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

[Hussar]

Its the same thing with sports. Everyone knows the rules of the game, the parents, the kids, the couches. But we all agree to abide by what the refs call. Thats what allows the game to continue rather then turning into some bickering match.

You've never been to a little league game have you?

To me, playing by the rules was important. Why have rules if you were just going to chuck them out. And, having consistent rules made the game more fun for us. I highly doubt I was alone in having rotating DM's, so the "line that shouldn't be crossed" never existed for us. Viking hat DMing is one way to play, but, it's not the "One True Way".

Our games were about cooperation. No one ruled on high. We played through consensus building rather than having people dictate the "way it SHALL BE" from on high. Defective and sick? Maybe. But, then again, we were not that worried about sharing responsibilities. Bob knew about this, I knew about that. Together, we made a pretty good team. Much better than each would be alone.

Immersion for me comes when DM's calls don't suddenly jar my expectations of what should be happening. When the DM starts flailing about and making stuff at at random, that completely destroys immersion for me.

Take a "common knowledge" thing for a second. In the 80's, it was pretty "common knowledge" that a knight in full plate was a turtle and if he fell off his horse, he needed a crane to pick him back up. Now, "common knowledge" in this case was 100% wrong. This was simply not the case and we all know that, now. But, try proving that to a Viking Hat DM who expects his every word to be taken as gospel. How is that not jarring to your immersion when the DM tells you that because you're wearing plate mail, you cannot stand up after you fall in a pit?

He's absolutely right, based on the information he has. "Everyone" knew that knights in plate mail needed cranes to get on their horses. So, a flaming row starts around the table because the DM is absolutely convinced he's right and the player is absolutely convinced he's wrong.

To me, that's what happened most of the time. 1e or 2e, didn't really matter. I had one DM tell me that her world had chain mail, but no plate. Not because iron was hard to get or anything like that, but, because plate mail hadn't been invented. When I pointed out to her that plate mail predates chain by centuries, she simply ignored me and went on. Her "knowledge" of medieval matters told her that plate mail was more advanced than chain mail, so, plate hadn't been invented yet.

People keep talking about the "player mystery". Fine, if that worked for you. Then again, how many games do you play where it is better for most of the people at the table not to know the rules? People don't argue about the rules in baseball, they argue about the application. In D&D, we actually argue about the rules, mostly because the rules are vague. The more vague the rules are, the more arguments you have.

I'd MUCH rather play with people who know the rules. It's far more jarring to me to have a player say, "Umm, which die should I roll again?" than to have them simply tell me "I hit AC 15". Adversarial gaming is boring. I can kill PC's with the best of them. Heck, I can do it without cheating as well.

But, if you think that playing without knowing the rules works better, hey, more power to you. I've got this new game called Calvinball that we can play for money.

 

[Valiant]

You've never been to a little league game have you?

To me, playing by the rules was important. Why have rules if you were just going to chuck them out. And, having consistent rules made the game more fun for us. I highly doubt I was alone in having rotating DM's, so the "line that shouldn't be crossed" never existed for us. Viking hat DMing is one way to play, but, it's not the "One True Way".

Our games were about cooperation. No one ruled on high. We played through consensus building rather than having people dictate the "way it SHALL BE" from on high. Defective and sick? Maybe. But, then again, we were not that worried about sharing responsibilities. Bob knew about this, I knew about that. Together, we made a pretty good team. Much better than each would be alone.

Immersion for me comes when DM's calls don't suddenly jar my expectations of what should be happening. When the DM starts flailing about and making stuff at at random, that completely destroys immersion for me.

Take a "common knowledge" thing for a second. In the 80's, it was pretty "common knowledge" that a knight in full plate was a turtle and if he fell off his horse, he needed a crane to pick him back up. Now, "common knowledge" in this case was 100% wrong. This was simply not the case and we all know that, now. But, try proving that to a Viking Hat DM who expects his every word to be taken as gospel. How is that not jarring to your immersion when the DM tells you that because you're wearing plate mail, you cannot stand up after you fall in a pit?

He's absolutely right, based on the information he has. "Everyone" knew that knights in plate mail needed cranes to get on their horses. So, a flaming row starts around the table because the DM is absolutely convinced he's right and the player is absolutely convinced he's wrong.

To me, that's what happened most of the time. 1e or 2e, didn't really matter. I had one DM tell me that her world had chain mail, but no plate. Not because iron was hard to get or anything like that, but, because plate mail hadn't been invented. When I pointed out to her that plate mail predates chain by centuries, she simply ignored me and went on. Her "knowledge" of medieval matters told her that plate mail was more advanced than chain mail, so, plate hadn't been invented yet.

