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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

 

[Umbran]

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.

For the third time...

Yes, it is fair that some folks used to play with a stable of characters. But that means that the impact of paralysis as an element of play is not independent, and must be evaluated considering the presence/absence of other elements to support it, or that specifically fail to support it.

While having a "single piece in play" may not be a goal, neither is having multiple pieces in play. Having multiple characters does run against several other common goals (like having complex character creation/builds, or having higher focus on character narrative rather than on world narrative) found in later play. Yeah, in 1974, there's a small horde waiting just outside the dungeon waiting to replace the poor saps who touch the Sphere of Annihilation. But that doesn't hold up for a lot of later play, and design shifted to match.

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).

Well, aside from how in Gloomhaven you are expected to have 2, 3, or 4 characters in play, total, such that unless you are only playing with only 1 or 2 people you aren't all playing with multiple characters. And, in Gloomhaven you DO NOT add new characters into play in the middle of a scenario if someone falls.

 

[Undrave]

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?

 

[zenopus]

So how were you supposed to get rid of it?

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).

 

[Umbran]

It does, however, appear to be a knock of those who liked the older design.

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.

 

[Undrave]

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?

 

[zenopus]

How did D&D survive those early years?

I believe Mike Mornard (Gronan), who was a player then, would say "We Made Up Some Sh*t We Thought Would Be Fun..."

 

[Doctor Futurity]

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.

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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

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.

 

[MerricB]

How did D&D survive those early years?

Honestly, being a brand new concept with a lot of creative people getting involved had a large part to do with it.

And then the D&D designs got better as well.

You look at folks like Stephen Abrams, Jon Everson and Ray Feist at Midkemia Press - they loved OD&D, but threw out the magic system and made their own.

The folks at ICE liked the concept of RPGs, but didn't like the combat system and so made Arms Law, and later on, Rolemaster.

Sandy Peterson hated how daggers weren't potentially lethal, and made RuneQuest.

Cheers,
Merric