Running a session of Basic D&D -- my game group's experience

[S'mon]

I normally try to get chargen done prior to the play session though, as that can take up 30 minutes at table, more online.

I think the experience of having a whole adventure in one night (say, 1 level of B1) is important to BX D&D; with a slow pace you might as well play 3e or 4e for the greater number of options.

 

[Ant]

I'm also surprised it took so long for the party to do so little ... no wonder they're looking at 4e as a new option.

One of my biggest loves of OD&D/BD&D is how fast and frantic the game is. If I can't finish a small dungeon off in one session then I take a hard look at how I ran the game to see what I can streamline.

A few things I've learnt along the way:
- Characters: Even though Basic D&D char gen is quick, pre-gens can still save precious time. And I always use pre-gens for one-shots.

- Mazes: It's far too easy for mazes to be boring. Either leave them out, time-skip them ("OK, you spend hours carefully searching every nook of the maze and eventually find yourself nearing it's centre, or so you hope") or make them interesting (cool, bizarre monsters; vortexes; half-sunk into a swamp; glass-steel walls etc).

- Searching: Similar to mazes, don't let the party slow the game down because they're overly cautious. It's great if they're scared, but just hand wave with a few search rolls or a little DM meta-gaming: "You're quite positive there is nothing of interest in the room." And you can always get them moving with a few "random" monster encounters.

I commend you for attempting something different. Perhaps you're only fault was that you were trying to be too true to the module. The essence of old school gaming is to keep it flowing, hard and fast so it's up to the DM to bend the game to his will. Those modules scream for on-the-fly moments of brilliance from the DM.

Oh, and TPKs. Sweet, sweet TPKs.

 

[Reynard]

One of my biggest loves of OD&D/BD&D is how fast and frantic the game is. If I can't finish a small dungeon off in one session then I take a hard look at how I ran the game to see what I can streamline.

I think one of the primary differences between older editions and newer editions is where the time is spent. In older editions, combat is often fast and furious, but a lot of time (IME) is spent on non-combat activities, ranging from the aformentioned searching to in character equipping/shopping to day-by-day, hex-by-hex exploration. In newer editions, more time is spent on combat, and other activities tend to be reduced to die rolls or handwavium. I prefer the former (old school) but in either case I would say that I get about as much "done" in a session now as I did two and a half decades ago.

 

[Hussar]

S'mon and Ant. Just as a question. It has been brought to my attention numerous times that the quintessential part of the "old school" experience is the fact that you absolutely cannot skip over the details. That's new school gaming. If you come into a room with a desk, a fireplace and some painting on the wall, you have to take each element individually, explaining in exacting detail precisely what your characters are doing to examine/search each of these elements.

So, searching a picture could easily take several minutes as you poke, prod, look at, finally touch and move, then remove from the wall, probing behind the picture etc etc etc. A desk with a few drawers could take even longer.

At least, that's what I've been emphatically assured is the requirement for old school gaming.

Granted, I'm in your boat to be honest. The players say, "We toss the room", I roll a few times and move on and that's what I've always done, even back in the early 80's. But, apparently, even back then, according to some, I was doing it wrong.

 

[Ant]

Reynard and Hussar. When it comes down to it, regardless of the version of game (or flavour, for that matter), wasting real-time hours searching long corridors or cluttered rooms just isn't fun, especially for the players. This is even more evident now that I'm nearing my forties and our gaming times are growing increasingly more precious.

Aside from a few early, horrible DMing attempts, here's how I've usually tackled "the devil's in the details" mandate that seems to be tacked on to old school gaming. Initial searching via the ol' d6 can help quickly bring something to the party's attention - "Oh, you rolled 2, hey? Your keen sight notices that the desk in the room seems to have been moved recently, as if someone's tried forcing the drawer. Everything else here seems mundane."

Then maybe a second d6 to pinpoint the drawer (if the players are a bit thick that evening). But for actually opening mechanics I may call for a "... and exactly how are you going to open the drawer?" (tip: throw in a few of these even when the item isn't trapped/special/magical/explosive, just to keep those wacky players guessing).

So, maybe I've been doing it wrong all this time, too. But my players don't think so, and that's all that matters.

Edit: Of course, if, before I call for search checks, a player boldly announces they are going to stride into the room, tip over the desk, urinate on it, smash open the drawer like this and then jam whatever they find into their over-laden backpacks then more power to them. And maybe an XP bonus (if they survive).

