How did you play back in the day? - forked from Q's Leveling Comparisons

[Hussar]

Heh, imagine how the song changes.

Ariosto. You claimed that playing mega-dungeons was THE NORM of 1e play. You were questioned on this MULTIPLE times and repeatedly stated that this was the norm of 1e play.

Even here you state:

Someone started to claim that the underworld of many ways was not a significant part of the game as Gygax designed it. I can see how the concept might be obscure if one were informed only by select later texts, rather than by the seminal work (even at a remove via oral tradition). It seemed perfectly clear to me, and apparently to plenty of others in the 1970s, though, and nothing I have encountered since of Mr. Gygax's writings suggests to me that this was a misunderstanding.

This poll pretty much proves that you are mistaken. Even if OD&D flat out stated that AD&D is only properly played in mega-dungeons, it doesn't change the fact that playing in mega-dungeons was NOT THE NORM. That it was unusual for groups to play in mega-dungeons.

So, again, you are basically saying that Gygax was so out of touch with how people were playing the game that his basis for his game was false. That he would assume that people were playing a style of game so frequently that it was the norm when it appears to be the norm for only a very small fraction of gamers.

I choose to believe that Mr. Gygax was considerably more savvy than this.

But then, it's much easier just to continue with the ad hominem attacks rather than try to admit any mistake.

 

[S'mon]

I forked over some filthy lucre for a Goodman Games hardbound of low-level 3E scenarios. My direst disgust was at freaking identical bloated stat blocks on facing pages. In gargantuan type, between humongous margins. Then I took some deep, relaxing breaths ... and proceeded to feast my eyes on what I hope was the greatest distillation ever of "all roads lead to the next encounter" design.

Yeah, I hate the linear nature of most DCCs. I ran a campaign recently where two old TSR modules (B7 & B5) were followed by 2 DCCs (Palace of Shadows and The Slithering Overlord). Unfortunately the gulf in quality of design, description and editing is huge. I will use DCCs much more circumspectly in future.

 

[Hussar]

...

Heh, Y'know what, I'm going to declare a win for everyone.

Korgoth - you are absolutely, 100% right. So long as you ignore my initial post, and all subsequents posts, and focus solely on a throw away line that I tossed out as I went to bed, you are completely right that I failed to provide a poll that in any way proved my point. Pat yourself on the back, that's full of win.

Me, I proved to myself sufficiently that I made my point. My basic premise was that mega-dungeon play was not the norm back in the day, despite claims to the contrary. Even with RC's rather equivocating definition of "norm", I'm still pretty content that I've shown that mega-dungeon play was not the standard at the table. It may very well have featured in every single group that played AD&D, but, few enough did it often enough to consider it a habit.

That's full of win too.

So, everyone's happy. I like it when everyone's happy. I can't see any more useful content coming out of this conversation, so, thanks to all who participated.

 

[Storm Raven]

ToEE is a meatgrinder because it's bad in ways Tomb of Horrors really is not. In every attempt on it to which I have been privy, the Temple has in the analysis just bored people if not to death then to more interesting precincts.

Ah, the shifting sands of argument. Your claim was that somehow modules and adventure paths were gentler on adventurers than megadungions. When I point out that is not the case for many, you resort to asserting that the adventures are dull. Of course, of all the classic adventures, I'd argue that <i>Tomb of Horrors</i> is the dullest ("which unavoidable death trap will kill the next PC" is dullsville defined). And I really have to wonder if RtToEE (which is the adventure I cited, not ToEE, although both are quite deadly) is truly more boring than a randomly generated megadungeon (which seems to be the style of play you are advocating). Nothing sounds more boring to me than an endless complex of random monsters and treasure.

And I note, that the "more interesting precincts" that most people moved on to were not big megadungeons. The thing that bored people about the ToEE installments was that they were too much like a megadungeon. That's hardly a glowing endorsement of the idea.

 

[Ariosto]

The usual suspects' sophistry on particular points is by now evident enough to make any and all rebuttal redundant. I can hardly have shifted from a position I never held, so they tilt only with themselves in that regard. Touching briefly other matters:

Death in S1 is most certainly avoidable. Many of the traps indeed require no more than being ignored, while simple precautions suffice to deprive others of their sting. A monster is not so easily bypassed, and most probably must be dealt with in the usual fashion.

