than normally. Furthermore, the thief with higher starting probabilities will, IMO, actually attempt to use his skills more often, rather than infrequently or not at all, and thus there are many more oppurtunities for fun. A thief who is afraid to use his skills until higher level is boring. A low level thief who is constantly tempted to use his skills because he has 2 to 1 odds (as compared to 7 to 1 or 8 to 1, as many of the probabilities stand now prior to 7th levels) is going to try them out more often IMO. In essence, I simply want the low level thief to actually use his skills much more than I've seen them do over the course of DMing. I think higher starting percentages can accomplish that, without really changing the game that much, without over powering thieves, and without throwing the higher end of the game out of whack or limiting the development of the class over the course of the campaign.
|
|
|
Post by Semaj The Silent on Aug 3, 2005 23:06:10 GMT -5
Actually, I was referring to Senor Murphy as in Murphy's Law: What can go wrong will go wrong and will do so at the worst possible moment.
Thieves would face this all the time: the target shifts at the last moment, thus the purse turns away...that wall wasn't as secure as it looked...those boards are squeakier than he thought...etc.
Tracks are tracks...they don't change except through climate change, thus a ranger can follow them easily. Magic spells and blessings from the gods are pretty straight forward and transcend reality. The thief has to deal with shifting variables and thus be versitile. IMHO, that's why his scores are low...he's still young and wet behind the ears.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 4, 2005 11:23:35 GMT -5
This coincides a bit with the point I wanted to make in the "player vs. PC" thread at DF, but gave up on. The way I see it, the (low) base percentages are what lazy/unimaginative players get -- the guy who just says "I try to find a trap" or "I try to pick his pocket." This represents the minimum chance for success under normal circumstances, and it is the duty of the player, then, to try to stack the odds in his favor and increase his chances for success beyond what's listed in the book. The way he does so is by providing careful and detailed descriptions of his actions. Because a low-level thief by the book is so fragile and ineffective, it's really incumbent on the player to be very sharp and on his toes -- the same as it is with a low-level magic-user (or a low level monk, but I'm not sure being sharp really helps there) -- and probably to have a bit of real-world knowledge about the activities his character is attempting (i.e. the kinds of things that would increase your odds of successfully picking a pocket or lock, or disarming a trap).
That said, in a game-dynamic that doesn't encourage that sort of detail-oriented play, where everybody wants to get on with the action as quickly as possible without spending 20 minutes on the thief player describing exactly how he goes about trying to disarm each and every poison needle trap, your suggestion seems like a perfectly good one, and would make the feel perhaps a bit more like RuneQuest, where characters usually start out around 40-50% in their 'specialty' skills but increase relatively slowly thereafter.
|
|
|
Post by Gandalf Istari on Aug 4, 2005 23:08:30 GMT -5
Actually, I was referring to Senor Murphy as in Murphy's Law: What can go wrong will go wrong and will do so at the worst possible moment. Thieves would face this all the time: the target shifts at the last moment, thus the purse turns away...that wall wasn't as secure as it looked...those boards are squeakier than he thought...etc. Doesn't the fighter or cleric (or paladin, ranger, etc.) face this same thing in combat? The guy's shield turned at the last second, he parried with his sword just in time, he ducked, etc... I'm curious if low level thieves use their skills in games that you DM.
|
|
|
Post by Gandalf Istari on Aug 4, 2005 23:14:23 GMT -5
This coincides a bit with the point I wanted to make in the "player vs. PC" thread at DF, but gave up on. The way I see it, the (low) base percentages are what lazy/unimaginative players get -- the guy who just says "I try to find a trap" or "I try to pick his pocket." This represents the minimum chance for success under normal circumstances, and it is the duty of the player, then, to try to stack the odds in his favor and increase his chances for success beyond what's listed in the book. The way he does so is by providing careful and detailed descriptions of his actions. Because a low-level thief by the book is so fragile and ineffective, it's really incumbent on the player to be very sharp and on his toes -- the same as it is with a low-level magic-user (or a low level monk, but I'm not sure being sharp really helps there) -- and probably to have a bit of real-world knowledge about the activities his character is attempting (i.e. the kinds of things that would increase your odds of successfully picking a pocket or lock, or disarming a trap). In essence, I think you might be saying here that the DM should reward the player with bonuses to his chance to use a thieving skill at low level, IF he comes up with some kind of plan rather than just saying "I pick this pocket" or "I move silently". Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaking what you mean hear. Further, as I've seen nothing in the books to suggest that thieves should make detailed plans about their capers, I'm wondering if these are simply your own musing on the subject, or if there were some Dragon articles or something that influenced your thinking on this. If I'm misconstruing your points here, let me know. You know, my lack of experience with some of the other "old school" games from back in the day is probably a real detriment to my thinking processes when it comes to considering rules for AD&D. Since I have little background with other fantasy systems, I wonder sometimes if that limits my own thinking about AD&D rules to the extent that I'm not able to think outside of the AD&D box enough. When people mention games like Runequest, etc. I'm totally clueless, hehe.
