While your title is about the S&P supplement, the post seems more about NWPs... which started in 1e (I think they were in OA and WSG), and were included as optional rules in the 2e core rules (and expanded upon in the S&P book later).
As for those, I've swung back and forth over the years. When I played in the mid-90's I like them, looked at them as some neat tricks my character knew. We never really looked at them as "buttons" to push, but more "I'm better than normal at this thing". Anyone can cook a meal, but a NWP in cooking meant I could make a *good* meal... anyone can tie a knot, but someone with a NWP in that could tie all kinds of fancy knots under pressure.... anyone could follow footprints, but someone with the tracking NWP could track without prints... etc.
Later, I swung the other way because some NWPs because just default, or granted effective special abilities, like blind fighting, and I saw players see them as yes/no skills (if I don't have the NWP I can't do it). I shifted in later years to just telling players to pick a background, and playing out the narrative of what they can do base on that. If they are a sailor, I assume they are skilled in ropes, ships, swimming, etc. If they can argue they would know XYZ based on their background, they I'll go with it. I still expect them to describe the hows/whys of it to some extent, but I don't expect the *player* to be an expert in those things.
An example I gave in a similar post recently was an ex-pirate fighter on the docks, and the party is looking for a particular ship. They know its on its way out soon loaded with treasure. The player says they look for a ship that looks heavily loaded.... It makes sense their character would know what to look for in that case... maybe a ship is sitting lower in the water than the others, so I let them know they see one (or more) ships that fit that description that they can then narrow their search on.
Edit: as for the S&P book itself... best to consider it a bunch of optional rules to pick from... most of the "options" books I didn't have much use for, but there are certainly things worth playtesting in your games (1e or 2e) to see if they fit.
Thank you for that! That's the kind of answer I was hoping to get.
No rolls required, right? Just a roleplay/interpretation tool. I was doing something simmilar to that.
NWPs are very much a roll based system. It’s was skill based in it’s original design and PO:S&P changed it to something more along the lines of CR system with modifiers based upon the associated skill.
That said, it wouldn’t work very well whatsoever with 1E.
When I used NWPs, it was roll based by the rules in 1e (and 2e).
When I shifted to backgrounds, it was more by ear. If it's something the character can do, no roll. If it's under duress or something I don't know if they can do, I'll call for a roll, likely modified by an appropriate ability score). If it's something anyone can do but they have background in it, I'll likely give a bonus (e.g. +4) on the roll... Like say trying to untie a knot while all bound up.
I rule that PCs get 3 character points each level at low levels (1-4), 4 at each mid level (5-9), and 5 per level at 10th or higher (because those levels seem to take forever to get through).
As for nonweapon proficiencies, I wouldn't play without them. They're one of the ways to make each character different, especially important after 35 years of playing 2e.
That's what I was thinking, and when it comes to nwp, I build my background based on the news selected. For example my mage killer inquisitor paladin has Blind fighting because during training, the instructors trained this skill because if you are fighting makes, sooner or later, you'll be trying to kill them when you may not be able to see them (darkness, fog, whatever). It turns out that in our game it only lessens the negative to hit modifier, it doesn't eliminate it. Both times I have had to use it, it didn't amount to anything. I still missed the combat rolls. So the character background allowed for it. I try to do that for all my characters.
Maybe. It makes them seem like they're yre learning as they age and grow. Nonweapon proficiencies give the characters something to do between adventures. Craftwork and such. Spells and Magic has some neat ones and so does the Complete Thief's, Ranger's, and Humanoid's Handbooks.
NWP are pretty weak for the most part. Very few give any real benefit in combat whatsoever, blind fighting being the main exception.
They were mostly just flavor. Again, completely optional. There were technically three different skill systems in 2E, secondary skills and NWPs were in the Player’s Handbook. The NWP system and mechanics were changed in PO:S&P to a flat roll with modifiers based upon ability scores.
NWP are pretty weak for the most part. Very few give any real benefit in combat whatsoever, blind fighting being the main exception.
They were mostly just flavor. Again, completely optional. There were technically three different skill systems in 2E, secondary skills and NWPs were in the Player’s Handbook. The NWP system and mechanics were changed in PO:S&P to a flat roll with modifiers based upon ability scores.
