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

[haakon1]

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.

Nod. I'm fine with the "SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) and Pop" method of door entry, as long as the players tell me what the SOP is, roll the dice for the SOP, and are in no hurry to do it. So, for example, I assume the melee fighters have their usual weapons out and the missile guys have their bows ready to go during a door entry, but the guy checking for traps and the guy listening for sound should roll it.

 

[haakon1]

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)?

This thinking is very strange to me. The assumption appears to be:
1) DM's are playing against players.
2) The goal of D&D is to win.

That couldn't be further from my thinking. To me, DM & players are more like a music group. They have fun when they work well together, which requires some degree of natural ability or training, but also trust and enough good will to get along.

You're basically saying: "Drummers have been mean to me in the past. Drummers cannot be trusted. Only if there is written sheet music and a metronome can we determine if the drummer is trying to throw off my tempo, causing my sax playing to be off and making me "lose" the set. Jamming is therefore always wrong bad fun, and any musicians who can't read sheet music are wack jobs."

As a singer who can't read music particularly well, I disagree with that. (As our choir director once said to me: "That's a pretty good tenor part. Sounds good, fits right into the fugue. But it's not what Mozart wrote. So try it again like this.")

Sure, there's advantages to writing down sheet music, as a way of recording great ideas and of teaching noobs faster. But it's not a necessary pre-condition for good music, which is rather obvious when you realize good music predated whatever geniuses invented a way of writing it down.

To me, the same is true of D&D.

And furthermore, I believe the goal of D&D is for all participants to have fun. It's possible to lose (in a TPK), which may or may not be fun, but if cheating is even possible, there's really no point to it. The "fudging" (I wouldn't call it cheating) of dice rolls I've actually seen at game tables, with myself or others as DM, has ALWAYS been to the advantage of the PC's.

(Edit: From reading further along, I see it doesn't make a difference to you which way it is fudged. It seems like it's more about the "integrity" of a game as a system. Interesting, and a different way from how I think about it. I think I might actually get what you're saying now. More of an engineering mindset than a liberal arts one.

This leaves my neat idea about computer RPG's being like drum machines less relevant, but still an interesting observation for 1980s era gamers. Gosh, drum machines were no fun!)

 

[haakon1]

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.

I agree. Most fudging just doesn't feel right to me. So I've essentially banded it, except in live or die situations where someone got an unlucky save in save or die situation. Specifically where this came up was a 4th level Wizard missing a save versus a Fireball, with full damage meaning outright death, and half damage meaning unconscious. In that case, I gave them a second save attempt, which they made. if the second roll is bad, that's that.

I never played any 2nd Edition modules and only ran a few, under AD&D rules, so I can't speak to the "Protection" text. Sounds bad, though.

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.

I've checked out how much treasure each person had, but I don't normally add up the value, and I certainly don't consult a table to make sure it's "right".

 

[haakon1]

Peace making attempt . . .

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.

Not beneficial for the GAME per se, but for the fun of playing together.

That is, fudging/DM fiat is used as add on rule for the rule set, but as a way of correcting the story line to ensure fun and "rightness" of the experience.

It's jazz instead of drum machine logic.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Actually, it's not a strawman. In your campaign, it might be a difference between live and death. In the game of D&D, it didn't matter whatsoever. Mechanically, the game couldn't give a rat's petoot how much amateur thespianism you bring to the game. It was left entirely outside of the rules.

To use your MU example. The rules certainly did not call for any actual play during training. You calculated the time, calculated the price, paid your money and moved on. As far as the rules were concerned, that was it. That you or I or anyone else chose to move beyond the rules is besides the point. We've stopped playing AD&D and are now playing Korgoth's D&D or Hussar's D&D. And therein lies the huge disparity between play experiences.

*snip*

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.).
*snip*

Amateur thespianism is certainly not the only way to role play. Yes, you can do it. I certainly have. This "real life" approach to the game is one way to do things. But, it was certainly not the only way and it was not mandated by the rules. There were reaction mechanics in 1e that could be used for example.

