D&D 1E 5e Play, 1e Play, and the Immersive Experience

Guest 6801328 · Dec 19, 2018

KenNYC said:
You seem to look at D&D as a board game and you want to know all the rules to then make the best decision. This is the culture of 5e I have found.

Not that I'm a big fan of @SAelorn, but maybe restrict your posts to opinions about the game and not about other posters? I am sure you are far more informed on the former than the latter, anyway.

This is where 1e shines: The turning tables are in the DMG, and the DMG says to not let the players see the book. 5e twists the entire concept of role playing on its head. The PHB removed all role playing potential for the character, instead giving you math, percentages, and what you need to roll--giving you no opportunity to discover anything except what feat or level upgrade will give you a 3% better chance when encountering whatever. So since there is no role playing potential, the new definition of role playing is add a funny voice. No experiencing what your character experiences, instead math out your stats and then throw in an accent for a sentence or two. That's what role playing has become as the editions have progressed, and to answer the OP's questions, 1e is more immersive.

And your experience is yours. My experience is that when I played 1e everybody read the DMG anyway, and there was very little roleplaying. It was very much kick down the doors, fight the monsters, take their stuff. There's a reason Munchkin strikes such a strong chord.

What I find with 5e, even in Adventurer's League, is people putting a lot of thought and energy into playing a character. And (while I'm a mechanics guy and this makes me /facepalm) I play with several people who have no grasp of the mechanics at all and will do completely irrational things (from a mechanics point of view) because that's what they think their character will do.

It has nothing...absolutely nothing...to do with the mechanics of the either system.

Rose-colored Glasses of Nostalgia are still just Rose-colored Glasses of Nostalgia.

Wiseblood · Dec 19, 2018

Numbers will only get you so far. A player that understands the meaning of the numbers will be able to use that info. No matter how much time is spent playing some people will never be able to put it together.

I have turned to telling the players in a simple narration that I think fits their character’s knowledge and experience. If that fails I will say it more plainly.

The swaggering warrior has made a grave mistake challenging the likes of you...

Or

The trolls will almost certainly overwhelm your defenses....

Or even

Druid, you notice that a widow maker hangs perilously over the trail...right above two of the ruffians threatening your caravan.

I try to make sure they know what is and what may be. I try to give answers that get to the heart of the issue. I think we would rather not spend time on a pixel hunt.

The Crimson Binome · Dec 19, 2018

KenNYC said:
Running away is always a sensible option.

In most editions of D&D, attempting to run will expose you to several rounds of attacks, and is virtually guaranteed to end in your defeat. It's rarely a sensible course of action, and anyone who actually lives in that world would know better.

It's the kind of mistake that a human from our world would make, though, because we aren't actually from there. In our world, a reasonably fit individual stands a decent chance of evading pursuers. That's why you would believe that it's a sensible course of action, even though your character would not believe it.

KenNYC said:
Regarding the rest of your post: You seem to look at D&D as a board game and you want to know all the rules to then make the best decision. This is the culture of 5e I have found. Going back to your third level cleric encountering a vampire for the first time, how would he know if it is a good idea to try and turn it? He's never run into one before, and apparently neither have you. To use the original poster's term, isn't it more immersive for you to try to turn Dracula, roll a 20, get told you failed, and then say "Holy #$%!" then to start the encounter with an analysis on the mathematical chances of a successful die roll? Why not just try to turn the vampire, and then you will know for every other vampire you ever meet?

I look at D&D as its own place, which is similar to our own world, but distinct in many ways; and like any believable world (fictional or otherwise), everything that happens there must follow a consistent set of rules.

My character would have a decent enough estimate of their chance to turn a vampire, because they grew up in that world, and they've (at the very least) heard stories. Turning the undead is a power which this character actually possesses. They learned it from somebody. I would expect them to understand that power to the same degree that Spider-Man understands how to shot web, if not substantially more-so.

