perception of OD&D/AD&D as random deathtraps

[grodog]

Over in the thread on Classic dungeons: What makes them great? @ http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=205589 ehren37 made some comments that got me thinking about the perception that OD&D/AD&D play generally consisted of random, senseless save or die effects (or, just die):

[snip]You open a door, the tarrasque eats you. If you'd opened the other door, the level fairy would have made yo 20th level though![snip]

CR isnt a straightjacket. Its a guideline for how tough a monster is. Sort of like "dungeon level" monsters were in 1st edition. Remember those? Or do you want to conveniently sweep those under the rug as well....

I'm curious where the perception that AD&D/OD&D is save or die (or, to use the logical next step to ehren37's stance, "just die") originated, and, perhaps more importantly, why it is so often broadly applied to all D&D game play before 2e. Certainly Tomb of Horrors is a nasty adventure, and the classic killer dungeon, but it's designed to be such, similar to Necropolis, or Tomb of the Devil Lich, or Rappan Athuk, or Black Ice Well, etc., etc. My sense is that the modern perception of OD&D/AD&D games as death-trap meat-grinders is completely overblown. Neither ToH nor Orcus' wand define the standard OD&D/AD&D playing experience. IME.

Discuss!

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Maybe it's just really poor adventure writing. Lots of 2e adventures had lameness like "if you walk through that hallway, you have to save or be disintegrated" or "that doorknob has contact poison type random death! And yes, it works through gloves!" Rolling endless Find/Remove Traps checks isn't fun, so why put that in an adventure?

That isn't necessarily a 2e failing, though. 3e has some bad adventures too, usually due to poor balance (lots of solitary half-dragon/half-giants with terrible Will saves), plot holes or railroading (if no one in the party has Track, you lose; if no one casts Raise Dead on the dead woman, you lose; all three from one bad 3.0 adventure whose name I can't recall). I've never seen the random death trap in 3e, though. (Of course, I'm pretty sure some 2e adventures had those same weaknesses.)

I think it's one reason why big dungeon adventures are getting rare. Between plot, ecology and sheer magic trap boredom, people want to avoid them.

 

[gizmo33]

My sense is that the modern perception of OD&D/AD&D games as death-trap meat-grinders is completely overblown.

All edition war threads contain completely overblown characterizations of both 1E and 3E. I think it's fair to say that the 1E rules are harsher than the 3E rules - or at least the advice about how to play the game is. (Quiz: "Never give a sucker an even break" is a quote from what book?) However, I don't think any rules set dictates lethality - that's a matter of DMing style. I just think this is a case of the usual internet hyperbole.

 

[grodog]

Maybe it's just really poor adventure writing. Lots of 2e adventures had lameness like "if you walk through that hallway, you have to save or be disintegrated" or "that doorknob has contact poison type random death! And yes, it works through gloves!" Rolling endless Find/Remove Traps checks isn't fun, so why put that in an adventure?

I didn't play 2e, and I've read some good, some bad, and some abysmal 2e Greyhawk and FR stuff, but all that said, the comments that I often hear about AD&D/OD&D adventures as random death traps are---I thought---usually being made about pre-2e adventures: i.e., OD&D and 1e adventures. Perhaps I'm not being sufficiently nuanced in my perception of this perception??

 

[MerricB]

Could be... I'm not really familiar with 2e adventures myself. Funnily enough, one 2e adventure I ran that was billed as a "death trap" - Nightmare Keep - was regarded as a cakewalk by its participants.

I think there are certain 1e adventures that are extremely lethal. A1-4 has its moments; and most of the Special (S) series likewise.

One thing: by that time you've hit most of the classic modules that people are really familiar with!

EX1 and EX2 are extremely deadly - fun, but deadly - but they're not well-known.

Cheers!

 

[thedungeondelver]

I didn't play 2e, and I've read some good, some bad, and some abysmal 2e Greyhawk and FR stuff, but all that said, the comments that I often hear about AD&D/OD&D adventures as random death traps are---I thought---usually being made about pre-2e adventures: i.e., OD&D and 1e adventures. Perhaps I'm not being sufficiently nuanced in my perception of this perception??

Don't rise to the bait, Allan. You're smarter than that.

 

[RFisher]

Well, I don't know if this really addresses your question...