Yes, 1e (and any edition) can be played this way. But, saying that it is the only way or that it is even suggested by the rules is mistaken.

This thinking is very strange to me. The assumption appears to be:
1) DM's are playing against players.
2) The goal of D&D is to win.
*snip*

This approach to the game was certainly suggested in a number of modules. Isle of the Ape straight up tells you to browbeat your players into accepting the mission and has all sorts of Viking Hat DMing advice. Tomb of Horrors also heavily leans towards this idea - "here's an adventure to screw your players with" is the basic premise.

Adversarial DMing was not the only way the game was played, but, it was played.

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

Yup, because of the huge numbers of permutations of gameplay back in the day, it's pretty difficult to come to any sort of consensus as to what actually is meant by Old Skool play.

 

[Melan]

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.

You assume that there is an "invisible paint guy" in all of us, waiting to break free if the watching eye of Civilisation is turned for a moment. I don't know how you can game with such a level of distrust towards fellow human beings. :\ I certainly wouldn't.

The other assumption is that removing subjectivity and fiat, and providing clear, foolproof rules will get rid of "invisible paint guy". Unfortunately, it just invites his other side: "paint splotch measurement guy" - the one who will say that actually, the Paintball Field Manual* rules that hits where the paint splotches have a circumference under 35 mm* don't count as kills, and neither do hits made from concealed positions.*

The only sensible solution I see is to avoid playing with people you don't like.

(* - I don't know about paintball, so I made this stuff up)

 

[Melan]

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.

This is just a major philosophical difference between negotiation-based and codified resolution systems. Negotiation is wide open, but requires trust and communication. Codified systems are fair, but they can be misinterpreted or used too narrowly (I am sure I could create a strawman example of how a 9th level Fighter in "chaotic evil" full plate wouldn't be able to intimidate a peasant because he spent his skill points on Ride instead of Intimidate, too).

But none of this matters if you don't play with asshats. People matter! And they matter more than systems.

 

[Hussar]

Melan, I believe the problem lies somewhere in the middle.

Do I absolutely trust a DM to never screw me over? No.
Do I absolutely distrust a DM? No.

However, having experienced more than my share of piss poor DM's out there, I'm willing to bring a healthy dose of skepticism to someone's game. Am I going to start challenging the DM each and every time? No, of course not. But, then again, if what you are doing is fair and unbiased, then why would you complain about being audited?

Nearly every problem I've ever had with a DM is because they thought that their pet rules were better than RAW. Every problem I've had with a player has probably stemmed from the same source. If it wasn't the DM suddenly ruling that spell research was at 1/10th the listed chance of success, it was the DM ignoring every attempt by the players to taunt the goblins so the players had to go into her fiendish trap room.

There are a rather large number of poor DM's out there. There's an even larger number of mediocre ones. There is nothing wrong with wanting rules to be concrete enough to cover play. There is also nothing wrong with wanting more free form rules. However, the problem is, with free form rules, you have to accept that those adjudicating the rules are going to be prats.

See, I've gotten to the point where I even roll my die rolls in the open. About the only ones I don't are search checks. EVERYTHING is auditable by my players. Not because they distrust me, but, because I have nothing to hide. And, as a fringe benefit, it lets me kill a LOT more PC's.

 

[Glyfair]

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.

I admit, this does describe a large number of the "edition war" discussions.

I think this shows one of the main differences between the editions, and it has more to do with the gamer culture at the time. During the era of AD&D we weren't playing the same game. We were playing different games based around a core. No one* was playing the full set of rules. Everyone ignored large sections of the rules and house rules varied widely from table to table and often affected those large sections of the rules. It was assumed.

With 3E we have had a different culture. Everyone is playing pretty much the same game. Sure, there are house rules out there at most tables. However, the assumption since 3E is that there aren't going to be major changes from table to table.

If I sat down at an AD&D table during the day, I knew to ask what house rules they had. When I sit down at a 3E table today, I expect to be told what the house rules are without asking.

* I'm not going to mollycoddle the absolutes. Yes, there were exceptions. They were just that for this discussion, exceptions.

 

[Hussar]

Glyfair - ayup!