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

[Valiant]

I think a thread should be started reviewing the different styles of play (Thespian vs. non-thespian etc.).

 

[der_kluge]

I picked up a bunch of Judge's Guild stuff on eBay recently.

You can't get much more old school than that.

Here's some of the wonkiness that I've read lately:

One dungeon had orcs in one room, and ghouls just two rooms over. Apparently ghouls in 1st edition don't have legs, because I'm pretty certain that if that were a real situation, the ghouls would have walked over and killed all the orcs.

Down one level, we find two humans working a "fully equipped" smithy - in a basement. With no ventilation. Apparently humans in that setting are immune to black lung disease, and have no odor whatsoever, because I'm pretty sure the ghouls should have killed them, too.


In a different dungeon (same product), we find a hallway leading the room containing the BBEG. There is 1 (one) hallway and only one hallway leading into this. It had a 10' weight-sensitive trap. One a 1 on a 1d6, it shoots spears out from the walls. On a 2 on a 1d6, it shoots out streams of acid.

There's no mention of how the BBEG gets into his room, or who his servants get in and out of the room. Maybe they walk on the walls, I guess.

 

[Melan]

der kluge: which adventure was that?

 

[Garnfellow]

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

I'm not sure if you're really writing to me here or to someone else in this thread, but in my mind a statement like "1e [game play] is all over the map" easily includes the experience of all those people who, in fact, try diligently to play the game as written. But here's the trick: I've never seen any two people who ever completely agreed on just what "as written" means with regards to AD&D.

Now, I've seen tons of smug folks who sincerely believe that they have correctly interpreted the sacred texts, but I don't think I've ever seen two of these folks arrive at exactly the same interpretation of the rules. Some think training is an essential rule, some an optional one; others think psionics is core while others view it as abomination.

Just a quick trip over to Dragonsfoot reveals that there was (and is) still a tremendously wide variety of interpretation of the rules and examples of game play. (And I think that's a great thing.) I see a great diversity of experience over there, but certainly not a unified consensus on what is the correct way to play 1e.

 

[Ghendar]

I've often seen this posited here at ENWorld. I have yet to see any evidence that it is so. On the other hand I have had plenty of experiences with bad DMs running 3e games and they were just as bad as the bad experiences I had with 1e DMs. Empirical evidence suggests to me that bad DMs suck no matter what ruleset they use.

Very true.

 

[Ourph]

I picked up a bunch of Judge's Guild stuff on eBay recently.

You can't get much more old school than that.

Here's some of the wonkiness that I've read lately:

Viewed through the lense of modern design aesthetics I can see how someone would view this stuff as "wonky", but I think you may be mistaking the absence of information for "wonkiness" in this case. Part of the "old school" mindset (especially with Judges Guild) was that information for the sake of verisimilitude was a waste of space, because the only one who would see that information was the DM and as "the man behind the curtain" he already knows the game world is an illusion and needn't be concerned with whether something makes sense from his end, only whether it makes sense when presented to the PCs. The only information a product really needs is that which the DM will use to present the world to the PCs in a reliable and consistent way.

One dungeon had orcs in one room, and ghouls just two rooms over. Apparently ghouls in 1st edition don't have legs, because I'm pretty certain that if that were a real situation, the ghouls would have walked over and killed all the orcs.

There could be all kinds of explanations for this. Ghouls aren't mindless, just evil. Maybe the orcs appease them with regular sacrifices. The fact that an explanation isn't given doesn't mean that one doesn't (or shouldn't) exist. It's just that the explanation isn't an integral part of actually presenting the world to the PCs (the likelihood that the PCs will notice this particular detail and demand an explanation is fairly remote) and is thus extraneous. As with millions of other bits of information that could be included in the module, this explanation isn't high priority. The space it would take up can be better used giving information that is more likely to be useful and if it arises that an explanation is necessary, the DM can make it up on his own (unconstrained by previous allusions to the situation ). The only reason to include it preemptively is to maintain game world verisimilitude in the eyes of the DM, again, not considered necessary for someone already operating "behind-the-scenes".

Down one level, we find two humans working a "fully equipped" smithy - in a basement. With no ventilation. Apparently humans in that setting are immune to black lung disease, and have no odor whatsoever, because I'm pretty sure the ghouls should have killed them, too.

Who says there is no ventilation? I'm surprised anyone would expect to find that detailed on the map or included in the room notes. It seems to me that "fully equipped" implies that all of the equipment in the smithy has all of the necessary parts to make it function as one would normally expect. For example, if a forge is present then all the necessary parts to make it function properly (like a means of ventilating the smoke) are also present. I don't see why a more detailed explanation would be needed.

