Real tale of Old School feel?

[S'mon]

I thought X2 Castle Amber made way more sense than Hall of Many Panes. Erm... :\

 

[gizmo33]

Just to be fair, I hope you can admit that this particular module requires a LOT of forbearance by the players to be taken seriously. Doesn't mean it can't be fun, just that it's sillier than most old school modules.

Well, the backdrop of the adventure module is a mansion full of crazy magic-users. So, yes, I can see that it would seem silly compared to G1 or S1.

But take the example of the "boxing ring" encounter as described early on the link that started this post. When you look at how the DMs players responded to it, they were mocking the encounter with out-of-character information (eg. Rocky jokes). I can't see any reason why you couldn't believe that a magic user with questionable sanity and a flesh-golem-like-construct wouldn't set up a boxing ring and challenge strangers. I've had an offer to play 3-card-monty with a homeless guy - I'm sure if that dude were an 8th level magic-user his idea of fun could have been more bizarre. If one can't accept that an NPC could have a motive other than that of money or power - I'm not really sure how to bridge that gap. That all of these events (being stranded in the demi-plane, wacky encounters that are a challenge to overcome, the requirement of retrieving items) are "unlikely", but that's the nature of adventure - it really is a story told about an unlikely group of persons in an unlikely situation (and series of such unlikely situations). Even in a serious campaign world I think it's equally absurd to think that there is nothing silly or light-hearted - Tom Bombadill, for example.

You make a good point about how all playing groups have to meet the GM halfway - any world/module can be seen as absurd if the players expect too much "realism" from it. This module demands more than most groups are capable of, but it's a matter of degree, not either-or.

To get this out of the way first - some people seem to be of the opinion that if they can't figure out why something is the way that it is, then it must make no sense and therefore is a poor design. This, to me, says more about how that person deals with unknown than anything objective about the situation.

For example, even with some "principles" of economics, there's no reason to completely dismiss the possibility that a village general-store has a suit of platemail for sale. In fact, saying that it's 100% impossible is probably more absurd IMO. I suppose, as you're saying above, that each person has their own tolerance level of the "unlikely". Some DMs probably have the general store of every 3rd village contain an odd item, while others play things more mundane so maybe only 1 in 10 or 1 in 100 sells something strange.

But there's nothing "wrong" with a world that assumes a level of whimsy that might be higher than an individual DM's personal preference. In fact, there's no reason to assume real world psychological or economic principles in a fantasy world - especially when you're dealing with non-humans, or humans with magic powers. And especially when people can't claim to completely understand those principles in the real world either!

We're talking about all possible fantasy world's here. And especially in a magical universe - where a sylph could have settled on a window-sill late at night, for no particular reason, and talked some wizard into a strange idea in his sleep. Consider also that the real world is full of weird circumstances and happenstance governing events. I also think of the things that my players have done in my campaign - and towards the weirder end of the spectrum, the deAmberville's would fit right in.

The last place I'd want to explore and adventure would be some mundane lair of creatures based upon some simple reading of ecological principles in the real world, with only the possibility of "plausible" and "likely" events occuring. I think an adventuring group consisting of a monk and a halfling and whatelse ought to look in the mirror before they laugh too much as the deAmbervilles.

 

[Quasqueton]

That last quote is not actually from me.

Quasqueton

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Castle Amber is one of my favorite adventures, but then, I liked Dungeonland, as well. I don't why people seem to want to denigrate modules that rank on most "old schoolers" top 10 (or 20, or whatever) list. I much prefer a wacky romp like dungeonland or Castle Amber to some railroaded 2e story type module where I take a backseat to some npc.

 

[Andre]

But there's nothing "wrong" with a world that assumes a level of whimsy that might be higher than an individual DM's personal preference.

Agreed. That said, I see two issues a GM has to consider in this regard.

