General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I can say this much from memory Harl.
It was often very hard to ransack a place because early versions of D&D were dangerous to the characters in ways that later versions never imagined, or sought to entirely mitigate.
And to me that's what bothers me about later versions, though I think later versions also had/have some really positives attributes. But when the game itself is designed in such a way as to hand-hold players, and circumvent character danger, and "balance risk" (when in life do you really get balanced risk) in-game, and prevent you from dying, or getting too out of breath, well, you've missed one of the key elements of what separates Heroes from those who'd rather hire out their risk to more courageous types.
A fantasy game without a Hero willing to risk his head for others against things potentially far more dangerous than he is, (as opposed to just a powered up, bauble painted, self-interested mercenary who won't fight anything or anyone unless he knows the fight is a balanced and fixed one) well - that's like a magic item that's determined by how many pluses it sports rather that what kinda wonder it evokes.
As for what RC was saying about the potential of reward, rather than the assurance of reward, well that also reminds me of the fact that they call it treasure for a reason. It's valuable because you take a real risk to get it, or somebody else takes a real risk to keep it. Or both.
If there were no real risk and cost involved it would be a token, not a treasure - welfare, not wealth. And risk can always go wrong. You can fail. You can lose. Seems a radical idea these days, in-games and outside of them, but there was a day when it was the way things were.
But RCs idea about treasure being potential rather than assured also reminds me of this - Easter Eggs. They're excellent to find, but sometimes, you miss a few. And that's okay.
You are aware that we are in generic edition war territory here?
Into the breach: Your argument has two commonly made mistakes:
1) The first mistake is assuming balanced encounters do not mean risk to the pcs. The opposite is true:A balanced encounter is one where there is risk but not certainty of the pc's death. And if you played modern editions of D&D you may have made the experience that characters die even in balanced encounters. So there is clearly real risk involved. And I have seen multiple TPKs in 3rd edition, probably more than I have ever seen in the older editions.
2)The second mistake is assuming that later editions only "allow" balanced encounters. All they do is provide tools to create balanced encounters. How to use them is the GM's choice. The 4th edition DMG even states that some encounters should not be balanced. Remember, in any RPG, a GM should design challenges that the Pcs can either defeat of avoid (The operative word is "can" not "will"). So you want to know as a GM if your group can handle 3 Trolls, otherwise you better give them an option to run away or parley. In older editions you just made this assessment by eyeballing rather than using the support provided by the rules.
So you want to know as a GM if your group can handle 3 Trolls, otherwise you better give them an option to run away or parley.
Why would I as a DM determine if my players fight, parley, or run away?
That's their job. How they react to the world, that's their play, not for me to determine.
That's exactly what I mean by an underlying ideal of balance.
It's so pernicious and deeply infiltrated, it's almost unnoticed as a principle. You don't balance, you give tools of balance, so that you can balance without
balancing and provide the potential for risk without real risk. And black is white and slavery is freedom, and the very best way over the mountaintop is to start swimming now.
I'm saying all this facetiously of course, but in all honesty it ain't my job as DM to tell the players how to act, to balance the world for them, or pre-determine their possible courses of action, or reaction. I don't think for them, I don't worry for them, I'm not their momma. I just provide imaginary scenarios and situations of risk and opportunity. What they do with that, well, they're big enough to handle for themselves.
You don't lay out balanced courses of action for a Hero, because that's their job. Come hell or high water, heroes adapt and overcome.
But as for Edition Wars, I'm not interested in that. Though I reckon it's hard to compare apples and oranges when the rules are, "you shall not speak of the differences between apples and oranges when you seek to compare them." But as for me I'm talking general principles and approaches to gaming, including how the ideas and items of magic are approached, not who is zooming who.
Now if you'll excuse me Harl I'm gonna go watch the Brave and the Bold. Red Tornado tonight. I always liked that guy.
Why would I as a DM determine if my players fight, parley, or run away?
That's their job. How they react to the world, that's their play, not for me to determine.
Sorry, I obviously wasn't clear enough. i am not telling my players to react. But you know how there are encounter setups that give players no choice? For example, if the PCs are clearly unable to handle the Trolls, i cannot set up an ambush where the PCs are attacked without warning and without a way to flee. That's gamemastering 101.
