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

[Marshal Lucky]

The word perception does NOT mean opinion. It means insight. If you perceive something, it means you take notice of something -NOT that you have an opinion. Hence the term ESP, meaning Extra Sensory Perception.

That misuse of the English language aside, I think there was a 20-year-plus trend of moving from the wargaming point of view, in which the PCs expected to lose some of their characters (just as they took casualties in a wargame of the Battle of Agincourt), and the more comic book-oriented ideal of characters (good guys and bad guys) being brought back again and again -or never getting killed in the first place. I know people like to pile on 3E, but Dragonlance, Ravenloft and 2E started this nonsense a decade and a half before 3E came out. Likewise railroading has its origins in the mid-1980s.

I prefer the wargamer approach, where you win some, lose some and can expect to take losses. And no, it's not because I'm a wargamer. I don't like the idea of a DM handholding me through a game. If my PCs are too dumb to recruit allies, run away when overmatched, use stealth etc then they deserve to lose.

I came to D&D from a sports background and I've always been put off when people can't accept defeat in a dignified manner. If losing breaks your heart so much, don't play. I also don't look at losing a prize PC (like a starting player in sports) as an excuse for playing poorly from that point on, nor do I take it as a total disaster. You just have to make do with your backups* or roll up a new character. If you do that and still come out on top it's often MORE satisfying. You had a setback and overcame it. The idea of a DM pulling his punches is a real turnoff. An even bigger turnoff is railroading, which is cheating in my book.

*Which reminds me: One area of difference is the emphasis in 1E on henchmen and hirelings. They were not only extra muscle, but a source of spare PCs should the "starters" get killed. 2E and 3E don't emphasize henchmen and hirelings (to be fair, a lot of 1E players don't bother with them, either), so they make up for it by making PCs more powerful or using "storylines" and "balancing" to make things even -a poor choice as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Korgoth]

I certainly don't remember huge bodycounts or "step and die" dungeons. Sure, we all know about Tomb of Horrors, but (1) that's what it is supposed to be and (2) even ToH is designed so that the outright kills are basically reserved for foolishness and incaution.

Anyway, there were traps. There were big monsters. There was death. It was D&D. But it was never ridiculous. We got through both of the Desert Nomads modules and ToEE without any casualties at all, that I recall. When I ran I6 there was a TPK (or maybe the survivors fled? it was a while ago; anyway, a resounding defeat), but it was from Strahd. I ran A4 as a one-shot with the tournament rules and that was a TPK. I can't remember any besides those, off hand at least.

 

[jdrakeh]

The word perception does NOT mean opinion. It means insight. If you perceive something, it means you take notice of something -NOT that you have an opinion. Hence the term ESP, meaning Extra Sensory Perception.

I didn't misuse the word. People have this perception. As I'm certain that you're aware, given your apparent mastery of English, perceiving something does not mean that it exists. Hence that funny word "misperceive" -- also in the English language dictionary.

 

[jdrakeh]

I certainly don't remember huge bodycounts or "step and die" dungeons.

The only modules I've played in like this were the tourney modules and the aformentioned home-brewed homages (the latter of which were all terribly unfun).

 

[Melan]

Well, ehren37 pretty much hates 1e, as demonstrated by each and every one of his posts I have had the misfortune of reading on these forums, but here is my take on the subject anyway:

A lot of people have this perception because of poor experiences with juvenile DMs. Teenagers often make dumb mistakes, especially when it comes to trust, fairness and human relationships. That is why they aren't adults - they have yet to learn all these things over several years. Here's the problem: in the hands of an immature person, games can lead to pretty f-ed up social dynamics, betrayals, unpleasant power fantasies, etc. It is not the fault of the game, but the participants will blame it anyway. This, in some, leads to negative stereotypes which are reinforced by a whole corpus of anecdotal evidence. I will have to mention that old school games are not the sole targets for these stereotypes: often, it is "traditional" games in general, or GMs in general, or gamers in general (RPGNet's "Creepiest Gamer" thread, for example, is a veritable treasure trove of self-hate and condescension towards one's fellow gamers, feeding on a sad and sick one-upmanship).

I think there is a strong impetus on part of those who suffered from these negative phenomena in formative years to make games "safe" - to build anti-abuse catches into the rules or the social structure of the books. This, in many ways, has turned into a general crusade for "fairness"; today, it extends to initiatives to prevent item loss, abolish random ability scores and hit points, remove save or die for the last time, etc. etc. etc. Safety.

