Has D&D become less about the adventure?

[The Shaman]

I can understand where he's coming from: In 1E, a fighter had lots of hit points, maybe a weapon specialization or three, and that was it. Eveything else was in the background, and a DM had to work with you to give mechanical life to anything outside of the default combat rules that you wanted to do.

Could my experience of kitting out a high-Dex, lightly-armored, two-weapon wielding fighter for whom mobility on the battleground was paramount to his fighting style suggests that perhaps there was a way of using the combat and ability rules to create something other than a meatshield even in 1e? That his advantages and tactics in combat had nothing to do with his background and everything to do with how the character was statted, armed and armored, and actually played on the tabletop?

(Remember in 1E when you wanted to close with someone, you couldn't both close and attack at the same time without them getting a free swing on you? Not very conducive to Three-mustakeers-style acrobatic antics.)

That was the difference between simply closing with an opponent and charging at them.

Ever wonder why there were so many polearms in the equipment tables? Because reach weapons REALLY MATTERED in 1e! The guy with the biggest pole...arm...in 1e got the first attack at the end of the charge.

In 3E, you have the ton o' hit points, and now you have the feats to give you that edge that required the DM to accomodate. Now, you take Dodge, mobility and spring attack, and avoid that free swing altogether! Plus, the dodge and mobility make you HARDER to hit while doing your shtick, on top of that!

I would be foolish to suggest that the range of options available in 1e is comparable to 3e - I demur at the suggestion that the options in 1e were as severely limited as many gamers seem to recall, however. Characters and monsters standing and trading blows round after round had no place in our games, and two fighters of the same level could be very different from one another in more than just 'background.'

It all comes back to the whole discussion we once had months ago, about DM-player trust issues over the years of the development of the hobby. A DM that gives you a mechanical means to put your "cool character" to life causes you to NOT NEED the extra rules. However, your group was blessed with at least one good DM, I'm guessing; not all DM's allowed it back then, myself included.

Since we rotated dungeon master duties among four of the seven members of our regular gaming group, I'll take that as a collective compliment.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I'll give it this: It depends on the standard you're using. As a pre-fleshed out campaign adventure, the old classics sometimes fell down; as a bare-bones kit of great ideas and concepts, they were genius. Your goal was different, so the material was more than sufficient.

Even now, I'll take Keep on the Borderlands over Red Hand of Doom; but mainly it's because the setup is a classic, and I know it well enough to change it up. Red Hand would require a LOT more prep time than I can give.

That's all I'm saying. I as a DM feel trapped when running a mega-adventure. That would go for the original Temple Of Elemental Evil as well. Running the Return To The Temple module nearly soured me on DM'ing. There were plenty of crappy old modules, there were also great ones that were a ton of fun to play. Heck I've been pretty much winging the last few sessions and been having a blast.

 

[Seeten]

As a DM, I think sometimes we get confused on the difference between what the players want and what we provide. If the players want to run L&L "Loot & Levels" and you want to run D&D, you're not reading your players very well (and will be very lonely).

If it's LOOT & LEVELS that players want, shouldn't a DM give that to them? If they want a hamburger and you keep giving them pea soup, eventually your game will be considered "sucky." You're going to eat your pea soup and like it!

Thoughts?
jh
P.S. I run a low-magic, low-items CONAN game and I have trouble finding players who are interested after they find out they can't play Uber-Elf-with-Stormbringer..so I changed my advertisement and some of my house rules..guess what? Finding players became a lot easier..whether or not they'll still bite is the question.

P.S.S. The reason why I started this post is because of a couple of recent games that I ran regarding Living Greyhawk (I took a hiatus after I burned myself out on the County of Urnst Triad and had to put up with this very thing). Just like L.C. before it, too many LG players have become very much about burning through an adventure as fast as possible to get loot and levels.

The further away from stock you go, the more difficult it is to find players. Lots of people like to stick with what they KNOW is fun, rather than taking a chance on something that might not be fun.

Further, no/low magic items/magic means I need to trust the DM, because if he isnt good at balancing the encounters, the game will be awful, and I will hate it. See other recent posts about low/no magic games and encounters with monsters with DR 10/magic for why.

