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

[Hussar]

If I also consider "Tomb of Horrors" and Gygax's anecdotes about running it at cons, it doesn't really seem that clear to me. That's one of the perplexing things about AD&D to me.

/M

/warning, I'm going to make some generalizations and this is not meant as a bash of 1e but an observation. /end warning.

IME, I found that AD&D varied so incredibly wildly depending on what you happened to be reading at the time. On one hand, you've got some pretty lethal Gygax adventures which have some definite Viking Hat advice. In Isle of the Ape, it straight out tells you that if the players balk at the initial set up to the module, you should brow beat them into going along with what you as the DM want to do.

On the other hand, you had modules where the DM was more seen as a movie director - like in Dragonlance - where PC's and NPC's had plot protection from dying and things like that.

I've repeatedly stated that I find AD&D very schizophrenic in nature - and threads like this just reinforce that view for me. People stand up and claim how AD&D was low magic, grim and gritty, yet the modules contradict this for example. Was AD&D full of random deathtraps? Perhaps, but, then again, not always.

I think, and this is only my personal opinion, that in the early days of D&D, writers would push out whatever they happened to think was good and this led to a lot of products whose playstyles ranged wildly all over the place. A given players perspective of AD&D will be colored an awful lot by which products he or she was exposed to.

 

[Maggan]

A given players perspective of AD&D will be colored an awful lot by which products he or she was exposed to.

Who knows how many good men and women we lost because the first adventure they read was The Forest Oracle ... ?

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=148566

/M

 

[Valiant]

/ I've repeatedly stated that I find AD&D very schizophrenic in nature - and threads like this just reinforce that view for me. People stand up and claim how AD&D was low magic, grim and gritty, yet the modules contradict this for example. Was AD&D full of random deathtraps? Perhaps, but, then again, not always.

I think, and this is only my personal opinion, that in the early days of D&D, writers would push out whatever they happened to think was good and this led to a lot of products whose playstyles ranged wildly all over the place. A given players perspective of AD&D will be colored an awful lot by which products he or she was exposed to.

I see the variation in published modules as a way to keep the game fresh. It made things unpredictable for the players, thus more fun. I wouldn't call this schizophrenic, more, just a change in the game plan now and then to keep the players on their toes.

Think of it this way, whenever you use just 1 DM and his home made stuff starts getting predictable (do to similarities in their style), its often fun to change DMs to get fresh challanges. Thats all this is.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think, and this is only my personal opinion, that in the early days of D&D, writers would push out whatever they happened to think was good and this led to a lot of products whose playstyles ranged wildly all over the place.

I personally find "put out what you think is good, in whatever playstyle works for that product" produces better results than strict adherence to a particular playstyle and encounter format. OTOH, deciding "what you think is good" has sometimes not been given nearly enough thought, as in the aforementioned Forest Oracle.

 

[haakon1]

. . . I think there was a 20-year-plus trend of moving from the wargaming point of view, in which the PCs expected to lose some of their characters (just as they took casualties in a wargame of the Battle of Agincourt), and the more comic book-oriented ideal of characters (good guys and bad guys) being brought back again and again -or never getting killed in the first place. I know people like to pile on 3E, but Dragonlance, Ravenloft and 2E started this nonsense a decade and a half before 3E came out. Likewise railroading has its origins in the mid-1980s.

I prefer the wargamer approach, where you win some, lose some and can expect to take losses. And no, it's not because I'm a wargamer. I don't like the idea of a DM handholding me through a game. If my PCs are too dumb to recruit allies, run away when overmatched, use stealth etc then they deserve to lose.

Exactly my view. I think the problem is not in 1e and earlier renditions being too harsh, but in them being RELATIVELY harsh compared to later editions. The cartoonish exaggerations go both ways. My cartoonish version of 3e+ is that "motorcycle helmets are required" or there's OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health Administration for non-US readers) inspector for dungeons. What specifically set me off was advise on WOTC's site about doing "treasure audits" to make sure PC's had sufficient gear for their level so that encounters would be properly fair for them.

After reading something like that, I go into macho cliche mode. "Nothing ventured, nothing gained" and so on

I came to D&D from a sports background and I've always been put off when people can't accept defeat in a dignified manner. If losing breaks your heart so much, don't play. I also don't look at losing a prize PC (like a starting player in sports) as an excuse for playing poorly from that point on, nor do I take it as a total disaster . . .

That said, losing a long-developed PC is difficult for a lot of people. And my campaign is particularly harsh in that I don't allow PC's to start at any level but 1. The alternatives are taking over an NPC, or using a monster at 1st level, if they don't want a normal "weak" race. But I personally think it diminishes the accomplishment of paying your dues if a PC gets levels "for free".