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I use a mix of die rolls and descriptive search, and like Ant, often have successful die rolls "focus in" on something. I don't use a one-size-fits-all approach; exactly how I handle it depends on the situation. If the players say "we carefully search the room" I'll mark of the turns required and roll the dice. A successful die roll might focus players on an area that invites descriptive search or manipulation ("you find an stone block in the NE corner that seems to be unmortared") or it might reveal the secret outright ("you find a key hidden under the throw rug"), depending on exactly what is being found, whether the PCs have found similar secrets before, etc.

On the other hand, maybe the players say "we quickly check out the room; what's here?" In that case, I'll describe the obvious features of the room (e.g. I'd mention the throw rug, but not the unmortared stone), and wait for more direction from the players. If a player goes on to tell me he looks under the rug, he finds the key with no roll necessary. Et cetera.

The main thing when searching (whether using die rolls or not) is to keep track of the time spent, marking off the turns and rolling for wandering monsters as appropriate.

For secret doors, in particular, I allow "detailed searches" and "tapping." Detailed searches take one or more turns, and success usually gives at least a clue as to how to open the secret door, if not finding the means to open it outright. Tapping takes one or more rounds, so it's much faster. However, it only detects the presence of "hollow areas" which may or may not indicate a secret door. (And tapping a large area usually will prompt a wandering monster check.)

 

[S'mon]

S'mon and Ant. Just as a question. It has been brought to my attention numerous times that the quintessential part of the "old school" experience is the fact that you absolutely cannot skip over the details. That's new school gaming. If you come into a room with a desk, a fireplace and some painting on the wall, you have to take each element individually, explaining in exacting detail precisely what your characters are doing to examine/search each of these elements.

So, searching a picture could easily take several minutes as you poke, prod, look at, finally touch and move, then remove from the wall, probing behind the picture etc etc etc. A desk with a few drawers could take even longer.

At least, that's what I've been emphatically assured is the requirement for old school gaming.

Granted, I'm in your boat to be honest. The players say, "We toss the room", I roll a few times and move on and that's what I've always done, even back in the early 80's. But, apparently, even back then, according to some, I was doing it wrong.

Yes, I've always done it quick and dirty, as far back as 1984 when I first started GMing. We would plough through even richly detailed modules like X2 Castle Amber very quickly. I would certainly never say something like:

"You search? Don't just tell me you search! Tell me exactly how!"
Of course if the player did specify - "I tap the floor under the bed" - I'd take that into account, probably an auto-find, otherwise a d6 roll, WIS check etc (though I don't recall making WIS checks back in the '80s).

Re mazes: both then and now, I find these really boring, and rapidly switch to: "OK, so you always turn left? OK then, you move through the maze for a long time, until at last..."

Edit: One thing I don't abstract is important roleplaying encounters with major NPCs - an audience with the King is always played through, not reduced to die rolls. Trying to get past suspicious guards at a city gate, too - contrary to a bit of advice in the 4e DMG. Roleplaying - in-character talk - is something I really enjoy and even (especially?) in a combat heavy game I play it out. Not routine shopping though.

 

[Reynard]

The main thing when searching (whether using die rolls or not) is to keep track of the time spent, marking off the turns and rolling for wandering monsters as appropriate.

I think a lot of folks forget one of the true reasons for hidden door, traps and treasure is to slow the PCs down (not necessarily the players) as they explore. Burning off those pesky buff spells, eating up those resources and incurring wandering monsters are all key to challenging the PCs appropriately. Even a medium sized dungeon should require more than one foray, and larger dungeons should require many.

It's important to note that for regular groups that play together consistently, the "right" or "wrong" way of doing things is irrelevent, and only how the group actually plays matters. Establishing "Standard Ops" for hallways, doors, etc... works for the group, assuming a "typical behavior" unless stated otherwise, works very well IME, but some groups might consider that too handwavy.

 

[Reynard]

Re mazes: both then and now, I find these really boring, and rapidly switch to: "OK, so you always turn left? OK then, you move through the maze for a long time, until at last..."

I am absolutely certain that someone, sometime, somewhere has had a fun, engaging and exciting D&D experience centered around a maze. I am not, nor have I ever met, that person.

I've tried it as a DM, but it never comes off right.

 

[nedjer]

The itch to go 'by the book' mentioned earlier is lost on me. That's like saying some genius designer dispenses perfect wisdom from the fount of WoTC or whoever, and that we mortals should accept their pearls of wisdom without question. Even if the whole session tanks, because in reality the rushed designer had a couple of beers the night before and didn't get the balance quite right before the midday deadline.