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

[Plane Sailing]

You become more wrong with each post you make.

Coming directly after Umbran's warning in the thread?

What on earth were you thinking about? I'm afraid thats a 3 day ban.

 

[Valiant]

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!

Korgoth,

Please re-read the DMG and PH descriptions on play (as well as alot of other FRPGs). In case you really don't "get" or understand the way role play works in 1E I will describe it to you: the way this is handled in 1E is the player acts as the character talking to the guard (played by the DM) in an attempt to persuade him; just as it would occur in real life (either they act it out, or the player says what his PC would generally say). The DM may or may not factor in the PCs charisma (reaction adjustment) its up to him. Thats one of the things that makes 1E a better ROLE PLAY system then 3E and 3.5. In 1E its like real life. You want to get out of that speeding ticket, you better make a good arguement and be persuasive...there's no "debate" skill like bluff or intimidate. And like the above poster mentions, we also acted out alot of stuff that others skipped over (occasionally training, haggling at the local bizzare, talking it up with bar maids for information etc.).

If anything its 3E and 3.5 that have segmented and codifide the "role play" experiance (a normally fluid and unpredictable activity) into cookie cutter predictable "combat like" dice roles along with every other concievable action (Jump, dodge, bluff, intimidate). 3.5 works great in this fashion (as a combat simulator) but it stinks as a role playing system (where the actual presentation by the player and the opinion of the DM (who chooses % chance of success, if he roles at all) are formost not some rule dictated d20 role with stacked modifiers).

Anyhow, from your statements its likely you prefer the 3E system of "role play" resolution (ie bluff, intimidate etc.) to that of AD&D and D&D (basically saying what your going to say and let the DM on his own determine the outcome). If so, thats fine. But please don't miss-represent 1E. Of course, if this is a miss-understanding on my part, please disregard this post.

 

[Jackelope King]

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.
<snip>
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.

First and foremost, you didn't come across as if you were preaching, so no worries there.

I think the difference in points of view here is that for your style of gameplay, a character is merely a vehicle with which the player can explore a fantastic (and dangerous) area. You don't get emotionally invested in your car. Oh sure, you might give it a name and personify it a little when things go good or bad, but for the most part, it's just a vehicle. If it breaks down, you just get a new one and keep on truckin'. It's the journey that matters, the one that the player experiences, and the characters just facilitate that.

I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum. For me, what's exciting is seeing how different characters would react to a fantastic (and dangerous) area. For me, it's more than just a car: it's a car I've spent hours tweaking and tuning so that it runs just the way I want. I've got custom plates and a flashy paint-job that really makes it definitively different from everyone else's. And it runs differently than, say, a muscle car or a pick-up truck or a bulldozer on the journey. It's more than "just a car"... it's a labor of love.

And this, I think, is where I find myself disliking dungeon crawls. In a dungeon, the range of challenges to a character are reduced. There won't be as many opportunities to see how a character will react to achieving or failing at a dream, or interacting with someone of a different culture, or even just dealing with a troubled family. Those are more interesting to me than a dungeon delve. Emphasis on the "to me".

There's always room for more than one approach. However, I feel as though the older rules (and the culture surrounding it) tended to make characters seem more disposable than in 3e (and presumably in 4e and so on and so forth). When characters are somewhat disposable, there's less of a backlash against a DM who offs them, and there were indeed dungeons designed off of this principle (Tomb of Horrors, for instance), where getting a character through it alive so that he could go on to other adventures and develop emotionally wasn't the goal... the goal was to get your game piece (the PC) through it alive for the bragging rights.

These days, it seems like this approach has fallen into disfavor because players have a greater investment in characters than they did under "roll 3d6 six times and arrange as you like, pick a class, get your gear, roll for hit points". Backgrounds and personalities are encouraged. It's something that I personally enjoy, and it's something that makes "old-school" killer dungeons more difficult to justify.

 

[SuStel]

Why roll the dice when you can just describe it?

This was, in fact, the whole point of the thief class originally. Until the thief came along, the only way to find and avoid traps was to describe exactly how you were searching the given item or area.

Then Greyhawk introduced the thief, which had an amazing power: you got a chance to find and remove those traps without having to tell the DM how you did it. And even if you failed your roll, you could still describe your search as the other players had to.

That was a pretty awesome ability. You could short-circuit the challenge of finding traps with a die-roll. You sucked in a fight and you had no magic to speak of, but you could really deal with those dungeon obstacles better than anyone else.

OD&D has perhaps been eye-opening in this regard. There are rules for combat and spell casting, and everything else is open. Why? Well... maybe because using your wits and imagination as much as possible is fun?

Give the man a cigar! This was exactly the point. And even the rules for combat and spell casting were vague and only assumed. (You were assumed to be using Chainmail for your combat system, but oh, here's an alternative if you want one. Or you could use something else. It doesn't matter, so long as the combat situation is resolved.)

This is a criticism that isn't just applicable to 3.5, of course. It's equally applicable to Classic and 1E. Checking the door for traps is reduced to a roll. Searching is reduced to a roll. Too much rolling, not enough getting your imaginary hands dirty.

Ehh... not so much those last two. There aren't really any hard-and-fast rules for non-thieves finding traps in them, and none at all for removing them. In d20, though, all finding and removing traps explicitly uses the Find Traps skill (or whatever it is).

 

[Korgoth]

Korgoth,

Please re-read the DMG and PH descriptions on play (as well as alot of other FRPGs). In case you really don't "get" or understand the way role play works in 1E I will describe it to you: the way this is handled in 1E is the player acts as the character talking to the guard (played by the DM) in an attempt to persuade him; just as it would occur in real life (either they act it out, or the player says what his PC would generally say). The DM may or may not factor in the PCs charisma (reaction adjustment) its up to him. Thats one of the things that makes 1E a better ROLE PLAY system then 3E and 3.5. In 1E its like real life. You want to get out of that speeding ticket, you better make a good arguement and be persuasive...there's no "debate" skill like bluff or intimidate. And like the above poster mentions, we also acted out alot of stuff that others skipped over (occasionally training, haggling at the local bizzare, talking it up with bar maids for information etc.).

