TSR Monster Paralysis: Reason for Lack of Durations in OD&D, Holmes, AD&D

[Willie the Duck]

Holmes even carried over the mention of this in the description of Con, "It will influence how a character can withstand being paralyzed or killed and raised from the dead, etc." (page 5), but there's no further explanation of how Con influences this in the Holmes rules, other than possibly some ad hoc effects in the Sample Dungeon (sleeping gas, drowning) that are influenced by Con, and give a different impression than what was originally intended in the LBBs, and then revamped in Greyhawk and then again in AD&D.

I recall potions scrolls & so on being fairly common☆ back then. Being prepared with supplies & a crisis management plan to undo stuff like that was almost part of standard prep for the group a lot of the time. Paralysis till someone in the party pours a potion down your throat or whatever was a lot less painful than negative levels or the later less disruptive attribute damage version . My ad&d 2e book lists remove paralysis as a 3rd level spell that fixes 1d4 targets & 3.5 changes that to being a second level spell with a flat four target effect. Bob didn't spend the session sitting on his hands, he got fixed or rolled up a new PC quick.
☆ so much so that the 2e dmg literally says that a potion of healing(and many other things) should be readily available.

I got into D&D with 1e. I don't generally have to listen to grognards to tell me how lethal the game was or wasn't, 'cuz I was there at the time. The play I recall wasn't as lethal as all that. However, the play I recall did have those long, boring spans for people who suffered one of those long-lasting issues.

Back then, we were young, and didn't have the experience or game design chops to build our own solutions to the issues we had with the game. But game design itself was young, and inexperienced. I am really not surprised that design has moved on.

I think, in conjunction, this highlights a point about how the game evolved. From original published oD&D to tetrasodium's ad&d 2e books, the game did change -- undoubtedly in recognition that the play patterns people adopted did not match the initial assumptions (people were not fielding massively multiple characters and promotable henchmen, etc.). The inexperienced part of the game design, I think, was recognizing what people were doing with the game. So it reacted. Spells like remove paralysis and restoration were introduced, so the challenge wasn't 'don't get paralyzed,' it was 'have a response to someone being paralyzed (and a strategy to protect people from the monsters when they get paralyzed).'

 

[Umbran]

The inexperienced part of the game design, I think, was recognizing what people were doing with the game. So it reacted.

Totally.

It would be unreasonable to expect the first game would magically have the epitome of design, because nobody had done it before. Indeed, the very idea of "design" in general, not just about RPGs, has advanced by leaps and bounds since the 1970s. And getting the feedback in the pre-internet age was hard.

So, yes, it has taken decades for design to improve. That's totally to be expected, and not a knock on the early creators.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think, in conjunction, this highlights a point about how the game evolved. From original published oD&D to tetrasodium's ad&d 2e books, the game did change -- undoubtedly in recognition that the play patterns people adopted did not match the initial assumptions (people were not fielding massively multiple characters and promotable henchmen, etc.). The inexperienced part of the game design, I think, was recognizing what people were doing with the game. So it reacted. Spells like remove paralysis and restoration were introduced, so the challenge wasn't 'don't get paralyzed,' it was 'have a response to someone being paralyzed (and a strategy to protect people from the monsters when they get paralyzed).'

No I don't think that saying "play patterns changed" is completely accurate as being a root cause because there are a lot of system differences that complicate any simple comparison. Take the shift of remove paralysis from 1d4 to 4 targets going from 2e to 3.5, despite being more reliable it became more difficult to use if unprepared & that explains that particular shift. Spell prep & slot recovery in3.5 was simple but too varied to easily summarize now as much more than "get someplace safe & last till tomorrow"; while still complicated in 2e it, was more like "get someplace safe & do some class specific stuff (study/pray/etc) for 10 minutes per spell level". Every edition since 2e has had rules that made changing & recovering spell prep & slots orders of magnitude more difficult than it was then... Yet in all of them the actual how it happens at the table is/was generally "get somewhere safe & the GM handwaves the details unless the GM thinks they matter in this situation or it's not as safe as you thought".