People keep talking about the "player mystery". Fine, if that worked for you. Then again, how many games do you play where it is better for most of the people at the table not to know the rules? People don't argue about the rules in baseball, they argue about the application. In D&D, we actually argue about the rules, mostly because the rules are vague. The more vague the rules are, the more arguments you have.

I'd MUCH rather play with people who know the rules. It's far more jarring to me to have a player say, "Umm, which die should I roll again?" than to have them simply tell me "I hit AC 15". Adversarial gaming is boring. I can kill PC's with the best of them. Heck, I can do it without cheating as well.

But, if you think that playing without knowing the rules works better, hey, more power to you. I've got this new game called Calvinball that we can play for money.

When you and Bob were playing and figuring the game out together, that was fine. However, once Bob said, this is how I think the game runs, now sit down and play. That should have been enough for you. Even if you disagreed with Bob, those were still his house rules, you should have understood that. Its Bobs world, not yours. Your job was simply to move around in it and role when told to role period...end of story.

Your correct in saying there is no one exact way to play AD&D. Gygax says as much. Even if you use the same rules, alot of stuff was purposely left out (like what save table do you use to get past a 10 foot pit trap). That stuff is made up by the DM as he likes, and gives the game some variety.

As for the armor thing. So what, as long as your DM made you aware of how armor effected movement and speed, you should have no complaints. This is his fantasy world your moving in. In it perhaps his armor is heavier than when you DM. Thats his right and duty as DM (to stay true to his world). Now, if "out of game" you show him some evidence that armor was lighter and more manueverable, and he still doesn't care, well, if its that important to you, don't sit in his games.
You sound like you need to hang out with a new group honestly. The guys your with are poison when put together.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Wow, that was a very bad habit.
...

Honestly, how did you have any fun that way?
...

Man, there's no nice way to say this, but your group dynamic was defective and sick.
...

The corner stone of AD&D is DM is in complete control...how on earth did you miss this memo.
...

Hi Valiant,

You appear to have signed up to ENworld recently (within the last month). Remember the 'Rules of ENworld page that you read carefully before clicking on 'I agree'? There was a section on the ENworld rules that includes 'keep it civil'.

http://www.enworld.org/faq.php?faq=faq_rules

The elements of your post that I've quoted above step way over the line, I'm afraid.

If there are occasions where you really can't think of a nice way to say something, you probably shouldn't be saying it.

We do hope you enjoy participating in ENworld and will continue to do so, but I must ask you to respect the rules.

Thanks

 

[shilsen]

See, the point isn't so much following the exact ratios and tables. The point is having tables to keep your players mystifide. The more mystifide the better (because the more it feels like real life).

Different strokes for different folks, and admittedly I've never played 1e, but I would hate to play (as DM or player) with that preconception in any edition. I'm perfectly happy to have my players (or, more precisely, the characters, since sometimes PCs are mystified while the players are not) mystified about things like who set them up to be framed for a crime, what incredibly rare spell a rakshasa used on them, or what precise abilities an advanced and overgrown mummy they're fighting has. But mystified about the basic rules of the game they're playing? Hell no! These are the rules of the world the PCs live in, and they should be just as aware of them as I am in the real world that fire burns, cats have claws and freshman comp students rarely do their essays well in advance.

Look, in 1E the interpretation of the rules didn't really matter to us players. We were given the dice and told to role, that was it. It was like going to Mass in Latin. The player was "out of the rules loop". If one DM was using surprise rules or weapons speed reaction, I didn't know. That was his job not mine.

As both player and DM, I think it's up to both parties to know such things.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Perhaps the name were left out so the DM could fit it to his campaign setting. Whether the barkeep is named Olaf, Kallivaaren, Red-Sun-At-Dawn, Khalid, Joe, or Horimoto-san, it might imply something about the campaign that didn't quite fit.

Not having the module in front of me at the moment, didn't the introduction say just that?

RC

 

[Henry]

Not having the module in front of me at the moment, didn't the introduction say just that?

RC

I just read it again, and It didn't say anything about leaving the people unnamed to flesh them out, but it does say it "leaves the details in your hands", and encourages the DM to "flesh out the world to improve their skills as a DM."