If anything its 3E and 3.5 that have segmented and codifide the "role play" experiance (a normally fluid and unpredictable activity) into cookie cutter predictable "combat like" dice roles along with every other concievable action (Jump, dodge, bluff, intimidate). 3.5 works great in this fashion (as a combat simulator) but it stinks as a role playing system (where the actual presentation by the player and the opinion of the DM are formost not some role).

Anyhow, from your statements its likely you prefer the 3E system of "role play" resolution (ie bluff, intimidate etc.) to that of AD&D and D&D (basically saying what your going to say and let the DM on his own determine the outcome). If so, thats fine. But please don't miss-represent 1E. Of course, if this is a miss-understanding on my part, please disregard this post.

I think you are confused and are responding to the wrong person. I was the one who was pointing out that there was (or should I say "is") plenty of role playing in 1E and that role playing does not need to be handled with dice. What you say is what you say.

Since you don't have that many posts, I may even some day come to forgive you for suggesting that I would prefer 3E over 1E. I'm so old school I don't even approve of codified skill systems, much less sullying verbal encounters with dice rolls.

 

[Korgoth]

Then Greyhawk introduced the thief, which had an amazing power: you got a chance to find and remove those traps without having to tell the DM how you did it. And even if you failed your roll, you could still describe your search as the other players had to.

That was a pretty awesome ability. You could short-circuit the challenge of finding traps with a die-roll. You sucked in a fight and you had no magic to speak of, but you could really deal with those dungeon obstacles better than anyone else.

Well... not so fast. The Thief in Greyhawk has an ability to "Remove Traps", but it doesn't say anything about "finding" them!

Give the man a cigar! This was exactly the point. And even the rules for combat and spell casting were vague and only assumed. (You were assumed to be using Chainmail for your combat system, but oh, here's an alternative if you want one. Or you could use something else. It doesn't matter, so long as the combat situation is resolved.)

I find the OD&D approach so liberating. OD&D is less of a rules set and more a fusion-powered jetpack you can strap onto your imagination.

Ehh... not so much those last two. There aren't really any hard-and-fast rules for non-thieves finding traps in them, and none at all for removing them. In d20, though, all finding and removing traps explicitly uses the Find Traps skill (or whatever it is).

It depends on which rules set you're using. In Tom Moldvay's Classic (Otus covers), everybody has a 1 in 6 chance of finding mechanical traps, except Dwarves which get a 2 in 6 and Thieves who can use their percentage (maybe in addition to the above; the text is unclear). This rule gets kind of lost in the terribly unclear (but kid friendly) Mentzer set; I'm actually not sure what becomes of it in 1E.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

...a character is...a labor of love...[with goals including]...[surviving to]...go on to other adventures and [to] develop emotionally...[Well-developed]...backgrounds and personalities are encouraged. It's something that I personally enjoy, and it's something that makes "old-school" killer dungeons more difficult to justify.

(I hope my liberal editing didn't alter the gist of what you were saying; if so, please correct me.)

I think you're right on target in saying that our different approaches to the game puts a different spin on how PCs should be handled. I'd call your approach (as I understand it), primarily character development. That is, the major component of the fun is developing a interesting (and possibly) complex character and acting out that character's reaction to situations/story/et cetera. (In 3E D&D, I'd imagine that "mechanical development "might also be included in the overall concept.)

As you say, it's a spectrum, and not even a two dimensional one. For example, I'd call "role-playing" a separate factor (although it's obviously related). Someone interested in "pure" role-playing would be focused on the character, but not necessarily on continuing development. Call of Cthulhu is a good example of a system that can facilitate that kind of play; the fun is in playing a (probably) doomed Lovecraftian character, including dramatic descents into madness and (probably) eventual death. And there are other "poles" in the spectrum, as well (the game as a puzzle, etc). Where we fit in that spectrum is a matter of preference, although I think some systems are better suited for one style or another (for example, Amber wouldn't be my first choice for a tactical military type-game).

I enjoy different kinds of play, including that primarily focused on character development (I think Mage is a nice system for that), but it's not my preferred approach, especially for D&D. Different strokes and all that.

 

[haakon1]

All of this applies to other kinds of searching, too. For example, I typically use die-rolls for finding secret doors, but to open the secret door, I often require description (e.g. push/pull/prod/press something, etc). And if someone "twists the torch sconce," even without knowing a secret door is there from a die roll, I would let that find and open it. For things like concealed treasure (e.g. false bottom in a chest, pouch of gems hidden in the mattress), I much prefer descriptive searches over die rolls.

I'd accept the "descriptive search" method of finding a secret door, but I'd also allow a Search check with the right number in the right place to figure it out. That seems fair, giving the player the benefit of the character (the roll respents the characters greater skill) and the player the benefit of good playing (the good ideas and descriptions enhance the game because the player is making it more "real" and is in engaged in the game).

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I'd accept the "descriptive search" method of finding a secret door, but I'd also allow a Search check with the right number in the right place to figure it out.

Sounds like a reasonable approach, to me. I sometimes do things like that (rolling against Int, etc), depending on the situation and the PCs involved.

 

[haakon1]

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.

For social interactions, I require both the talking -- usually exact wording, but sometimes general idea for complicated stuff -- and the die roll. Essentially, the two go together and I make a judgement call.

(Whether that makes the game simpler/better/faster or wrecks the consistent application of the rules set is left to the reader as . . . a judgemental call! )