Yes "play patterns changed" with stuff like henchmen, but changes to the system were often a more significant trigger for the changes than the other way around. There are a lot of things that I very much do not miss about 5e (including some of the ones 2014 unfortunately brought back), but the 2e resting & recovery mechanics did have a lot of benefits & the "but what if unprepared for $LongProblem" is a good one that not even 5e's prep style solves

 

[Willie the Duck]

Totally.

It would be unreasonable to expect the first game would magically have the epitome of design, because nobody had done it before. Indeed, the very idea of "design" in general, not just about RPGs, has advanced by leaps and bounds since the 1970s. And getting the feedback in the pre-internet age was hard.

So, yes, it has taken decades for design to improve. That's totally to be expected, and not a knock on the early creators.

See, again, I don't think this specific instance is a case of design improving*. Because, again, having characters be taken out of action isn't bad design (any more than having a chess piece locked in a 'I really can't move that' position) if the goal isn't to only have one piece to play at a given time. To me, early oD&D feels much more like a Gloomhaven or Munchkin or Mordheim, where the 'characters' are much closer to playing pieces, and them being sidelined or taken out is part of the game (and the player still gets to act because they have multiple pieces).
*it is instead a game system realigning their design to match the play patterns they recognized their audience was gravitating towards.

No I don't think that saying "play patterns changed" is completely accurate as being a root cause because there are a lot of system differences that complicate any simple comparison. Take the shift of remove paralysis from 1d4 to 4 targets going from 2e to 3.5

Spoiler: spoilered for size

, despite being more reliable it became more difficult to use if unprepared & that explains that particular shift. Spell prep & slot recovery in3.5 was simple but too varied to easily summarize now as much more than get someplace safe & last till tomorrow while still complicated in 2e it was more like "get someplace safe & do some class specific stuff (study/pray/etc) for 10 minutes per spell level". Every edition since 2e has had rules that made changing & recovering spell prep & slots orders of magnitude more difficult than it was then... Yet in all of them the actual how it happens at the table is/was generally "get somewhere safe & the GM handwaves the details unless the GM thinks they matter in this situation or it's not as safe as you thought".

Yes "play patterns changed" with stuff like henchmen, but changes to the system were often a more significant trigger for the changes than the other way around. There are a lot of things that I very much do not miss about 5e (including some of the ones 2014 unfortunately brought back), but the 2e resting & recovery mechanics did have a lot of benefits & the "but what if unprepared for $LongProblem" is a good one that not even 5e's prep style solves

You're really focusing this towards 2e and onwards, whereas I am discussing 2e at the very very latest. Within the timeframe -- when a bunch of the broad stroke mechanics of the game remained largely the same* -- a number of small changes or additions took place that appeared to recognize that people weren't playing the game as initially expected. Players were fielding fewer characters, and expecting them to last longer**. Likewise, that -- instead of avoiding all these flavorful not-death effects (until you inevitably failed and then would focus on another character) -- players would expect their characters to suffer these effects, but then (sometimes to often) live to tell the tale.
*rules focus on dungeon crawling, save-or-die traps/spells/monster effects
**or at least getting attached to them as if they would.

Having started after the game introduced thieves (and their crap percentages) and ear seekers and admonitions against monty haul campaigns (where every party might be able to scrye through walls somehow) and so on, this made sense. It 'had to' be how the game was supposed to go. The Gygax notion I mentioned above about trying not to even be subject to effects (with the saving throw a last ditch effort) simply wasn't going to happen consistently. You were going to (eventually) open the door and a Medusa or pack of ghouls were going to be there within gaze/melee distance. And then characters would fall, and no one would ever make it to those high levels that must exist to justify the dozens of pages on castles and planes and artefacts and stuff with do-not-touch signs for low-level dweebs. So you got paralyzed and then your bodies hauled you off and got you fixed up.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Considering monster that level 1s could fight had Death Poison, yeah i can believe it. Not to mention traps that had the same poison. Yeah totally.