In a different dungeon (same product), we find a hallway leading the room containing the BBEG. There is 1 (one) hallway and only one hallway leading into this. It had a 10' weight-sensitive trap. One a 1 on a 1d6, it shoots spears out from the walls. On a 2 on a 1d6, it shoots out streams of acid.

There's no mention of how the BBEG gets into his room, or who his servants get in and out of the room. Maybe they walk on the walls, I guess.

This seems obvious. There is a way to deactivate the trap. A thief making a successful Remove Traps roll finds this device. The actual device isn't detailed because the details aren't relevant to the use of the trap in actual play. The Thief either makes his roll and deactivates the trap or fails his roll and doesn't (suffering the consequences nicely detailed in the entry).

The product obviously differs from modern adventures in design goals and aesthetics, but I think that, viewed within the context of RPG culture at the time, the perceived wonkiness is more a product of it differing from your preconceived expectations rather than inadvertent or deliberate irrationality.

 

[Hussar]

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.



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

So, I should NEVER play in a convention game? RPGA is off limits? Never play with strangers?

Bugger that. I like meeting new people. The downside of meeting new people is that you meet people who figure that Calvinball is a fun game.

Celebrim - I agree with most of what you say. And, for sure, I'd probably have no problems at your table. Heck, I'd even like to give Raven Crowking's system a test drive. But, unfortunately, as you say, many people are rather poor rules smiths. That means that there are loads of tables out there where the DM is using poorly crafted house rules.

I'm freely going to admit that Monte Cook is a better game designer than I am. Thus, sticking with RAW as much as possible makes for a better game for me.

I have zero problems being challenged by my players on a ruling. None. It does not bother me in the least. I'm pretty decent about looking up rules before I get my mouth going at the table (usually) and having comprehensive rulesets lets me quote chapter and verse to the player. Most of the time this will cut out all the whining at the table. It's been when DM's have a poor grasp of mechanics that problems have occured. ((For myself included.))

 

[Quasqueton]

Part of the "old school" mindset (especially with Judges Guild) was that information for the sake of verisimilitude was a waste of space, because the only one who would see that information was the DM and as "the man behind the curtain" he already knows the game world is an illusion and needn't be concerned with whether something makes sense from his end, only whether it makes sense when presented to the PCs.

Was this lack of information actually a conscious design decision by the writers and publishers, or are people just coming up with excuses, 30 years after the fact, to explain the wonkiness?

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the idea that illogical dungeon layouts and populations without any explanation as to how or why was a good design choice. If such was good, and the buying public thought it was good, we'd still be getting ghouls and orcs next door to each other in dungeon adventures. Some "old school" dungeons *were* bad. (And there were many good ones, too.)

This seems obvious. There is a way to deactivate the trap.

Wouldn't it be nice if the writer mentioned this in the text? Just a sentence. You know, so I don't have to come up with something on my own in the middle of a game. Most people don't buy adventures to get just a map and monster stats. Most people expect/want the writer and designer to have actually put thoughts into the work, and explain those thoughts.

Any 12 year old can fill a dungeon with monsters and traps, but a good (decent) designer should give the DMs a little more information, explanation, advice, etc. for running a logical and sensible dungeon.

Quasqueton

 

[Hussar]

Was this lack of information actually a conscious design decision by the writers and publishers, or are people just coming up with excuses, 30 years after the fact, to explain the wonkiness?

LOL

Really, Ourph, that's stretching an awful lot. Come on, be realistic. Those modules were written without any regard to actually creating any sort of functioning ecology. Not even remotely. Keep on the Borderlands is a pretty good example of this. Hundreds of humanoids living in close proximity for years without a single farm. Never mind that most of them hate eachother just as much as they hate demi-humans.

There's some fantastic module design from way back when, but, re-writing history to spackle over the very gamist approach to design that was taken is silly.

 

[Melan]

I don't know anything about the thought processes of Gary Gygax, Bob Bledsaw et al, but an awful lot of people seem to believe they were stupid. Now come on. These guys were educated adults (Bob used to be an engineer; I think EGG studied some anthropology), and competent businessmen in their own right. If they didn't bother about ecology, that most likely means they thought other things were more important - or assumed people would put some extra work into their stuff. The latter is explicitely stated in early JG products; and there are similar ideas expressed on the last page of OD&D's third booklet.

It seems to me they had different ideas about fun than today's ecologist approach.