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

[shilsen]

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.

I disagree on both counts. Firstly, many of the things listed above are things which, to me, are just as much part of the laws of nature for the game world as fire burning is in ours. For example, weapon speed factors govern how easy a weapon is to use in the game world, and any PC who's used them a bit should be able to know the difference between different weapons where that's concerned. And secondly, I don't think players understanding more mechanical rules makes things less thrilling. The role of chance (read: dice) in the game means that they can't calculate their exact chances, and even if they may know their own capabilities and options very well, they aren't (or at least, not always) going to know the capabilities and options of what they face, which can make things thrilling enough.

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.

I'd say a lot of the above stuff should be figured out pretty quick. And note that what counts as the proper attitude for you isn't shared by many others. That would certainly be the improper attitude by my standards.

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).

As noted above, the fact that the PCs know a lot of things about their characters doesn't mean they know equally much about everything they interact with, and the role of luck drastically affects one's ability to calculate exact chances.

In short, your method of playing the game is only one among many, as is mine. Don't assume that it's automatically the best or most enjoyable one.

 

[Valiant]

To each their own shilsen.

But what I described IS BTB advise. reread the PH and DMG sections on play and DMing, it concures with what I say (or hell go ask Gary yourself in his thread). Gygax wanted the DM to be in complete control. He also wanted the players to stick to immersion (and not to worry about rules and mechanics or figuring odds out; it was the DMs job to remove as many destractions from your imagination as possible.

Now not everyone follows that advice. Some never have! Those that haven't don't really have the ability to judge if they would have preferred "playing blind" (as opposed to quasi-co-DMing.

BTW, I agree with you on WSF. A dagger would obviously be quicker to move around then a sword. Thats plenty for the player to know (that physical reality). He doesn't need to know how WSF "rules" work (or even if the DM is using WSF in his game). Your DM might not even agree with WSF, thinking it over complicates the game. Or he might think any advantage one would gain from lightness and agility with a dagger would be lost to the swords length advantage (keeping the opponent at bay more or less). Its the DMs game, remember that.

Anyhow, this thread is about 1E (the game as written) not "list your experiance and opinions on how to improve 1E". , What I present is advice given BTB from Gary in the DMG and PH (once again go read it for yourself). This "advise" on how to run your table is IMHO a core defacto rule that many of you choose to ignore. You might prefer to ignore these rules (the same way you might not use WSF or Armor tables). But some rules are not optional.
So, as Gary once said, "your playing something but its not 1E" (or something like that).

 

[shilsen]

To each their own shilsen.

Yup.

But what I described IS BTB advise. reread the PH and DMG sections on play and DMing, it concures with what I say (or hell go ask Gary yourself in his thread). Gygax wanted the DM to be in complete control. He also wanted the players to stick to immersion (and not to worry about rules and mechanics or figuring odds out; it was the DMs job to remove as many destractions from your imagination as possible.

Perhaps, but what Gygax wanted is hardly relevant to everybody's game, is it? Even if your characterization of his tastes is correct (and I think there's an argument to be made that immersion wasn't a big aim in 1e), it's not like that should be regarded as any more valid a way to play the game than any other.

Now not everyone follows that advice. Some never have! Those that haven't don't really have the ability to judge if they would have preferred "playing blind" (as opposed to quasi-co-DMing.

I don't buy that. I know my tastes well enough to predict whether I would like something without actually trying it, and I would guess thats true for enough people. And since players by definition have a lack of access to some kinds of information, it's hardly a giant mental leap to deduce where one is okay with that, and where not.

BTW, I agree with you on WSF. A dagger would obviously be quicker to move around then a sword. Thats plenty for the player to know (that physical reality). He doesn't need to know how WSF "rules" work (or even if the DM is using WSF in his game).

Another area where I disagree completely. Where I'm concerned, If the DM is not using WSF in his game, that says something about the world the PC lives in, and the PC should be aware of it.

Your DM might not even agree with WSF, thinking it over complicates the game. Or he might think any advantage one would gain from lightness and agility with a dagger would be lost to the swords length advantage (keeping the opponent at bay more or less). Its the DMs game, remember that.

Not where I'm concerned. It's the DM's and the players' game, though the DM always gets the deciding vote.

Anyhow, this thread is about 1E (the game as written) not "list your experiance and opinions on how to improve 1E". , What I present is advice given BTB from Gary in the DMG and PH (once again go read it for yourself). This "advise" on how to run your table is IMHO a core defacto rule that many of you choose to ignore. You might prefer to ignore these rules (the same way you might not use WSF or Armor tables). But some rules are not optional.

Actually, the fact that someone can ignore them indicates pretty clearly that they are optional.

So, as Gary once said, "your playing something but its not 1E" (or something like that).

In which case, Gary would be wrong. There's no great Platonic line beyond which 1e is 'truly' 1e (which goes for any edition). If there's anything this thread has proved, it is that there are myriad ways to play 1e.

