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

[Andre]

I consider your analysis to be inaccurate. Evidence:

Interesting - the only example of a dungeon given to prospective GM's includes a section the author says shouldn't be used. BTW, here's the continuation of your second quote. I've highlighted a few especially deadly ideas:

Here are a few simple items which can be included:
False stairs, either up or down
Steps which lead to a slanting passage, so the player may actually
stay on the same level, descend two levels, or ascend two levels
Trap steps which lead up a short distance, but then go downwards for
at least two levels, with the return passage blocked by bars or a
one-way door
Intra-level teleportation areas, so that a player will be transported to
a similar (or dissimilar) area on the same level, possibly activated
by touching some item (such as a gem, door, or the like)
Sinking rooms, including rooms which seem to sink, while the doors
remain shut fast for a period of several turns
Illusion, mind control, and geas rooms
Sections which dead-end so as to trap players being pursued by
monsters
Doors which are openable from one side only, which resist opening
from one side, or which appear at random intervals
Natural passages and caverns which have varying width and direction,
so that it is virtually impossible to accurately map such areas
Space distortion corridors or stairs which seem longer or shorter
than they actually are

Many of those "simple" ideas would be very lethal. While the rulebook includes a few passages about GM's not trying to kill off the characters, it's full of suggestions for how to do so. Too many GM's, myself included, took the suggestions to heart and overused them.

In fact, in looking through the books, I find that there's very little advise on properly GMing the game, but a lot of material on creating challenges that can kill the characters. No wonder many GM's killed off so many.

 

[Korgoth]

The book says use as many challenges as is consistent with allowing a reasonable chance for survival. I fail to see why people find that confusing.

I hope nobody is trying to pin something on Gary's text that isn't there. He says make it challenging but not ridiculous. He leaves the specifics up to the individual. He throws out a bunch of suggestions in brainstorm fashion and moves on.

It may not have the specificity or mathematical transparency you're looking for, but it would be just plain false to suggest that Book 3 is advising people to make killer dungeons. Some of the suggestions are of things more dangerous than others... sure. Just like some monsters are really tough and some are not. I really don't see the problem, or even the ambiguity.

 

[Valiant]

What makes AD&D/OD&D a great game is the fact that it is so deadly (not despite it). If it were not so, the player wouldn't feel as much exilartion when they do something great and live to tell the tale. Remember, the point of the game is that on some level we experiance these fantastic activities (if only in our imaginations), the more deadly, the more we sweat, the better, because it keeps our interest and makes the game fun (ie we don't get bored).

Players should think in terms of having many PCs that they burn threw. When a PC dies, we don't, yet we get to experiance the sensation. Do you remember that old saying "living life on the edge of a razor makes life more intense" or something like that. Well, when you walk in an AD&D dungeon, your living life on that razor (assuming you have the ability to immerse yourself in the game). Many authors of great novels also know this. In Harry Potter, for instance, there are constant life and death situations involving traps and monsters that kill quickly. One screw up and your dead. Thats what keeps us hooked. 3E has less of this for sure. Look what they did to Giant spiders for instance.

 

[grodog]

FYI, I'm mixing and matching between two of Andre's posts here.

First off, don't look at the modules. White box OD&D came first - modules came years later. A lot of people played before there were any modules, much less dozens (hundreds). [snip]

If you want to know where the idea of random death and destruction, "killer" dungeons, and such came from, just read the original three rulebooks.

While I appreciate your reminder's sentiment, the woodgrain boxes preceded the white box, and while I wasn't playing with either at the time that I started with Holmes Basic in '77, I am familiar with OD&D's contents

To all those who attribute the early killer dungeon style to "bad" GMing, remember - when the game first came out, no one knew how to GM. We muddled through, made every mistake possible (some more than once), and pretty much made it up as we went. And death wasn't always a big deal -certainly not if you were playing a character in his first adventure.

This is a good point, and one I've certainly lost sight of over the years. There was certainly plenty of discussion in TD about DMing/group play styles, and coaching to help steer groups between the Scylla and Charybdis of Monte Haulism and Killer DMism, and much of that is likely trying to help steer the player base to a more middle ground of play.