However, if the Trolls are a balanced encounter, then such an ambush can be set up.
The balancing guidelines in the DMG is to give the DM an idea of how dangerous an encounter is for the PC party. It doesn't restrict you to only using risk-free encounters. The DM can make harder or easier encounters as he sees fit. But the guidelines let the DM know what he's sending so that he doesn't make a crazy hard encounter when he wants a easy one, or vice versa. The DM can still populate the world with nothing but ancient red dragons in a 1st level game if he wants. Just don't expect the players to be staying in the game for long.
Last edited by nightwyrm; 13th December 2008 at 02:17 AM..
Harlekin, if you can read even the first five pages of the 1e DMG and come away believing there was no design philosophy involved, nothing I (nor, I suspect, anyone else) can say is going to persuade you otherwise. But I find it as mind-boggling a conclusion to draw as if I said the same about the 4e DMG (which I would not).
EDIT: I just re-read the first 5 pages of the 1e DMG before typing the above. This isn't based on memory, or upon idle speculation! Gary is as entertaining to read as ever.
For the record, I think that playing WotC-D&D mechanics with a TSR-D&D philosophy has made 3e a much better game for me than it was following the WotC-D&D philosophy. In the Megadungeon thread, I suggested that the DM simply chuck encounter-and-treasure balancing and let the players worry about deciding what they are capable of tackling.
IMHO, it makes for a better game. YMMV, though.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
For example, if the PCs are clearly unable to handle the Trolls, i cannot set up an ambush where the PCs are attacked without warning and without a way to flee. That's gamemastering 101.
However, if the Trolls are a balanced encounter, then such an ambush can be set up.
If the PCs don't use intelligent scouting options to learn what may be encountered in a given area (thief sneaking ahead, interrogating defeated monsters, asking NPCs, clairaudience, clairvoyance, noticing Troll spore in near the vicinity, etc.) and are ambushed by Trolls with no way to flee, their deaths are mostly their own (the players') fault. A TPK in such an instance ought to be a learning for the players.
__________________ Words of wisdom from Gary Gygax:
From my perspective wanting less in the way of rules constraints comes from being a veteran Game Master who feels confident that more good material comes from imagination and player interaction with the environment than from textbook rules material.
more words of wisdom:
Rashness and foolhardiness are harbingers of death, as is timidity, in such adventure setting.
Those that complain about real challenges might be better off playing Candyland with their little sister
First and foremost, munchkinism arose as a contemporary of the OD&D game. Nothing in the rules of that or any other version of the game was needed to make it flourish.
There is no relationship between 3E and original D&D, or OAD&D for that matter. Different games, style, and spirit.
[E]xperience has taught me that everyone has their own gaming preferences, and it is not a matter of "good" or "bad" in all, save in light of one's own preferences.
For the record, I think that playing WotC-D&D mechanics with a TSR-D&D philosophy has made 3e a much better game for me than it was following the WotC-D&D philosophy. In the Megadungeon thread, I suggested that the DM simply chuck encounter-and-treasure balancing and let the players worry about deciding what they are capable of tackling.
IMHO, it makes for a better game. YMMV, though.
RC
Not sure about that, I have never seen a game improve by many random deaths. However, I am very willing to believe that it makes for a better game if your players think that you do not balance encounters. Hmmm.
I see Raven et al are still in disbelief with Q's thread even though he answered those "well you're not supposed to find all those treasure".
Sure, given that there are some very good, specific reasons why you are very unlikely to do so, and given that his answer amounts to nothing more than "Sure you are", there is no reason to accept his answer.
I began DMing on Christmas Day of 1979, and I have run most of the TSR classics many times, for many different players (due, in a large part, to a four year stint in the US Army) in many states. Not so long ago, I ran KotB using the EN World conversion to 3.5.
IME, despite having played these modules dozens of times with over a hundred different players, no one has ever found all of the treasure in even one of them. The average haul, IME, is approximately 25% of what is available in the adventuring area.
If Q did an analysis that showed the time required to "Greyhawk" the modules he has examined, including the time needed to rest and recover due to the extra encounters "Greyhawking" forces on the players, it would quickly become evident that there is a real unlikelihood of gaining most of the treasures in most modules. It would also show that the tournament modules have the easiest loot to acquire, simply because acquiring said loot is part of the scoring of the tournament, and the characters do not need to be suitable afterwards for an ongoing campaign when designing a tournament. Tournament modules also have, by and large, the most linear maps of the 1e era....largely for the same reason.
