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

[Melan]

If you are going to dismiss others points of view based on their use of strawmen, maybe it would be a good idea to avoid them in your own posts.

If there's an ancient red dragon in a 10' room, with only one way in (through a normal door), then there should be some explanation about the how and why. The lack of explanation is bad design. (Or is the existence of a dragon in a 10' room at all the bad design?)

Yeah. :\

And I am surprised that the lack of NPC names in B2 is such a big breaking point for anyone.

 

[Maggan]

Including information but not a name also helped draw the DM into the module, it made him an active partisipant in creating parts of it. It forced the DM to not just react to the module, but to be an active collaberator in the setting. It is a brilliant way to drag the fearful DM into the pit.

One of the problems with that is that that's a situation that's ripe for NPCs named Bob, Steve and Innkeeper. At least according to my experiences. Names can be very, very hard for players to come up with, and a DM has a lot of other stuff to think about, so it could be ten times as hard for a DM.

Or am I the only one who's been subjected to improvised DM names? It would be such a small thing to add the names, 5 or 6 letters. If the DM wanted to change it, he could still do that and rock and roll with creativity.

For those whose talents didn't lie with naming NPCs, name are a helpful tool that increases the utility of the NPC for many DMs. At least, IME. And to me, a scenario without names for NPCs, is less likely to be ran by me if I have an equal option with named NPCs.

/M

 

[Korgoth]

One of the problems with that is that that's a situation that's ripe for NPCs named Bob, Steve and Innkeeper. At least according to my experiences. Names can be very, very hard for players to come up with, and a DM has a lot of other stuff to think about, so it could be ten times as hard for a DM.

Or am I the only one who's been subjected to improvised DM names? It would be such a small thing to add the names, 5 or 6 letters. If the DM wanted to change it, he could still do that and rock and roll with creativity.

For those whose talents didn't lie with naming NPCs, name are a helpful tool that increases the utility of the NPC for many DMs. At least, IME. And to me, a scenario without names for NPCs, is less likely to be ran by me if I have an equal option with named NPCs.

/M

Hmm. I don't guess I've had much of a problem with it.

Take B2 for example: nobody in the Keep has a name. That actually makes the module easier for the DM to just drop into his setting. If the inhabitants all had names like Rapplehurst or Omar Al-Mamluk or Guillaume DuVache it could be completely jarring if the DM is going for a very specific feel. You could just give them all "generic fantasy names" like Otrek, Valmor and Dimrath (etc. just off the top of my head) but that takes like 5 seconds to do anyway so why waste the page count?

 

[Shining Dragon]

I'm curious where the perception that AD&D/OD&D is save or die (or, to use the logical next step to ehren37's stance, "just die") originated...

The existence of a Save vs. Death Saving throw certainly doesn't help.

Neither does the plethora of traps in some of the old modules (or so my fading memories tell me).

 

[Maggan]

You could just give them all "generic fantasy names" like Otrek, Valmor and Dimrath (etc. just off the top of my head) but that takes like 5 seconds to do anyway so why waste the page count?

Page count? Let's say 5 letter per name, 50 NPCs would take up 250 letters. That's less than the letter count of this post (including the quote). So my guess is that page count don't enter into the equation.

And if the names are crap for my campaign, it would take me the same 5 seconds to change them as it would if the names weren't there. So I just can't see why not adding names is seen as a strength of a module.

But then again, my players are constantly bugging me for names of NPCs, because it helps them immerse themselves in my campaign world. For other players, names aren't that important and maybe only important NPCs have names.

/M

 

[Quasqueton]

Certainly you are not pleased with the way he designed the game, nor the way he and his associates wrote dungeon modules.

That's a mighty big leap for a conclusion. I don't think I have ever said or written that I disliked the AD&D game or all AD&D modules. (Note that KotB is a BD&D module.) That is the exact opposite of the truth of my feelings and opinion.

And I am surprised that the lack of NPC names in B2 is such a big breaking point for anyone.

I'm surprised that anyone takes that understanding from what I've said.

Quasqueton

 

[Hussar]

Suppose someone asks "How do the orcs and ghouls dwell in such close proximity?" Well, clearly they do. So the DM just makes an off-the-cuff move like "These ghouls don't like the taste of orc flesh" or "The orcs feed the ghouls their trash" or "The ghouls never leave their lair" or whatever. You can come up with this during the game, or you can even make these notes when you prepare to run the adventure.

