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

[Raven Crowking]

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

I can certainly see where this could be frustrating, but I think it is largely a combination of "use of language" issues and playstyle issues. Given the example,

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

on the surface, one would think that Rule X is either good or bad, and either existed in the game or did not. However, these "Rule X" bits are never about an actual rule; they are about rules to cover a particular situation. I will use CR/EL as my example.

3.X has CR/EL. 1e used a combination of Monster Levels and XP Values to help DMs judge the relative difficulty of fighting a monster.

On a sliding scale, where 0 is no help at all, and 10 is the perfect failsafe help system, CR/EL is (for argument's purpose only), a 5. Monster Level is perhaps a 2, although using the XP themselves (coupled with an awareness of how special abilities affect combat) is perhaps a 6 or even a 7 (because many special abilities in 1e are binary -- save or die, you have magic weapons or not -- they might be easier to adjudicate).

When the "edition war" occurs re: the CR system, one can easily say that 1e didn't have something like the CR system, because one is thinking of specific traits of the CR/EL system, and also state that there was analagous help. They can also state that not having something as codified as the CR System (which includes data that ML/XP did not) is good while simultaneously stating that having something like ML/XP is also good.

From a language use point of view, while using "A system to aid DMs in placing monsters" and calling it "Rule X" may apply to the CR system and the ML/XP system both, it doesn't make the two systems co-equal. The sort of problem you describe above can easily arise as a refutation to the idea that the two are co-equal, especially over a long and involved discussion with many participants who may or may not be able to articulate why they feel that conflating these two rules into "Rule X" is wrong, although they know that it is wrong.

The playstyle issue arises, of course, because "good" and "bad" are relative (at least within this context).

IMHO, of course.


RC

 

[RFisher]

I'd argue that bringing things in the open DOES help keep the game more fair, as does increased consistency from having written rules.

Ever seen a DM refuse to even give hints at what the DC of a task might be even though the PC should have an inkling? Ever seen a DM enjoy smacking a PC whose player doesn't grasp the AoO rules with an AoO?

An adversarial style is a mistake I've made in lots of different systems. GURPS didn't prevent me from doing it. Rolemaster didn't prevent me from doing it. Hârnmaster didn't prevent me from doing it. Hero didn't prevent me from doing it.

3e didn't prevent me from doing it.

They didn't even significantly counteract the amount by which I was killing the fun.

It's something I had to learn to avoid. Whether it's warning a player up front that an action will provoke an AoO or giving players fair warning that they are entering save-or-die territory.

What I hate about the module are the various completely unfair traps/encounters like a teleport trap, that teleports the pcs out of the dungeon, while their equipment is teleported elsewhere. That's a campaign stopper right there and it's an effect that is impossible to recreate using the rules (excepting wish-like powers and - of course - DMs fiat).

Oddly enough, that trap was an integral part of one story I've heard about success against the Tomb of Horrors.

Doesn't this require the Player (and DM) have real life knowledge of traps? And essentially, whichever has more real life knowledge of traps, or is more devious or persistent, will "win".

No.

Think of it like a text adventure (or Interactive Fiction if you prefer). Seldom does solving a puzzle in such an adventure require deep knowledge of any real-world subject. But with a TRPG, you don't have the "guess the verb" problem.

(Although things like the "no fair warning" are perhaps analogs to the "guess the verb" problem.)

An aside: You know, the opposite of this is what really disappointed me about the Carmen Sandiego games. I thought they'd have puzzles that required using the reference book that came with them to learn about the real-world. That would have been awesome. Instead, the reference book was just a lame copy-protection scheme.

Back to the topic: In my experience, the persistant player is going to "win" 99.9% of the time anyway. We tend to heavily skew the odds in the PC's favor & just try to make it look otherwise. Heck, how often do you not even have to be very persistent?

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.

Yep. There it is again. I'd much rather address the "no fair warning" (or "too prevalent lack of fair warnings") problem itself than to accept it & adjust the rest of the game accordingly.

But when its out in the open, when its monitored, when everyone knows the rules, it functions like a surveilance camera.

(O_O)

Personally, I'd rather convince everyone that openess makes the game better so that we don't need a deterrant. I prefer we discuss the how to resolve the situation rather than to mechanically apply written rules in the name of absolute fairness. I prefer it to people trying to score rules-knowledge victories.