If turning the undead was the sort of infallible technique that always worked, then there would not be stories of anyone invoking that power, where the power failed; if it was fallible, then those stories would exist. Observations are always consistent with reality, and the true underlying reality of the game world is that the success probability depends on the skill and conviction of the cleric (proficiency bonus and Wisdom bonus) and the willpower of the undead (Wisdom save bonus).

While I wouldn't necessarily expect to know the vampire's save bonus, my character's level of knowledge is certainly far closer to my own knowledge of the underlying formula, than it is to a complete lack of knowledge based on the player's exposure to cheesy horror movies. It's unreasonable to pretend that my character has nothing to go on, and there's no way I could maintain immersion while acting completely blindly.

Umbran · Dec 19, 2018

KenNYC said:
Regarding the rest of your post: You seem to look at D&D as a board game and you want to know all the rules to then make the best decision. This is the culture of 5e I have found.

As has already been noted, please address the logic of the post, not the person who made the post. A fast way for a discussion to degrade is to say, in essence, that your fellow posters hold their positions not due to some good reason or difference in opinion, but due to some implied personality flaw.

5e twists the entire concept of role playing on its head. The PHB removed all role playing potential for the character...

If you want to put it this way, the concept you are thinking of has been turned on its head by 2e, not by 5e, as they made the mechanics largely available to anyone several editions back.

And back in 1e days... you say it like the admonishment to not show player the tables actually meant those tables stayed secret and sacrosanct! Really? If nothing else, once you'd run a game, you knew about the tables for every game you played in thereafter. I dunno about you, but in my initial group, pretty much everyone took a hand behind the screen at least once to try it. I don't think an assertion that the rules were really secret holds much water.

But, more importantly - if *ALL* roleplaying potential is gone when you know the numbers... that means that all your roleplaying is centered on mechanics. Is that really what you intend to say, or are you using hyperbole?

If the former, then geeze, your version of roleplaying seems awfully limited. I spent a pleasant chunk of my last game with my cleric berating the barbarian for being a dunderhead - not a die pip or mechanic in sight, but playing our respective roles to the hilt. So, I'd have to say there's lots of role playing to be had even if the mechanics are transparent.
If the latter - the hyperbole doesn't give support to your assertion. It just makes you look strident to the point of saying things that are clearly incorrect.

Neither option seems persuasive, as you're incorrect either way.

Bawylie · Dec 19, 2018

Wiseblood said:
Numbers will only get you so far. A player that understands the meaning of the numbers will be able to use that info. No matter how much time is spent playing some people will never be able to put it together.

I have turned to telling the players in a simple narration that I think fits their character’s knowledge and experience. If that fails I will say it more plainly.

The swaggering warrior has made a grave mistake challenging the likes of you...

Or

The trolls will almost certainly overwhelm your defenses....

Or even

Druid, you notice that a widow maker hangs perilously over the trail...right above two of the ruffians threatening your caravan.

I try to make sure they know what is and what may be. I try to give answers that get to the heart of the issue. I think we would rather not spend time on a pixel hunt.

Sure. I personally prefer the statement to the number but when I DM I try to use both as that minimizes miscommunications. (When DMing, I generally take responsibility for clear communication, so the extra clarity isn’t redundant per se - it’s more like reinforcement of the concept).

KenNYC · Dec 19, 2018

Umbran said:
As has already been noted, please address the logic of the post, not the person who made the post. A fast way for a discussion to degrade is to say, in essence, that your fellow posters hold their positions not due to some good reason or difference in opinion, but due to some implied personality flaw.

If you want to put it this way, the concept you are thinking of has been turned on its head by 2e, not by 5e, as they made the mechanics largely available to anyone several editions back.

And back in 1e days... you say it like the admonishment to not show player the tables actually meant those tables stayed secret and sacrosanct! Really? If nothing else, once you'd run a game, you knew about the tables for every game you played in thereafter. I dunno about you, but in my initial group, pretty much everyone took a hand behind the screen at least once to try it. I don't think an assertion that the rules were really secret holds much water.