If Q's analysis was correct, and I am wrong, I have offered some pretty straightforward criteria to proving me wrong -- square footage x time searching per square foot = X time to Greyhawk the dungeon. Y wandering encounters happen on average within X time, characters must rest after Z encounters, increasing time factor by a minimum of 8 hours. You can figure out exactly how long any adventure would take to Greyhawk and then determine whether or not the PCs would be likely to survive/do so based upon that estimate.
IMHO, of course.
Should a sufficient quantity of any such evidence that demonstrates that Q is correct be offered, I will shift my opinion.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
Not sure about that, I have never seen a game improve by many random deaths. However, I am very willing to believe that it makes for a better game if your players think that you do not balance encounters. Hmmm.
The DM making the players responsible for balance =/= many random deaths.
It does potentially mean many non-random deaths until play improves, however.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
The OP illustrates why I do my magic items the way I do now.
For a long time, now, instead of giving my PCs a lot of magic stuff with the "Christmas Tree effect" I've given them just a few magic items. However, each item I've given them has been multi-use item, that does a variety of things. Some of those things are directly useful (like damage and AC), but some of the effects are more "random".
The OP illustrates why I do my magic items the way I do now.
For a long time, now, instead of giving my PCs a lot of magic stuff with the "Christmas Tree effect" I've given them just a few magic items. However, each item I've given them has been multi-use item, that does a variety of things. Some of those things are directly useful (like damage and AC), but some of the effects are more "random".
It's worked out for me for a while, now.
Can I join your game?
__________________ Enemies are the price of Honor. ~Zeddicus Zu'l Zorander, Wizard of the First Order
Fear. Fear attracts the fearful. The strong. The weak. The innocent. The corrupt. Fear. Fear is my ally. ~Darth Maul
No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try. ~Yoda
I don't want the Tyranny of Fun to become one of PF RPG's design principles. That's 4e's province, and I'd happily leave it that way.
I see Raven et al are still in disbelief with Q's thread even though he answered those "well you're not supposed to find all those treasure".
As for the belief that in 1e that one can "plan" for encounters beforehand, how does that jive with the random encounter table?
I don't think anyone's saying you can absolutely plan for every contingency. But how do you plan for random encounters? You figure out how to reduce your vulnerability - you keep moving and don't spend lots of time doing meticulous searching and fiddling around. So you stock up on magical healing you can use on the fly and don't "Greyhawk" rooms but spend short amounts of time searching most likely locations efficiently.
You can't completely eliminate the risk, but you reduce it through appropriate planning.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
The balancing guidelines in the DMG is to give the DM an idea of how dangerous an encounter is for the PC party. It doesn't restrict you to only using risk-free encounters. The DM can make harder or easier encounters as he sees fit. But the guidelines let the DM know what he's sending so that he doesn't make a crazy hard encounter when he wants a easy one, or vice versa.
The problem I keep encountering is that my players invariably find ways of turning the crazy hard encounters into well-won victories, and the easy ones into near-TPKs. I can balance till I'm blue in the face, but I can't account for their dice, or their thought processes.
In most modules, the wandering monster encounters usually average as lower-risk than the planned ones. That said, I don't tend to use wandering monsters once a given dungeon has been cleaned out because...well, it's been cleaned out. The only place something can wander from is in through the front door; and if the place has a dangerous reputation most things will avoid it anyway. In fact, the continued appearance of wandering monsters in a cleaned-out dungeon is a pretty good indication the place *hasn't* been cleaned out, and they've missed something.
I am disappointed in how for me the magic left the game. I also think a lot of the things that gave it the magical feeling helped balance the game. And 3e became a spell caster paradise because of it.
Fireballs not filling a volume made the fireball spell absurdly reliable, same with bouncing lightning bolts. The difficulty in learning spells, making magic items in earlier editions was a huge balancing factor. I loved the chapters in the complete wizards handbook on outfittig your place with a library in order to research spells. When you just learn 2 every level, and the idea of spell research falls away, it stopped feeling like a magical magic system and more like a game mechanic. And it had the side effect of giving spellcasters a power up whcih totally wa snot needed, especially when they are on the same XP scale.
