Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9065001" data-attributes="member: 6799660">Fundamentally I have to disagree with the notion (with which OP is also mostly disagreeing). AD&D (and generally TSR-era A/D&D) wasn't less deadly. There were more save-or-dies, more long-term or permanent screw-job effects, and fewer* expendable peak resource usages to invoke when necessary. Much of the time, PCs in general had the same rough qualities as the opponents they fought (as in, a 2HD fighter was not all that different from a 2HD monster, maybe with a little extra AC and autonomy over fighting/retreat decisions). If TSR-era D&D was less-deadly, it was because individual groups took on significantly less deadly tasks.*and those that existed were harder to leverage, given spells being hard to successfully cast in AD&D, Vancian preparation (without 3e-style easy scroll-backups and such), spellcasting weapons having egos that needed petting, etc.Thaaaaat saaaaiid, thinking back to both the rules in the books and the ways they were implemented in tables at which I played, I can think of a few examples of those 'not completely wrong' instances and reasons why AD&D might have been (or just seemed) less deadly.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">It was a lot less likely that parties were 4 characters -- they were much more often (than now) 6-8 or even more. Plus there were often henchmen, hirelings, pets, and even temporary alliance-gained monsters over on team protagonist (and if some of them died in the ensuing adventure, you sure weren't likely to include them in a 'did anyone die?' analysis related to how lethal things were).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Encounters might not have progressed to fights -- exactly how often people used the reaction tables (especially as-is) has never been clear to me. When I started, the 'big kids' (9&10 year olds) I first played with had 'moved on' to just having the DM decide how enemies would react. It wasn't until I tried DMing myself that I even realized the tables were there. Looking at them (and they differ between each version of TSR-era A/D&D), it is relatively easy to enter an encounter with at least intelligent or food-swayed opponents and walk out without attack dice being rolled. If you managed to play the game towards that end, perhaps the game did seem easier.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Encounters might have ended with more retreats (on one side or the other) -- Like the reaction table, how often the morale rules were used seems to be an open question (and similarly significant changes between subtypes of TSR A/D&D). In general, though, intelligent non-undead enemies would be required to make 3 or more checks just to stay fighting to completion. PCs (barring magical fear) had complete autonomy over the retreat decision, and while the actual rules for withdrawal in most TSR version don't really favor it (often trading a round of movement for the enemy getting to move and attack) unless you could outpace them (or at least the party dwarf), there were usually formulaic rules about enemies having to stop for dropped food/gold, fiery oil blockades, or even just a certain number of corridor turns (making sense, I suppose, if the monsters also didn't consider the whole dungeon friendly territory). </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Players more likely were playing more than one PC concurrently -- Sure hit points might naturally recover at one per day, but while that was happening for your cleric Joe, you had your backup fighter Jim who honestly you'd been meaning to level up anyways. And he was all rested up and at full capacity. That also was how a lot of the curses, diseases, and resurrections got handled in my groups (because everyone shouldn't have to suffer through a trek up to BigCityville to find a high-level cleric just because one character got turbo-rabies) -- off-cycle PCs helped take care of the boring recuperation tasks while fresh PCs took on the challenge of the week. I think this also helped mask overall lethality, as losing one of your cadre of options might not stick with you unless they were one of your favorites. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">It was so deadly, you were extra careful -- This overlaps mostly with the above "If TSR-era D&D was less-deadly, it was because individual groups took on significantly less deadly tasks" point. Since there were so many ways just stepping on the wrong square of the map could kill you, you made sure not to step on squares until you had vetted them. Mind you, if you were playing strict 'checking each square is a turn, each turn is a wandering monster change,' then of course there was strict weighing of risks (since both options were deadly). Even then, though, players quickly learned what combinations of words they could string together for what their characters do as they travel down a straightaway or approach a feature that signifies 'doing due diligence in caution' without also costing an action. Every new trick the DM threw at you turned into another prophylactic action or piece of dungeoneering gear (listening cones with mesh screens once ear-seekers become a thing; 11-foot poles, etc.). Or just plain not going down dungeon levels, taking on greater risks, etc.  </li> </ol></blockquote>

Verification