Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
It does, however, appear to be a knock of those who liked the older design.So, yes, it has taken decades for design to improve. That's totally to be expected, and not a knock on the early creators.
It does, however, appear to be a knock of those who liked the older design.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 on 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).
So how were you supposed to get rid of it?No durations nor removal spells for paralysis exist in OD&D nor Holmes Basic D&D.
So how were you supposed to get rid of it?
It does, however, appear to be a knock of those who liked the older design.
How did D&D survive those early years?There's nothing in those rulesets in and of themselves that clearly indicate how. In view of later rulebook & clarifications, until recently I think most assumed there was a duration that was overlooked, or it just ended after the encounter was over, but now there's some evidence that it was originally intended to be permanent until "removed by something". The something is not clear; it could be natural healing back in town, magical healing (like in the later B/X rulebook), or other curative spells (Dispel Magic, Remove Curse, Cure Disease et al). One BTB answer would be magical research to research a new spell to remove it.
For a more detailed discussion I will refer you back to my blog post linked in the first post of this thread (I am the OOP).
How did D&D survive those early years?
My recollection was that players who had paralyzed PCs often just assumed more control of a secondary or other tertiary character (or even a henchman) while waiting for the group to get to the point where appropriate cure removal could happen. We very rarely played for hours with someone bored on the sidelines, though I am sure that was not true universally.I have no problem with getting my character killed, then you can just use downtime to create a new one.
but when you spend 2-3 hours on online game playing some PC game as your character can do absolutely nothing, but not dead is bad design.
By that argument, the only metric by which it makes sense to you that a person may prefer an older game without them having some kind of character flaw is aesthetics. I just don't buy it.It isn't.
I know a car guy. He loves older cars. He buys them, fixes them up, makes them into rolling art pieces sometimes.
But he doesn't claim that old car design is actually equal or superior to current design. Indeed, he admits that on almost every reasonable metric for automotive performance, newer cars are superior design. There are sometimes points of visual esthetic he might quibble are better in older cars, but on technical matters, modern cars got his love beat.
And he still loves them. And he's okay with that.
Liking a thing doesn't mean is has to be a paragon of design. If someone's love of a thing means that critique of its design is anathema to them, that's more about them than about design. Sorry.
Honestly, being a brand new concept with a lot of creative people getting involved had a large part to do with it.How did D&D survive those early years?