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

Yep. These issues are never as cut-&-dried as we'd like them to be. Trying to boil it down to "rule X is good" or "rule X is bad"--or even consensus on what "rule X" is ends up leaving out lots of important details.

The reason these threads of yours are so good, Q, is that they get us figuring out what those details are. When we start to understand these things, it makes the game better no matter what system we're playing. At least, they do for me.

 

[rkwoodard]

save or die situations

The phrasing about the save or die being the last effort to save the character turned a light on in my head. I can accept this and it even gives me some inspiration going forward. But this takes a good DM. Two true stories I think really highlight this;

1) Badwrongnotfun: We are in a tower (upper level) we open a door. The DM states there are 3 gorgon in here everybody make saves. (I cheated, every character and animal companion failed and we went out and drank beer).
2) Good. Ghost Towers. The DM states(or even reads) You come up a figure with its back to you, It is wearing a cloak what covers it completely even the head. You hear the soft hiss of snakes. (we dug out the mirror PDQ).

That 2nd example is in my opinion of a good Save or lose situation. In running Ghost towers (using the same descriptive style), I have had group dog pile the Medusa as well as run. But with that description no one has approached it as business as usuall.


RK

 

[Garnfellow]

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 . . .
With 3E we have had a different culture. Everyone is playing pretty much the same game.

And we have BINGO!

This is the single biggest thing that drives me crazy about all the various edition wars threads -- 1e play varied so much from table to table that it is nearly impossible to compare or contrast it to any other edition. The discussion all-too-often devolves into a useless he said/she said impasse. "This was how it always was at my table," "Well, that's not what it says in the DMG," "Yeah, but look at what he said in the Sorcerer's Scroll from the Dragon 46," "Well, then why did Gary put that thing in Module Z1?" etc.

I've got a good handle on what a typical 3e play experience is like, but 1e is all over the map: good, bad, and ugly. I can understand 1e haters, and I can understand 1e fanatics, but I can't for the life understand anyone* who makes definitive pronouncements on what 1e was like.

* Not even EGG, who is said to be a genius at storytelling and improvisation. Much like Whitman, Gygax contains multitudes. And I suspect that gameplay at his table, while always entertaining, never clove all that close to the RAW.

 

[T. Foster]

The phrasing about the save or die being the last effort to save the character turned a light on in my head. I can accept this and it even gives me some inspiration going forward. But this takes a good DM. Two true stories I think really highlight this;

1) Badwrongnotfun: We are in a tower (upper level) we open a door. The DM states there are 3 gorgon in here everybody make saves. (I cheated, every character and animal companion failed and we went out and drank beer).
2) Good. Ghost Towers. The DM states(or even reads) You come up a figure with its back to you, It is wearing a cloak what covers it completely even the head. You hear the soft hiss of snakes. (we dug out the mirror PDQ).

That 2nd example is in my opinion of a good Save or lose situation. In running Ghost towers (using the same descriptive style), I have had group dog pile the Medusa as well as run. But with that description no one has approached it as business as usuall.

It depends. The first situation might not be a problem for experienced players with high level characters, who 1) likely have various ways of determining what's behind a door without opening it, and 2) should know better than to put themselves in position so that a single effect can wipe out the entire party. And even if things do go badly, high level characters (I'm thinking OD&D/1E here) generally have good save numbers, and also are likely to have means of reversing the effect (stone to flesh, wishes, etc.) so if a character or two does get petrified it's not a campaign-threatening disaster.

The second situation is appropriate for a group of inexperienced players, but is probably too easy for more experienced players. Telling them "you see a human-sized figure up ahead [x] feet/yards whose back is towards you and is completely covered head to toe by a long cloak" should be sufficient to make experienced players suspicious and get them asking additional questions (is this figure moving? is it making any noise?), which is where the "soft hiss of snakes" would be mentioned. Including that info automatically is, IMO, too much like giving the whole thing away. Generally, IMO, the less experienced the players and the fewer resources (both for avoidance and recovery) the characters have the more hints are in order, and vice versa.

YMMV, of course.

 

[JDJblatherings]

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..

Parlaying is spelled out as an option in every encounter. That is one reason the reaction roll exsisted in the game to have some degree of mechanical resolution for talking to a group/encounter PCs just met. Negotiations was not outside the rules. Playing well is most certainly inside the rules so the fellow that is playing a smooth talker that acts liek a smooth talker gets some benefit. People that played characters well benefited by having shorter training times.