 

[Seeten]

1e was terrible for character generation. You had a guy with random hp, and random attributes, who had no skills, who couldnt swim, or jump, or climb without the DM's express permission. It didnt matter if you were a pirate for 40 years, you couldnt sail a ship, or use a compass to figure out north. Not unless the DM expressly said you could, because there were NO SKILLS.

No character had the ability to fight any better than any other, nor any differently, save by using a different WEAPON. There was no swashbuckling, save by using a cutlass and begging to be allowed special dispensation to perform acts of derring-do, because jumping on chandeliers, and bluffing were NOT skills and couldnt be done without DM say-so.

Therefore, 1e characters were a bunch of numbers that meant virtually nothing, and a big backstory any DM could say NO to at any time, for any reason, like, for example, he didnt like swashbuckling, and thought it wasnt realistic. I played 1e for years, and no amount of nostalgic silliness can tell me that characters were more interesting back then.

I brought characters to a new game? Everything disallowed. Sorry, you're Bob the fighter with a longsword here. We dont use houserules so you can jump on tables or disarm people.

I am happy for people whose DM's allowed their imagination free reign and mechanically changed and houseruled the game for your interesting concept, but not everyone's DM's were so "cool". The game itself didnt allow for any of that.

 

[Psion]

That's all I'm saying. I as a DM feel trapped when running a mega-adventure.

This is more a size issue than a quality issue, then.

FWIW, I agree. I find that lengthy adventures tend to get derailed before they get finished, or require a change of pace.

Still, Shackled City is a pretty slick product for those who are more comfortable in this paradigm.

 

[The Shaman]

The game itself didnt allow for any of that.

You mean, other than things like secondary skills or non-weapon proficiencies, or the four different methods of generating character ability scores that included generating the scores using a variety of ways to roll above-average scores and placing them where you wanted to get the character you wanted to play?

Seeten, I appreciate that you may have played the game with dungeon masters who believed that only what was written on the page could or could not be done, however, that runs contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the 1e AD&D rules. That you played with poor players doesn't make the game bad.

 

[Henry]

Could my experience of kitting out a high-Dex, lightly-armored, two-weapon wielding fighter for whom mobility on the battleground was paramount to his fighting style suggests that perhaps there was a way of using the combat and ability rules to create something other than a meatshield even in 1e? That his advantages and tactics in combat had nothing to do with his background and everything to do with how the character was statted, armed and armored, and actually played on the tabletop?That was the difference between simply closing with an opponent and charging at them.

I'd love to see an example of this concept in action, in the 1E rules set; every time I tried a "swasher," he was a disaster, except for the one time that my DM worked with me on weapon skill house rules, and the 2nd edition swashbuckler kit. In 1E, the lightly armored fighter may have gone first (we used the old "d10" init house rule, with weapon speeds), but he didn't do enough damage to avoid being screwed when the heavily armored, hulking brutes with the B-29-sized Two-handed swords finally came up to bat. Plus, on my 2E character, his armor class hovered around 5 or so (leather + high DEX) until the magic leathers and rings of protection came along, and even then didn't go below a 2 at 9th level! Plus, he would have to advance and close just like any other sword-slinger, and play it by the numbers (init 1,2,3, 4, 5, etc.) with the spellcasters probably going with their fireballs before he ever got his rapier swinging! That's my recollections, and while I had fun, it was more due to the group I played with, and the feeling when we actually WON, thanks to the spellcasters, rather than because my Character contributed in a meaningful manner.

Ever wonder why there were so many polearms in the equipment tables? Because reach weapons REALLY MATTERED in 1e!

I suspect it was more because Gary was a medieval weaponry afficionado. Ultimately, those pole arms could have been mechanically broken down into about four different ones - the hooks, the cleavers, the piercers, and the combo-models. mechanically, they really were not distinguished except for "damage vs, armor type" and that was terrible for us to keep track of.

Characters and monsters standing and trading blows round after round had no place in our games, and two fighters of the same level could be very different from one another in more than just 'background.'

However, my experience was just that, with minor exceptions. Our little ten to twenty year old minds didn't process it if it wasn't in the books or a dragon magazine, because the wealth of web pages, forums, and fanzines just weren't available to us. For our tactics we went to things like Battletech or Super-modified Axis and Allies games or Starfleet Battles; D&D didn't have fancy tactics written in the book, so none were forthcoming.

