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

[Philotomy Jurament]

Oh that's nothing, what's really boring is time consuming stuff like:

Player: I push it a millimeter to the left. Anything?
DM: Some dust falls from around the bracket...
Player: I push it another millimeter to the left. Anything?
DM: A slight squeak.
Player: I get out my oil and put a few drops on it.
DM: You have to get it out of your pack. Are you letting go of the bracket?
Player: Yes.
DM: Okay, you're rooting through your pack...[rolls wandering monster check]
Player: Ready?
DM: No, you're still rooting through your pack...Ok.
Player: I push it another millimeter to the left. Anything?
DM: Nothing. But your hands are kinda slick, now.
Player: I wipe my hands.
DM: Okay.
Player: I push it another millimeter to the left. Anything?
[An hour later, we get to pushing it to up and to the right...]

Descriptive search...what a bore, huh?


Seriously, though, you have to use some judgment about the whole thing. You needn't run all searches with the same amount of detail, and as I mentioned, the players and the DM rapidly come to a "meeting of the minds" on how it works, in play. In special situations, or with new players, sometimes being very detailed and careful *is* fun. As everyone gets more experienced, you naturally introduce short-cuts. And the players start driving how detailed searches need to be.

I know it's not for everyone, but it does work very well (at least in my groups). And nobody is falling asleep at the table from boredom. Trust me.

Another good example is the sample action in the 1E DMG, where a player says: "Then I'll see if I can move any of the stone knobs and see if they operate a secret door! I'll push, pull, twist, turn, slide, or otherwise attempt to trigger the thing if possible." After several sessions of play, even that might become: "I'll manipulate the knobs to see if anything happens..." and the DM will understand what is being called for.

 

[Jackelope King]

A valid point: descriptive searching can become repetitive (and thus boring). In practice, this typically resolves iteself, though. DMs and players come to an understanding about "standard searches," and such things can be handled speedily. If the players feel a specific search warrants more attention, then they can say things like "we search the chest for the usual things, but I also want to pay particular attention to those decorative carvings you mentioned; can you give me more details?" Or "I search the chest, as usual, but I want to make sure I don't move it; I'm suspicious of the pedestal it's sitting on...do I see anything unusal or interesting about it?" Et cetera.

Here's my problem with all of this: how is coming up with your "door litany" roleplaying?

Of course, if every character's role is that of an expert dungeoneer, then it's absolutely perfect. It fits wonderfully that expert dungeoneers should know all these tricks of the trade, and it works even better when the players get into it.

These are excellent tactics, but is every single character who you come up with to go dungeon delving expected to be an excellent tactician/expert dungeoneer? Even Bob the Fighting-Man the Fifth who rolled a 6 for his Intelligence? It seems to me like bad roleplaying if you've got the group's best dungeoneer player with the least intelligent/perceptive character in the group and still walking through brilliant analyses of the next room. How would you justify this paradox?

(I also must admit that dungeon crawls tend to bore me for just this reason... I've played the expert dungeoneer a few times... I'm sick of it now and want to play something else.)

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Here's my problem with all of this: how is coming up with your "door litany" roleplaying?...It seems to me like bad roleplaying if you've got the group's best dungeoneer player with the least intelligent/perceptive character in the group and still walking through brilliant analyses of the next room. How would you justify this paradox?

I don't justify it. Playing a role is one aspect of the fun, but role-playing needn't be deep and serious method acting. Putting "yourself" in the scene through your PC is part of the fun, too. So is the puzzle/game aspect of play.

Also, OD&D ability scores are not as mechanically important as ability scores in later editions (see my musing on this), so there's a little less emphasis on your numbers and how they modify your rolls and a little more emphasis on how you play your PC. If someone wants to make an effort to "seriously" role-play their Int 5 PC's method of searching, that's okay, too. And if a player has an Int 18 genius PC, and feels like they should get some extra assistance, I'll give that PC some hints and nudges. In fact, my current campaign has a high Cha Fighting Man played by a young player (my son), who sometimes needs some nudging to "come out of his shell" when he plays with adults, so I have NPCs notice his PC's commanding demeanor, defer to him, et cetera. I also sometimes give "common sense" nudges to the player of an Elf PC with high Wis.