I also freely allow PC's to get outside support . . . if they can get the body back to "home", a Raise Dead has always been available, at a reasonable role-playing, plot-advancing price.

The idea of a DM pulling his punches is a real turnoff. An even bigger turnoff is railroading, which is cheating in my book.

I agree. I'm a convert on this. I used to fudge things in my player's favor, but I've been playing it straight -- except for one second chance on stuff that would kill, so far for one character -- and it seems even better.

 

[haakon1]

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.

It was me you were discussing with before, so I assume you mean me and people like me who are fans of AD&D. Certainly, I'd like to be called a grognard.

What's odd about our discussion is that I'm not actually bitter at all. The 3.*e games I have personally played in have been run more-or-less to my satisfaction, which I'd like to think is 3e rules, 1e feel.

As a DM most of the time, who only runs games for friends, it's fairly easy to get the feel I want.

As a player part of the time, I'm OK with the other guys DM style. He likes to emphasize combat over setting and does not like role-playing at all, which is fine as far as it goes, but gets a little old at times -- a bit too computer-game like. Also, he tends to cheat in our favor a lot. It's had too many characters collapse with -7 hp for it to be a statistical accident. When he turns off the holodeck safety proctocols, it's more fun, even though we did have one TPK.

Neither as a player or DM in 3e have I seen "treasure audits" or a designed prevention of overmatched opponents. Describing some of the fights I've run here, I've been told I'm a killer DM (8 wights versus 8 5th level PCs I believe was the battle people got upset about), but we've lost very few PCs, with relatively little fudging, so I don't really think so.

Anyhow, I think the best "safety" for PC's is good players, who are careful and thoughtful and avoid danger they can't handle, rather than changes to the rules set.

The reason I'm adamant about removing the safety helmets is that I fear the game would be a lot less fun if it were safe. And I want the young'uns of the next generation to have as much fun and take as many knocks as my generation (started in 1981) did.

Where grognarditude comes into it is my assumption/observation that the REAL world is, in general, a lot more safety conscious and into self-esteem trophies for participating than it was when I was a padawan. I fear kids will get out their "need for speed" in more destructive ways than losing a 7th level paladin to Orcus, like I did with my first character. Much better to discover you're not invulernable that way, then behind the wheel of a car, for example. Plus, learning how to think your way out of traps and to be "always prepared", that life isn't level-fair and doesn't revolve around you and your needs and abilities, those all seem like good and important life lessons. <shrug> I don't know, but it seems like D&D was a REALLY GOOD THING for the kids I grew up with. I hope it isn't getting nerfed into something that no longer teaches life lessons . . .

 

[haakon1]

What's the problem here?

If the players have fun and keep coming back for more, the dungeon was not so deadly that they became frustrated, and not so easy that they became bored. Whatever it contains, it's working.

As for deathtraps, put a sign on the entrance to the dungeon which reads, "Random deathtraps scattered throughout dungeon. Enter at your own risk."

Honestly. What mad wizard doesn't add the occasional deathtrap to his dungeon? "Sorry, wiz, the Union of Dungeon Delvers, Captured Princesses, and Linkboys won't sign off on this dungeon construction permit until you take out the deathtraps."

I've had a sign like that in AD&D, for a "Caves of Chaos" like adventure. The warning was posted by the local authorities.

As for the Union outlawing death traps, I love the image. I think WOTC sometimes tried to do that, but I assume they failed in most campaigns.

 

[Hussar]

Just to continue my thought for a moment because I thought of another example.

Take the advice in the 1e DMG on dungeon construction. Lots and lots of tables on how each "level" of the dungeon should contain a certain "level" of monster. Dungeons were supposed to be sort of stacked on top of eachother, or layered I suppose is the best description.

But, modules were never designed this way. Other than maybe Undermountain (and not really even then) were modules set up in the Castle Greyhawk style. You typically got two, maybe three levels, and more often than not, only a single floor. I remember wondering back in the day what the point of the dwarven ability to "detect sloping passages" was all about since I played in modules almost all the time. And, even the dungeons that we made ourselves were based on module formats.

I found that there really was a large disconnect between what was said in the DMG and pretty much everywhere else.

 

[Harmon]

Save or Die is stupid, the concept breaks down to just luck of the dice with no tactics, no roll playing element. Pretty lame.

 

[Melan]

Nah -- it is trying to minimalise going into situations forcing a save or die roll where tactics and strategy come in. Save or die is actually lenient... giving a possibility of escape from certain death!