Spell wise I remember one of my largest disappointments in 3e was because how clone worked in 3e, a cool story arc in the forgotten realms could not happen. Near the end of 2e, the spell caster(whose name I can't ever remember) who invented the stasis clone spell had an incident.
Back in the day clone created a clone, stasis clone was kind of like the 3e clone spell in that it was a you in stasis until your death, but the difference was, your soul did not go to the clone, it was just a clone of you with your memories and level -1. So the story arc was all his clones in stasis became active at once and he had hundreds.
Originally if a clone was active on the same plane as the original, both parties felt an urge to murder each other. So hundreds of high level mage clones were running aorund the world, grabbing up stashes of magic and slaughtering each other in the streets.
Frickin awesoem to me. In 3e the clone is just a lump of flesh waiting for your sould to enter it. It just took the cool out of it for me when it became a raise dead variant with a trigger.
Side note on expected magic items in earlier editions. As pointed out earlier you lost a ton of items due to area of effect spells and effects. Fail a save and then you have to amke a save for every item on your person. Cloaks don't sruvive dragon breath well. Also the hate in my heart for mordinkins disjunction is legendary.(okay I love it, but dang items went down the tubes when that spell came into play) So even if you magically got every item in a dungeon instead of the 30-50% I am used to, you would not be stocked up for long.
__________________ There is no force in the universe strong enough to protect you from your own stupidity.
Wow. I don't know. Maybe I'm just not *getting* what some of you are so ferociously arguing about. Balance? Don't balance? It's the DM's responsibility to balance? It's *not* the DM's responsibility to balance encounters?
Gee whiz. Honestly, come on now.
If you have a party that is suitable in general to fight trolls, well, if 3 trolls would be too easy, the DM shouldn't ambush them with 10 trolls. The DM in such a case should think perhaps 5 or 6 or even 7 trolls might be just the right degree of challenge, without being overwhelming and giving the PC's a dismal--and forgone defeat.
It *is* the responsibility of the DM--in my view, anyways--to design or adjuducate randomly rolled encounters--to be reasonably balanced--in that the party has a decent chance of emerging victorious, but also has a reasonable chance of experiencing defeat. Last time I checked...that's the goodness of providing a *Challenge*. Not a cakewalk, and not a damn exercise in smearing the party's characters all over the dungeon floor faster than they can blink. Isn't *ENCOUNTER DESIGN* something learned in basic Dungeon Mastering Campaigns 101 anymore?
As for magic items. Well, honestly, yes, *textwise* 1E wins hands down. That's simply due to the great Gary Gygax. It's been a long time since then, so the flavour text in new editions of D&D magic items are *bleh* Yeah, I get that. I agree. Thus, you have to make up your own.
Jack7, my friend, when it comes to making new powers and stuff, you just gotta get your hands dirty and make up your own interesting, mysterious magic items that will enthrall and exhilirate your players. When using published items, feel free to add, subtract, and tweak various powers and properties, adding new effects, drawbacks, limitations, whatever my friend. YOU must make the magic items interesting. We can all pretty much forget about WOTC making most magic items terribly interesting.
Why, you might ask? Because it's not the same writers. A different generation of writers. Not everyone is a good writer, or you have good writers, but who have different styles and specialties, or talents, in what they write, and *how* they write. Matching the wonderful Gary Gygax is a asking to fill some very large shoes indeed!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
__________________ "It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself to discover what truly resides there."
"Comfort is an illusion. A false security bred from familiar things and familiar ways. It narrows the mind. Weakens the body. And robs the soul of spirit and determination. Comfort is neither welcome nor tolerated here."
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but is doing what you have to, in spite of the fear."
I see Raven et al are still in disbelief with Q's thread even though he answered those "well you're not supposed to find all those treasure".
As for the belief that in 1e that one can "plan" for encounters beforehand, how does that jive with the random encounter table?
Yep, as an aside to folks reading this thread who may not know the background...
RC and others very certain that they played AD&D right back in the day (and still do so now). They do not remember finding much treasure, and as a result, character advancement was rather slow.
