D&D 1E Old Timers: How was D1 supposed to be run/go down?

[David Neuschulz]

I am aware that the old GDQ modules (and others of that primordial era) were tournament modules, that the ethos/style of play was different back then, but even taking in consideration all of the aforementioned, and taking D1 as a specific case:
How was that supposed to be run/go down?

I ask because the sheer number of NPCs is really large (outrageously large, by today's standards) -- even overpowered PCs are going to take many, many round to clear...like boring number of rounds to slog through. Leading to the thought, supported partially by some comments in various places in the module, that the PCs are (supposed to be?) using disguises and/or false identities to get past the vast majority of NPCs. But on some level, that doesn't feel right, either, inasmuch as, if you're flim-flamming your way through, the module will take 1 combat-less hour to run, and then it's time to pull out D2 with the Kua-Toa. Now I know that it can be both of those possibilities with the DM attitude, "Players can choose their own path and live or die accordingly" so no one path is "forced" on them. But, there had to be some authorial intent, some range of alternatives to choose from, otherwise, why not just hand out a blank Underdark hex map and wing it?

So, take the first unavoidable Checkpoint Encounter (where, due to darkvision and clairvoyance spells, the 26 Drow are highly likely to not be surprised)... is that designed to be so overwhelming that all but the cleverest/luckiest PCs avoid TPK? In other words, "roleplay negotiating with the checkpoint or tournament play is over early"? Or is it balanced to be winnable via "clear the room" combat -- even though that's a very long, boring slog? Or is there some third option that I've overlooked that allows combat -- but combat that isn't overly long?

This question applies double to the main cavern with its 100+sardine-packed encounters.

There isn't one answer here, obviously,... but how did things go (if you've run it), or what are the non-stupid/non-TPK possibilities you see?

 

[Baron Opal II]

You talk a lot and be choosy about conflicts. You pay your tolls / taxes and move on. It is entirely possible to have the whole module take an hour and pull out D2, because it is a "crossroads" between a major highway and a minor road (IIRC). You have entered the drow nation. There will be consequences of you attack the "local constabulary". You can do it but you have to be prepared and you are likely out numbered by competent foes, although possibly not outgunned.

When I ran it (AD&D) the players polymorphed themselves into drow, used disguise kits for the elves, or were in full armor. This allowed them to walk fairly unmolested by the intelligent humanoids as they weren't sure the PCs were not drow. A few encounters were fought, and usually the other denizens ignore what happens to the others. The drow don't really care about what happens to non-drow as long as the road remains open. There are a couple of overwhelming encounters, but I do think there is sufficient warning about them.

 

[billd91]

I don't think there was a single "supposed to" for how the D-modules were supposed to play out. If you were using them as a continuing series after the G series, the PCs had something of a plot thread to follow - but exactly how they wanted to do it was up to them. When I ran it a LONG time ago, I don't believe the PCs even fought most of the denizens in the troglodyte warren. They worked mostly toward the general direction indicated by the map dropped by the retreating Drow in G3 and avoided much of the rest of it. They did even less exploring when they encountered the shrine of the Kuo-Toa. As a result, there was a lot less fighting in the big encounter areas than one might expect.

And that's part of the idea behind a lot of earlier stuff like Gygax's dungeons or other home brewed stuff. You explore and fight as you wish and break contact by retreating and/or hiding to rest up and heal, managing your own risk as much as you can. And, for the most part, an expected party of about 7-9 10th level PCs is a pretty powerful group and can be expected to handle a lot - assuming they don't provoke too much attention...

 

[Jaeger]

I ask because the sheer number of NPCs is really large (outrageously large, by today's standards) -- even overpowered PCs are going to take many, many round to clear...like boring number of rounds to slog through. Leading to the thought, supported partially by some comments in various places in the module, that the PCs are (supposed to be?) using disguises and/or false identities to get past the vast majority of NPCs. But on some level, that doesn't feel right, either, inasmuch as, if you're flim-flamming your way through, the module will take 1 combat-less hour to run, and then it's time to pull out D2 with the Kua-Toa. Now I know that it can be both of those possibilities with the DM attitude, "Players can choose their own path and live or die accordingly" so no one path is "forced" on them. But, there had to be some authorial intent, some range of alternatives to choose from, otherwise, why not just hand out a blank Underdark hex map and wing it?

I'm curious what you mean by 'Authorial Intent'.

By design and intent there is no default thing the PC's are 'supposed' to do in these modules. It is entirely up to the PC's to figure it out, and the DM to impartially adjudicate their actions.

The play paradigm for D&D was very different from the 3e era. The PC's were more fragile, avoiding combat was the default mode in which you approached any encounter.

Remember; PC's also got XP for gold, not just fighting monsters. Pc's had a lot of incentive to avoid needless combats. Having a character survive to the higher levels was to be considered an achievement.