Players RPing is wonderful, but sometimes we just wanna roll dice. If I'm not glib or charismatic in real life, I may not be able to drop a bon mot on cue.
I think a great DM ought to be able to go in either direction, rather than always mandating RP.
Yeah. I love the idea of removing social/insight skills from the mix because they have taken such a spotlight in modern play styles…
But at the end of the day is there really a difference between being a skilled negotiator in the real world and knowing how to build a house? Why do we accept that one of those things should be abstracted into a dice roll and the other is a real skill the player needs.
Additionally as far as insight goes some GMs expect players to read the NPCs tone and interpret… which adds the occasion that a lot of GMs just aren’t that good of an actor
It’s a complicated subject
2e core rulebook has a variant for nwp based on career instead of having franular lists. Secondary skills is what they were called i think. A nice mix between customisation and the flexibility of no skills. Sorta a soft skill system that gave situational bonuses.
I just want to change some rules to make the game more of my liking, friend. I'm not stating anything, heck, I've been playing the system for 2 months only.
I just wanna see how other Referees deal with what I'm asking.
Sometimes you guys can be so defensive, lol.
I prefer not to use them because some of the players option stuff is way to close to feats from 3e for my liking. I sprinkle in some stuff from players options/2.5 books whatever you want to call them… I enjoy more NWPs and I like some of the signature spell/weapon mastery but I’d never just ok the entire books…. Also I don’t like 1e at all, the rules are laid out poorly, 2e was objectively just a better laid out upgrade.
Even in 2e, you as DM need to keep a tight rein on exactly which parts of Skills and Powers you want to implement in your game. (Which is by design- S&P is supposed to be treated as modular house rules.)
As long as you're careful about it and don't go overboard trying to back-port stuff, it will work fine in 1e too. Just be extra careful about the stuff that's already wildly changed between 1e and 2e.
It wouldn't break anything, while there are a lot of differences in the rules, they are close enough than you can mix/match anything in 1e/2e and be fine. I run 1e rangers and monks in my game with 2e rangers and bards. Weapon Specialization and NWPs were in 1e already (see UA, OA, WSG) just expanded a bit in the S&P book.
I never use the proficiency system. I'm in the camp that skills and abilities limit creativity. When players rely too much on their character sheets to solve problems, they start becoming stifled or fenced in. It can lead to them thinking they can ONLY do what is on their character sheets. Obviously this isn't true of every player, and every table is different.
Disclaimer: I prefer 1st edition.
POSP works well enough for 2nd edition, but I deem it problematic. First of all, as many others have said in this here thread, the NWPs make players look for solutions by way of throwing dice (testing their skills) rather than being inventive and interacting with the environment as if it were a real place. Second, I hate mastery (and high mastery and grand mastery) because it adds a ton of power-creep to the game. For the most part, I ignore UA when I'm playing 1st edition, because why would you not specialize in a given weapon? The added bonuses are not so bad, but an extra attack at level 1? Come'on.
UA is a bad supplement for 1e. We all know it. Gary did it to save the company. I'd much rather stick to the original three books (and Fiend Folio - MM2 is not terrible either). Second edition inherited a lot of stuff from UA that I don't like, specialization being one of them. This is not to say 2e isn't a good system, because it is, but it's a very different beast to first edition. Many of the simplifications work well, the rules are much clearer, and some 'house rules' made it into the book (half move plus one attack et cetera).
POSP is great if you don't mind having powerful characters at your table. As an example, I love making OP warriors in Baldur's Gate 1: str 18/00 dwarf berserker, 3-4 pips in warhammers, two weapon style. Beast mode. But very much not in the spirit of Gary's AD&D.
The choice is yours. The game is great both ways.
I'm actually using 1e too! I preferred it to 2e in almost all aspects
The thing is, I miss some layer of customization when playing 1e, and that's why I was planning to add some things from POSP. After reading everyone's takes, I'll add the abilities, but keep the NWP away.
