OD&D Gygax and the DMG: What is a Dungeon Master For?

[Retros_x]

I disagree with the notion that modern editions of DnD are player centric - the DM still holds all the power to control the game. The players have zero control over it if the DM doesnt introduce homebrew in this direction or lets them participate in world building and scene setting.

I do agree though that managing modern games has become quite difficult and I recommend every DM who feels overwhelmed to try out OSR games. Currently Shadowdark is my default recommendation, especially because so many mechanics are similar to 5e.

But modern gaming is not just difficult for DMs. I had multiple players in my games who were overwhelmed by the rules and options in 5e PHB. Such players who dont want myriad of gameplay options but want to focus on the fiction and roleplay also benefit heavily from more rules-light games.

 

[conankeep]

Death at -10 is an optional rule in 1e. I think it became RAW in 2e.

It's the other way around, death at -10 is RAW in 1e and and death at 0 is RAW in 2e (with an optional rule for -10)

 

[GothmogIV]

I disagree with the notion that modern editions of DnD are player centric - the DM still holds all the power to control the game. The players have zero control over it if the DM doesnt introduce homebrew in this direction or lets them participate in world building and scene setting.

I do agree though that managing modern games has become quite difficult and I recommend every DM who feels overwhelmed to try out OSR games. Currently Shadowdark is my default recommendation, especially because so many mechanics are similar to 5e.

But modern gaming is not just difficult for DMs. I had multiple players in my games who were overwhelmed by the rules and options in 5e PHB. Such players who dont want myriad of gameplay options but want to focus on the fiction and roleplay also benefit heavily from more rules-light games.

WotC puts out player facing materials that chortle "Your Dungeon Master is going to hate this!" If that isn't player-centric, I don't know what is. .

 

[Emerikol]

People got so used to repeating "there is no balance in OSR!" when the correct way of putting it should be "in OSR balance should not be expected for every encounter". Sure there might be some encounters way above what the PC can roll to death, but no good adventure has only such encounters.

This is a good nuanced point. Generally you try to balance an adventure. Wandering monsters though are random and can be higher level. There are also special parts of an adventure not central to solving it that can have a overly powerful monster.

 

[Mannahnin]

I agree in principle, there is no "designing" encounters in the same way it is done in 4e, PF or whatever, but I have to point out that there is some truth to the other side as well, no balancing around party capabilities whatsoever in OS or OSR games is a bit of a meme.

There is a reason ALL CLASSIC [or OSR] ADVENTURES feature a level range and party size range right on the cover [or on the first page], and that reason is game balance.

People got so used to repeating "there is no balance in OSR!" when the correct way of putting it should be "in OSR balance should not be expected for every encounter". Sure there might be some encounters way above what the PC can roll to death, but no good adventure has only such encounters.

Absolutely. The whole thing about encounter balance was always an exaggeration anyway, with a nugget of truth in that if you play the OD&D or AD&D wilderness random encounter tables RAW, you can easily run into extremely difficult encounters regardless of character level.

All the TSR editions feature dungeon encounter tables based on level (dungeon level classically being a benchmark for what level party can take it on with reasonable odds), and that's implicitly a mechanic designed to balance encounters for the PCs. Although the idea is that the players pick their own difficulty/press their luck. Harder dungeon levels also featuring bigger treasures.

The OD&D dungeon encounter charts are the most dangerous, because they have high chances of running into monsters from lower dungeon levels, and that issue is exacerbated by the fact that the OD&D level charts are also compressed (relative to later versions) to only six. AD&D and B/X both expanded the dungeon level encounter charts (creating more granular distinctions in encounter difficulty), and notably scaled back the deadliness of the encounters found ON those dungeon encounter tables, a clear attempt at better encounter balance.

Every WotC edition gives explicit advice to use a mix of encounters - some too powerful for the PCs, more around their own level, and some weaker than them. The DMGs talk about the different approaches of verisimilitude and sandbox-type play,

 

[Celebrim]

Oh for sure I don't think his advice on handling players has any value! I see the book as more a collection of tables and resources

I think it does in the context of the game he was playing - basically an open table for a gaming club, meeting several times a week, with dozens of players, some of whom he wouldn't have known very well.

 

[Celebrim]

Explicitly so. Such a shame it's a collection of terrible writing, bad rules, and even worse advice.

Well, that's a take. If I had to list the top 100 RPG books of all time, I think the 1st AD&D DMG would be my #1.

 

[Maxperson]

If the DM is willing to double-tap, sure.

Death at -10 is an optional rule in 1e. I think it became RAW in 2e.

Also, if you're using the -10 death option, the damage that takes you to -10 can come from anywhere - including yourself, as you bleed out 1 point per round.

I never encountered a group that didn't use the -10 optional rule in 1e. It just made so much more sense than, "I'm conscious and fully capable at 1 hp..........aaaaaand now I'm dead. Being able to actually go unconscious in battle fits better.

 

[Maxperson]

Why wouldn't they, especially if it's an unintelligent predator? Seems likely they would. Heck, even an intelligent creature would do it to keep the other party members from casting a heal spell to bring them back in the fight.

It's RAW in 1e. page 82 of the DMG

Sure, but 1 point a round is still slower then 1 round

Was it Basic then that had 0 as death and -10 as the optional rule? I know I saw it somewhere.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Was it Basic then that had 0 as death and -10 as the optional rule? I know I saw it somewhere.

You are probably thinking of a clause in the 1e rules: "Zero Hit Points: When any creature is brought to 0 hit points (optionally as low as -3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0), it is unconscious. In each of the next succeeding rounds 1 additional (negative) point will be lost until -10 is reached and the creature dies."