The problem with this approach is that it runs counter to established knowledge. Players, unless they entirely new, KNOW that ghouls eat everything living. That includes orcs. The explaination falls entirely flat. "Umm, yeah, I know that ghouls eat everything, but, these are SPECIAL ghouls and they don't eat orcs.... yeah.... errrm"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garnfellow
I see a great diversity of experience over there, but certainly not a unified consensus on what is the correct way to play 1e.


Key here isn't sharing the exact combat system, thats just a way to see who hits who and is meaningless as far as "correct way to play" which is something better defined broadly. These rule debates at DF are between people obsessed wtih small details, ignore them. They all basically play the same way. The critical things to be playing 1E are:

1. D6 roled to see who goes first, and role each round (and PCs as 1 role vs. Monsters).
2. DM uses tables to determine who hits who and what you need to save.
Saves were often determined by the DM (like falling into a pit, do you role petrification,
something else. That was up to the DM).
3. 100% power of the DM. There wasn't any bickering about rules, it was the DMs game.
If you didn't like it, leave. And we players did just that with 2 DMs over the years. There is nothing worse then a player who is into rules lawyering. What this did was A) give a reason for the DM to play and B) freed up the player to just experiance the immersion (without worrying about mechanics).
4. Large Dungeon Focus (This was lost esp. in 3E). Most of the game took place in the dungeon. Any story was just a way to get to the dungeon entrance. Every module was really about the same thing, killing monsters and taking stuff. Outside adventuring was important, but the meat and potatoes took place underground.
5. 1E Role Play. This term has been miss-used to refer to thespian acting. It is not that at all. What it represents in Gygaxian terms is the interaction of players and DM in an imaginary setting. In this setting only a few things are standardized (the chance to hit with a weapon, or to save from magic or poisons) everything else the DM determines (impartially). This made the game fluid, players had to think there way through things (describing to the DM how they did this or that) rather then rolling some arbitrary dice (which in 3E became known as the "video button effect" (dodge, bluff, etc).

These 5 factors are shared by all 1E players. At least those that prefer the 78-81 AD&D experiance. After that point, Gygax pretty much was out of the picture, and you got into sagas like Dragonlance, a precurser to 2E (Romance novel time).

;p

You really are kidding right. Initiative rules were standard? Gimme a break. We used Basic D&D initiative rules because we didn't know any better. Not a whole lot of people actually used the rules as written because they didn't have an ADDICT paper back then.

Tables? Sure. I'll buy that.

100% power to the DM? ROTFLMAO. Considering every group I ever played in rotated DMing roles, that went out the window PDQ. The idea of a dedicated DM didn't occur to us until well into 2e days. We argued with the DM all the time. And, I know for a fact we weren't the only ones.

Large Dungeon Focus. Sure. But, then again, with products like the World's Largest Dungeon and Rappan Athuk, I'm not sure why you would say that dungeons don't play a large factor in 3e. Looking through the pages of Dungeon for the past 2 years, every issue includes at least one dungeon crawl and typically two if not three for three. Goodman Games has made a cottage industry out of dungeon crawls for 3e. One of the largest pushes in 3e was "back to the dungeon". I'm really not sure why you would say that 3e isn't about dungeons.

On the whole role play thing, well, we didn't even know what role playing was until about five or six years after we'd been playing. Looking at the articles and commentary in The Dragon, I'd say we weren't the only ones either.

On the whole Dragonlance thing, well, Dragons of Autumn Twilight didn't hit the stands until '84 and Dragon's of Despair came out in the same year. I'm thinking your time frame is pretty much wrong.

 

[Valiant]

One of the problems with that is that that's a situation that's ripe for NPCs named Bob, Steve and Innkeeper. At least according to my experiences. Names can be very, very hard for players to come up with, and a DM has a lot of other stuff to think about, so it could be ten times as hard for a DM.

Or am I the only one who's been subjected to improvised DM names? It would be such a small thing to add the names, 5 or 6 letters. If the DM wanted to change it, he could still do that and rock and roll with creativity.

For those whose talents didn't lie with naming NPCs, name are a helpful tool that increases the utility of the NPC for many DMs. At least, IME. And to me, a scenario without names for NPCs, is less likely to be ran by me if I have an equal option with named NPCs.

/M

This is exactly my point. Gygax doesn't give you every name...but he does give you plenty of examples of names within each adventure that are unusual fantasy names, non of which are "Steve". That should give the DM a hint. Those that didn't have the talent to come up with fantasy names were in the greatest need of learning how to come up with names on their own.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with throwing in the occasional "Bob" in a fantasy story. "Sam" was a pretty lame name I thought in LOTR, yet it worked. Always remember its the DM's game. If he wants to use stupid names like that, thats his business. If it resulted in a sucky game, you'd tell him to think of something better (and he'd listen and learn, thus improve himself), or you'd find a new DM.