Relatedly, and supporting your point, as I read through the first D&D/AD&D tourneys described in 40 Years of GenCon (prior to the creation of more consistent tourney standards) saw many more deathtrap tourney adventures in use, seemingly.

I'm one of those grognards who remember going into lots of dungeons with 6-8 characters and coming out a hour later with two survivors. We rolled up replacement characters and did it all over again. It wasn't until characters reached about 6th level that deaths declined dramatically (though a TPK could still happen).

I concur heartily: PC attrition is a standard part of the game, especially if you played in larger groups (8-12+ players), or on solo missions.

Take a look at the examples in the original rules. I believe there's one paragraph where Gygax describes how a party can - unwittingly - descend several dungeon levels. Since early dungeons were supposed to get deadlier the lower you went, you could easily end up with 2nd-level characters facing 6th-level monsters.

Interesting - the only example of a dungeon given to prospective GM's includes a section the author says shouldn't be used. BTW, here's the continuation of your second quote. I've highlighted a few especially deadly ideas:

[snip]
Trap steps which lead up a short distance, but then go downwards for
at least two levels, with the return passage blocked by bars or a
one-way door

FWIW, I do'nt consider multi-level stairwells tricks or anything like save-or-die situations: they're normal in OD&D (and, to a lesser degree, AD&D); same thing with slanting passages. If you descend 200' of stairs and think that you'll be facing the same level of monsters as a challenge, well, you're wrong, and you'll swiftly find out when you go from meeting ogres to rakshasas (or whatever)

Intra-level teleportation areas, so that a player will be transported to
a similar (or dissimilar) area on the same level, possibly activated
by touching some item (such as a gem, door, or the like)
Sinking rooms, including rooms which seem to sink, while the doors
remain shut fast for a period of several turns [snip]
Doors which are openable from one side only, which resist opening
from one side, or which appear at random intervals

These I consider quite a bit more deadly, since such channelling tricks/traps are often not reversible immediately, if at all (teleportation in particular).

Illusion, mind control, and geas rooms

Ditto

Sections which dead-end so as to trap players being pursued by
monsters
Natural passages and caverns which have varying width and direction,
so that it is virtually impossible to accurately map such areas
Space distortion corridors or stairs which seem longer or shorter
than they actually are[/i]

These I'm also less concerned about: good mapping helps, as does not tarrying long in a dead end to search for secret doors on all available walls.

Many of those "simple" ideas would be very lethal. While the rulebook includes a few passages about GM's not trying to kill off the characters, it's full of suggestions for how to do so. Too many GM's, myself included, took the suggestions to heart and overused them.

In fact, in looking through the books, I find that there's very little advise on properly GMing the game, but a lot of material on creating challenges that can kill the characters. No wonder many GM's killed off so many.

I'm always astonished how little advice there is on designing a good dungeon environment, myself, which always struck me as a glaring gap.

Thanks for the comments Andre, and everyone else: you've definitely given me some good ideas to ponder further.

 

[shilsen]

Players should think in terms of having many PCs that they burn threw.

If they want one particular type of game. Luckily, there are a whole lot of other ways to play the game too.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Consider this. In 1st edition, basically ALL posion was save or die. That right there leads to a lot more death from simple vermin. I also recall numerous instances of random "weal and woe", such as the orbs in white plume mountain.

You also have tournament modules. Which I understand their function - you need to kill lots of people in order to get a winnner. And no one much cares - you're handed a character pre-leveled, and understand that character is disposable. Win or lose, you really arent playing him a week from now. However they dont work well when imported to a home campaign, where you have invested a lot of time and effort into fleshing out a character. As a result, you constantly re-rolled, or carted around hordes of grunts and farm animals to march down corridors. Soemthing I've always found was unheroic and slowed down play.

It doesnt help that I was disntegrated when I probed the demon mouth with a pole and the DM ruled the effect traveled UP it to my character. Because it didnt really matter what you did, you were hosed. You probe with a 10' pole? You now set off traps that are designed to go off 10' away. Because the DM's at the time hated "losing".

