[EDITION WARZ] Selling Out D&D's Soul?

[jcfiala]

Stone to flesh is not death. A relatively low level spell, break enchantment, will reverse it. A spell, I might add, that didn't exist in AD&D. Yet another way 3e "coddles players.

Break Enchantment can only be cast if someone knows where you are. If no one does, you're effectively dead. Besides, 'Reincarnate' is a relatively low-level spell as well

Disintegration is no longer a save or die effect. In fact, in a recent campaign, I had a barbarian fail his save against disintegration and survive, albeit at negative hit points.

40d6 is nothing to sneeze about, I'll say, but there *are* save or die effects. Phantasmal Killer is a 4th level spell which is save (twice) or die, Trap the Soul is a save or leave the game for a long time effect, and Symbol of Death is another save or die.

Mummy rot is justcon loss, though I agree, it's a bit worse than standard con loss.

Negative levels? C'mon, after the first few levels, pcs rarely fail dc13 fortitude saves, even wizards.

What dc13 effect are you thinking of? I'm thinking of the fact that if someone is nth level, and they take n or more negative levels, they die right then - no 'save in 24 hours to get it back', no more saving throws - dead.

Like it or not, negative levels and some spells are save or die effects - as is the 50 hp in one wound save - it may not be easy for 8th level characters to fail a DC 15 Fortitude save, but they *can* fail it if they roll a 1 on the die.

 

[Numion]

Negative levels? C'mon, after the first few levels, pcs rarely fail dc13 fortitude saves, even wizards.

That's the save to see if you get the level loss after 24h. You can still die if you get negative levels equal to your character level. That has no save.

I never got that disintegrate nerf, BTW. But then again I'm a 3.0E grognard.

 

[Numion]

My word, I hope you don't ever decide to produce role playing products. Those types of challenges constantly present themselves. If money is your sole motivator, your work will be quite uninspired. Tell me what you have designed and what your name is, so I know to avoid it. I don't mean to be insulting, but I definitely don't want to buy product from someone who's sole interest is making money. God knows there are enough bad modules and splat books out there not worth me converting, I like to know which ones to avoid.

Someone has his dicebag in a wad. Relax. He wasn't talking about that, you're safe from accidentally buying an RPG supplement produced with questionable morals

But I think we ALL (3e players included) could stand to lose a little bit of the pretense and name calling.

Lead by example, pretty please?

 

[FireLance]

I don't think so. I think that the implicit assumption behind JRRNeiklot's post was that these were acceptable negative consequences, and the more that you limit what negative consequences are acceptable, perforce, you limit the dangers faced in the game.

That's certainly true, but that doesn't necessarily make the game any less challenging or enjoyable. What if players have more fun when there is less danger of death or other permanent consequences? This isn't like eating broccoli or brussel sprouts. An increased risk of dying in the game doesn't develop moral fiber or make you a better person. Some people may not enjoy playing or running such a game, but that doesn't make it bad.

 

[Hussar]

Did you play much 1e, Hussar?

The answers to your question are:

1. The PCs are much more powerful than any individual opponent. But in 1e, there are hordes of opponents... there's our 19 orcs -v- a second level party example, or the fact that by the Monster Manual, wights come in groups of 2d8.

2. Many of these hordes of monsters possess little or no treasure. About 75% of the experience points in 1e are gained by recovering treasure, so they're best avoided rather than fought.

3. 1e dungeons have traps which kill you in completely arbitrary ways. Sometimes there's a saving throw, but not always.

4. Therefore the Rambo approach results in a TPW, as it should.

Started AD&D in 1980. Played through an awful lot of 1e modules including GDK, A series, Homlet, Ravenloft, Isle of the Ape, Cult of the Reptile God and that one in the jungle with the hidden temple that I CANNOT REMEMBER THE NAME OF.. ahem.

So, yeah, I played me a fair bit of 1e. You talk about 19 orcs. But, that's vs 6-8 PC's. Plus, apparently an addtional 5 or 10 henchmen and another dozen hirelings. How is that a threat?

Even without the extra redshirts, 8 PC's would blow through those orcs like tissue paper. If the fight started at range, the party would drop 8 in the first round from bowfire. In melee, the wizard drops up to 16 of them with a single sleep spell. No saving throw. Poof, end of fight.

I have never ever seen a group leave something unkilled in an adventure. I'm sure it happened, but, I've never seen it. After all, whatever that critter was may just have something hidden under a flagstone or some such thing. Waste resources? How? The creatures were obliterated so quickly that no resources were used.

There's a reason that Greyhawking a dungeon is a very old gaming term. It's not like scouring every square inch is a new idea. Good grief Gygax and crew INVENTED the bloody idea. Taking marbles into the halls to test for levelness? Who in their right mind left something behind?

But, again, this gets to the schitzo nature that I talked about earlier. The DMG says to avoid conflicts and get on with the goal. But, many modules had no goal other than kill everything that moves. That pretty much defines Against the Giants.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Well, only in that it would take more than a glance at the statblock (more time and effort and work) to determine if I could toss a monster at a PC, and when estimating the level of challenge they could provide (low to high) it would be significantly more difficult.