One, the game still has to be fun. The example of drinking the brandy, failing a save, and losing the character is an example of "un-fun", IMO. There was too little information available to the characters to make a reasonable choice, other than to abstain completely from the food and drink - which wouldn't be much fun either. A GM in my group ran an very similar encounter for us (insane wizard, wizard's tower that was alive, and so on). The food and drink also did strange things, but nothing permanent. When a couple characters changed gender, one grew a foot taller, another changed color...it was a blast. All the effects also wore off in a day. If the GM had permanently killed off a couple characters that way, he'd (rightly) have had a revolt on his hands.

Two, the players still have to be able to make reasonable choices. Note, I say players, not characters. D&D is a game for players. If things "just happen", even if the GM knows exactly what's going on, players can quickly feel disconnected from the game. The easier it is for players to grasp the rules of the GM's world, the easier it is for the characters to be played well. The more divorced the GM's world is from our own expectations, the more arbitrary it feels, the more difficult it is for players to make intelligent choices.

Let me be clear: I'm *not* saying worlds shouldn't have a sense of wonder to them, that everything has to make sense, that there should be no mystery. Quite the opposite. All of those elements should be present. But just like eating nothing but dessert grows old, a good module/campaign is mostly meat-n-potatoes, with just enough wonder, whimsy, and imagination to be special.

Of course, if the GM is running a one-shot adventure, all bets are off.

 

[Schmoe]

Having read the thread that Quasqueton posted, which was extremely funny and very well written, I have to say that I don't know why there's all the hate for Castle Amber and "old-school" modules. Granted, the module is far from perfect, but there are some really fantastic ideas in the module, and it's a fun adventure (I've run it several times). Heck, even the author and his group, with a decidedly dim view of "old-school" adventures, seem to be having fun. That's why I play games, after all.

 

[gizmo33]

Let me be clear: I'm *not* saying worlds shouldn't have a sense of wonder to them, that everything has to make sense, that there should be no mystery. Quite the opposite. All of those elements should be present. But just like eating nothing but dessert grows old, a good module/campaign is mostly meat-n-potatoes, with just enough wonder, whimsy, and imagination to be special.

Yea, I agree. I was probably around 12 when I DMed this module and I remember even then thinking "man, I can't do this to them again" (one PC with wings is enough!). Modules like Castle Amber (and esp. Dungeonland) are what they are, and being good modules IMO doesn't mean that they should replace the meat-n-potatoes.

 

[TheGM]

Yea, I agree. I was probably around 12 when I DMed this module and I remember even then thinking "man, I can't do this to them again" (one PC with wings is enough!). Modules like Castle Amber (and esp. Dungeonland) are what they are, and being good modules IMO doesn't mean that they should replace the meat-n-potatoes.

And they didn't in "the old days" either. That's the point all of this misses - Chateau was a light-hearted side-trip, not the standard old-school module.

If we wanna pick a single module that feels "wrong" to some people, the current edition will loose just because of the volume of modules available...

 

[Melan]

"AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously." - Gary Gygax (DMG, 1979)

"There are people who regard the RPG as something more than an amusing game, more than a most entertaining hobby. They really do need to get a life" - Gary Gygax (EN World, 2004)

I would play in that campaign, Quasqueton. I would have fun. But hey, don't let me get in the way of your new Edition Wars thread, there aren't enough of them anyway.

 

[Numion]

To get this out of the way first - some people seem to be of the opinion that if they can't figure out why something is the way that it is, then it must make no sense and therefore is a poor design. This, to me, says more about how that person deals with unknown than anything objective about the situation.

Do you think that Monte Cook's "Orc and Pie" adventure makes a lot of sense too? I agree, in D&D you can rationalize anything by 'everything really has an explanation, however unlikely, becooz it's magic', but that doesn't make it good design.

I rarely stop enjoying an adventure with the first nonsensical thing to occur, but I do make occassional comments in character [Dr.Evil]Riiiiight[/Dr.Evil] which is funny to me. But is that good design?

Really, this thread reminds me of the old Microsoft joke: "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

edit: C'mon, X2 even has a save-game like feature where a crimson cloud allows the PCs to rest - old schoolers seem to find this cool, yet the charge of videogameyness is usually levelled by them at 3e. Ironic.