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

[Reynard]

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.

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.

Bring some henchmen?

I understand that "sitting out" is no fun and needs addressing (although i hesitate to call it "bad design" since that label gets slapped on anything people don't think is fun, which is not the same thing). But exactly how to address that in a game where Bad Things Happen is an open question.

Would it be better if those "perma-paralysis" situations were made insta-death instead? I'm not sure one way or the other.

 

[Cruentus]

Bring some henchmen?

I understand that "sitting out" is no fun and needs addressing (although i hesitate to call it "bad design" since that label gets slapped on anything people don't think is fun, which is not the same thing). But exactly how to address that in a game where Bad Things Happen is an open question.

Would it be better if those "perma-paralysis" situations were made insta-death instead? I'm not sure one way or the other.

That's what we do. Usually characters have henchmen or hirelings for carrying torches, equipment, minding horses, etc. If your character is paralyzed, grab the hireling and keep playing. Character dies - grab the henchman and keep playing. Or play an NPC if they happen to be with the party.

The nice thing about OSE and B/X is that character creation literally takes 5 minutes. Roll 6 stats, pick class and race/species. Pick equipment. You can be up and running with a new character who is "nearby" the action in 10 minutes tops.

Our table hasn't ever had a problem about being paralyzed or killed in the game, and having to sit and watch for a short time. We have never found a reason a new character couldn't be inserted into the action pretty quickly, assuming one on hand, or the player rolls one up.

Of course, we never had that problem in 5th because no one ever came close to dying, or being unconscious, or threatened in any way, over 16 levels. And frankly, that was "bad design" and boring for us.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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...!

This is the exact type of article I love! I previously (briefly) referenced the T1 and Sage Advice "clarifications" on this, but I really appreciate the full run down on the history.

Excellent and thorough research as always, @zenopus No notes.

I always look forward to your deep dives on history, and this added a lot of additional context to an issue I hadn't thoroughly looked into before.

 

[Willie the Duck]

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 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.)

Overall, there isn't anything wrong with making it permanent, even in a game where you want characters to have more importance than individual wargame units. It just makes perma-paralysis another challenge to be worked around. IMO, the design construct you need to build around a game like that would be:

1. There should be plenty of avenues for removing said conditions, and
2. That larger squad play (so that 'the whole party gets paralyzed' becomes relatively unlikely*).*cue debate about how frequently TPKs ought come up.

Then it becomes an interesting little secondary combat loop on top of hit points. Players can be dead, incapacitated, or functioning, and they can spend their efforts preventing it happen in the first place, or eliminating the threat that can cause it as quickly as possible (and when it happens, take time removing the condition first; or eliminate the threat and then get everyone back on their feet).
Even without those (and it permanent and hard to remove), it is just another form of 'dead,' which, is also fine as long as people can get back into play readily and quickly.

 

[Umbran]

I understand that "sitting out" is no fun and needs addressing (although i hesitate to call it "bad design" since that label gets slapped on anything people don't think is fun, which is not the same thing). But exactly how to address that in a game where Bad Things Happen is an open question.

Bad Things Happen - to the characters. Not the players.

When a player that has caused a problem says, "But that's what my character would do!" we generally find that to be a poor excuse. From a game design standpoint, "But Bad Things Happen!" is just, "But, that's what my world wants to do!", and is a similarly poor excuse for giving a player a bad play experience by design.

Which is why a lot of modern games take that out of the design. There are ways to make bad things happen without screwing over the player for long periods of time. Indeed, in the best designs, a bad thing happening to the character is a cool and interesting event for the player. Not a boring one.

Would it be better if those "perma-paralysis" situations were made insta-death instead? I'm not sure one way or the other.

If the intent of the design is, "Get hit and fail your save, and you LOSE," then maybe they should just die, yes. After all, that's really the basic intent - it just lacks the courage of its convictions to actually do it.

If the intent of the design is, "Getting hit and failing your save complicates your life, and you should avoid it," there's several different ways to implement that. Maybe try one that doesn't mean the player is personally better off just leaving the table.

In my opinion and approach to gaming, if an established player would be better served leaving your table, as a GM, that should be considered a failure mode.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@zenopus

One more thing that might tie into this. I am preparing a deep dive into the system shock concept in AD&D (1e). While researching the issue, I learned that Len Lakofka claimed that his greatest contribution to D&D was convincing Gygax to NOT include "Hold Person" among the spells that would require system shock rolls.

I haven't seen anything that generalizes that to paralysis in general, but I believe that this would have likely been Gygax's intent (at least until he was convinced otherwise).

If that was indeed, the plan, then restoration from paralysis would have required a system shock roll- meaning that paralysis was a very big deal.

 

[Reynard]

In my opinion and approach to gaming, if your player would be better served leaving your table, as a GM, that should be considered a failure mode.

I would agree in the case of what we probably can call "normal" or "usual" play -- but playing OD&D by RAW (as much as that is even possible) is decidedly not that. We shouldn't use rules systems that actively work against our goals. We shouldn't use OD&D to play a game that considers fairness and fun to be important.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I would agree in the case of what we probably can call "normal" or "usual" play -- but playing OD&D by RAW (as much as that is even possible) is decidedly not that. We shouldn't use rules systems that actively work against our goals. We shouldn't use OD&D to play a game that considers fairness and fun to be important.

Again, given the number of players over the years (including those that have gone back to it), I would avoid making pejorative statement like that.

Different people find different things "fun." That you might not like it does not privilege you to criticize the fun of other people.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Perhaps we can just say that original-intention oD&D sets up scenarios where one's forces can be unexpectedly (and maybe feeling unfairly*) completely ruined and that was considered a normal state of play much moreso than modern "normal" or "usual" play. *but hopefully still no DM-made scenarios where 'you'd have to be a mind-reader' to have done the optimal actions.

@zenopus

One more thing that might tie into this. I am preparing a deep dive into the system shock concept in AD&D (1e). While researching the issue, I learned that Len Lakofka claimed that his greatest contribution to D&D was convincing Gygax to NOT include "Hold Person" among the spells that would require system shock rolls.

I haven't seen anything that generalizes that to paralysis in general, but I believe that this would have likely been Gygax's intent (at least until he was convinced otherwise).

If that was indeed, the plan, then restoration from paralysis would have required a system shock roll- meaning that paralysis was a very big deal.

If anything, this reinforces to me the notion that Gygax thought the first line of defense wasn't the (usually 25-75% chances) saving throw, but not being subject to the attacks in the first place. If you have ghouls within striking range of your character, or an enemy magic user with Hold Person prepared (and in a position to successfully cast it on them), you were already in a fail state.

 

[Reynard]

Again, given the number of players over the years (including those that have gone back to it), I would avoid making pejorative statement like that.

Different people find different things "fun." That you might not like it does not privilege you to criticize the fun of other people.

Fair enough, I suppose, but I was responding directly to statement about how the way OD&D did it as "unfun", so it was not a general statement.