But, more importantly - if *ALL* roleplaying potential is gone when you know the numbers... that means that all your roleplaying is centered on mechanics. Is that really what you intend to say, or are you using hyperbole?

If the former, then geeze, your version of roleplaying seems awfully limited. I spent a pleasant chunk of my last game with my cleric berating the barbarian for being a dunderhead - not a die pip or mechanic in sight, but playing our respective roles to the hilt. So, I'd have to say there's lots of role playing to be had even if the mechanics are transparent.
If the latter - the hyperbole doesn't give support to your assertion. It just makes you look strident to the point of saying things that are clearly incorrect.

Neither option seems persuasive, as you're incorrect either way.

First my apologies to the guy for coming on too strong.

Regarding the DMG and the tables not being in the PHB vs what there is today and whether this impacts role playing or the OP's immersion:

Yes eventually you would know you needed to roll a 10 to turn a skeleton, but the point of the rule was just be your character--roleplay it--and learn stuff as you go along, not be handed a power point presentation so you can start an internal deliberation on whether to cast a dex DC spell or wisdom DC spell? Just play out whatever makes sense to you and experience the result. That's a little more immersive I think to go back to the OP. Rules replace roleplaying which is why OD&D and 1e feel so different. You the player have to inject yourself into your character and play it out, not stat it out based on a sheet.

Again, sorry if I came off as getting personal, I really wasn't trying to or intending on.

Lanefan · Dec 19, 2018

Saelorn said:
If by "fairly and consistently" you mean "impartially", then this is a good example of the problem I encountered.

When my level 3 cleric comes across a vampire, simply knowing that I can turn undead is not useful information to me. I have no idea whether the attempt is a good idea in this particular situation, or something that my character would believe to be trivial or nigh-impossible (or actually impossible). I would have to ask the DM what the chances of success are, based on observable and non-observable factors, and then trust that their assessment (based on what they know) is similar to what my own assessment would be if I had known what they know. In short, it's a huge hassle to make sure that the player and the DM are on the same page. Running through the same process, whenever a new mechanic comes into play, can be exhausting.

It's perfectly reasonable to assume your character might not know the chances either....but maybe some trainer somewhere mentioned something. Roll a d20, the lower you roll (i.e. the further below your wisdom) the better you can assess the odds. Failing that, it's trial-and-error time.

It also prevents the player from planning for the future, since they don't know how the possibilities may play out at the next branch.

Good. Just like real life.

If I'm cornered by thugs, I have no idea whether running away is a sensible option (as compared to just fighting them).

Just like real life, assuming a modicum of self-defense training. You've no way of knowing how tough these tough-sounding thugs might really be until-unless you take them on...at which point you're committed.

I have no idea whether climbing a wall to escape is likely to result in lethal fall damage,

You'd know enough to realize that - just like real life - climbing a wall is probably going to entail some risk, with painful (or maybe lethal, who knows?) consequences should things go wrong.

Now if you've tried climbing in the past and have fallen and survived you've given yourself some useful info which - assuming again impartial consistency on the DM side - you can use now. But to start with it's trial and error, as it should be.

or whether moving within 5' of a thug will subject me to the Dreaded Grapple Rules;

Not something that's likely to occur to your character in the moment...

but those are all factors, in whether or not I should try to run. If the DM does their best to stay impartial, then the game grinds to a screeching halt as they explain all of the variables; if they guide me toward one answer or the other (maybe they really don't want to deal with grappling, so they over-sell how bad that is), then at some point, it's like they're playing my character for me.

Or the DM doesn't explain any variables* and just asks you what your next action is, thus forcing you into trial and error. Your PC isn't always going to make the best move every time or even know what the best move might be.