The default group size was a bit larger too. PC's were expected to have hirelings and retainers. (That's why the rules were there). Troupe play was a far more common mode of play as well. You also had NPC reaction tables, and Morale rules for combat.

Not every encounter broke out into a fight right away, and running away was always an option.

Same with the Reaction tables. It was not an uncommon practice that the PC's would form temporary alliances with some monsters in a dungeon to attack a different group of monsters in the same dungeon. Then it was a contest to see who backstabbed who first...

I still don't get why they got rid of morale rules in 3e. It was a big paradigm shift in how the game is run.

As to: "...why not just hand out a blank Underdark hex map and wing it?"

With D1 you don't have to wing it. The encounters are laid out for you - taking a big load of work off of the DM. But it was also assumed that a DM would fill in the gaps as they saw fit.

IMHO - A lot of people bounce off some of the older modules because the standard mode of play of early D&D that these modules were written for is different from post 3e D&D.

If you know what people did back then you can see how a lot of these things are implied in the way the rules/modules were written and presented. Unfortunately Gygax and co. never bothered to explicitly spell them out. They just considered them obvious.

 

[Casimir Liber]

Combat was also alot quicker. I recall DMing the G series - huge numbers of combats and foes and it didn't take that long......

 

[TerraDave]

Also, fireball.

 

[David Neuschulz]

I'm curious what you mean by 'Authorial Intent'.

By design and intent there is no default thing the PC's are 'supposed' to do in these modules. It is entirely up to the PC's to figure it out, and the DM to impartially adjudicate their actions.

This is an ideal in DMing.

It is not an ideal in module writing, which is a very different thing. A writer must decide how hard the challenge is and how many possibilities for resolution they are going to accommodate in explicit writing. All while tossing out reminders that implicitly there are many options not written for (like all the paths on the D1 map that go to places not fleshed out).

I was trying to glean if Gygax was anticipating players' lateral thinking in combat only -- or lateral thinking writ large. Seems like the latter.

 

[David Neuschulz]

Great answers! Thanks all.

The main cavern is a great example, too. Players enter the cave on the main thoroughfare and it clearly proceeds through the cavern, past another Drow checkpoint and on to further along their map. They can choose to engage the checkpoint through combat or subterfuge or stealth and just move on "down the road." But Gygax has packed all the side areas/regions within this giant chamber with hundreds of statted-out monsters. The fact that these are side chambers (and side-side-chambers), well,... this strongly suggests to me that Gygax must have been anticipating a likelihood that at least some player groups were playing in the "clear the room" style.

(The Mind Flayer encounter is perhaps the most "modern" one. They can fight them, and gain cred with the Drow. Or make other choices.)

 

[GuyBoy]

I DM-ed it about four decades ago so memory is a bit shaky, although I do remember it being fun and carrying a sense of wonder in a completely new environment after the G series. It’s probably worth remembering that the Underdark was a totally new concept at the time, whereas it’s just one more aspect of the game now.
As I can recall, invisibility and silence 10’ radius (usually cast on pebbles which were then carried and could be thrown if needed) were employed to get past checks. Area of effect spells like ice storm and fireball. Then simple combat, but it tended to be quicker in 1E and the presence of henchmen (who were usually pretty tough) helped a lot.
The battle with the lich is still memorable.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Well, as on of those "old timers" who has ran D1-2 multiple times over the decades since about 1984, I'll toss in my 2 coppers.

I am aware that the old GDQ modules (and others of that primordial era) were tournament modules, that the ethos/style of play was different back then, but even taking in consideration all of the aforementioned, and taking D1 as a specific case:
How was that supposed to be run/go down?

..with the PC's slowly being picked off, dying of starvation, alone and in the dark, obviously!

I ask because the sheer number of NPCs is really large (outrageously large, by today's standards) -- even overpowered PCs are going to take many, many round to clear...like boring number of rounds to slog through.

Wrong attitude and wrong game system. Back in 1e, high-level PC's (and yes, 9th level was considered high level) were significantly more capable than todays PC's...when comparing against the "numbers and mechanics of the game".
Just looking at everyone's favourite pre-gen'ed character...

"Beek Gwenders of Croodle"
A 9th level Ranger. His AC -3 (5e Equiv: 23). Hit Points of Beek was ridiculous for 1e; Beek was sporting a whopping 93(!) HP's. Back in 1e, an Ogre does 1d10 damage; at average, it's gonna take the ogre 16 rounds (that's MINUTES, btw...) to kill Beek if he hits every time. Which he won't; because the ogre needs to roll an 18+ to hit him.
Beek, on the other hand, needs a 3+ to hit the ogre (Beeks Str bonus and his Sword +1), 3/2 rounds (meaning 1 attack the first round, then 2 the second round, then 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, etc). His Longsword does 1d12 against Ogres. With +4 for Str, +1 for Magic...oh, and +9 because Beek is a Ranger fighting a "giant class" creature; so +14 damage. That's 1d12+14 damage, for an average of 21 damage per hit. An ogre has 4d8+1hp; average being 19hp. Beek can cut through 3 Ogers every TWO ROUNDS! That's 24 Ogres dead by the time the ogres have taken out Beek...assuming every single ogre's To Hit roll is NEVER below 18.