Would I let AD&D's rules override what my group likes? I don't think any DM should!

Totally misunderstanding the purpose of wandering monsters in 1e, there.

They're there to reward skilled play (or more accurately, to punish poor play). The logic is very simply -- the more time you waste, the more likely you are to meet a wandering monster. Parties which don't waste time won't meet many.

Since 1e wandering monsters rarely have treasure, intelligent players tend to distract them, bribe them or hide from them wherever possible.

 

[Hussar]

Or, conversely, DM's play in modules where random encounters frequently ARE carting around treasure that makes it worth your while to kill them. Never mind that a wandering couple of creatures are so much easy xp that it makes sense to kill them anyway.

Just a thought about inspiration. Upthread, there's a bit by TheShaman that AD&D is not a generic fantasy game. That AD&D was created specifically to cater to a certain campaign style and setting - presumably a pseudo-Middle Earthy sort of place. Or, perhaps Arabian adventures since TheShaman lumps 1001 Arabian Nights in with Tolkein despite their sharing pretty much nothing thematically or culturally considering one is modern Heroic Fantasy and the other is myth and legend.

I couldn't disagree more with this. A brief tour through the books puts lie to this. Let's start with the 1e Dieties and Demigods. Great book. I remember it fondly. My favourite parts were the Melnibonean and Cthulu mythologies as well as the Nehwon myths. In other words, borrowing from Sword and Sorcery (a sub genre of Heroic fantasy admittedly) and Gothic Horror which is competely separate from Heroic fantasy.

Now, lets saunter over to the Monster Manual where we find Mary Shelley's Frankenstein's monster remade as the Flesh Golem, B grade Monster Movie critters like the Black Pudding, Japanese inspired creatures like the Ogre Mage, creatures created specifically for dungeon crawling like the Gelantenous Cube and the Piercer and more Gothic Horror Cthulu-ness in the Mind Flayer.

After that, let's look at the DMG, particularly the magic items section where we have the Apparatus of Kwalish (one of my personal fav's), which is about as magictech as you can possibly get, as well as one of the best parts of 1e, the Artifacts section where you have the Machine of Lum the Mad. Pure SF themes.

Penultimately, there's the PHB, where you have the Monk, pulled straight from the character of Kane and Kung-Fu. Thirty years later, people are still arguing whether it belongs in the game or not.

Then, there's stories from EGG's own game where he had sent players to Barsoom to adventure. Never mind that modules have pulled from all sorts of sources like SF in White Plume Mountain, Victorian England in Land Beyond the Magic Mirror, Dracula in Ravenloft, and, while not AD&D, A. C. Doyle in Isle of Dread.

AD&D has always been a kitchen sink of fantasy. Anything that was popular and remotely related to the genre got sucked in and statted up. If J. K. Rowlings had written in 1972, we would be arguing right now that WOTC's decision to let wizards cast without wands had sucked the soul out of the game.

 

[The Shaman]

Just a thought about inspiration. Upthread, there's a bit by TheShaman that AD&D is not a generic fantasy game. That AD&D was created specifically to cater to a certain campaign style and setting - presumably a pseudo-Middle Earthy sort of place. Or, perhaps Arabian adventures since TheShaman lumps 1001 Arabian Nights in with Tolkein despite their sharing pretty much nothing thematically or culturally considering one is modern Heroic Fantasy and the other is myth and legend.

I couldn't disagree more with this.

Imagine my surprise.

You missed my point, so I'll restate it. Gygax, Arneson, et cetera pulled in the stuff they liked from the books and films they enjoyed and created something that gave them the opportunity to do the things they thought were cool. Remember, Dungeons and Dragons was released in 1974 after years of "playtesting" these elements. 1e AD&D wasn't even on the horizon at that point - and OD&D was six years before Deities and Demigods.

(By the way, I didn't say that AD&D wasn't intended as generic fantasy - go back and reread post 816 closely, and please try not misquoting me next time.)

And yes, the Arabian Nights were very much a part of the mythological source material for the original game - djinni, efreet, rocs, flying carpets, and thieves (Aladdin) all reflect Middle Eastern myths and legends, and all predate 1e as a part of OD&D if memory serves. (I don't have my original books and supplements any more to whip out a handy reference, I'm afraid.)

 

[MerricB]

Remember, Dungeons and Dragons was released in 1974 after years of "playtesting" these elements. 1e AD&D wasn't even on the horizon at that point - and OD&D was six years before Deities and Demigods.

Supplement IV: Gods, Demigods and Heroes is the precursor to Deities and Demigods - it basically has just the stats without descriptions. It was released in 1976, two years after oD&D started being published.

Cheers!

 

[BroccoliRage]

Questionable morals aren't the problem. Uninspired work in the creative realm is always crap.

Lead by example? Cite an example and I'll clarify.