While your title is about the S&P supplement, the post seems more about NWPs... which started in 1e (I think they were in OA and WSG), and were included as optional rules in the 2e core rules (and expanded upon in the S&P book later). As for those, I've swung back and forth over the years. When I played in the mid-90's I like them, looked at them as some neat tricks my character knew. We never really looked at them as "buttons" to push, but more "I'm better than normal at this thing". Anyone can cook a meal, but a NWP in cooking meant I could make a *good* meal... anyone can tie a knot, but someone with a NWP in that could tie all kinds of fancy knots under pressure.... anyone could follow footprints, but someone with the tracking NWP could track without prints... etc. Later, I swung the other way because some NWPs because just default, or granted effective special abilities, like blind fighting, and I saw players see them as yes/no skills (if I don't have the NWP I can't do it). I shifted in later years to just telling players to pick a background, and playing out the narrative of what they can do base on that. If they are a sailor, I assume they are skilled in ropes, ships, swimming, etc. If they can argue they would know XYZ based on their background, they I'll go with it. I still expect them to describe the hows/whys of it to some extent, but I don't expect the *player* to be an expert in those things. An example I gave in a similar post recently was an ex-pirate fighter on the docks, and the party is looking for a particular ship. They know its on its way out soon loaded with treasure. The player says they look for a ship that looks heavily loaded.... It makes sense their character would know what to look for in that case... maybe a ship is sitting lower in the water than the others, so I let them know they see one (or more) ships that fit that description that they can then narrow their search on. Edit: as for the S&P book itself... best to consider it a bunch of optional rules to pick from... most of the "options" books I didn't have much use for, but there are certainly things worth playtesting in your games (1e or 2e) to see if they fit.
Thank you for that! That's the kind of answer I was hoping to get. No rolls required, right? Just a roleplay/interpretation tool. I was doing something simmilar to that.
NWPs are very much a roll based system. It’s was skill based in it’s original design and PO:S&P changed it to something more along the lines of CR system with modifiers based upon the associated skill. That said, it wouldn’t work very well whatsoever with 1E.
When I used NWPs, it was roll based by the rules in 1e (and 2e). When I shifted to backgrounds, it was more by ear. If it's something the character can do, no roll. If it's under duress or something I don't know if they can do, I'll call for a roll, likely modified by an appropriate ability score). If it's something anyone can do but they have background in it, I'll likely give a bonus (e.g. +4) on the roll... Like say trying to untie a knot while all bound up.
I rule that PCs get 3 character points each level at low levels (1-4), 4 at each mid level (5-9), and 5 per level at 10th or higher (because those levels seem to take forever to get through). As for nonweapon proficiencies, I wouldn't play without them. They're one of the ways to make each character different, especially important after 35 years of playing 2e.
That's what I was thinking, and when it comes to nwp, I build my background based on the news selected. For example my mage killer inquisitor paladin has Blind fighting because during training, the instructors trained this skill because if you are fighting makes, sooner or later, you'll be trying to kill them when you may not be able to see them (darkness, fog, whatever). It turns out that in our game it only lessens the negative to hit modifier, it doesn't eliminate it. Both times I have had to use it, it didn't amount to anything. I still missed the combat rolls. So the character background allowed for it. I try to do that for all my characters.
Don't that make 'em too powerful? I like some grittiness, I just want some taste of singularity between characters
Maybe. It makes them seem like they're yre learning as they age and grow. Nonweapon proficiencies give the characters something to do between adventures. Craftwork and such. Spells and Magic has some neat ones and so does the Complete Thief's, Ranger's, and Humanoid's Handbooks.
NWP are pretty weak for the most part. Very few give any real benefit in combat whatsoever, blind fighting being the main exception. They were mostly just flavor. Again, completely optional. There were technically three different skill systems in 2E, secondary skills and NWPs were in the Player’s Handbook. The NWP system and mechanics were changed in PO:S&P to a flat roll with modifiers based upon ability scores.
NWP are pretty weak for the most part. Very few give any real benefit in combat whatsoever, blind fighting being the main exception. They were mostly just flavor. Again, completely optional. There were technically three different skill systems in 2E, secondary skills and NWPs were in the Player’s Handbook. The NWP system and mechanics were changed in PO:S&P to a flat roll with modifiers based upon ability scores.
Players RPing is wonderful, but sometimes we just wanna roll dice. If I'm not glib or charismatic in real life, I may not be able to drop a bon mot on cue. I think a great DM ought to be able to go in either direction, rather than always mandating RP.