|
|
|
Post by Semaj The Silent on Aug 4, 2005 23:20:46 GMT -5
Ya know, this site is rather infamous with oldschoolers, but I find useful stuff there. Here's an interesting article someone wrote along these lines: www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/24/I personally think the DM should give bonuses to thief skills for indepth examination of the target...and I mean indepth.
|
|
|
Post by Gandalf Istari on Aug 4, 2005 23:54:13 GMT -5
Ya know, this site is rather infamous with oldschoolers, but I find useful stuff there. Here's an interesting article someone wrote along these lines: www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/24/I personally think the DM should give bonuses to thief skills for indepth examination of the target...and I mean indepth. I think if we were to apply that article to AD&D it would be off base considerably. If we think about EGG's statements pertaining to hit points and what they represent in combat, that article to my mind would seem to fly in the face of what EGG was trying to do with AD&D. Lets drop the subject of thief skills for a moment and apply that article to a fighter in combat. EGG essentially makes the point that combat in AD&D is abstracted as much as possible from individual and detailed hit systems because he wants to get on with the fun of adventuring. Thus, multiple parries, feints, blows that land on armor or shield which don't penetrate, etc. are all assumed to be going on during the combat round. Would we offer the fighter bonues to hit if he keeps asking questions about his opponents fighting style, armor weaknesses, etc.? No, because EGG abstracted combat to the point that he did so that combat could be reasonably played out in relative short amounts of time (as distinct from the time it can take to play a war game, for instance). The multitude of variables that can and do happen in a combat situation are simply assumed to occur, with a simple mechanic in place to account for them. Personally I'd have to say that moving thieving skills too far from the abstract to some kind of exercise in description and detail cuts against the gaming philosophy that Gygax was shooting for. Don't get me wrong, seeing a player of a thief character planning out a caper and coming up with ingenious ideas on how to steal from others is great, and I'd be glad to award bonuses for players playing well. But I don't see many differences between the fighter fighting an opponent and a thief trying to ad hoc pick someones pocket. The fighter has to deal with a tremendous number of variables to be successful in combat, just as the thief does when he decides to use a thieving skill. If we were to begin taking thieving skills into the detail necessary to avoid a purely mechanical resolution of them, then why wouldn't we apply this thinking to the rest of the game as a whole? Furthermore, even if we don't want to make thieving skills purely a matter of description and planning and still want to rely on dice to ultimately adjudicate the outcome of thieving attempts, why should we give the thief bonuses to his attempts at thieving simply because he asks alot of questions and seeks details about his "opponent." If we go that route, shouldn't we encourage the fighter to role play in that manner as well? Why would be willing to accept such an abstract system for combat resolution, while at the same time seeking to employ a different, more complicated and detailed solution to thieving skills? If we aren't worried about each different parry, feint, armor weakness, etc. in combat, why would we talk about such details as the mark turning away from the pick pocket, the purse turning away, the floor boards not being as silent as originally thought, the wall not being as secure? At that point aren't we moving away from a level of abstraction that is going to slow down game play, if used on a regular basis? I think that's imposing something on the game system thats not really inherent to it in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Semaj The Silent on Aug 5, 2005 0:05:17 GMT -5
To answer your earlier question: yeah, low level thieves in my games use their skills. They need it. ;D
Actually, there are times when fighters (combatants in general) can get bonuses for special situations in combat...prone targets, targets caught in a web, etc. There can be bonuses and penalties to all class skills based upon circumstances. I would let the players go wild with this, but it's viable.
I brought up that article because of his description of close examination. Actually, that sort of behavior would drive me nuts if one of my players did that all the time.