 

[Valiant]

Perhaps, but what Gygax wanted is hardly relevant to everybody's game, is it? Even if your characterization of his tastes is correct (and I think there's an argument to be made that immersion wasn't a big aim in 1e), it's not like that should be regarded as any more valid a way to play the game than any other.

.

I never said it was. What I said was that the game was designed with the idea that there would be a single DM vs. the players. The players did not worry with the game rules, rather they worried about doing stuff (walking, talking, attacking, fleeing etc.). As for immersion, I'm probably using that term more generally then you are. As long as the players are controlling a single (or at most a few) PCs and have some since of being that PC its immersion. Some players have great imaginations, some have none, but both can have fun.

BTW, I agree there are many ways of playing AD&D, infact I've never met two DMs who do it exactly the same way. However, they all keep to certain principles (some of which I've already mentioned). Some rules are so core to the identity of the game if you changed them it would loose its character and no longer be AD&D. I believe co-DMing is one of those things that destroy the feel (I'm not talking about players looking stuff up now and then to help out the DM, I'm talking about players jumping over the screen and suddenly running the game. Another example: I've met people who don't role any dice the entire game (where the DM is a story teller and makes up the results of battles in his head) to me thats not AD&D either. It may be more fun for that group, but it shouldn't be used as a valid example of the game.

 

[Imp]

Playing blind wasn't very common IME, but it was pretty interesting... I'd recommend everyone try it just once if you haven't. I wouldn't advocate it as a standard, but it's cool in its own way.

Total open-book gaming was about as rare as players who had gone unspoiled by reading the DMG, though

 

[Hussar]

I never said it was. What I said was that the game was designed with the idea that there would be a single DM vs. the players. The players did not worry with the game rules, rather they worried about doing stuff (walking, talking, attacking, fleeing etc.). As for immersion, I'm probably using that term more generally then you are. As long as the players are controlling a single (or at most a few) PCs and have some since of being that PC its immersion. Some players have great imaginations, some have none, but both can have fun.

BTW, I agree there are many ways of playing AD&D, infact I've never met to DMs who do it exactly the same way. However, they all keep to certain principles (some of which I've already mentioned). Some rules are so core to the identity of the game if you changed them it would loose its character and no longer be AD&D. I believe co-DMing is one of those things that destroy the feel (I'm not talking about players looking stuff up now and then to help out the DM, I'm talking about players jumping over the screen and suddenly running the game. Another example: I've met people who don't role any dice the entire game (where the DM is a story teller and makes up the results of battles in his head) to me thats not AD&D either. It may be more fun for that group, but it shouldn't be used as a valid example of the game.

So, according to you, I've never played AD&D. But you have. Those ten years I spent playing Friday nights with my buddies from school were some other game, but not the ONE TRUE AD&D. Right.

Granted, we'd never jump over the DM's screen in middle of a session, that's true enough. However, when I finished running module X, Bob was ready with module Y. And, funnily enough, we played through consensual rules. Worked for us. But, then, we were playing some other game.

 

[Valiant]

So, according to you, I've never played AD&D. But you have. Those ten years I spent playing Friday nights with my buddies from school were some other game, but not the ONE TRUE AD&D. Right.

Granted, we'd never jump over the DM's screen in middle of a session, that's true enough. However, when I finished running module X, Bob was ready with module Y. And, funnily enough, we played through consensual rules. Worked for us. But, then, we were playing some other game.

Now its sounding like you played like we did: We voiced our grievences during the game (in pause), if Bob disagreed we ate it (or left the game). Later on, after some discussion and reading the rules, we came to a consensus. In your case Bob changed his mind to agree with you on some stuff and vica versa. Thats perfectly valid (because thats in the "figuring the rules out" stage. I think thats what happens at every table with players taking turns as DM. What I object to is when the DM has his method and is happy with it; yet players focus on rules "watching over" the active DM with their own DMG in hand, waiting to jump down his neck if the DM does something they don't like. When the DM is wimpy and allows this sort of badgering the game suffers for everyone. This watching over drags the player out of the role of PC explorer and puts him in the DM seat (thus ruining the point of the game IMO), its like having many captains on the same ship giving conflicting orders, and then some group consensus takes over and the true captain bends to the group think. At some point the players need to relax and put the rule books down and just focus on the world their exploring. It sounds like you did that.

 

[Hussar]

Heh, Valiant, to be fair, I now appoint a Rules Guru in my groups. When I play a PC I usually take the role, but, when DMing, one of the other players is the "Go To" person for rules questions.

That leaves me as the DM completely free to handle all the fun stuff of role play and the like and the players have to deal with the rules themselves.

Works incredibly well for us.

 

[Valiant]

In another thread someone mentioned a no-DM game (apparenlty something Ryan Dancy favors).http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=206904

 

[haakon1]

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

What issues do you have with Sunless Citadel? I'd be interested to hear 'em.

My biggest issue with it is no way to save the people who have been "tree'd". I made up a house rule about a cure, because it seemed necessary to the plot.