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

[Celebrim]

I agree with Valiant about "playing blind". It seems to work for a lot of players learning the game -- they don't need to know how things work mechanically, just how to play their guy, as more experienced players and the DM warn them about AOO, explain the double move concept, show them which dice to roll, etc.

As a DM, I've taught a lot of friends the game . . . this seems the only practical way to do, rather than handling somebody the PHB and saying go memorize it.

In my experience introducing people to the game, if you teach them the rules first, they learn to play the rules and not thier characters. Almost every novice player I've ever met that knows the game rules is a terrible player from my perspective as a DM who wants to be entertained by the players (just as they want to be entertained by me).

Conversely, some of the most enjoyable experiences I've ever had as a DM is with groups of completely novice players that know none of the rules because they don't metagame at all. There RP is natural, and regardless of thier age tends to have an unaffected childlike quality and tends to be obviously in thier imagination first person perspecitve rather than the third person puppeteer perspective encouraged by the 3rd edition game IME. Players trained from this perspective IME invariably become better players faster, than those who are taught to think they must learn all the rules before they can play the game well.

I've played both ways, both as a player who knew almost the rules of the system, and as a player playing blindly, and the latter fashion is far more enjoyable and liberating. Frankly, if you haven't played blindly, then I think you don't know what you like, you just like what you know.

The main quibble I'd have with your view is that its possible for all the players to be in the stance of View #1, while the DM is completely in the stance of View #2. The DM doesn't have to be emersed. Behind the screen, he can be adhering completely to the rules and running the game like an engineer while at the same time trying to create the immersion experience for his players.

The real problem combination is players in the stance of View #2 and a DM who is in the stance of View #1 or at the least who wants his players to be in the stance of View #1. IME, this is a extremely frustrating adversarial relationship with the players. Speaking as a view #1 player, I can readily adopt to view #2 if a DM insists on forcing me to view #2. It forces me to change how I view the game, and essentially from my perspective forces me to an analytical DM-like stance when I was wanting a break from that. It is not my preferred play style, and is a stance that normally I would only take as a player in one shot/tournament style play, but I can do. Speaking as a DM, I've never found a View #2 player who can shrug and except View #1 as a fun, albiet less preferred style of play. In fact, with View #2 players there tends to be an adversarial position if I take an steps as a DM to satisfy my desire to have players in View #1 or any View #1 players who happen to be at the table - even though when I DM, largely I am in the stance of View #2, and I am just trying to conceal that from the player so that they don't have to worry about it and it won't interfere with thier game.

As for the rest, I think you are off on a red herring if you think that the point being made is about rules light or rules heavy systems. It's quite possible that a View #2 player would prefer a rules light system as the easiest to 'just win' in, even if the tactics he employs to do would be very different. He'd still get upset if the DM altered the rules as he understood them or concealed the rules from him.

 

[haakon1]

I'm not really an either/or on that choice too.

Nod.

I'm more 1 than 2, but I much prefer the "Just win, Baby!!" style of play. However, instead of optimizing rule after rule, I prefer having won because of superior play. We kicked @$$ and took names. (Not that everyone need play that way)

So we most certainly would change into bronze armor, if we suspected those damnable rust were unavoidably in our path. It's not necessary of course. That's my acting in character. My character fights to win. If I had made a character with religious taboos against wearing such metals, than yeah, I'd expect blowback if I did change into bronze.

As player, I like to "win" too. And as DM, it's fun to see my players "win". But ultimately, it seems to me you can "lose" at D&D (by getting your PC killed), but the only way to truly "win" is by retiring on a high note, like the end of LOTR. And for most campaigns, I've seen it peeter out because of players moving and so forth, rather than an official "winning" event.

Anyhow, it's certainly in character for most PC's to want to succeed at their missions (such as by buying bronze armor to fight rust monsters). But what I was referring to is a PC in my campaign, where the player decided his character was from a bronze age culture, and has stuck to bronze hoplite-style plate instead of upgrading to elven chain. The idea is that for a "hippy" (Type 1) player, what the character wants and what fits the character concept matters more than strict min-max calculations. With this player, I've also sought out additional D20 rules outside our usual ruleset to make the character more of a hoplite, such as the "Near and Far" feat (using a longspear as a Reach weapon and choking up for close fighting) and "Rank Fighting" feat (can fight from behind the front rank with the spear. It would have been "better" to just pick a two-handed sword, but for the character concept, being an ancient Greek hoplite spearman, regardless of rules efficiency, was the key.