The thing is, modules were partly created to give DMs valid examples of how to create there own modules and campaigns. Gygax didn't want to supply the DM with everything, he wanted to supply the DM with just enough to get the DM thinking on his own. Like a math teacher giving you part of the problem and forcing you to come up with the rest of the answer. Before you know it, you can do the entire problem yourself. Modules were teaching tools first and formost (at least in the early days).
Presenting the DM with everything would also take away from his ability (as Foster alluded to) to come up with his own stuff. That was something Gygax was trying to encourage.
Ironically, the more modules the "green" DM read and ran, the less need he had to buy new ones. Infact, once he found his sea legs, he wanted to go out on his own. Thats what happened with us circa 1981. Once we ran enough modules, DMs wanted to do it themselves, create their own dungeons etc....thus reducing the number of sales of future modules. Gygax was the "real deal" a sincere gamer who wanted to teach people his hobby, and just like any good teacher, wanted that DM to be able to go out on his own. It wasn't until the marketers came in and saw module sale potential that we got the fluffy eye candy of late 1E and later at full throttle 2E. These clowns didn't want you to learn how to design your own stuff, just the opposite. They wanted you to need them and their silly modules so they could make lots of money. The problem was, by doing this they bread a generation of unimaginative and frankly bored DMs without the permission to create or think. The "magical spark" that was 1E (which by the way resides in the head of the DM) went out. 2E died because of this. 3E tried to solve this problem (uninspired DMs) by writing them out of the game, and it worked I guess. At least for a while.

So yeah, anyhow, Gygax (and other module writers) were simply "holding the DM's hand" teaching them to walk....baby steps all DMs must go threw on their own. By forcing the DM to think like a fantasy writer by leaving blanks (like names) and presenting examples of "fantasy reality" like 10 orcs in one room 10 ghouls in the next (rather then real life reality) Mr. DM was given the freedom to create any world and reality he wanted (and that my friends is what AD&D is all about). Greyhawk modules were just one example of how it could work (not the final say). They were teaching tools to show the DM how to do it himself. They also gave the experianced DM a way to give his players more variaty (as they got used to your design style).

 

[Valiant]

You really are kidding right. Initiative rules were standard? Gimme a break. We used Basic D&D initiative rules because we didn't know any better. Not a whole lot of people actually used the rules as written because they didn't have an ADDICT paper back then.

Tables? Sure. I'll buy that.

100% power to the DM? ROTFLMAO. Considering every group I ever played in rotated DMing roles, that went out the window PDQ. The idea of a dedicated DM didn't occur to us until well into 2e days. We argued with the DM all the time. And, I know for a fact we weren't the only ones.

Large Dungeon Focus. Sure. But, then again, with products like the World's Largest Dungeon and Rappan Athuk, I'm not sure why you would say that dungeons don't play a large factor in 3e. Looking through the pages of Dungeon for the past 2 years, every issue includes at least one dungeon crawl and typically two if not three for three. Goodman Games has made a cottage industry out of dungeon crawls for 3e. One of the largest pushes in 3e was "back to the dungeon". I'm really not sure why you would say that 3e isn't about dungeons.

On the whole role play thing, well, we didn't even know what role playing was until about five or six years after we'd been playing. Looking at the articles and commentary in The Dragon, I'd say we weren't the only ones either.

On the whole Dragonlance thing, well, Dragons of Autumn Twilight didn't hit the stands until '84 and Dragon's of Despair came out in the same year. I'm thinking your time frame is pretty much wrong.

1. Combat variation is irrelevant. Each table did it there own way back in the day. Yet we all experianced the same thing basically. As long as the DM had a way to figure out who went first, and it was 2 sided, the experiance was pretty much identical for the players.

2. Tables, there we agree. This created the uncertainty and mystery for the players. And it allowed them to focus on their imagination rather then their sheet. Thats what tables are for in real life too (so you can focus on other tasks rather then number crunch).

3. We rotated DMs as well. But we all respected the final call was the DMs and not the players. If you bullied your DM you were considered a jerk, and the DM asked you to leave his table. Thats one of the reasons you rotate DMs in the first place. Eventually DMs take from each other and end up with a similar style. So yes, in 1E DM was GOD. It was his reality you crawled around in. At any moment the DM could kill you if he wished, or make you a king. Yet his job was supposed to be impartial, and the good DM played that way.

