Running a session of Basic D&D -- my game group's experience

[S'mon]

Maybe my group has more non-game table talk. Maybe my group is just generally slower. I didn’t feel that we were wasting a lot of time, or going particularly slow. I mean, we only played the dungeon for about 3 hours. (And remember, they spent some of that time restocking between forays, and rolling up two new PCs to replace dead ones.) We could have squeezed another hour of play time in by starting earlier, or playing later. I could have had the Players generate their characters before the game session, but I felt that creating the characters at the table is part of the classic D&D play experience.

Well, I'm sorry it didn't seem to work out so well. I've certainly had my share of 'meh' sessions, and when they come at the start of a campaign they pretty reliably kill off interest.

"Nothing much happens" shouldn't be a problem with your 4e trial, if you use any adventure written for 4e; they tend towards linked-series-of-encounters so you are pretty well guaranteed a decent amount of action. Kobold Hall from the DMG looks ok as a playtest; Coppernight Hold the first Dungeon Delve is equally linear but shorter, good for a quick 2-2.5 hour game. The second Dungeon Delve, a tower full of goblins, is also quite nice and useable for a strong 1st level party.

 

[S'mon]

So you introduce people to new games with house rules first, before letting them (and you) see what experience the rules as written give?

You picture game designers as drunks running behind on their schedule, rather than as professionals who give thought and test to their ideas?

Interesting.

You do need to use your own judgement. For instance, the B1 text has the secret doors open inward towards the PCs. The intent there is that monsters can appear behind the party. The module is designed to funnel PCs on into the interesting areas, yet you ignored that in order to stick with the fairly obvious mistake on the map key that had a one-way secret door leading enticingly into the boring maze area.

When there are two alternatives, the GM needs to use their own judgement to go with the one that looks most fun.

 

[S'mon]

Certainly, Bullgrit used a 3.x-ism with one encounter, and not only did no one complain, but at least one poster said it was a good decision......

BX (& 1e) Troglodytes are ridiculously overpowered for 2 h critters IMO, with their 3 1d4 attacks. This is a problem with several humanoids that use natural weapons - indeed in S3 The Final Enemy the British writer explicitly mocks Gygax's Monster Manual Sahuagin, who use weapons doing ca 1d8 damage when he statted them up as having 5 natural attacks doing vastly more!

Compare 2hd trog 1-4/1-4/1-4 to the B/X 6hd Troll doing 1-6/1-6/1-10 or the 8 hd hill giant doing a rather pathetic 2-16. Tweaking the stats to get something reasonable is good DMing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Uh, S'mon, I was the poster to which I refer (who said it was a good decision).

 

[Bullgrit]

The module is designed to funnel PCs on into the interesting areas

LOL! The module is not designed to funnel the PCs anywhere in particular. It is completely wide open with no funneling, hints, suggestions, or anything to get the PCs into the more interesting areas -- another concept that many people claim is a prime feature of "old school" dungeons. Funneling is often derided as railroading. I've seen it explained around here that any kind of map funneling is bad, and didn't exist in good classic dungeons.

Edit: http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...n-layout-map-flow-old-school-game-design.html

And I like this dungeon *because* it is wide open to exploration, with no funneling in any particular direction.

If the designer had any thoughts that some areas were not interesting, why would he even bother putting them in the dungeon.

yet you ignored that in order to stick with the fairly obvious mistake on the map key that had a one-way secret door leading enticingly into the boring maze area.

Again LOL! On my second delve into this dungeon, playing a PC under a different DM, back in my earliest days of D&D, our party found the secret door in the east alcove, and we went through it.

Had my Players this time not found the western secret door, and gone down to the intersection at the end of the entry hall, they still could have gone west and ended up in the area they went to through the secret door. The only difference would have been an extra turn or two of walking.

Bullgrit

 

[S'mon]

Uh, S'mon, I was the poster to which I refer (who said it was a good decision).

I was agreeing it was a good decision - and one I reckon I'll use the next time I run a BX/LL adventure with troglodytes! Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I was agreeing it was a good decision - and one I reckon I'll use the next time I run a BX/LL adventure with troglodytes! Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Sorry, I disagree with Bullgrit enough that I thought I had not been clear.


RC

 

[Orius]

Another big difference is that, in the 3e example, the DM tells the player to make a Search roll, thus alerting the players to keep looking until they roll high. Or to just take 20. Clearly, the 3e players are going to recover far more treasure (if the game is played as the respective DMGs example) than the AD&D characters, and with far less effort.

It depends on how the 3e DM does things. If he simply tells the players there no treasure in the room and tells them to Search only where there is, he's giving away information. I don't personally DM like that. If the players want to search the room, they do a Search check, or take 20. I only let them know they find something when the check is successful. I dopn't tell them they failed to find something or if there was nothing to find; they decide how long they want to poke around the room.

Though that example was from the DMG right?

 

[Raven Crowking]

It depends on how the 3e DM does things.

Of course it does.

Though that example was from the DMG right?

1e DMG vs. 3e DMG.


RC

 

[Hussar]

I suppose the key would be to eliminate the less interesting portions prior to play of the module, but sometimes they are hard to recognize before the PCs get bogged down in them.

Having either run or played a number of short term games lately, I think this is bang on advice. Yes, "funnelling" is tantamount to rail roading, sure. But, you've only got one session or at least a small number of sessions, so, spending a significant portion in a boring section sucks much worse than in a longer campaign.

Put it another way, in a 4 session mini-campaign, spending a session doing boring stuff means that a quarter of your gaming time just got flushed. Much better, IMO, to do a bit of shepherding and lead the players to somewhere more interesting. Maybe some noises down a particular corridor, or, a wandering monster that is moving away from the party. Something like that.

Totally understand that this is NOT "old school" type advice. But, hey, anything that makes the game more fun is good AFAIK.