perception of OD&D/AD&D as random deathtraps
- Thread starter grodog
- Start date
Another comment on this.Quasqueton said:
I'm surprised this is brought up as an issue of quality. I don't claim to be an expert in the field of D&D modules (especially modern ones) but my experiences don't lead me to believe that giving explicit information about the means of disarming a trap is common place in modules of any "school" or era. With 3e modules, the disarm DC is regularly provided for traps, but I can't recall any product where the specifics of a successful Search or Disarm roll (the PC finds a hidden catch, cuts a disguised wire, etc.) are spelled out. In fact, I recall 3e modules giving about as much information as that contained in the JG product cited above (trap type, location, damage, etc.).
If you feel that a module lacking this type of information is a sign of poor quality, can you cite any modules that you feel do it right?
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Just like the quality of a car is not determined by whather or not it has an istalled GPS navigation system, the quality of a game or adventure is not determined by whether or not it has explicitly spelled out ecologies, backstories, and detailed instructions to cover every eventuality. In some circumstances such things may be desirable, just as in some circumstances having a GPS system in your car might be, but in other (I daresay most) circumstances that kind of extraneous detail is at best unnecessary (I can come up with explanations for these things on my own if the players ask -- which they aren't likely to if the game is otherwise fun and interesting) and at worst an annoying distraction (padding out the pagecount and making the game/module cost more, be less convenient to read and use, and likely constraining the creative possibilities -- leaving less space for the DM to personalize the game/adventure or adapt it to the style of his players).Quasqueton said:
Look at Philotomy Jurament's account above of running B4 and "filling in the blanks" on his own -- he didn't need the module to define all of that stuff for him, and in fact it's probably better that it didn't since if it had 1) the module would've likely been 128pp instead of 32pp (with a higher pricetag, taking longer to read and prep, harder to look details up during play, etc.), and 2) the explanations and justifications given wouldn't necessarily have worked as well for him and his group as the ones he came up with on his own, meaning he'd either have to change them (in which case all that extra pagecount and reading was wasted) or perhaps would just decide he didn't want to run the adventure after all.
Yes, there were bad games and bad adventures back in the 70s, and the aforementioned Judges Guild module may well be one of them, but they're not bad because they don't spend time explaining ecology and backstory, and attempting to anticipate PC actions, they're bad because the encounters are lame and not fun or interesting for the players, and if they had the same lame encounters plus a bunch of explanations and backstory the adventure would still be lame, it would just have a higher pagecount.
Quasqueton
First Post
Sorry, but I just can't go on reading your post when you start with this strawman argument.
To use some generic examples:
If there's a squad of orc warriors in a 10' room, there's probably no explanatory information necessary (unless the room is in the middle of an elven tree fort, for example).
If there's an ancient red dragon in a 10' room, with only one way in (through a normal door), then there should be some explanation about the how and why. The lack of explanation is bad design. (Or is the existence of a dragon in a 10' room at all the bad design?)
A bunch of goblins in a goblin cave complex doesn't need an explanation. But a nest of ghouls in the middle does need to be explained -- why haven't they wiped out the goblins?
If the BBEG is in a room with the only entrance guarded by a severe trap, there should be some mention at least of how the BBEG gets by it. A single sentence could suffice. The author of the adventure should at least acknowledge that he made the setup, rather than just leave it as an exercise for the DM to figure out.
The idea of sensical dungeon ecologies does not mean that everything must be explicitly spelled out and explained down to backstories and future goals for all the monsters. The idea of a sensical dungeon means that the dungeon doesn't look and feel (and play out) like just a random collection of monsters dropped in from the MM -- OR -- the designer that the designer gives the DM some explanation and guidance on using the random collection of monsters.
If the random collection of monsters with no explanation or plot was best, then why did some adventures put in the effort to explain the dungeon "ecology"?
To take one common classic module as an example: Gygax put in some explanation about how the monsters in the Caves of Chaos were aligned with each other, and who would team up with whom in response to adventurer successes. That's good. But why did he not give any mention to the plot of the evil temple in the caves? Either leaving out all explanation is better, in which case why did he give explanation about tribe alliances, or giving explanation is better, in which case why did he leave out an explanation for the evil temple?
The Caves of Chaos is a decent adventure despite the omission of an explanation for the evil temple. It could have been a better adventure *with* an explanation.
In the Keep itself, Gygax mentions that the barkeep dislikes beer but is keen on mead. But he didn't give the barkeep a name. Gygax mentions that the Captain of the Guard likes pretty ladies. But he didn't give the Captain a name. The mention of personality is good, the lack of any name is bad. Or, to judge from what some are saying about unnecessary explanation, maybe EGG should have left out the personality bits, because if the DM can come up with names for the men, surely the DM can come up with personalities, too. So maybe the personality explanations are bad, and the lack of names is good?
Quasqueton
Quasqueton
First Post
To use another example from EGG, look at the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief. That's a pretty well-designed adventure. There's story and plot, explicitly explained. The various non-hill giants are mentioned as ambassadors or emissaries -- they don't just exist without reason; they aren't just placed in a room and given stats and left for the DM to figure out a reason.
There's a revolt going on in the lower level of the dungeon, and this is all mentioned and given some explanation. The party going on is explained -- it's not just a room with a couple dozen giants heaped together without reason. There's a reason *and the author tells the reason*.
According to what some here are saying, EGG did bad by wasting all the effort and text space on explaining things. "All we really needed back in the day is a map and some monster stats."
