How did you play back in the day? - forked from Q's Leveling Comparisons

[JediSoth]

I think the only continuity my 1st ed. AD&D (and BECMI) games had was that we used the same characters each session. We were barely aware of plots when we'd go through the dungeon modules, assuming we weren't just making things up on the fly.

Really, I just remember strings of encounters with very little actual roleplaying.

 

[Wombat]

My D&D days were pre-"1st edition" for the most part, using the little books. Since there were not pre-set adventures there, we simply had big dungeons at first, which later branched out into city and wilderness adventures.

When I first read one of the written adventures, I disliked it -- it didn't fit with my style of play at all, so I avoided them.

 

[thorian]

Back in those days, we just grabbed whatever module looked cool and played it. No thoughts were given to a campaign style of play.

 

[BryonD]

Other - we went through the monster lists killing things and taking their stuff. I didn't play in an actual campaign with a plot and story until I was in college (and in 2E by then).

Very early on I played a lot like this.

The world consisted of a lot of very square "dungeons" with pointlessly complex mazes and random square (or even rectangle) rooms where monsters patiently waited their turn in battle. (The dungeons were always very much proportional to an 8 1/2 by 11 rectangle as well)

Late 1E I got into modules. But they tended to be a lot of one-shots and unrelated stories.

I was into my teens and starting to get into the idea of "campaigns" around the time 2E came out. It was not long after this that I moved on to find games more capable of producing the kind of campaign feel I wanted.

 

[Lanefan]

Other.

Then: a series of sometimes-connected adventures interspersed with other adventures that had little or no relevance to anything; we usually couldn't tell which ones were relevant and which were not, all built around an overarching plotline so interwoven and obscure that we never really did figure it all out. And this was all fine, as long as there were things to fight and treasure to be had.

Now: the connection between one adventure and the next is usually a bit clearer, thus we end up with a series of what elsewhere might be called adventure paths. But how, or if, these adventure paths ever interconnect with each other remains a complete unknown. And this is all fine, as long as there are things to fight and treasure to be had.

Lan-"towns are dangerous; adventures are safe, unless the town follows you"-efan

 

[Raven Crowking]

Something else:

Sandbox, baby!


RC

 

[HalfOrc HalfBiscuit]

Well my oD&D and 1e experience amounted to something like 10 years so it's a bit difficult to sum up in one "button".

I started out primarily with mega-dungeons (complete with "No entry construction still in progress" signs), but we later moved on to more coherent game worlds. They were more sandbox than linked modules though - 99% of stuff was homebrewed.

 

[catsclaw227]

The world consisted of a lot of very square "dungeons" with pointlessly complex mazes and random square (or even rectangle) rooms where monsters patiently waited their turn in battle. (The dungeons were always very much proportional to an 8 1/2 by 11 rectangle as well)

We did a lot of this early on too. While cheesy, we didn't care (being 8th graders) and it really honed our ability to find rules, look-up things we didn't understand and it gave us the groundwork to do adventures and sandboxes with some skill and a little experience.

I also wanted to add to my entry above, I also DMed a bunch of 1e modules, white plume mtn, barrier peaks, saltmarsh, Tomb of Horrors, Slaver A-series, GDQ, Bone Hill, Ghost Tower of Inverness, Silver Princess, Chateau d'Amberville, the Alice in Wonderland modules, etc...

They were a lot of fun, but they weren't part of any long term sandboxes we played in.

 

[Korgoth]

Well, I'm off to bed. It's late. As I type this, it's 3% played in Castle Greyhawk style mega dungeons and 97% didn't. Unless there is a radical reversal, I'm gonna say that I've made my point.

Thanks guys.

I don't see how you can draw any conclusion of the sort from such a poorly-worded poll.

You're asking what people "mostly" played. And it's a single choice poll. I played in a megadungeon campaign, and also in some serial games.

 

[Storm Raven]

I don't see how you can draw any conclusion of the sort from such a poorly-worded poll.

You're asking what people "mostly" played. And it's a single choice poll. I played in a megadungeon campaign, and also in some serial games.

The original assertion being tested was that megadungeon play was the "norm" back in the golden days of early 1e play. As in, most campaigns mostly used megadungeons. I think that the way the poll is worded is exactly right for testing that assertion.