OD&D example of play

[Ed_Laprade]

Getting back to how much description, I've always thought that a few paragraphs of evocative description was a great idea. Unfortunately, it never works in practice, from either side of the screen, for me. On the player side, I'm too busy trying (in vain) to write it all down to appreciate it. On the GM side, well, let's just say that I'm not a very good public speaker. (As in, anything much longer than a couple of sentences of writen text becomes a monotone of boredom. Even I get bored by it!)

 

[Mark CMG]

I often hear people complain away from the table about boxed-text but also often found that it works to get people's attention and to be sure they have a full understanding of the setting and situation. There are limits but most game prep would benefit from writing out the particulars and making some effort to give a fair bit of info beyond room dimensions or just slapping down a battlemat.

 

[Chainsaw]

The differences really only become a problem when someone claims their way to be the one, true, authentic, intended, and proper way.

Bullgrit

Or the following:

A: We did X and it sucked.
B: We did X and had fun..
A: Then you're doing it wrong, because there's no way that could be fun.

 

[Ariosto]

One figure per player is one of the key concepts that distinguishes rpgs from wargames.

No, it doesn't, actually.

If you start declaring things "not wargames" and "not roleplaying games" on your newfangled basis, you're going to be at odds with decades of usage.

 

[Reynard]

Or the following:

A: We did X and it sucked.
B: We did X and had fun..
A: Then you're doing it wrong, because there's no way that could be fun.

I think he was suggesting that the differences in preferences only create problems when there's badwrongfunning going on within the group, because really who cares what people you don't play with think.

 

[Chainsaw]

I think he was suggesting that the differences in preferences only create problems when there's badwrongfunning going on within the group, because really who cares what people you don't play with think.

My comment was incremental and related to what I see happen online..

 

[Ariosto]

Talking of abstract, the players in the example don't seem to have to describe their search in much detail.

Nope. It's up to the player.

Elves locate secret passages 2/3 of the time, optionally sensing 1/3 of the time that something is there as they pass. That is separate from the matter of what reaction a given action may necessarily produce. "Missing the roll" makes no elf (or other character) suddenly blind, deaf or otherwise insensible to stimuli!

CAL: Empty out all the copper pieces and check the trunk for secret drawers or a false bottom. ...

REF: (Cursing the thoroughness of the Caller!) ...

 

[Ariosto]

I feel that Finch is overstating things somewhat in his distinctions ... 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.

Actually, that concerns finding the mechanism and operation of a secret door. "It is quite acceptable to have a mixture of methods".

Discovery [of a secret door] does not mean that access to the door mechanism has been discovered. Checking requires a very thorough examination of the possible secret door area.

Seeing that Mr. Finch included secret-doors rolls in Swords & Wizardry, I suppose it possible that you overstate things somewhat in your distinctions.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

You're absolutely right.

Problem is, of course, that a non-artistic someone like me trying to bang together a homebrew adventure really only has words at his disposal.

If I could generate a picture for each room as fast as I can write down a description I'd be all over it. But to put it in perspective, right now I'm having a hard time finding a picture to represent each adventure - never mind each room. There's only so much fantasy art out there, and far too much of it simply depicts people and creatures rather than rooms, scenes and landscapes.

That said, there's times when details of the furniture layout are important: if you're looking to pull off a swashbuckling leap on to the table, for example, so you can talk down to the ignoble peasants who dare oppose you and if need be clobber 'em as well, knowing where the table is and what's around it becomes kinda useful.

Lan-"a simple man, a man of colours"-efan

 

[Beginning of the End]

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.

I choose to believe that Finch is slightly hyperbolistic in order to make his point. But for the most part, Finch is kinda full of it.

I tend to believe that the optimal approach is a balance: Player skill can be used to replace or augment the die roll through the use of pre-description. (Pouring water on the floor? +5 bonus to your Search check for detecting a trap door. Rolling some marbles down the hall? You'll automatically detect the illusionary floor.)

Conversely, there's nothing wrong with falling back onto the character's skill through a purely mechanical approach. ("I search the hall.") We do it all the time in combat. But in such circumstances it's valuable if the DM makes that skill use concrete through the use of post-description. ("I got a 23 on my Search check." "Okay, you pull out a couple ball bearings and roll 'em down the hall. They disappear through an illusionary floor.")

Post-description will tend to encourage pre-description, and vice versa. There's no "one true way" to be found here. It's a matter of what works best at the table and in that moment.

This attitude, though apparently common for the time, is perplexing to me. If the DM/designer doesn't want the Players/PCs to find the treasure, don't put it in the dungeon.

For myself, I put treasure in the dungeon for the PCs to find. It disappoints me when the PCs/Players aren't clever, observant, or curious enough to discover everything in the dungeon.

One of the interesting things about running in the style of Gygax and Arneson is that you have more than one shot at using the same material: Rooms will be re-visited on subsequent forays into the dungeon. Different players and/or different characters will come the same way.

Running a game in this style can be quite liberating: You suddenly don't feel any pressure to "make sure they see the cool stuff". They missed the secret door? No problem. Either they'll find it later or somebody else will find it. (And when they do, the fact that they missed it the first time will make it even cooler.)

Besides, players like to think they've pulled one over on the DM even when they haven't.