 

[haakon1]

Conversely, some of the most enjoyable experiences I've ever had as a DM is with groups of completely novice players that know none of the rules because they don't metagame at all. There RP is natural, and regardless of thier age tends to have an unaffected childlike quality and tends to be obviously in thier imagination first person perspecitve rather than the third person puppeteer perspective encouraged by the 3rd edition game IME. Players trained from this perspective IME invariably become better players faster, than those who are taught to think they must learn all the rules before they can play the game well.

I've played both ways, both as a player who knew almost the rules of the system, and as a player playing blindly, and the latter fashion is far more enjoyable and liberating.

About playing blind, that's definitely how I started, back in 1981. My DM described the entranceway to the Keep on the Borderlands -- he'd been on a vacation to visit relatives in Scotland and was described the gatehouse to Edinburgh Castle -- and I was entranced. In the Keep itself, since I knew I was going on a long trip underground with just dried meat and crackers to eat (how he described iron rations), I tried to buy oranges to prevent scurvy. He decided oranges were exotic imports, costing 1 gp each. Since all I had was 4 gp left, I only bought one. I've tried to keep the spirit of that first day for all my players since.

But I think some people just won't ever like that -- they'd rather understand how it works and be in control.

The main quibble I'd have with your view is that its possible for all the players to be in the stance of View #1, while the DM is completely in the stance of View #2. The DM doesn't have to be emersed. Behind the screen, he can be adhering completely to the rules and running the game like an engineer while at the same time trying to create the immersion experience for his players.

Good point. I actually strive for something like that as a DM. In terms of rules, I like to keep it simple for my players (just the basic 3 books plus Living Greyhawk & the gods book), and I like to stick to the rules and not cheat on the dice. However, when things come up that require other rules (a player who wants to play a hoplite), I'll work to find reasonably balanced rules to add from D20.

And I'll do some funky DM View #1 stuff too. For example, a PC cleric who built a church and converted a village to St. Cuthbert discovered his +1 heavy mace was really cold one morning, then figured it out that's because it "became" a +1 heavy mace of frost spontaneously, through the will of St. Cuthbert.

Speaking as a view #1 player, I can readily adopt to view #2 if a DM insists on forcing me to view #2. It forces me to change how I view the game, and essentially from my perspective forces me to an analytical DM-like stance when I was wanting a break from that. It is not my preferred play style, and is a stance that normally I would only take as a player in one shot/tournament style play, but I can do. Speaking as a DM, I've never found a View #2 player who can shrug and except View #1 as a fun, albiet less preferred style of play. In fact, with View #2 players there tends to be an adversarial position if I take an steps as a DM to satisfy my desire to have players in View #1 or any View #1 players who happen to be at the table - even though when I DM, largely I am in the stance of View #2, and I am just trying to conceal that from the player so that they don't have to worry about it and it won't interfere with thier game..

I haven't played too much with View #2 players. One thing I fear a little with people who are more of that persuasion is that noobs or people who make "sub-obtimal" characters choices will get browbeaten.

As for the rest, I think you are off on a red herring if you think that the point being made is about rules light or rules heavy systems. It's quite possible that a View #2 player would prefer a rules light system as the easiest to 'just win' in, even if the tactics he employs to do would be very different. He'd still get upset if the DM altered the rules as he understood them or concealed the rules from him.

Nod, I don't think it's really about editions. But it does seem View #1 would be happier rules light, and View #2 would prefer lots and lots of rules. I assume it's View #2 people who are buying all the crunch books -- a View #1 player can choose or invent (with DM permission) rules to fit a character concept like a hoplite or a StarGate Marine who is stranded in the wrong world (both real characters in my games). For a View #2 player, he needs the official book of Ancient Warriors with the right prestige class to play a hoplite.

 

[Jhaelen]

As for the rest, I think you are off on a red herring if you think that the point being made is about rules light or rules heavy systems. It's quite possible that a View #2 player would prefer a rules light system as the easiest to 'just win' in, even if the tactics he employs to do would be very different.

Exactly. As I already mentioned above, I've already played with that kind of players.

He'd still get upset if the DM altered the rules as he understood them or concealed the rules from him.

Well, he _might_ get upset if the DM changes his interpretation of the rules / house rules arbitrarily if he thought that this was part of the DM's
strategy to 'win'. However, it could even be an advantage for the player, if the DM's arbitrary ruling was in his favour.

Again, this is something I've already experienced in play:
One of my fellow players was so skilled at arguing his cause that the DM (almost) always decided in his favour - even when the new ruling was a contradiction to an earlier ad-hoc ruling. For some reason the DM failed to notice how he was manipulated by the player.
If someone else pointed this out to the DM he would sometimes agree and reverse his decision, and sometimes he wouldn't.