 

[Micah Sweet]

this,

but luckily, gamist innovation prevailed.

getting removed from play, IE at the start of the combat by low save roll and unable to do nothing for next 2 or 3 hours is not fun for many people.
it turns your gameplay into watching YT stream of other people playing. Nothing wrong with that if you planned on doing that in advance.

It's less of a big deal if you have another character to play. This is why I continue to champion the use of henchmen, hirelings, and other followers, as well as a stable of PCs to bring in.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Bad Things Happen - to the characters. Not the players.

When a player that has caused a problem says, "But that's what my character would do!" we generally find that to be a poor excuse. From a game design standpoint, "But Bad Things Happen!" is just, "But, that's what my world wants to do!", and is a similarly poor excuse for giving a player a bad play experience by design.

Which is why a lot of modern games take that out of the design. There are ways to make bad things happen without screwing over the player for long periods of time. Indeed, in the best designs, a bad thing happening to the character is a cool and interesting event for the player. Not a boring one.



If the intent of the design is, "Get hit and fail your save, and you LOSE," then maybe they should just die, yes. After all, that's really the basic intent - it just lacks the courage of its convictions to actually do it.

If the intent of the design is, "Getting hit and failing your save complicates your life, and you should avoid it," there's several different ways to implement that. Maybe try one that doesn't mean the player is personally better off just leaving the table.

In my opinion and approach to gaming, if an established player would be better served leaving your table, as a GM, that should be considered a failure mode.

Short of having someone else to play on deck (my preference), tell me how you have indefinite-until-addressed effects that don't take the player out of the game and aren't totally weak sauce?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am sorry, but I think my point still holds - if play is such that the basic way to have a good time is to stop playing, that strongly suggests either a design failure, or a design goal that isn't about entertainment. If a large point of play isn't about entertainment.

If you are running a "game" as a military training tool, okay, fine, it may not be fun, because the design goal is making you effective in real-world military conflicts. While we can point to many potential positive outcomes from playing RPGs that aren't "entertainment", it seems a tad pretentious to claim them as direct design goals for D&D.

Many people enjoy playing in games where things make logical sense. That's fun for them, even if the results aren't always pleasant.

 

[Micah Sweet]

not all groups are keen on bringing a platoon of henchmen with their PCs to dungeon crawls.
All the focus should be on PCs and having henchmen can lead into the dreaded "DMs PC".


over editions perma effects and long duration CCs(longer than a round or two) kept getting a save for every round.
So it was recognized that failing one saving throw and be eliminated from the combat is a bad design to a degree.

In general; save or suck effects or spells are for PCs to use on NPCs and very rarely on PCs by NPCs.

probably,
we had a 3.5 game where we spent 3 sessions turning back a PC from being turned to stone back into living.
At it was planned to be near beginning of 3 sessions.
well, at least friend had time to catch up on his Dota ranking during those sessions.

I don't agree. I think the focus should be on the world and whatever players are doing in it, through whatever PC they happen to be playing at the time and whatever those PCs have at their disposal in the world, which includes henchmen and the like. If a PC becomes unplayable, temporarily or otherwise, that's why there are other characters in the group.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think, in conjunction, this highlights a point about how the game evolved. From original published oD&D to tetrasodium's ad&d 2e books, the game did change -- undoubtedly in recognition that the play patterns people adopted did not match the initial assumptions (people were not fielding massively multiple characters and promotable henchmen, etc.). The inexperienced part of the game design, I think, was recognizing what people were doing with the game. So it reacted. Spells like remove paralysis and restoration were introduced, so the challenge wasn't 'don't get paralyzed,' it was 'have a response to someone being paralyzed (and a strategy to protect people from the monsters when they get paralyzed).'

And that strategy is far more palatable to me than changing the world because some people don't like it when their characters are inconvenienced for more than a round or two. Make players deal with these problems in play.