I don't think this is the sensible way. I think we have to recognise the problem as human, and don't make (futile) attempts to fix it through rules. The only solution is itself social; the ability of adults to be selective with their friends, or occasionally aid the maturation of their fellows (as pretentious as this sounds). Juvenile people make mistakes, and some people always remain juvenile. In the hands of sensible, mature people, old school games are safe.

That's all.

 

[Glyfair]

I didn't play 2e, and I've read some good, some bad, and some abysmal 2e Greyhawk and FR stuff, but all that said, the comments that I often hear about AD&D/OD&D adventures as random death traps are---I thought---usually being made about pre-2e adventures: i.e., OD&D and 1e adventures. Perhaps I'm not being sufficiently nuanced in my perception of this perception??

Another thing is that a lot of people didn't always register the difference between D&D products and 3rd party products that were D&D compatible, especially over the haze of time.

The Grimtooth's Traps series was released in '81, as D&D was reaching a xenith. They were pretty popular as a 3rd party product and a lot of people remember that as D&D product. The traps in there were pretty much illogical traps (in the sense of whether anyone in a game world would really "use" them) that seemed randomly placed just to "get" players.

I really these influenced a lot of people's memories of how D&D was played. It was certainly true when their DMs actually used them.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I didn't play 2e, and I've read some good, some bad, and some abysmal 2e Greyhawk and FR stuff, but all that said, the comments that I often hear about AD&D/OD&D adventures as random death traps are---I thought---usually being made about pre-2e adventures: i.e., OD&D and 1e adventures. Perhaps I'm not being sufficiently nuanced in my perception of this perception??

I've never played 1e, so my perceptions on it are based purely on hearsay.

 

[Maggan]

I think this perception of 1e adventures/modules is also reinforced by several old schoolers telling 3e players that the current game isn't dangerous for PCs, and that "back in our days, we had to save or die every 10 foot of the dungeon, dammit! You kids today have it too easy with your unified mechanics and nerfed level drain! Why, I remember ..." and so on so forth.

/M

 

[bowbe]

I think this perception of 1e adventures/modules is also reinforced by several old schoolers telling 3e players that the current game isn't dangerous for PCs, and that "back in our days, we had to save or die every 10 foot of the dungeon, dammit! You kids today have it too easy with your unified mechanics and nerfed level drain! Why, I remember ..." and so on so forth.

/M

True, and that is a very lame narrow sited attitude on the part of people who try to go on in that fashion. You want to know what's worse than save or die? Orcs that crit on an 18-20 for 4d4+8 or 3d12+18 points damage vs low level characters. That is all 3ed baby.

So is reach, where ogres and trolls can pound you, then pound you again. Attacks of opportunity in general, followed by attacks of opportunity vs. healers attempting to save a person who is downed by a monster with reach. If they are too level to have taken the feats/skills to cast defensively (another dice roll for that) the chances of a TPK increase dramatically.

Difference between these attacks and a "save or die" spell? Nada. An attack roll against an armor class is virtually the same dog, except your "save" is your armor class vs. their attack roll and damage multiplier. Well and you don't crit all the time of course with a "desintegrate spell" for example, but you might crit pretty frequently with a falchion.

Not really spurring addition war here, just saying a raged, strength boosted monster or NPC with a two handed reach weapon has as much chance of killing your precious, well thought out, min maxed character as any save or die spell at low to medium level as a save or die spell. The power attacking, two handed weapon fighter/barbarian can smack you with multiple attacks every round. The save or die spell/effect can only hit you ONCE per round per caster, and for a limited amount of times before the wizard or cleric is out of spells.

I'm an old school gamer who ran or played AD&D and basic for about 10 years, and have run/played 3.5 for about 7 years now, so almost the same amount of time. I have had way more TPKs in 3.5 and way more character deaths in 3.x ed in general than I ever did in AD&D. Most of those at the hands of monsters and NPCs with multiple melee attacks and feats that greatly increased damage.

Argue that. I'll be back after work

Case

 

[bowbe]

Also... saves were more functionally different in AD&D than they are in 3.x edition where they are retained to the 3 focus stats of wisdom, dex, and con.

At first I felt the narrow spread of more stat focused saves was a real advancement to the game, but looking at how poorly the saves increase by level means "Save or Die" effects are far more punitive vs. certain character classes in 3.x ed than they were in previous incarnations of the game.

That save matrix is one of the big reasons I have more enjoyment running/playing castles and crusades now where you have ways of getting better saves on poor stats by making poor stats prime attributes. Again not attempting to get the defenders on either side of this in a total uproar, just offering things to think about when disreguarding the more vocal haters (for both sides) of the equation.

Case