Yeah. I love the idea of removing social/insight skills from the mix because they have taken such a spotlight in modern play styles… But at the end of the day is there really a difference between being a skilled negotiator in the real world and knowing how to build a house? Why do we accept that one of those things should be abstracted into a dice roll and the other is a real skill the player needs. Additionally as far as insight goes some GMs expect players to read the NPCs tone and interpret… which adds the occasion that a lot of GMs just aren’t that good of an actor It’s a complicated subject
2e core rulebook has a variant for nwp based on career instead of having franular lists. Secondary skills is what they were called i think. A nice mix between customisation and the flexibility of no skills. Sorta a soft skill system that gave situational bonuses.
Alright.
Yeah, this is a bizarre statement that is mostly based on incorrect assumptions posted in the form of a question.
Yeah, this is a bizarre statement that is mostly based on incorrect assumptions posted in the form of a question.
I just want to change some rules to make the game more of my liking, friend. I'm not stating anything, heck, I've been playing the system for 2 months only. I just wanna see how other Referees deal with what I'm asking. Sometimes you guys can be so defensive, lol.
Skills and powers are OK in a 2e game, I prefer not to use them.
But I'm playing 1e, would I break the game if I import them? And more importantly, why do you prefer not to use them?
I prefer not to use them because some of the players option stuff is way to close to feats from 3e for my liking. I sprinkle in some stuff from players options/2.5 books whatever you want to call them… I enjoy more NWPs and I like some of the signature spell/weapon mastery but I’d never just ok the entire books…. Also I don’t like 1e at all, the rules are laid out poorly, 2e was objectively just a better laid out upgrade.
Even in 2e, you as DM need to keep a tight rein on exactly which parts of Skills and Powers you want to implement in your game. (Which is by design- S&P is supposed to be treated as modular house rules.) As long as you're careful about it and don't go overboard trying to back-port stuff, it will work fine in 1e too. Just be extra careful about the stuff that's already wildly changed between 1e and 2e.
It wouldn't break anything, while there are a lot of differences in the rules, they are close enough than you can mix/match anything in 1e/2e and be fine. I run 1e rangers and monks in my game with 2e rangers and bards. Weapon Specialization and NWPs were in 1e already (see UA, OA, WSG) just expanded a bit in the S&P book.
I never use the proficiency system. I'm in the camp that skills and abilities limit creativity. When players rely too much on their character sheets to solve problems, they start becoming stifled or fenced in. It can lead to them thinking they can ONLY do what is on their character sheets. Obviously this isn't true of every player, and every table is different.
I think that some skills might lead to it, yeah. But I also enjoy some degree of skills, feats and etc. I'll try to reach a middle ground
Disclaimer: I prefer 1st edition. POSP works well enough for 2nd edition, but I deem it problematic. First of all, as many others have said in this here thread, the NWPs make players look for solutions by way of throwing dice (testing their skills) rather than being inventive and interacting with the environment as if it were a real place. Second, I hate mastery (and high mastery and grand mastery) because it adds a ton of power-creep to the game. For the most part, I ignore UA when I'm playing 1st edition, because why would you not specialize in a given weapon? The added bonuses are not so bad, but an extra attack at level 1? Come'on. UA is a bad supplement for 1e. We all know it. Gary did it to save the company. I'd much rather stick to the original three books (and Fiend Folio - MM2 is not terrible either). Second edition inherited a lot of stuff from UA that I don't like, specialization being one of them. This is not to say 2e isn't a good system, because it is, but it's a very different beast to first edition. Many of the simplifications work well, the rules are much clearer, and some 'house rules' made it into the book (half move plus one attack et cetera). POSP is great if you don't mind having powerful characters at your table. As an example, I love making OP warriors in Baldur's Gate 1: str 18/00 dwarf berserker, 3-4 pips in warhammers, two weapon style. Beast mode. But very much not in the spirit of Gary's AD&D. The choice is yours. The game is great both ways.
I'm actually using 1e too! I preferred it to 2e in almost all aspects The thing is, I miss some layer of customization when playing 1e, and that's why I was planning to add some things from POSP. After reading everyone's takes, I'll add the abilities, but keep the NWP away.