TSR Monster Paralysis: Reason for Lack of Durations in OD&D, Holmes, AD&D


log in or register to remove this ad

a 1989 letter from Gygax suggests that he originally viewed it as permanent until removed...!

See the letter and read about it here:
Gygaxian Monster Paralysis: Permanent?

FWIW, I think this is actually very in line with most, if not all, of the stories/fantasy that OD&D was based on. From Frodo being paralyzed by Shelob to Snow White being paralyzed by an apple, people who are disabled by magic are basically are out of action until someone comes to their rescue. Sometimes, you even had to kill the caster to stop a spell.

The idea that certain conditions like this would be temporary (in terms of a single encounter) is a gamist innovation that took time to be introduced into D&D, and even longer to be fully adapted as a standard. The progression that you present here makes a lot of sense to me. At this point, we've basically done a 180 to the point where permanent conditions like this are almost unheard of; even most cursed items are gone in 5e.
 

Today on the Zenopus Archives, I look at a possibly surprising reason why monster paralysis in OD&D, Holmes and the AD&D (mostly) doesn't have any duration: a 1989 letter from Gygax suggests that he originally viewed it as permanent until removed...!

See the letter and read about it here:
Gygaxian Monster Paralysis: Permanent?
We played it as permanent (until cured) back in the early 80s.
 

I remember that liches explicitly had permanent paralysis, which felt like a suitable ability for such a high level monster. Giving that to ghouls and carrion crawlers seems a bit wacky. (Carrion crawlers are just super caterpillars and not even the cool kind that turn into Mothra.)
 

At least in OSE/BX, Cure Light Wounds also cured Paralysis. So recovering from it was only a 1st 2nd level cleric away. And that was something I only recently learned. I have no idea if Cure Light doing that was a thing in Ad&d, I certainly don't remember it.

And I always thought paralysis had a really long duration, not so much permanent. Interesting. The classic for me was the ghoul, which paralyzed you for multiple turns (2d4 turns for OSE, meaning 20-80 minutes!)
 

FWIW, I think this is actually very in line with most, if not all, of the stories/fantasy that OD&D was based on. From Frodo being paralyzed by Shelob to Snow White being paralyzed by an apple, people who are disabled by magic are basically are out of action until someone comes to their rescue. Sometimes, you even had to kill the caster to stop a spell.

The idea that certain conditions like this would be temporary (in terms of a single encounter) is a gamist innovation that took time to be introduced into D&D, and even longer to be fully adapted as a standard. The progression that you present here makes a lot of sense to me. At this point, we've basically done a 180 to the point where permanent conditions like this are almost unheard of; even most cursed items are gone in 5e.
this,

but luckily, gamist innovation prevailed.

getting removed from play, IE at the start of the combat by low save roll and unable to do nothing for next 2 or 3 hours is not fun for many people.
it turns your gameplay into watching YT stream of other people playing. Nothing wrong with that if you planned on doing that in advance.
 

At least in OSE/BX, Cure Light Wounds also cured Paralysis. So recovering from it was only a 1st 2nd level cleric away. And that was something I only recently learned. I have no idea if Cure Light doing that was a thing in Ad&d, I certainly don't remember it.

And I always thought paralysis had a really long duration, not so much permanent. Interesting. The classic for me was the ghoul, which paralyzed you for multiple turns (2d4 turns for OSE, meaning 20-80 minutes!)
The removal of paralysis by Cure Light Wounds got added by Moldvay in B/X D&D.

No durations nor removal spells for paralysis exist in OD&D nor Holmes Basic D&D.

Cheers,
Merric
 

this,

but luckily, gamist innovation prevailed.

getting removed from play, IE at the start of the combat by low save roll and unable to do nothing for next 2 or 3 hours is not fun for many people.
it turns your gameplay into watching YT stream of other people playing. Nothing wrong with that if you planned on doing that in advance.
It makes perfect sense when considered from the wargaming roots of the game: sometimes you lose. It is only after D&D becomes something more than that do we get player friendly changes.

I think it would be really important to know what the potential outcomes are going in to a game, but I think there is room for both styles of play (and everything in between).
 

It makes perfect sense when considered from the wargaming roots of the game: sometimes you lose. It is only after D&D becomes something more than that do we get player friendly changes.

I think it would be really important to know what the potential outcomes are going in to a game, but I think there is room for both styles of play (and everything in between).
I have no problem with getting my character killed, then you can just use downtime to create a new one.

but when you spend 2-3 hours on online game playing some PC game as your character can do absolutely nothing, but not dead is bad design.
 

It makes perfect sense when considered from the wargaming roots of the game: sometimes you lose. It is only after D&D becomes something more than that do we get player friendly changes.

I don't think it is about "losing". If you want them to "lose" you'd take all their hit points and kill the character.

As Horwath has noted, it is about whether or not the player gets to play, and how play happens within a social context in which eliminating a player is often awkward and boring.

And it isn't about wargaming roots, either - it transcends game genre. Older multiplayer games have a tendency to eliminate players as you go along. Many more modern games have structures in which all players get to continue to play until the game end condition is met, and we figure out who won afterwards.
 

Remove ads

Top