4. Large dungeon focus (say inside a dungeon 80% of the time) was a halmark of AD&D. The rules allowed for fast battle resolution, esp. of large battles (something 3E doesn't do). When I'm done with a big battle in 3E (as DM or player) I'm exhausted. In 1E I don't even break a sweat and am ready to move on to the next 20 orcs. Thus, the rules of 3E inhibit the use of large dungeons with lots of action. I've tried to use 1E era modules with 3E, and the results were disasterous. It took forever to resolve the simplist battles. Not just for me but for my players (who stumbled around trying to figure out there chances to do stuff). Yep, long dungeons are the exception in 3E not the rule (as far as I've seen). In 1E it was the opposite.

5. Role play. It sounds like you were doing it already. You don't have to know what something is to use it. You could speak English well before you new the definition of words, the rules to making sentances in proper English right? Its the same here. Remember, Role Play when it refers to RPGs relates to the "Cowboy and Indians" aspect of the game (ie just pretending to be in another reality with your friends). Role Play in FRPGs does not equate to thespian acting.

As for Dragonlance, that was the first shift in module design that tried to suck players out of their home brewed campaigns into a published one. That was my point, not some calander date.

 

[Hussar]

1. Combat variation is irrelevant. Each table did it there own way back in the day. Yet we all experianced the same thing basically. As long as the DM had a way to figure out who went first, and it was 2 sided, the experiance was pretty much identical for the players.

So, by this logic, 3e intiative is identical to 1e. We all did it differently, but, it was an identical experience? This is a new definition of identical I was previously unaware of.

2. Tables, there we agree. This created the uncertainty and mystery for the players. And it allowed them to focus on their imagination rather then their sheet. Thats what tables are for in real life too (so you can focus on other tasks rather then number crunch).

Umm, what? Mystery? Yeah, it was incredibly tricky to figure out what I needed to hit the monster. THAC0 was around in 1e. The 1e Official TSR Character Sheets included lines for my saving throws. There was absolutely no mystery.

3. We rotated DMs as well. But we all respected the final call was the DMs and not the players. If you bullied your DM you were considered a jerk, and the DM asked you to leave his table. Thats one of the reasons you rotate DMs in the first place. Eventually DMs take from each other and end up with a similar style. So yes, in 1E DM was GOD. It was his reality you crawled around in. At any moment the DM could kill you if he wished, or make you a king. Yet his job was supposed to be impartial, and the good DM played that way.

Then you were much more respectful than we were. We had nothing but flaming rows every week as the DM of the Day tried to play Calvinball with us yet again. And, I most certainly include myself in this description.

4. Large dungeon focus (say inside a dungeon 80% of the time) was a halmark of AD&D. The rules allowed for fast battle resolution, esp. of large battles (something 3E doesn't do). When I'm done with a big battle in 3E (as DM or player) I'm exhausted. In 1E I don't even break a sweat and am ready to move on to the next 20 orcs. Thus, the rules of 3E inhibit the use of large dungeons with lots of action. I've tried to use 1E era modules with 3E, and the results were disasterous. It took forever to resolve the simplist battles. Not just for me but for my players (who stumbled around trying to figure out there chances to do stuff). Yep, long dungeons are the exception in 3E not the rule (as far as I've seen). In 1E it was the opposite.

That would be a problem with your players. I typically run three to five high level combats in a three hour session. Incompetence is not the fault of the system. I fail to understand why, with any modicum of competence with mechanics, combat should take that long, particularly at low levels where you are fighting bog standard orcs.

5. Role play. It sounds like you were doing it already. You don't have to know what something is to use it. You was speaking well before I new the definition of words, the rules to making sentances in proper english right? Its the same here. Remember, Role Play when it refers to RPGs relates to the "Cowboy and Indians" aspect of the game (ie just pretending to be in another reality with your friends). BTW RP has nothing to do with thespian acting.

When I refer to Amateur Thespianism, its referring to a playstyle where players speak in the first person and all comments are "in character". It is most certainly not limited to any particular edition.

As for Dragonlance, that was the first shift in module design that tried to suck players out of their home brewed campaigns into a published one. That was my point, not some calander date.

Umm, what? Greyhawk anyone? Blackmoor? Yes, Dragonlance was a different sort of approach from earlier modules, but, it certainly wasn't worse. It was the first complete "adventure path". But, it was the first campaign world?