I don't think Gary was as huge on naming each and every NPC in a world as he was on the specific parts that players interacted with on a regular basis. 90% of the time I've ever seen, most players don't care if the guy selling dungeon carts has a name or not, or whether the local guard sergeant has a name, or his preference for strong drink, because the extent of their interaction is "I want to buy this," or "don't get caught stealing." However, it is the mark of a good DM to be able to have that name ready when it's needed, and make sure it's recorded for future use. So there's a bit of truth on both sides of "minimalist" versus "completionist."

 

[RFisher]

But this takes a good DM.

But it doesn't take a good DM. It merely takes a DM who has had that same light turned on. The problem was that the books didn't turn that light on for many of us.

Which wasn't really a problem. Most of us simply adjusted in a different way. (More along the path that 3e took.) Which is fine. But part of me wishes I hadn't had to take the long way to discover the other way to look at it.

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

While there were some real gems among the JG stuff, I don't think anyone would try to defend all of it as high-quality work. From what I've seen, they had more than their share of stinkers.

Even some of the best loved JG stuff (...Tegel Manor...) is sometimes loved in spite of the fact that almost anyone can find something in it to call wonky.

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

Personally, I can't imagine playing D&D with strangers to be the rule rather than the exception. Heck, even when I do sit down to a game with strangers, I tend to be thinking of them as friends I just don't know yet.

& extending bona fide is worth the risk of the occasional bad game of Calvinball. (Calvinball doesn't always have to be bad.)

I've tweaked the map, slightly, to allow easier passage between the upper tiers and the buried lost city without going through secret/undisturbed areas. This kind of tweak was probably anticipated by the designers, because the module mentions that all the factions of the city have means of access to the pyramid which are not shown.

I have to admit, this is the thing that annoyed me most about B4. Trying to figure out exactly what path(s) there were through the levels so that I would know what the NPCs did. Then realizing that it assumed that there were paths that weren't on the map & that the PCs could never find. (At least, until the DM made them up.)

But, yeah. It's a nitpick. In the end, I have less complaints about B4 than I do The Sunless Citadel.

One of the problems with that is that that's a situation that's ripe for NPCs named Bob, Steve and Innkeeper.

Now, look over the various names that Gygax has given NPCs & PCs over the years. Are you really so sure that you'd have rather he'd named the NPCs in B2?

 

[Maggan]

Now, look over the various names that Gygax has given NPCs & PCs over the years. Are you really so sure that you'd have rather he'd named the NPCs in B2?

You make a persuasive point.

/M

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I have to admit, [the lack of detail on how NPCs moved through the pyramid] is the thing that annoyed me most about B4. Trying to figure out exactly what path(s) there were through the levels so that I would know what the NPCs did. Then realizing that it assumed that there were paths that weren't on the map & that the PCs could never find. (At least, until the DM made them up.)

I think B4 could have done a better job of this, too. B4 has an extremely high probability of PC/NPC interaction and alliance, and it's very clear that the NPCs go back and forth between the upper tiers and the Lost City, itself. To me, this suggests that the NPCs might even *show* the PCs these "secret ways," if the PCs are initiated into the faction and gain the NPCs' trust. Also, the way the note about te secret paths is written, it could be referring to secret ways into the main tunnel that leads to the pyramid, rather than secret passages within the pyramid, itself.

I did come up with a simple change to the maps that made a big difference. (I describe it in the spoilers within the "Background" section of my Lost City campaign log.)

 

[Valiant]

My apologies mods. Your site, your rules.

But mystified about the basic rules of the game they're playing? Hell no! These are the rules of the world the PCs live in, and they should be just as aware of them as I am in the real world that fire burns, cats have claws and freshman comp students rarely do their essays well in advance.

There are 2 sets of rules you are referring to here I think: the 1st set consists of the rules of the game, sometimes referred to as the mechanics (how the tables work, whats my exact bonus to hit, how you figure out surprise and what this allows for, how weapons speed factor works, when exactly does a spell go off in a round, when and how do charging rules apply etc. etc.) the players don't have to know this at all to play AD&D they are presented with a situation, and react. This should flow like real life (and not involve number crunching to calculate your exact chances. The more mechanical rules the players know, the more they understand there chances, and hence the less thrilling it feels. At least that is how Gygax presented the game. After playing long enough you start to figure this stuff out. But keeping the proper attitude helps.


The 2nd set of rules are the laws of nature that govern the world your PC lives in (fire burns, cats have claws etc.) These the PCs have a right to know (so I agree with you here)if the DMs laws (or rules) of natures differ greatly from real life then the players should be told how. This is information they would already know afterall. That doesn't mean they should be able to figure out there exact chances to do something (as occurs in 3E which uses stacked modifiers rather then tables).