* - unless she remembers something you-as-player seem to have forgotten - e.g. that you've done some climbing before - and thus in theory your PC ought to have a vague idea of, at which point she'd give you a roll to see if your PC remembers what you-the-player don't.

Lanefan · Dec 19, 2018

Bawylie said:
What do you need to roll to hit AC zero? Wouldn’t a trained warrior already know?

A trained warrior wouldn't know what "AC zero" is. That said...

Wouldn’t the warrior know that better armor is more difficult to land a telling blow?

When facing familiar armour types, yes. But if faced with an armour type she's never seen before, e.g. the tough rubbery hide of some otherwise soft-looking monster, then no. Not until she's taken some attacks at it, anyway...which is simply trial and error under a different guise.

Wouldn’t the priest know that turning a powerful undead is harder than turning a weaker one?

In general, yes. But when confronted with an undead she's never seen before the priest quite likely won't know how powerful or not it happens to be, until-unless she tries turning it; or stands off for a while and watches what happens when her party-mates try dealing with it.

Don’t those target numbers approximate that amalgamation of skill and judgment?

When facing the same type of foe for the 47th time then yes, there's a case to be made for knowing the numbers. But even then there's still a case to be made against it: the DM should be able to - and should, now and then - vary things up such as hit point, AC, combat capabilities, defenses, etc.; and because of this the players should never be encouraged to make assumptions because it'll inevitably mess them at some point up if they do.

Bawylie · Dec 19, 2018

Lanefan said:
A trained warrior wouldn't know what "AC zero" is. That said...

When facing familiar armour types, yes. But if faced with an armour type she's never seen before, e.g. the tough rubbery hide of some otherwise soft-looking monster, then no. Not until she's taken some attacks at it, anyway...which is simply trial and error under a different guise.

In general, yes. But when confronted with an undead she's never seen before the priest quite likely won't know how powerful or not it happens to be, until-unless she tries turning it; or stands off for a while and watches what happens when her party-mates try dealing with it.

When facing the same type of foe for the 47th time then yes, there's a case to be made for knowing the numbers. But even then there's still a case to be made against it: the DM should be able to - and should, now and then - vary things up such as hit point, AC, combat capabilities, defenses, etc.; and because of this the players should never be encouraged to make assumptions because it'll inevitably mess them at some point up if they do.

You suppose proficiency in all weapons and armor omits some weapons and armor? Or doesn’t include the effects of damage types against various hides?

Does the religious training of a cleric ignore the experiences, wisdom, and traditions of clerics who came before?

I don’t think so. I don’t think each adventurer has to go out and reinvent the wheel here. I’m not saying they’re going to know everything in every circumstance. I’m saying they have sufficient knowledge and training to make educated decisions and that telling the player the target number is an adequate way of handling that education, experience, and training.

Level 1 isn’t birth. These cats know some things.

Guest 6801328 · Dec 19, 2018

KenNYC said:
First my apologies to the guy for coming on too strong.

Regarding the DMG and the tables not being in the PHB vs what there is today and whether this impacts role playing or the OP's immersion:

Yes eventually you would know you needed to roll a 10 to turn a skeleton, but the point of the rule was just be your character--roleplay it--and learn stuff as you go along, not be handed a power point presentation so you can start an internal deliberation on whether to cast a dex DC spell or wisdom DC spell? Just play out whatever makes sense to you and experience the result. That's a little more immersive I think to go back to the OP. Rules replace roleplaying which is why OD&D and 1e feel so different. You the player have to inject yourself into your character and play it out, not stat it out based on a sheet.

Clearly you are having a different experience with 5e than you did with OD&D, and you seem to prefer the original rules. But I you're conflating correlation and causation. Many people have the opposite experience of you, and are finding better, more immersive roleplaying with 5e. Many players (who I've seen) seem largely oblivious to rules and what's on their sheet, and are playing exactly the way you remember with such fond nostalgia.

Every edition has had every kind of player.