The flaws (IMO) of the Temple are due to its being too little like a proper dungeon in the D&D sense. Large scale is not necessary to the qualities -- but their lack is all the more significant in a lengthy scenario!

As always, YMMV. Some prefer brain work, others "hack and slay". In the long run, variety is the spice most likely to satisfy discriminating dungeon delvers.

 

[Storm Raven]

Yeah, I hate the linear nature of most DCCs. I ran a campaign recently where two old TSR modules (B7 & B5) were followed by 2 DCCs (Palace of Shadows and The Slithering Overlord). Unfortunately the gulf in quality of design, description and editing is huge. I will use DCCs much more circumspectly in future.

Some of the DDCs are linear. Then again, so are some of the old TSR modules (A3 and the Moathouse in T1 spring to mind, as do many of the DL modules, there were others too). Given that the DCCs intentionally seek to emulate the older modules, it should come as no surprise that some of them have a linear nature similar to those they are paying homage to. Others are not so linear. Like any series that has 50+ installements, there are ups and downs, but the DCCs are by and large ups with a very few downs.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ah, the shifting sands of argument.

There's plenty of that to go around.

The quotes from Gary and Monte demonstrate that a player in 1e was expected to gain approximately 3/4 of a level for every level gained by a 3e player, so that after 52 sessions the 1e player is level 10, and the 3e player is level 13, a gain of +9 and +12 levels respectively, or 3/4.

The quotes were evidence before the math was done; I imagine that the sands have shifted.


RC

 

[Storm Raven]

The usual suspects' sophistry on particular points is by now evident enough to make any and all rebuttal redundant. I can hardly have shifted from a position I never held, so they tilt only with themselves in that regard.

So, you didn't claim that somehow PCs had plot immunity in an adventure path because the "path cares about whether you surivive" as opposed the the "tough" manly megadungeons that supposedly didn't? Because, you know, I can get quotes.

Death in S1 is most certainly avoidable. Many of the traps indeed require no more than being ignored, while simple precautions suffice to deprive others of their sting. A monster is not so easily bypassed, and most probably must be dealt with in the usual fashion.

Sure you can avoid the traps. If you know they are there ahead of time. If you simply don't go in the dungeon. If you don't actually do any exploring. All paths to dullness. Of all the classic modules, S1 was the most boring in execution by far.

[/i]The flaws (IMO) of the Temple are due to its being too little like a proper dungeon in the D&D sense. Large scale is not necessary to the qualities -- but their lack is all the more significant in a lengthy scenario![/i]

ToEE and (RttToEE) are so much like megadungeons that many people cite them as examples of that type of adventure. And if you think they don't have variety, well then you really haven't looked at them. (The flaw in ToEE arises if the DM doesn't flesh out the nodes enough, the flaw in RttToEE is if the DM doesn't play up the factional disputes enough; the flaw is not that there is no variety).

As always, YMMV. Some prefer brain work, others "hack and slay". In the long run, variety is the spice most likely to satisfy discriminating dungeon delvers.

Ah, the backhanded insult. "If you game my way, you are into brain work". Nice.

By the way, the psuedo-Gygaxian prose doesn't work for you. For Gygax, it came naturally. At your fingertips it comes off as annoying and as an attempt to obscure your meaning.

 

[Storm Raven]

There's plenty of that to go around.

The quotes from Gary and Monte demonstrate that a player in 1e was expected to gain approximately 3/4 of a level for every level gained by a 3e player, so that after 52 sessions the 1e player is level 10, and the 3e player is level 13, a gain of +9 and +12 levels respectively, or 3/4.

Oh look, a non-sequitur with nothing to do with the issue being currently discussed. How interesting.

 

[Raven Crowking]

How interesting.

Sorry, I didn't realize this was a private public beating.


(And, pointing out that you are guilty of the same thing you accuse Ariosto of is relevant. IMHO, at least.)

RC