(I also must admit that dungeon crawls tend to bore me for just this reason... I've played the expert dungeoneer a few times... I'm sick of it now and want to play something else.)

Sure; anything can get old after a while. I go through phases where I like one thing or another. I always come back to dungeon play, though. I like the idea of the dungeon as a mythic/mystic underworld. It's not just some tunnels with dangerous crap and valuable crap stuck in odd corners, it's the unknown, the "descent into hell." And I like my monsters that way, too. Goblins aren't just little mean pseudo-humans living in tribes, like something out of a 19th century anthropology text, but dangerous and evil beings spawned in darkness, perhaps getting sustenance from gnawing on the bones of the earth, itself. Watch out if you see their red eyes gleaming at you from the shadows...

Edit: Just a note to say I'm not presenting any of this as "my way is the best way." It's just what I like, and what I've found to work well.

 

[Hussar]

ranged attacks, spells, avoidance

run like hell, throw back a fireball or two*

does happen; thankfully, OD&D/1st edition characters are easy to make, especially if we go into "cousins" and "long lost brothers who show up right in time for the funeral"


But isn't everyone? :\

*Seriously, NEVER engage monsters that have petrification unless you have to. The only exception I can think of are cockatrices, who are rather wimpy, and only stone on a successful melee attack. In any case, they don't even have much treasure, just a bunch of boring statues around their lair...

However, there's a serious problem with that bit of advice. Most of the time, we're fighting in dungeons. It's not like you get tons of warning. A failed Hear Noise roll, open the door and WHAM, save for petrification from the medusa. Camp for the night, random encounter, suprise and WHAP, save vs poison from that snake/spider/whatever.

The idea that you can simply play a certain way and avoid every encounter except on your terms is not terribly realistic. I would argue that the vast majority of encounters in dungeons are "have to fight" encounters because running away is so problematic.

When you get down to it, save or die is a lot like having critical hits. It adds a random element into the game that increases the chance of PC death. Anything that does that favours the DM because the DM simply rolls more dice. Over a long enough span, the chances that a given character will have to make a save or die roll increases to one.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Some people are the same way with social interactions. Rather than say what your character says and just have it be as convincing as it actually is, they'd rather "roll their skill". I like the idea of taking the descriptive approach with searching also.

Why roll the dice when you can just describe it? Let's leave the dice for physical activities (jumping the chasm, swinging the sword) and let wit and imagination hold sway where possible.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet we'll see the usual parade of strawmen trotted out any time now. "Then why don't you LARP?" "What if I want to play a character smarter than me?" etc.

Its not a strawman, its just an arguement you cant counter. There IS no reason why, if the DM in his infinite fairness, should use fiat to determine the outcome of social interactions he shouldnt ALSO use it to determine combat. The only reason rules for such were not included in 1e ios because they werent deemed important. It didnt matter if you bluffed the guard, it mattered if you stabbed him.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Your experience clearly colors your entire perception of the game (as anyone who has ever read any post of yours about 1e or similar games can attest). And I doubt anyone will try to argue you out of feeling that you didn't have fun. (I don't think I would have either, given your descriptions.) But that isn't the game systems fault. I suspect were you playing 3x with the same kind of DMs you've talked about, you'd be bashing on 3x and talking about how great Rolemaster or Savage Worlds is.

Blaming the system for your poor experience is like going to see a horror movie, getting scared, and saying that the movie theater you were in was a bad venue.

Didn't you yourself say your bad DMs cheated? What good are rules if you've got someone who is going to break them anyways?

Lets say you're going to a paitn ball tournament. Everyone has standard issue gear. One guy shows up with a new fangled gun that shoots invisible paint that only he can see. He announces he'll call his shots.

Would you prefer that he used that gun, or a regular one with regular ammo? I mean, maybe he's a fair guy and wont cheat. After all, you wont have quite the mess to clean up.