In short, AD&D doesn't have to be a game of abstracts. It can focus down if the player and DM need to focus it down for their own reasons.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 5, 2005 1:10:44 GMT -5
Without following Semaj's link, I'll hazard a guess that it's to that Eric Wujcik article about how he played a thief in D&D and never rolled the dice. That's one of my favorite articles (and EW is one of my rpg heroes), and describes exactly what I'm talking about, and yes I would tend to apply that same principle to combat, at least within reason -- I wouldn't let the player describe his specific swings and feints and whatnot, because those are subsumed in the mechanics of the system, but I would allow a player who was sufficiently aware of his environment to perhaps discover and utilize additional not-immediately-obvious tactical options (a piece of furniture that can be used to trip the bad-guy, a knocked-over armoire that might distract him, a hanging tapestry that might be pulled down onto the bad guys' head, etc.). I really HATE when combat comes down to the player and the monster standing there trading d20 rolls each round until somebody runs out of hit points, and will do whatever it takes to encourage players to think and act outside of that box -- they should always be trying to come up with trick maneuvers to trip or blind or distract their opponents, back them into corners or off ledges, and so forth, and if they aren't they'd better bet the bad guys will be.
The big thing to me is that the players should be actively mentally engaged at all times, and should never fall into the mindless routine of rolling dice and waiting for things to happen instead of making them happen. When the player's mind isn't actively engaged, when he's just sitting back and letting the dice determine the outcome, then he's a passive observer rather than an active participant and might as well not be there at all, and this, at least in my experience, is when players start getting bored.
Of course there can be too much of a good thing -- players slowing down the game by asking ridiculously trivial questions and trying to 'game' unreasonable advantages, making everybody else sit around not doing anything at all -- which is why this is a skill that must be honed with practice and experience, just like any other. A totally novice player won't instantly become an expert just by asking endless questions or giving super-detailed descriptions, he'll just annoy everybody and slow the game down. The trick is asking the right questions and giving the right descriptions.
|
|
|
Post by Jerry Mapes on Aug 5, 2005 1:38:15 GMT -5
I had never seen that article. Yup EW is one of my tops when it comes to RPGs. I am an Amber Fan afterall.
I think the article really hits home. I too have a now 9th lvl Human Thief, one of my few high level characters. He had good rolls except for hit points. EW's approach is basically what i did too. Anything i could do to avoid the fight or trap i would do it. If i couldnt do it then i would do whatever i could to CHEAT. Not in the dice roll sense but cheat the fight. Like those examples by Foster. Back em over a ledge, pull a curtain on them, toss pepper or lime in thier face and that was only IF and I mean IF lying thru my pearlywhites (in character) to the NPC.
Yeah the thief has a tough row to hoe at low levels but the way i always understood it was this way. Look at the Ages of starting characters for the classes. IIRC Thieves start out at 1st level very very young compared to most other classes. When Gary spoke about the thieves guilds he made it pretty clear that yes thses kids started out very young, 5 or 6 yrs old as beggers and grab and runs, it wasnt till they reached IIRC 16 that they got to be a true beginning thief. Zero-First level they got their starting stats. (obvious i know)
I think the starting numbers could be bumped and the progresson method you listed, used. I woldnt have aproblem with it. But i have to remember too that the Thief wasnt around till much later in the game development. Maybe it was simply that since he was a late comer to the party, he didnt get the full benefits that those at the beginning got. As much as I love a good thief in the group, I still can live without them. We did it for yrs in the LBBs.
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Aug 5, 2005 9:18:31 GMT -5
Starting % points for thieving abilities reflects the concept of the GAME (relatable characters). You start out a novice and improve as you gain experiance. Just as a monk starts with a crappy AC that improves over time so does the thief improve his chances of detecting traps, moving silently etc. This gives a since of movement and drastic improvement. Being in a party (a member of 5-8 usually right?) is what allows the thief to survive at these levels.
When trying to use learned skills at a task, sure sometimes when you first start it takes longer then when you try not to use learned skills. But the advantage to using the learned skills shows
The idea is for the player to notice a marked improvement over time. And to depend on his judgement and wits (not some super-hero god like sneaking powers). Sure they get those abilities at 12th or so, but by then the character is facing new challanges that are equal to those faced at low levels, still requiring the same amount of creative thinking and careful action.
