OD&D example of play

[Doug McCrae]

... I miss the imagined physicality of old D&D. Shake every vase! Prod every hole with a wooden hole-prodding pole! Disarm the trapped chest by examining the lock closely, but not too closely, lest an Eye-Biter jump out and bite you in the eye (death in 1d3 rounds unless in can be stopped from reaching your cerebral cortex -- heh!).

There's some discussion of that towards the end of Reynard's thread, For The Love of Dungeons. I'm not too keen on that type of thing myself, but I guess it's fine in moderation.

Even Gary Gygax seemed to get sick of his players getting too 'pole happy' at times. Course, he himself was to blame by getting too trap happy.

Imo roleplaying doesn't handle physicality very well, not as well as it handles speech (its greatest strength). That sort of thing is done better by pictures than words, perhaps the reason those old tournament modules, such as Tomb of Horrors, have extensive picture booklets. It's just down to the fact that roleplaying is a verbal/aural medium.

It works ok for fights but when it gets to stuff like the precise physical dimensions of a room, the layout of the furnishings, the workings of a trap, that kind of really intricate stuff, it tends to break, imo. It's like when I read a really detailed description of the physical layout of something in a novel, I think - this would've been better as a picture. Words are the wrong medium for this.

 

[Reynard]

It works ok for fights but when it gets to stuff like the precise physical dimensions of a room, the layout of the furnishings, the workings of a trap, that kind of really intricate stuff, it tends to break, imo.

I think that's just another example of the levels and layers of abstraction you were talking about earlier. The desire for called shots and critical hits notwithstanding, combat in D&D has always been abstact and players seem to be okay with that (I know I am; nothing bores me more than precise positioning and targeting in an rpg). And you are right about language in a lot of cases -- it is extremely common for the crude sketches to come out, both by my hand and the players', when those fun "player skill" traps/tricks/etc... occur in play.

In the end, abstraction is a necessity and it's merely an issue of degree of abstraction that defines a lot of playstyle preference. I am happy doing a "normal" word puzzle in play and telling the players, "This isn't literally the puzzle your characters are doing, it represents some word-game rhyme in Elvish" or whatever.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Talking of abstract, the players in the example don't seem to have to describe their search in much detail. They say they are examining the walls, floor and ceiling, hear a hollow sound (they didn't say they were tapping), then the elf checks that and he needs no further description to find the secret door.

This is very different from what it says in Matthew Finch's A Quick Primer For Old School Gaming where the descriptions of searches are a good bit more detailed. The players have to specifically describe how they are moving the 'mysterious moose head' to find the secret compartment, for example.

 

[coyote6]

Funnily enough, hiring troopies is a habit I've never kicked, but, I can almost never convince any group I've played in to go along with. Including GM's. I love the idea of having bearers, if nothing else, to cart around our crap. Someone to watch the horses, stand guard, set up the tents, whatever.

Yet, almost without fail, every group I've played in beyond about 1985 has 100% vetoed this idea.

Never understood why.

Besides the KoDT-styled problems (wherein hirelings are abused until they revolt en masse), it could be because they cost money (gotta pay 'em and feed 'em and get 'em lodgings), suck up other resources (unless you just leave 'em to die slowly when they get hurt, they'll need healing), and make some approaches (stealth, teleportation) impossible (rather than merely extremely unlikely). If they go to the fights with you, they're just going to get killed the first time some salamander tosses a fireball into their general area, so why bother bringing them in the first place?

Heck, in 3e, if you're facing the wrong opponents, they won't even suck up an attack -- some giant will squash 'em with their club, and then Cleave into you.

 

[Reynard]

This is very different from what it says in Matthew Finch's A Quick Primer For Old School Gaming where the descriptions of searches are a good bit more detailed. The players have to specifically describe how they are moving the 'mysterious moose head' to find the secret compartment, for example.

I think it is reasonable to allow that there was an evolution of play, especially as it related to "player skill" and tricks, traps and other goodies the DM had planned for his players. If i had to guess, i would say that the more precise descriptions were both a response to and driving force behind more devious traps and subtle tricks.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think it is reasonable to allow that there was an evolution of play, especially as it related to "player skill" and tricks, traps and other goodies the DM had planned for his players. If i had to guess, i would say that the more precise descriptions were both a response to and driving force behind more devious traps and subtle tricks.

Yeah, that seems reasonable. Or some groups prefer different levels of abstraction. Or sometimes one just feels like doing something quickly/slowly for various reasons - time is short or the trap is particularly deadly.

I feel that Finch is overstating things somewhat in his distinctions between old and new school. After all OD&D has die rolls for finding secret doors, just like d20 D&D.

There's a section on this in the 1e DMG, page 97, where Gary talks about the two different methods - dice or description - for finding secret doors. He's fine with using either, or a mixture, so he's more new school than Finch is.

 

[Mallus]

There's some discussion of that towards the end of Reynard's thread, For The Love of Dungeons. I'm not too keen on that type of thing myself, but I guess it's fine in moderation.

Thanks for the link. I wouldn't want that kind of play to be the focus of the campaign, but a light dusting would be nice addition to my 4e game. You could say I'm a little nostalgic for the prod-and-poke style --that is, unless you think nostalgia is a dirty word... which I don't.

Imo roleplaying doesn't handle physicality very well, not as well as it handles speech (its greatest strength).

Great point! I abandoned physical puzzles a long time ago, but my games still feature a whole lot of talky villain/NPC's. They are puzzles the player characters have to overcome.

It works ok for fights but when it gets to stuff like the precise physical dimensions of a room, the layout of the furnishings, the workings of a trap, that kind of really intricate stuff, it tends to break, imo. It's like when I read a really detailed description of the physical layout of something in a novel, I think - this would've been better as a picture.

The problem is, in-game description carry an extra, and often unsupportable, burden of detail. Descriptions in fiction should be evocative. Descriptions in-game should strive for precision and thorugh --but not overly revealing-- detail-- because all that exposition is really part of a puzzle the players are trying to tease the solution out of.

 

[TerraDave]

The emphasis on exploration, and demphasis on combat, is what stands out.

And it is basically exploration by the players. Very much the idea that you are seeing through the charecters eyes and detailing exactly what the charecter does. This is role-playing, in this case the role being that of a treasure hunter in a violent underground enviroment.

 

[Chainsaw]

The emphasis on exploration, and demphasis on combat, is what stands out.

And it is basically exploration by the players. Very much the idea that you are seeing through the charecters eyes and detailing exactly what the charecter does. This is role-playing, in this case the role being that of a treasure hunter in a violent underground enviroment.

Fool!! Roleplaying requires talking in a strange voice (with stilted "medieval English") to some random peasant selling apples in town, telling the hour long story of your family in a way that demonstrates your theatrical genius to all! Retract your comments immediately!

 

[Mallus]

Fool!! Roleplaying requires talking in a strange voice (with stilted "medieval English") to some random peasant selling apples in town, telling the hour long story of your family in a way that demonstrates your theatrical genius to all! Retract your comments immediately!

You know... it's possible to do a lot of that stuff well, or at least in an entertaining fashion (okay, maybe not the hour-long genealogy recital...).