To give an example of the opposite kind:
I know another player who favours rule-heavy games. He's not one of the 'Playing to win' faction. He just seems to enjoy arguing about rules, even if the DM's interpretation would favour him (or the group). Obviously the other players typically aren't particularly happy about him pointing out rules that are to their disadvantage.

So: Favouring an adversary/cooperative is orthogonal to preferring a rule-light/rule-heavy rpg system.


P.S.: I agree that it's better to introduce players to roleplaying games by teaching them how to roleplay rather than teaching them the rules. It's one of the reasons I don't consider D&D a good system to introduce players to roleplaying games.

And before someone starts arguing how that may be true for 3.X but not for earlier editions of the game: The suggested way to play the game in 1st.ed. was to designate a party leader who would be the only one actually communicating with the DM stating the actions everyone would take (hopefully after asking the other players about their intended actions). This isn't an approach I'd consider appropriate for a roleplaying game.

 

[Valiant]

In my experience introducing people to the game, if you teach them the rules first, they learn to play the rules and not thier characters. Almost every novice player I've ever met that knows the game rules is a terrible player from my perspective as a DM who wants to be entertained by the players (just as they want to be entertained by me).

Conversely, some of the most enjoyable experiences I've ever had as a DM is with groups of completely novice players that know none of the rules because they don't metagame at all. There RP is natural, and regardless of thier age tends to have an unaffected childlike quality and tends to be obviously in thier imagination first person perspecitve rather than the third person puppeteer perspective encouraged by the 3rd edition game IME. Players trained from this perspective IME invariably become better players faster, than those who are taught to think they must learn all the rules before they can play the game well.

I've played both ways, both as a player who knew almost the rules of the system, and as a player playing blindly, and the latter fashion is far more enjoyable and liberating. Frankly, if you haven't played blindly, then I think you don't know what you like, you just like what you know.

.

Very nicely put. Thats how we started with AD&D as well, and I think its the way it was intended by the author. I believe the DMG mentions someplace players aren't supposed to look at the DMG or MM (but I'm not sure). Also, I agree the DM does not have to immerse to enjoy the game (they have a world to create and control afterall).

Q: "The suggested way to play the game in 1st.ed. was to designate a party leader who would be the only one actually communicating with the DM stating the actions everyone would take". I have never seen a DM not ask everyone what they wanted to do (not even in parties of 20+ players). I agree this is bad advice. Having a party leader is very useful to speed the game up, but each player should be responsible for their characters actions.

Otherwise, AD&D is an excellent (perhaps the best) game to teach players to "role play". Why: the DM has the tables (and determines everything but to hit and save roles), and the game is so "wonky" in rules, it would be difficult for a new player to see patterns (other then role d6 high goes first). Not thinking about the rules (and being told you never have to worry about them) really allows the player to focus on "playing make believe" in this really cool setting where actions have consequences.

 

[Hussar]

Otherwise, AD&D is an excellent (perhaps the best) game to teach players to "role play". Why: the DM has the tables (and determines everything but to hit and save roles), and the game is so "wonky" in rules, it would be difficult for a new player to see patterns (other then role d6 high goes first). Not thinking about the rules (and being told you never have to worry about them) really allows the player to focus on "playing make believe" in this really cool setting where actions have consequences.

Blarg?

Dude, what?

Yeah, it was totally so hard to figure out the AC of those orcs. Bob hit them with a 14, and I missed with a 13. Damn, I could NEVER make the connection.

And, what consequences? What actions could a PC take that had any consequences by the rules?

 

[Valiant]

All FRPGs suffer from that Hussar surely you know that. AD&D however keeps more to the DM and less to the player. Infact, in AD&D the player is encouraged (per the rules) to not worry about rules. Thats one reason its a better system then most to teach FRPGing to newbies. On the other hand in 3E the player is encouraged to know the rules as well as the DM. Its a different philosophy (one your blind the other your knowledgable before you play). I prefer the 1E philosophy, esp. for teaching new players about FRPGs. They get that kid like "make believe" experiance before figuring things out (like how much their chances to hit things goes up as they progress in levels, how difficult it will be to try x, or y etc.
As far as your not getting how actions have consequences in a rpg, dude...what?, why are you so confused? Thats the point of all rpgs (interacting with environments and the characters within them, making choices...hence actions have consequences, both good and bad (ex. a human choosing to run all out into a dark dungeon without a light....v. bad idea). I think you may be overthinking this.