I used to really hate save or die & level drain. (To just pick two examples.) Save or die seemed much too random, & level drain seemed much too harsh.

Then one day someone explained level drain to me in a way that made me--I think--understand it better. He said that nothing else could inspire in players the kind of fear that undead were meant to. Now, I can make an argument against this, but I can also see it as valid.

He went on to explain that ideally PCs were never actually drained. Rather, the threat of level drain should cause the PCs to retreat & find a more indirect way of dealing with the monster. A DM aware of this ideal wouldn't want level drain to be a surprise & would want to provide opportunities for the PCs to flee & take such indirect tacks.

While this may not have been spelled out in the game, I liked this interpretation a lot.

Years later--somewhere among reading Gygax/Kuntz/Mornard stories of the old days & lurking at Dragonsfoot--I realized that similar thinking could be applied to save or die. Ideally, a DM gives the players sufficient warning that doing something might be fatal. The saving throw is then a second-chance to survive a fatal mistake.

Admittedly, what is "sufficient" can be pretty fuzzy. One can say, "Doing anything in a dungeon can be fatal," & thus justify any save or die in a dungeon. But really, that attitude should be reserved for places like the Tomb of Horrors, which should have an appropriate in-game reputation. Generally, save or die should be reserved for situation with fairly clear potential to be deadly.

Now, is this really how these things were meant to be used? & if so, is it a fault that it weren't spelled out more clearly?

I don't know. All I know is that I can enjoy old D&D again. Maybe even more than I did the first time around. Certainly more than other games that I used to think were clearly superior.

Which I think is a long way around to say that I can understand a perception of oD&D/AD&D as random deathtraps because I could have had--& perhaps did have--it myself.

 

[bowbe]

I mentioned a similar perception/attitude that I noticed on a different thread where 2-3 of the posters were most vehement in their disdain for so called "old school gaming". All I could think was that these folks had never played an old-school game... or they had a REALLY crappy and vindictive DM that was using an obscure dragon article or some tongue in cheek passage from AD&D DMG to justify being a jerk to their players.

I don't remember running that way, and don't remember playing with anyone who played that way. We ran Tomb of Horrors and most of the party died, but enough lived to raise the dead and live to fight and game another day. For us it was about having fun and part of the fun was the "danger level" for our characters.

Rfisher's friend gave a good explanation to save or die and level drain effects that are much maligned now. Those things DID instill fear and horror of a monster in ways that nerfing the system cannot/have not replaced.

I had a young gamer in my group several years ago. Most of the players were mid to late twenties, this one was about 16. She mentioned that she liked the games I ran vs. the ones the kids her age ran because the threat of death/level drain/capture was a very intense one that she could sink her teeth into, and I have heard similar things from other gamers over the years.

If you know you can beat everything and not die, you are a god. If you are a god, who is unchallenged and unthreatened by the world around you then what is the point of playing?

Case

 

[Hairfoot]

All edition war threads contain completely overblown characterizations of both 1E and 3E.

To paraphrase Lindsay Tanner, in edition wars, everyone exaggerates everything all of the time.

 

[jdrakeh]

I'm curious where the perception that AD&D/OD&D is save or die (or, to use the logical next step to ehren37's stance, "just die") originated, and, perhaps more importantly, why it is so often broadly applied to all D&D game play before 2e.

I think the perception is due to two things:

1. The tournament modules (e.g., Tomb of Horrors, etc). These are meat grinders, pure and simple. That makes sense for tournament modules. A lot of people tried to incorporate these modules and the style of play that they espouse into their everyday AD&D 1e campaigns, however. In my own experience, such campaigns generated corpses like the sun generates light. Which brings us to. . .

2. People rarely ran AD&D by the RAW. As I've been discussing elsewhere, AD&D 1e has rules for balancing encounters (notably by way of monster levels). Not many people use them. As another old school fan pointed out, there's a widespread perception that such rules didn't exist in AD&D 1e when they, in fact, did. I suspect this is because they weren't often used and, thus, lethality was ratcheted up due to poor application of DM fiat.

Now, that said, OD&D (1974) is actually pretty lethal by design. Hit points don't have that steep upward spiral that they do in later editions of the game, and monsters do have many flat-out lethal attacks. Also, it does not include rules for encounter balance.