Raven Crowking
First Post
In this particular case, Hussar is bang on.
Running a session of Basic D&D -- my game group's experience
- Thread starter Bullgrit
- Start date
Ant
First Post
I disagree. I hooked two different groups on OD&D after running one-shots. As for myself, I had a very accurate feel for the flavour 4e after the first session I played in. I think the trick is boiling the game down to its essence for that vital 1st session. No matter what game system you're running, wandering around lost in a maze isn't going to make 'em come back for more. Live and learn.
You're way too hard on yourself. You set yourself a goal and had a little bad luck on the way, but anyone that introduces old school gaming to their group gets a big thumbs up from me. Give it some time and then suggest BD&D to your players again. Run B1 again but cut out the boring bits or DM on-the-fly if your players don't look like they're having fun (having fun trumps sticking to "supposed" ways of playing every time).
For my first game of OD&D at a Con I used B2 with pregens and started the game pretty much outside the goblin cave after a brief preamble about arriving at the keep. The party was set upon by a pack of insane goblins within 5 minutes. Oh, sure, the party wanted to search and find camping spots and contemplate the stars but, hey, they're called adventurers for a reason.
Philotomy Jurament
First Post
I think it depends on the approach you're trying to introduce. If you're just looking to quickly "set the hook" on playing the game, winging an exciting combat and using a lot of behind the scenes funneling and such works with just about any system, including B/X.
However, I think Bullgrit has a point about a truly player-driven exploration approach (whether it's a wilderness sandbox or a dungeon) possibly requiring more than one session. Part of the nature of that player-driven approach is the fact the players might not choose to explore the exciting bits, and not every area is exciting. I think a player-driven exploration game does have (or maybe require) a longer time scale than some other approaches. (I think it also benefits from frequent play, and is harder to carry off well with infrequent play.) It breathes differently, and you're not guaranteed a given amount of action or "events" in each session. Also, the fun is a different kind of fun, and the satisfaction gained from the very successful (and fun) sessions feels different, IMO (e.g. I find success in this kind of game to feel more like a personal achievement).
YMMV, of course.
However, I think Bullgrit has a point about a truly player-driven exploration approach (whether it's a wilderness sandbox or a dungeon) possibly requiring more than one session. Part of the nature of that player-driven approach is the fact the players might not choose to explore the exciting bits, and not every area is exciting. I think a player-driven exploration game does have (or maybe require) a longer time scale than some other approaches. (I think it also benefits from frequent play, and is harder to carry off well with infrequent play.) It breathes differently, and you're not guaranteed a given amount of action or "events" in each session. Also, the fun is a different kind of fun, and the satisfaction gained from the very successful (and fun) sessions feels different, IMO (e.g. I find success in this kind of game to feel more like a personal achievement).
YMMV, of course.
Last edited:
Raven Crowking
First Post
Sure, but a one-shot is rather like setting up the sandbox, not long-term play in the sandbox. Even in a sandbox game, where the PCs are intended to call the shots, the first session should have a strong "hook" to point them in the right direction. Exploring that hook introduces others, and enough information to make informed decisions.
Similarly, the initial session here should have had a strong enough "hook" to get the players going, such as a partial map (for example), or rumours of a particular treasure that the PCs might be looking for.
The 1e DMG example, with a large gem known to be lost in the monastery, is a perfect example. It provides motive to do more than find a mirror and then go home.
RC
Similarly, the initial session here should have had a strong enough "hook" to get the players going, such as a partial map (for example), or rumours of a particular treasure that the PCs might be looking for.
The 1e DMG example, with a large gem known to be lost in the monastery, is a perfect example. It provides motive to do more than find a mirror and then go home.
RC
Bullgrit
Adventurer
Imagine if I had started the game session at the gate to the Keep on the Borderlands (as B2 starts, by the text). The whole first session might have been them interacting/role playing inside the keep.
Their reaction might have been:
"Wow, Basic D&D is *just like* all the other versions of D&D that we've played!"
Bullgrit
Their reaction might have been:
"Wow, Basic D&D is *just like* all the other versions of D&D that we've played!"
