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

[LostonLevel9]

To quote the DMs guide page 92:

"Another nadir of Dungeon Mastering is the "killer-dungeon" concept. These campaigns are a travesty of the role-playing adventure game, for there is no development and identification with carefully nutured player personae. In such campaigns, the sadistic referee takes unholy delight in slaughtering endless hordes of hapless player characters with unavoidable death traps and horrific monsters set to ambush participants as soon as they set foot outside the door of their safe house. Only a few of these "killer dungeons" survive to become infamous, however, as their participants usually tire of the idiocy after a few attempts at enjoyable gaming. Some lucky ones manage to find another, more reasonable campaign; but others, not realizing the pervertion of their DM's campaign give up adventure gaming and go back to whatever pursuits they followed in their leisure time before they tried D&D."

Seems like Gygax was pretty clear on how he felt about this.

 

[Ourph]

Care to link your sources?

I said empirical i.e. "depending upon experience or observation alone".
My source is my own personal observation of bad DMs using "good" rulesets but still producing a bad game.

Good rules help shape the game. A well written rule set can help overcome some hurdles that are player based. Placing less power in the hands of one player results in them having a less harmful impact on the game as a whole.

If that were true, you might have a point. But 3e's more detailed rules don't really remove any power from the hands of a DM. The DM is still designated as the final referee, judge, arbiter, whatever you want to call it, of the rules. More detailed rules may make it easier for players to see that a bad DM is hosing their characters, but they certainly don't keep that bad DM from creating a cruddy game.

Unless you tryuly believe that rules dont matter. In which case go nuts with World of Cynnibar.

Oh, I believe rules matter a great deal. I just don't believe that a ruleset which still invests final rule authority in a single person can prevent that person from running a bad game if he or she is inclined to do so, no matter how detailed or well-designed those rules may be.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Can you please start dealing in facts instead of nonreality? Can you support this assertion in the least?

Can you assert its not the case? Honestly playexperience is largely subjective anyways. We're coming at things from our own experiences. First edition was a poorly designed game in my experience. It was poorly run. I didnt have fun playing it. Nothing you say is really going to change that. My crapping on it doesnt really change your personal experiences either, in which you claim you had fun, werent given a bum deal, and played fair as a DM. Of course you could just be lying. /shrug.

 

[Ourph]

Can you assert its not the case? Honestly playexperience is largely subjective anyways. We're coming at things from our own experiences. First edition was a poorly designed game in my experience. It was poorly run. I didnt have fun playing it. Nothing you say is really going to change that. My crapping on it doesnt really change your personal experiences either, in which you claim you had fun, werent given a bum deal, and played fair as a DM. Of course you could just be lying. /shrug.

I think DD's comment was directed more toward the issue of tripping, which the 1e rules do, in fact, cover. The issue of tripping is not left solely to DM fiat in the AD&D rules.

 

[thedungeondelver]

n/m - ourph said it

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

More detailed rules may make it easier for players to see that a bad DM is hosing their characters, but they certainly don't keep that bad DM from creating a cruddy game.

I'd argue that bringing things in the open DOES help keep the game more fair, as does increased consistency from having written rules.

 

[Ourph]

I'd argue that bringing things in the open DOES help keep the game more fair, as does increased consistency from having written rules.

Without a doubt, bringing things into the open makes it much easier for players to confront the DM with specific problems, but most bad DMs (who screw over the players and generally make the game a bad experience for everyone) aren't bad because they don't understand the rules or because people have never recognized what exactly it is the DM is doing to screw up the game and brought it to their attention. Bad DMs, the ones you were describing earlier....

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.

... aren't bad because the rules aren't giving them enough guidance, they are bad because they have a major attitude problem and their motivation for sitting in the DM's seat isn't to make a fun game for everyone involved. A DM who "routinely cheats" because he "hate losing" does not, by definition, feel constrained to follow the rules anyway, so more detailed rules aren't going to do anything to improve his game.

To make an analogy (and please don't anyone construe this as an assertion that "D&D is videogamey" or something similar, my intent is not to Godwin the thread) you can have the newest, fastest, most expensive computer hardware on the planet, but if you have a bug in the software you are trying to run, the hardware can't fix it by being fast and efficient. A great system doesn't mean anything if the software is intent on using the system (any system) improperly.

 

[SavageRobby]

Can you assert its not the case? Honestly playexperience is largely subjective anyways. We're coming at things from our own experiences. First edition was a poorly designed game in my experience. It was poorly run. I didnt have fun playing it. Nothing you say is really going to change that. My crapping on it doesnt really change your personal experiences either, in which you claim you had fun, werent given a bum deal, and played fair as a DM. Of course you could just be lying. /shrug.

Your experience clearly colors your entire perception of the game (as anyone who has ever read any post of yours about 1e or similar games can attest). And I doubt anyone will try to argue you out of feeling that you didn't have fun. (I don't think I would have either, given your descriptions.) But that isn't the game systems fault. I suspect were you playing 3x with the same kind of DMs you've talked about, you'd be bashing on 3x and talking about how great Rolemaster or Savage Worlds is.

Blaming the system for your poor experience is like going to see a horror movie, getting scared, and saying that the movie theater you were in was a bad venue.

I had bad experiences with 3x. Doesn't mean I go into all 3x related threads and crap all over them, describing all 3x players as unimaginative and 3x DMs as drones. (And note - I don't think they are. All of them, at least. )

I'd argue that bringing things in the open DOES help keep the game more fair, as does increased consistency from having written rules.

Didn't you yourself say your bad DMs cheated? What good are rules if you've got someone who is going to break them anyways?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Bad DMs, the ones you were describing earlier....aren't bad because the rules aren't giving them enough guidance, they are bad because they have a major attitude problem and their motivation for sitting in the DM's seat isn't to make a fun game for everyone involved. A DM who "routinely cheats" because he "hate losing" does not, by definition, feel constrained to follow the rules anyway, so more detailed rules aren't going to do anything to improve his game.

Seconded.

 

[LostonLevel9]

. First edition was a poorly designed game in my experience. It was poorly run. I didnt have fun playing it. Nothing you say is really going to change that. .

Aw c'mon nothing? Can't I beg you to like AD&D? What do you think the odds are you will change? Am I wasting my time here? lol