Quasqueton and others are also very certain they played D&D right back in the day (and still do so now). They remember finding quite a bit more treasure, and as a result, advancement was much faster, and in fact close to or (at low levels) exceeding 3.5's.
Q wrote a very well-researched thread about this, and since it doesn't match some peoples' experiences (but does match others'), it's controversial, and this argument has spread outwards to everysinglethread that so much as mentions either advancement or treasure in 1e.
"Darthan" (The Hand of Judgement)
Weapon Type: Light Mace Damage: 1d6
"Darthan" was crafted over 12 centuries ago by the holy priest Halbar, a high priest of the god Ullric. The mace is just over 3' in length, and crafted of black steel, and inlaid with mithril. The head of the mace is a finely detailed wolf-head, with life-like pale grey eyes. The pommel of the mace is crafted into the likeness of two hands, gripping each other to form a larger "fist" with the fingers interlaced. "Darthan" is very intelligent, and very perceptive and wise, though not especially charming. The mace is valiant, devout, and zealous, being devoted to protecting followers of Ullric, and serving the interests of the fierce god of war, winter and wolves. The mace speaks on occasion to it's wielder to offer encouragement, as well as advice and spiritual counsel. The mace is a fierce opponent of all evil aberrations and monstrous humanoids.
(1) +5
(2) Holy (Inflict +2d6 Holy damage against all evil creaatures)
(3) Ghost Touch (Allows normal attack against all incorporeal undead)
(4) Bane against Monstrous Humanoids (+7 weapon; inflicts bonus +2d6 damage against such opponents.)
(5) Bane against Aberrations. (+7 weapon; inflicts bonus +2d6 damage against such opponents.)
Intelligent Item
Possesses Speech and Telepathy; 120' Darkvision, blindsense and hearing.
Read Languages, Read Magic
Int 19, Wis 19, Cha 10
Item Ego: 35
Languages Known: Common, Elvish, Dwarvish, Celestial
Alignment: Lawful Neutral
Lesser Powers (4)
Item has 10 ranks in Sense Motive
Item has 10 ranks in Diplomacy
Item has 10 ranks in Knowledge (History)
Item has 10 ranks in Knowledge (Nature)
Greater Powers (3)
Item can use Fear against foes, 3/day
Item can use Haste on wielder, 3/day
Item can cast Daylight, 3/day
Special Purpose: Defend the servants and interests of the god, Ullric.
Dedicated Power: Item provides the wielder with +2 bonus to attacks, saves, and checks.
__________________ "It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself to discover what truly resides there."
"Comfort is an illusion. A false security bred from familiar things and familiar ways. It narrows the mind. Weakens the body. And robs the soul of spirit and determination. Comfort is neither welcome nor tolerated here."
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but is doing what you have to, in spite of the fear."
It *is* the responsibility of the DM--in my view, anyways--to design or adjuducate randomly rolled encounters--to be reasonably balanced--in that the party has a decent chance of emerging victorious, but also has a reasonable chance of experiencing defeat.
But that's purely a matter of taste. Even the 3E DMG has a section called "Tailored vs. Status Quo" adventure design, that supports either philosophy.
One thing that I do notice between editions is that if you use the 3E random encounter tables, they always result in an encounter exactly equal to the given level of the dungeon. 1E encounter tables didn't do that, so you had harder & easier encounters automatically built into the tables.
__________________ ADVANCED DUNGEONS &DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn‘t been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. (1E DMG p. 9)
But that's purely a matter of taste. Even the 3E DMG has a section called "Tailored vs. Status Quo" adventure design, that supports either philosophy.
One thing that I do notice between editions is that if you use the 3E random encounter tables, they always result in an encounter exactly equal to the given level of the dungeon. 1E encounter tables didn't do that, so you had harder & easier encounters automatically built into the tables.
Greetings!
Yep! That's right, Delta. That's why a good DM that *doesn't* want every encounter perfectly *balanced* can and should--make up some custom encounter tables that provide a range of possibilities of encountering weaker, equal, or stronger encounters.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
__________________ "It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself to discover what truly resides there."
"Comfort is an illusion. A false security bred from familiar things and familiar ways. It narrows the mind. Weakens the body. And robs the soul of spirit and determination. Comfort is neither welcome nor tolerated here."
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but is doing what you have to, in spite of the fear."
Gary is as entertaining to read as ever.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