My first edition days were full of petty backstabbing players, and even worse power tripping DM's who routinely cheated. Melan is right, part of it IS the fact that I played it when I was younger. Which is precisely why I think its shoddily designed. It places WAY too much fiat in the hands of the DM, who at the end of the day, really is nothing more than another player adopting a different sort of role. In many ways, rules SHOULD serve to act as constraints to the player given "god powers", to keep him in line, to tip players off when they are being unfair. Because for every good DM there are tons of bad ones. The game does need to take the lowest common denominator into account. Sure, a well fleshed out ruleset doesnt prevent someone from being a jerk DM. But it does let you know what you should expect in a "fair" game.

 

[thedungeondelver]

My first edition days were full of petty backstabbing players, and even worse power tripping DM's who routinely cheated. Melan is right, part of it IS the fact that I played it when I was younger. Which is precisely why I think its shoddily designed.

The leaps of illogic required to come to that conclusion are truly astounding.

You had bad DMs = the game was badly designed.

I can make deathtrap dungeons for any edition, any time. The sphere of annihilation is extant in AD&D, AD&D 2nd edition and D&D. I can just as gleefully ignore the rules regarding its use in any of those editions. So I guess d20 D&D is shoddily designed then, by your train of thought, QED.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

The leaps of illogic required to come to that conclusion are truly astounding.

You had bad DMs = the game was badly designed.

Good design softens the blow of a bad DM. Written rules for task resolution lead to less arbitray decisions by the referee. Consider the many pewling posts here by bitter grognards bemoaning the loss of their unquestionable authority.

Theres plenty of reasons why I think 1st/2nd edition was poorly designed. Theres tons of simple things which could have been done to make the game more logical and internally consistent. Why does AC range from 10 to -10? Why do you want to roll low on ability checks and initiative but high on attacks and saves? Lets not even get started on the uselessness of certain classes at upper levels, multiclassing, and the laughable notion that different exp tables made it balance out. THAC0 (yes, I realize it wasnt part of "original" 1est edition). Its not incredibly hard, but it is needlessly clunky when simpler methods of resolution are pretty obvious. When 12 year olds are making house rules that dramatically improve the flow of the game, I just shake my head. I guess thats why Gygax got so bent out of shape about house rules. No one likes to be shown up by kids.

Game design shouldnt be based around what sounds good at 3am while drunk and hastily cribbed on a pizza box. Thats wha pretty much all of 1e felt like. Whats pathetic is that it wasnt changed very much for 2nd edition.

 

[JDJblatherings]

. Theres tons of simple things which could have been done to make the game more logical and internally consistent. Why does AC range from 10 to -10?

Because it (AC) was an index value that is cross referenced on a chart. It dosn't matter if an index value goes from 10 to -10 or 1 to 100 or 10 to 1 or A to Z as long as the index is explained, and it was.

Why do you want to roll low on ability checks and initiative but high on attacks and saves?

Ability checks weren't core to the rules in AD&D prior to second edition. Multiple resolution systems were used over the years for what became for a time the ability check. Rolling a score value or less is an exercise in probability. Where as rolling over a target number is beating a challenge score. Leaping over a pit didnt have a target number in AD&D.

Lets not even get started on the uselessness of certain classes at upper levels, multiclassing, and the laughable notion that different exp tables made it balance out.

ummm...well don't start if you can't make your argument.

THAC0 (yes, I realize it wasnt part of "original" 1est edition). Its not incredibly hard, but it is needlessly clunky when simpler methods of resolution are pretty obvious.

thaco was a shorthand that turned up in the early 3rd party press to speed things up for the DM, it became part of the core rules when chart prejudice hit gaming.

When 12 year olds are making house rules that dramatically improve the flow of the game, I just shake my head.

really? Which ones? I'd love to see some of these amazing rules that drastically improved the flow of the game. Surely they've become the norm now if they were so dramatic an improvement.

 

[Ourph]

Good design softens the blow of a bad DM. Written rules for task resolution lead to less arbitray decisions by the referee.

I've often seen this posited here at ENWorld. I have yet to see any evidence that it is so. On the other hand I have had plenty of experiences with bad DMs running 3e games and they were just as bad as the bad experiences I had with 1e DMs. Empirical evidence suggests to me that bad DMs suck no matter what ruleset they use.