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

[Philotomy Jurament]

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.

Beware farm animals in dungeons. They're either dangerous monsters in disguise, or they get consumed by gelatinous cubes...

(And bringing tasy farm animal morsels into the dungeon seems like a good way to "ring the dinner bell" for lots of nasty, toothy abominations with well-developed senses of smell...)

 

[Quasqueton]

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 (or perhaps simply incapable of understanding them?), but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

D&D3 Poster 1: Rule X in [new edition] is a good thing, and it's great that we have such a rule.

AD&D1 Poster A: Rule X is bad and we never needed it in [previous edition] because we could work without it.

D&D3 Poster 2: [Previous edition] never had Rule X, and we really needed it.

AD&D1 Poster B: Rule X did exist in [previous edition], but you apparently just missed it.

Rule X is bad and AD&D1 never had it.
Rule X is good and AD&D1 did have it.

Random death is good for an adventure game, and AD&D1 had it in spades, therefore it is the better game.
Random death is bad for an adventure game, and AD&D1 never truly had it, therefore it is the better game.

Quasqueton

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

It was me you were discussing with before, so I assume you mean me and people like me who are fans of AD&D. Certainly, I'd like to be called a grognard.

What's odd about our discussion is that I'm not actually bitter at all. The 3.*e games I have personally played in have been run more-or-less to my satisfaction, which I'd like to think is 3e rules, 1e feel.

As a DM most of the time, who only runs games for friends, it's fairly easy to get the feel I want.

As a player part of the time, I'm OK with the other guys DM style. He likes to emphasize combat over setting and does not like role-playing at all, which is fine as far as it goes, but gets a little old at times -- a bit too computer-game like. Also, he tends to cheat in our favor a lot. It's had too many characters collapse with -7 hp for it to be a statistical accident. When he turns off the holodeck safety proctocols, it's more fun, even though we did have one TPK.

I'm not a fan of random fudging, for or against the PC's (though I'm a fan of controlled fudging, ala fate chips in Deadlands, action points, or whatever). If its part of the game, rather than "whenever I feel like it" sort of thing. Thats what always bugged me about many 2nd edition products - if you want to talk about an editiont hat felt video-gamey I can list numerous times it felt like I was in a video game cut scene in many products. Hence the Protection from Boxed Text spell.

Neither as a player or DM in 3e have I seen "treasure audits" or a designed prevention of overmatched opponents. Describing some of the fights I've run here, I've been told I'm a killer DM (8 wights versus 8 5th level PCs I believe was the battle people got upset about), but we've lost very few PCs, with relatively little fudging, so I don't really think so.

I have done a few treasure audits, but mostly as a curiosity to see how the players are dividing junk up. I almost always roll random loot for non classes critters. It aslo tipped me off that the mage had found next to nothing usable in the form of permanent items in his rise to 9th level, so I threw him a bone in the next adventure.

The 8 wights would be tough, but doable, assuming they didnt get the jump and gang up on the cleric first round. Even assuming a pitiful roll and a mediocre charisma of 12, the cleric should be able to muster the 6+ on a d20 to turn some wights. 4hd critters vs. 2d6+5+1 (average of 13) means 3 wights are likely turned each round.

I'd take those odds against a swarm of 1st edition spiders. Again, the poison rules in 1st edition are likely the source of a LOT of deaths. A hulking ogre with a huge spiked club? Not scary. A foot long centipede? RUN!

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

So you think the guy with the invisible paint gun not only is OK, but in fact BENEFICIAL to the game? Thats what truly boggles my mind.

 

[Ourph]

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.

I can't understand how playing a game where you are constantly monitoring the DM for cheating and unfairness could be any fun at all, whether the rules make it easy to spot or not. If you know the guy is a jerk, why would you play in his game in the first place? All of these critiques of DM fiat rely on the assumption that the DM is a total tool. I think, for the vast majority of people who say they enjoy the more open style of play, the base assumption is that people monitor the personality of their DM at the level of "do I play in this game" not at the level of "is this individual call from my tool-of-a-DM something I should interrupt the game for and get into a 30 minute argument over". That doesn't sound like a fun game for anyone.

Why deal with it, when we can have everyone on the same page (or at least same chapter)?

That's just it, you're not making an argument for "everyone being on the same page" you're making an argument for the players in a game playing the dual roles of participants having fun and referees maintaining constant vigilance against a cheating, jerk DM who isn't interested in making the game fun for anyone but himself. Why deal with THAT?

 

[Korgoth]

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.

And there's our strawman. You're saying that in 1E it didn't matter if you bluffed the guard. That's false. It could be the difference between life and death.

In deference to the Mods, I won't impute a motive to your statement. I will point out, however, that it is manifestly false. Perhaps that's the way you and your friends played 1E, but that is not how everybody played 1E. When I played my Magic-User, we even role played some of the training!

I think you're quite entitled to dislike 1E. In fact, feel free to despise it, though it's bad for your health to despise things too much. But please don't spread falsehoods about it. If your assertion about 1E was merely an honest mistake, then please accept this correction with my compliments.

 

[SavageRobby]

So you think the guy with the invisible paint gun not only is OK, but in fact BENEFICIAL to the game? Thats what truly boggles my mind.

Well, thats one way to try to put words in my mouth.

No, I think your example is utterly ridiculous and not at all relevant to the conversation at hand. I simply wouldn't play in a tournament like that. But I also wouldn't blame paintball for the failing of that one tournament.

 

[Umbran]

You might have been too lazy to read them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Oh? How would you like it if I said, "You might have been too lazy to read EN World's Rules on social interaction, but that doesn't mean they don't exist."?

Probably you'd not like it. You'd be slightly embarrassed, slightly angry, and generally feel like getting combative about it, and want to start an argument. We don't like arguments around here, so you should apply the Golden Rule, and not do the equivalent to other posters.

Folks, don't attribute motivations or states of mind to others. Treat other people with respect. Doubly so when another mod has already put a warning in the thread.

 

[Gentlegamer]

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.

You become more wrong with each post you make.

 

[Gentlegamer]

That's just it, you're not making an argument for "everyone being on the same page" you're making an argument for the players in a game playing the dual roles of participants having fun and referees maintaining constant vigilance against a cheating, jerk DM who isn't interested in making the game fun for anyone but himself. Why deal with THAT?

Indeed, he is asserting that the adversarial way of play is the norm and that somehow more written rules are capable of alleviating its effects.