Thats how I feel about unwritten rules. Sure, cheating is possible in every edition. Sure, a jerk will be a jerk. But when its out in the open, when its monitored, when everyone knows the rules, it functions like a surveilance camera. Its a deterrant. When the DM makes a spot call every time and invents a new resolution method, its like the invisible paint ammo. It creates more opportunity for favoritism, inconsistency, etc. Even if he's being fair, theres an increased chance of the PERCEPTION of cheating. Why deal with it, when we can have everyone on the same page (or at least same chapter)?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

The descriptive style of searching for traps/treasure looks pretty boring to me. It's a lot more time consuming than a die roll. I just wouldn't enjoy stuff like:

Player: I push the torch bracket up. Does anything happen?
DM: No.
Player: I push the torch bracket down. Does anything happen?
DM: No.
Player: I push the torch bracket inwards. Does anything happen?
DM: No.
Player: I pull the torch bracket outwards. Does anything happen?
DM: No.
Player: I turn the torch bracket clockwise. Does anything happen?
DM: No.
Player: I turn the torch bracket anti-clockwise. Does anything happen?
DM: A secret door opens

Dude, he touched the torch? What kind of moron does that. He should have had a farm animal pull a string to do it while he hid in another room.

 

[SavageRobby]

I actually like a combination of both. Some people aren't as creative or perceptive as their characters are supposed to be; I don't want to penalize them for that, just like I don't want to penalize someone for not knowing how to fight as well as their character (not to mention more fantastic elements, such as spellcasting).

But I do require a bit of interaction from my players, so as not to make the whole process mechanical. Tell me what you want to search, and if you're looking for anything in specific. From there, I like some kind of a search check. If your search description is spot-on with what is hidden, you likely get a big bonus. If not, we let the dice decide. As a case in point, I never assume characters look up, this is something they explicitly have to tell me - and have learned to.

But a generic, "I search the room" gets you nothing from me as a DM. Not even a search role. Might as well be playing a video game and hit the "Search" key.

The only reason rules for such were not included in 1e ios because they werent deemed important. It didnt matter if you bluffed the guard, it mattered if you stabbed him.

As usual, this is completely untrue and demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the system. There are quite a number of rules about social interaction. You might have been too lazy to read them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

The idea that you can simply play a certain way and avoid every encounter except on your terms is not terribly realistic. When you get down to it, save or die...adds a random element into the game that increases the chance of PC death.

I think the possibility of "bad happens" moments are part of what makes adventuring fun. Good play can reduce the frequency of those "bad " moments, but it won't completely eliminate them. That's where saving throws come in; they give you a "last chance" when the bad comes down.

I see what you're saying by comparing critical hits to save-or-die. And I think you're correct that they both increase the probability of bad . However, I think it's a case of frequency and degrees. Even if they're similar in their game effects, save-or-die is a lot less common than critical hit rolls. I'm not a huge of fan of critical hits (although I'm still using them due to player desire), but I don't have a problem with save-or-die.

 

[SavageRobby]

Lets say you're going to a paitn ball tournament. Everyone has standard issue gear. One guy shows up with a new fangled gun that shoots invisible paint that only he can see. He announces he'll call his shots.

Would you prefer that he used that gun, or a regular one with regular ammo? I mean, maybe he's a fair guy and wont cheat. After all, you wont have quite the mess to clean up.

Thats how I feel about unwritten rules. Sure, cheating is possible in every edition. Sure, a jerk will be a jerk. But when its out in the open, when its monitored, when everyone knows the rules, it functions like a surveilance camera. Its a deterrant. When the DM makes a spot call every time and invents a new resolution method, its like the invisible paint ammo. It creates more opportunity for favoritism, inconsistency, etc. Even if he's being fair, theres an increased chance of the PERCEPTION of cheating. Why deal with it, when we can have everyone on the same page (or at least same chapter)?

What an inane example. How about instead, lets say you're playing a roleplaying game. The point of the game is to have fun. You're playing with a DM or a group, and you're not having fun. It doesn't matter if they're cheating or not. Why not go play with another group or DM, and quit blaming the system?

The fact that you think players and DMs need a surveillance camera speaks volumes to me about your gaming style. It definitely shows me we have zero common ground as far as this hobby goes. Makes me wonder how you ever enjoy any kind of RPGing, but to each his own, I suppose.