See my point? The PC's in 1e are SIGNIFICANTLY better at taking out "monsters and such"; a dozen ogres for a group of even 4 10th level PC's is a 'warm up fight'. It won't take many rounds of combat...and with a group of 1e Players that have played enough to even get PC's to 10th level...I'd guess that fight would take about 5 minutes. Less if the MU pulls out a Scroll with Fireball on it (POOF! 12 crispy ogres in ONE round!, almost guaranteed).

So your contention that it would take "many boring rounds" is simply misplaced. This also assumes that the PC's all "rush in and start attacking" everything in sight. To get to 10th level, Players have learned that is dumb. They don't do that. They use all manner of spells, magic items and special abilities to do recon and to avoid or "divide and conquer", or they use guerilla tactics. (assuming you're talking about the places like the trog caves or the troll caves, etc?)

Remember! Back in 1e, you got more XP from treasure than killing! Depending on the DM's interpretation of "defeating monsters", they probably got XP from avoiding these huge fights. In 1e, it was about surviving and getting the gold...not about "being heroic and saving the world", generally speaking.

Leading to the thought, supported partially by some comments in various places in the module, that the PCs are (supposed to be?) using disguises and/or false identities to get past the vast majority of NPCs. But on some level, that doesn't feel right, either, inasmuch as, if you're flim-flamming your way through, the module will take 1 combat-less hour to run, and then it's time to pull out D2 with the Kua-Toa. Now I know that it can be both of those possibilities with the DM attitude, "Players can choose their own path and live or die accordingly" so no one path is "forced" on them. But, there had to be some authorial intent, some range of alternatives to choose from, otherwise, why not just hand out a blank Underdark hex map and wing it?

Because that's not how 1e rolls.
I think you simply have little (any?) experience playing in an "Old Skool Style" 1e campaign/game. To those that still play it (like me), what you are saying is like me saying "Why bother even adventuring in 5e? Adventures are written in such a linear manner, and with such specific, expected encounters and outcomes, ...why not just hand me a 30 page short story describing how we all succeeded in saving the world?".

The "encounters" in 1e are meant to challenge THE PLAYERS, as well as their PC's. They are not meant to be "direct obstacles to be engaged with at every turn". An encounter with a drow patrol check point; this is a challenge for the PLAYERS to figure out how to overcome...not their PC's. Some players will use subterfuge...some stealth...some magic....some combat. The point of the "encounter" is that it is there and portrays the fantasy setting/world. It's there to make the world seem believable in the setting/story... NOT to be an "encounter for the PC's to fight".

So, take the first unavoidable Checkpoint Encounter (where, due to darkvision and clairvoyance spells, the 26 Drow are highly likely to not be surprised)... is that designed to be so overwhelming that all but the cleverest/luckiest PCs avoid TPK? In other words, "roleplay negotiating with the checkpoint or tournament play is over early"? Or is it balanced to be winnable via "clear the room" combat -- even though that's a very long, boring slog? Or is there some third option that I've overlooked that allows combat -- but combat that isn't overly long?

As I said...it's an "encounter" in that it is a believable location, contingent, and tactics for the Drow. It sets the 'first encounter with' Drow in the minds of the PLAYERS (and their PC's). It is the PLAYERS that learn and gain experience here...not necessarily their PC's; that's secondary, imnsho. How the Players react to this encounter is the "expected outcome". It sets the tone, so to say, for the Players future tactics and expectations of the dungeon/module. A TPK is a completely reasonable outcome! I know, heresy, right? The Heroic PC's all dying in the FIRST encounter?!? INSANITY!!! Try that with todays players and yeah, you'd have a table of very confused and possibly angry people sitting there wondering w-t-frig just happened. But that's because I think 'modern' play has moved so far away from the game being meant to challenge the Players, to the game being meant to challenge the Player Characters. That's a whole other thread though!

This question applies double to the main cavern with its 100+sardine-packed encounters.

There isn't one answer here, obviously,... but how did things go (if you've run it), or what are the non-stupid/non-TPK possibilities you see?

As I mentioned back up Beek Gwenders...the area is meant to portray the believability of the campaign world...not necessarily as an "encounter to be directly interacted with". Lots of different approaches.

For my experiences running it... surprisingly, each group always did well! Two groups even manage to 'complete' it, getting to Q1 (with one of those groups successfully besting Lolth...the other group, er...not so much... ).

^_^

Paul L. Ming