Since we rotated dungeon master duties among four of the seven members of our regular gaming group, I'll take that as a collective compliment.

As well it should, because speaking to quite a few D&D players across the board, I believe your experiences were the exception to the rule; seems like the ones with excellent DM's and a penchant for description and working with their players to add crunch where needed, and DM/player trust mostly stuck with older D&D games; you already had what was missing.

Most like me saw the wealth of options added to the core books and jumped on with both hands clenched like hopping from a riding horse to a locomotive.

 

[buzz]

You mean, other than things like secondary skills...

There were really no rules for them, though. There was a table in the DMG, and that was it. Other than knowing your PC was a "bowyer/fletcher," they were pretty meaningless.

or non-weapon proficiencies...

Those didn't arrive until OA and the Dungeon and Wilderness Guides, which was about 5+ years after I started with 1e (and which I never bought, save for OA).

or the four different methods of generating character ability scores that included generating the scores using a variety of ways to roll above-average scores and placing them where you wanted to get the character you wanted to play?

We usually used the ones form UA, as they allowed you to cheat the most.

But you were still rolling.

Henry and others have basically stated my position for me. It may simply be that I and the people I played with didn't grok all the rules, but my reading comprehension has always been very good, and I read the core books multiple times. For whatever reason, stuff just didn't sink in, for me or the poeple I knew who played.

As for your Dex-focused fighter, good for you. I never saw an implementation of this in 1e that worked all that well (but maybe would have if we'd understood more of the rules).

The real issue is simply that people's experiences with 1e are so varied, and often so drifted from the actual game text, that it's hard to talk specifically about the game wihtout having a LOT of context and explanantion from the individual you're speaking to.

So, my main point is simply that a lot of my fun with 1e back in the day was from going beyond the ruleset; most of my fun with 3e is provided by the rulesset.

Nonetheless, I plan to go back an re-read the books at some point.

 

[The Shaman]

I'd love to see an example of this concept in action, in the 1E rules set; every time I tried a "swasher," he was a disaster, except for the one time that my DM worked with me on weapon skill house rules, and the 2nd edition swashbuckler kit.

The character fought with a spiked buckler and short sword, although I'd often open with a sling in one hand if I thought we'd be facing a spellcaster right off - the buckler and short sword did about a hit die's worth of damage each round, and with a high Dex the penalties to hit were pretty reasonable. The big thing was attack from the flank or the rear - he avoided the fireballs by staying away from the rest of the group and using his mobility to get behind the main combatant or deal with the spellcasters lurking behind.

In close quarters he tended to take a beating due to his middling AC, but it was worth it for when he could break into the clear and zoom around behind the bad guys. It was a lot of fun to play.

I suspect it was more because Gary was a medieval weaponry afficionado.

Chicken...egg...

Our little ten to twenty year old minds didn't process it if it wasn't in the books or a dragon magazine, because the wealth of web pages, forums, and fanzines just weren't available to us. For our tactics we went to things like Battletech or Super-modified Axis and Allies games or Starfleet Battles; D&D didn't have fancy tactics written in the book, so none were forthcoming.

As a minis wargamer, I understood that the rules were the framework, and the tactics came from the players who translated them into action on the tabletop.

As well it should, because speaking to quite a few D&D players across the board, I believe your experiences were the exception to the rule; seems like the ones with excellent DM's and a penchant for description and working with their players to add crunch where needed, and DM/player trust mostly stuck with older D&D games; you already had what was missing.

I'm discovering that more and more as well.

For a long time I really couldn't grasp what people found so exciting about 3e D&D - I thought everyone played the way we did.

 

[The Shaman]

There were really no rules for them, though. There was a table in the DMG, and that was it. Other than knowing your PC was a "bowyer/fletcher," they were pretty meaningless.

On those occasions when we felt the need to resolve a random element to the secondary skills, we played them the same way that C&C players use the SIEGE mechanic: we rolled against the most likely attribute.

Henry and others have basically stated my position for me. It may simply be that I and the people I played with didn't grok all the rules, but my reading comprehension has always been very good, and I read the core books multiple times. For whatever reason, stuff just didn't sink in, for me or the poeple I knew who played.

I'm coming to understand how important a wargaming background was to making the most of the 1e rules.