Quasqueton
There's a revolt going on in the lower level of the dungeon, and this is all mentioned and given some explanation. The party going on is explained -- it's not just a room with a couple dozen giants heaped together without reason. There's a reason *and the author tells the reason*.
According to what some here are saying, EGG did bad by wasting all the effort and text space on explaining things. "All we really needed back in the day is a map and some monster stats."
Quasqueton
Garnfellow said:
Key here isn't sharing the exact combat system, thats just a way to see who hits who and is meaningless as far as "correct way to play" which is something better defined broadly. These rule debates at DF are between people obsessed wtih small details, ignore them. They all basically play the same way. The critical things to be playing 1E are:
1. D6 roled to see who goes first, and role each round (and PCs as 1 role vs. Monsters).
2. DM uses tables to determine who hits who and what you need to save.
Saves were often determined by the DM (like falling into a pit, do you role petrification,
something else. That was up to the DM).
3. 100% power of the DM. There wasn't any bickering about rules, it was the DMs game.
If you didn't like it, leave. And we players did just that with 2 DMs over the years. There is nothing worse then a player who is into rules lawyering. What this did was A) give a reason for the DM to play and B) freed up the player to just experiance the immersion (without worrying about mechanics).
4. Large Dungeon Focus (This was lost esp. in 3E). Most of the game took place in the dungeon. Any story was just a way to get to the dungeon entrance. Every module was really about the same thing, killing monsters and taking stuff. Outside adventuring was important, but the meat and potatoes took place underground.
5. 1E Role Play. This term has been miss-used to refer to thespian acting. It is not that at all. What it represents in Gygaxian terms is the interaction of players and DM in an imaginary setting. In this setting only a few things are standardized (the chance to hit with a weapon, or to save from magic or poisons) everything else the DM determines (impartially). This made the game fluid, players had to think there way through things (describing to the DM how they did this or that) rather then rolling some arbitrary dice (which in 3E became known as the "video button effect" (dodge, bluff, etc).
These 5 factors are shared by all 1E players. At least those that prefer the 78-81 AD&D experiance. After that point, Gygax pretty much was out of the picture, and you got into sagas like Dragonlance, a precurser to 2E (Romance novel time).
PS. a possible 6 would be "Fantasy Logic". That is, in 1E logic wasn't that big of a factor. If you found a room with 10 trolls sitting in it (with no food, no reason to hang out etc.) you just accepted it (afterall this is a magical land with spell casters and gods, why should the player understand the logic of monsters as wierd as trolls anyway). If the DM (or module writer) focused too much on explaining this logically, they actually made the game less "magical" feeling. However, some plot and logic was nice just to keep the game from getting stupid. Striking the balance was the art of a good DM or Module writer (as the poster above alluded to in the Giant Series example).
Oh, and the game was "idiot proof". To play, all a person had to do was sit his butt down and role a dice when told (and have an imagination of course). The player didn't have to know any of the rules (the DM did everything) and infact it was more fun when they didn't know their chance to do this or that.
Last edited:
Philotomy Jurament
First Post
Like many things, the "right" amount of detail put into a published adventure isn't black/white or all/nothing. Nobody is saying that the ideal example of the published adventure is a map and a list of monsters, period. However, in some cases, that approach (even as just a portion of a module, or something bigger like B1) is not a bad thing. And sometimes designs that get dismissed as outdated or silly or nonsensical aren't bad, either; they're just offered under a different set of assumptions.Quasqueton said:
Quasqueton said:
What is your point?
Look, Gygax didn't produce AD&D to please everybody. Certainly you are not pleased with the way he designed the game, nor the way he and his associates wrote dungeon modules. You prefer more detail, more logic (ecology etc.). I used to think the same way, but I've since come to my senses.
There are 2 things that need to be addressed: 1st is that the variety in dungeon details and logic are purposeful. Leaving blanks created a since of mystery and adventure (explaining everything would be boring). Same with the example above about not including names. These modules were written to spark the imaginations of the DM, to get them thinking and their energy flowing, about how to design their own campaigns (DM: "ahh so I can have spys working at taverns for neighboring kingdoms. I'll do something like that too"). Including information but not a name also helped draw the DM into the module, it made him an active partisipant in creating parts of it. It forced the DM to not just react to the module, but to be an active collaberator in the setting. It is a brilliant way to drag the fearful DM into the pit. And after all, many of those who purchased TSR modules were doing so because they didn't know how to make there own. Those that already new how to create modules didn't really need the guidance, still benifited from the large variety in styles presented.
Gygax shows you the Farrari, opens the door and hands you the keys. He may even give you some advice on how she handles in curves. But he realizes he can't drive it for you...that my friend you have to experiance for yourself.
I once asked Gary why he didn't include more examples of combat, or give more details on how the rules worked. He said something like "the combat rules are basically very easy, DMs need help with everything else. It got me thinking, Gary was trying to give the DM the spirit of the game (which does not reside in combat rules, but rather in style). Such presentation also kept the DM and players seperated (those with the knowledge of the rules (DM), and those with none (players).
I think your asking the right questions. Many of these are the same I asked myself years ago. If your really interested in learning what AD&D is, and how it differs from 3E (and the 2 systems are almost complete opposites in many ways) perhaps you should run it one night. Heck, even play a solo game by yourself. Consider the things Foster mentioned above. As DM it is your world, your imagination the players are walking around in and exploring. Gary knows this well. Thats why he left blanks for you to fill. And of course, he knows any monkey DM worth his salt can come up with 2 dozen reasons for any situation (not that the DM has to explain anyway...players only know what they find out).
Last edited:
Similar Threads