 

[thedungeondelver]

I've got a good handle on what a typical 3e play experience is like, but 1e is all over the map: good, bad, and ugly. I can understand 1e haters, and I can understand 1e fanatics, but I can't for the life understand anyone* who makes definitive pronouncements on what 1e was like.

Do you include the people who make definitive pronouncements that "NOBODY EVER PLAYED AD&D AS WRITTEN!"

 

[haakon1]

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?

Because it's a game, not a business.

If you want to audit me, I'm afraid I'm going to have insist on my full consulting rate of $250 an hour, and you're going to need to pay sales tax on that and give me a cashiers check, because I've had other player's checks bounce on me.

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.

Or you could play with your friends, instead of playing withe people you don't like or respect.

 

[Valiant]

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.

My sincere apologies then, this is a long thread (a fast read threw) and It's very possible I'm attributing anothers posts to you. Anyhow, glad to hear that your a 1Eer. You know, its amazing how many 3.5ers aren't into the role play aspect of the game, but rather prefer the fiddling with their skills and feats; battle has become a way to customize and get more skills and feats (with level progression) rather then a reason to go do stuff. 3E really is a very different game then 1E, almost its opposite in many core ways.




Hussar, I think you miss-understood me. I'm not at all into thespian acting, I've never done it. In our 1E games, the player keeps his personality the action takes place in the players head not at the table. Here is an example of how we play: DM says to players: "A guard blocks the gate into the keep, he signals you to stop and turn around." Player says: "I'll (or my PC will) walk up to the guard with a smile and tell him I must get past, even though its late, because I've been out visiting a wench and I don't want my wife to find out. I'll then tell the guard she has a sister if your interested". The DM then determines if this works however the hell he wants. Now, some degree of talking in first person occurs on occasion and its usually the DM doing it "Get back scum, this gates closed after dark". But thats not thespian acting, its more like text from an adventure fantasy book in 1st person. There is a HUGE difference, Thespian Acting at the table is not 1st person talking. True Thespian acting has more to do with the players leaving behind their personalities and slipping on some new one to experiment with and act out. These are the worst sort of players to be around during a game. Whats important to the thespian actor isn't whats going on in there imaginations, but rather there table performance amusing there friends.

 

[Celebrim]

Nearly every problem I've ever had with a DM is because they thought that their pet rules were better than RAW.

Mine are.

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.

Let me tell you why I create house rules.

I create house rules either because I think the current rules prevent players from doing something I would want to do as a player, quite often because a player asks me if he can do something and I don't want to just say 'no'.

I create house rules because I think the current rules are badly abusable, such that if I turned them against my PC's and abused the limitations of the rules, it wouldn't be fair to them. Sometimes I discover this problem because my player's power gamed, and sometimes I discover this problem because I power gamed, but when I find it I consider it a hole in the rules that needs plugging.

I create house rules because I want concrete resolution subsystems for things that the RAW doesn't cover: casting spells of a higher level than you can normally cast(!), creating a potion without being a spell-caster, using astrology, visiting someone else's dreams, meditating, making a sacrifice, engaging in a prolonged cinematic chase, asking for divine intervention, fighting a case in court, having children, etc.

I tell you what I think the problem is here. Just as there are alot of bad DM's out there, there are an awful lot of bad rulesmiths out there. Just go to the house rules forums and glance through 95% of the threads. Most DMs, even some really good ones, have no business trying to smith rules because they just don't have the skill. It so happens not surprisingly that alot of bad DMs are also bad rulesmiths. But frankly, I'm a better rulesmith than I am a DM, so I don't think the two really are directly related. I've made alot of mistakes over the years, and I'm just not witty or original and creative enough IMO enough to be a truly great DM, but none of my problems have ever stemmed from my rules. Likewise, I've had some problems over the years with other DMs but never principally with thier house rules per se. (One was a satanist that wanted to bring his personal beliefs into the game experience, another was just boring, a third was monte hall, two were too extemporaneous and there attempts to ad hoc were just an uninteresting mess, another played a game that would have been fun for me only when I was 10 years younger, and several simply lost interest in thier campaigns because it was too much work.) Just because your personal experience has been - DMs that add/adjust/copy rules tend to be prats, doesn't make house rules the problems any more than ehren27's bad experiences with 1st edition DM's makes 1st edition the problem.