The answer to the question is simple: relatability. At first level all players have to be able to picture themselves doing these things. Otherwise you feel like your watching your PC rather then being your PC. As you slowly gain new skills you can continue to relate to your PC. Incidently, the reason players often prefer playing low level PCs is for this very reason. Once you get too high its difficult to put yourself into that super hero role. 15th vs 5th...you know what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by Gandalf Istari on Aug 5, 2005 14:13:03 GMT -5
Without following Semaj's link, I'll hazard a guess that it's to that Eric Wujcik article about how he played a thief in D&D and never rolled the dice. That's one of my favorite articles (and EW is one of my rpg heroes), and describes exactly what I'm talking about, and yes I would tend to apply that same principle to combat, at least within reason -- I wouldn't let the player describe his specific swings and feints and whatnot, because those are subsumed in the mechanics of the system, but I would allow a player who was sufficiently aware of his environment to perhaps discover and utilize additional not-immediately-obvious tactical options (a piece of furniture that can be used to trip the bad-guy, a knocked-over armoire that might distract him, a hanging tapestry that might be pulled down onto the bad guys' head, etc.). I really HATE when combat comes down to the player and the monster standing there trading d20 rolls each round until somebody runs out of hit points, and will do whatever it takes to encourage players to think and act outside of that box -- they should always be trying to come up with trick maneuvers to trip or blind or distract their opponents, back them into corners or off ledges, and so forth, and if they aren't they'd better bet the bad guys will be. I agree with this, and to me this is all just part of playing the game. So I'm not arguing against any of this kind of roleplaying at all. Indeed, this stuff is the meat and drink of good gaming IMO. Mostly I was at odds with Semaj's post in which he was justifying thief skills starting so low because there are so many variables (i.e., the mark shifting position at the wrong moment, the purse moving a bit, etc.). To me, these variables are already part of the abstraction that the percentage for thieving skills represents, just as hit points, the "to hit" roll, and the long combat round (1 minute) are supposed to represent numerous dodges, parries, feints, etc. When I consider magic users, I can understand why they start out so weak, because in the long run they are going to be powerful if they survive. This contrasts nicely with the fighter, who starts off much stronger than the MU, grows in power very fast, but plateaus whle the MU will continue to grow in power for many levels. Where is the thief in all of this? He starts off nearly as weak as the MU, but in the long run he has no where near the power. Granted, he gains levels pretty fast at first, but what do the levels really mean when it comes down to relative power amongts the classes and enjoyment of playing the class? Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that each class needs to be balanced against the other. Fighters starting strong but perhaps taking a back seat to MU's (or even clerics, druids, rangers, paladins, etc.) at higher levels is fine, because the fighter has the benefit of greater power early on and relatively fast advancement as compared to these other classes. Ultimately I'm simply trying to think about the thief and where he fits in to the game, in terms of the player enjoying playing one, and in terms of the thief character making the game fun as the campaign progresses. To me, while each class doesn't have to be of the same power level, each class should have a role to play somewhere along the way. But the thief is overshadowed his whole career. Demihumans at lower levels can do some of the things thieves can do, while spells at higher levels can negate the need to even have a thief. So, if his skills are so low and overshadowed at low levels, and obsolete or nearly so at higher levels, where does that leave the thief?
|
|
|
Post by Gandalf Istari on Aug 5, 2005 14:27:08 GMT -5
Yeah the thief has a tough row to hoe at low levels but the way i always understood it was this way. Look at the Ages of starting characters for the classes. IIRC Thieves start out at 1st level very very young compared to most other classes. When Gary spoke about the thieves guilds he made it pretty clear that yes thses kids started out very young, 5 or 6 yrs old as beggers and grab and runs, it wasnt till they reached IIRC 16 that they got to be a true beginning thief. Zero-First level they got their starting stats. (obvious i know) Well, according to the DMG pg.12, the fighter is the lowest aged class to start for nearly every race (elves being the one exception). As far as what age the thief starts actually learning his thieving skills, I personally would draw a page from EGG's Greyhawk novels, in which the main protagonist Gord is tutored almost immediately by his beggar superiors once he is made part of the group. Gord starts the novel at age 12, and is shortly thereafter being trained in thieving skills by the Beggar's Guild. "[Gord's]...experience in the Beggarmaster's cadre gave Gord training in all forms of thievery and allied skills, so that he has considerable skill added to natural talent by the time when he must venture out on his own..." -from Saga of Old City, pg. 350 Also, EGG's Gord character was nearly a direct rip of The Gray Mouser from Leiber, and having read alot bunch of those stories recently I recall somewhere Leiber describing the training of young thieves as starting young. I don't have a reference offhand for that though. Leiber's Guild of Thieves seems IMO to be the direct influence upon EGG for his thief class in AD&D, and for the prominence of thieve's guilds in Greyhawk, so looking to Leiber in this instance seems justified to me. So, all in all, thieves are not the youngest starting class, and I'd say a good case could be made that they start their training ealier than 16.
|
|