Bullgrit
Hussar
Legend
I think PJ has a good point. Certain playstyles lend themselves better to different situations, very much. If you play regularly, particularly for long stretches, is where the "explore the environment" model works best. For a one shot, I don't think it's such a great idea to just let the chips fall where they may, mainly because you just might get the results that Bullgrit got.
And, let's not forget, the assumption behind play is that you are going to have multiple sessions in that dungeon. It's not meant as a one shot dungeon.
Perhaps a bit of a wrong tool for the job issue.
And, let's not forget, the assumption behind play is that you are going to have multiple sessions in that dungeon. It's not meant as a one shot dungeon.
Perhaps a bit of a wrong tool for the job issue.
Wik
First Post
I fully agree with BG and PJ on this one. Sandbox games are not great for one-shots, and BECMI is one of those games that is built with sandboxing/dungeon exploration in mind (at least originally, and those later adventures that went in another direction, such as "The Veiled Society", fell kind of flat in my humble opinion).
The best part about a sandbox is when you pull of a "big score" - because you know it wasn't necessarily a planned event. When you find a secret door that leads into the dragon's treasure chamber, steal the treasure, and then rescue the princess without waking the dragon, that feels like you have actually WON something, as opposed to a linear plot where you can sometimes have a feeling of preordained success.
The best part about a sandbox is when you pull of a "big score" - because you know it wasn't necessarily a planned event. When you find a secret door that leads into the dragon's treasure chamber, steal the treasure, and then rescue the princess without waking the dragon, that feels like you have actually WON something, as opposed to a linear plot where you can sometimes have a feeling of preordained success.
Zelligars Apprentice
Explorer
Just because I was curious about this, I dug out my copy of the module. It doesn't have any arrows on the secret door symbols.
Maybe you have a later version?
Anyway, I'm sorry you and your players had such a bland game experience. I hope you and your group find a game they enjoy. After all, in the end, what does it matter what game you play? As long as everyone has fun, that's all that counts.
I think -- based on my own similar experience -- that it may be rather more likely than not that a foray into Quasqueton, under such conditions, shall be a bit lackluster.
I recall its having been good fun "back in the day", so count it a successful design; the players (those of us who first played it so long ago) have changed, though, over 30 years! We are, I think, encumbered a bit with baggage we have picked up along the way.
B1 is probably not so great in most cases for a single, short session. The sample dungeon-level portion in the Holmes Basic book comes to mind as something perhaps more suitable, although still rather after the fashion of the Original Set's model.
For experienced gamers -- but not lately old-style 1st-level campaign-dungeon delvers -- in that situation, I would be inclined to go for something more typical of the modules.
I would really like to run The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, and players seem to be warming up to that. Ghost Tower of Inverness is another oldie on my wish list. A time limit ending either in death or glory is one way to keep things moving, and a "one off" scenario is just what the original, tournament, context was.
I recall its having been good fun "back in the day", so count it a successful design; the players (those of us who first played it so long ago) have changed, though, over 30 years! We are, I think, encumbered a bit with baggage we have picked up along the way.
B1 is probably not so great in most cases for a single, short session. The sample dungeon-level portion in the Holmes Basic book comes to mind as something perhaps more suitable, although still rather after the fashion of the Original Set's model.
For experienced gamers -- but not lately old-style 1st-level campaign-dungeon delvers -- in that situation, I would be inclined to go for something more typical of the modules.
I would really like to run The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, and players seem to be warming up to that. Ghost Tower of Inverness is another oldie on my wish list. A time limit ending either in death or glory is one way to keep things moving, and a "one off" scenario is just what the original, tournament, context was.
As to description and dice rolls, that's an art. When one sits down to write a game program that an electronic computer shall execute with literal precision, that may be brought into stark relief. It's another kind of relief to realize that a human Game Master can bring in a lot of particular judgment on a case by case basis.
The subjective nature of that, the role of intuition, the element of individual style, is to my mind part of what makes the paper-and-pencil game perennially engaging.
When people talk about technique, it is (I reckon) much like discussing violin playing or watercolor painting. There is too much information to lay out explicitly, in rigid rules; all one can practically offer is pointers toward the experience of discovering for oneself one's own way.
The subjective nature of that, the role of intuition, the element of individual style, is to my mind part of what makes the paper-and-pencil game perennially engaging.
When people talk about technique, it is (I reckon) much like discussing violin playing or watercolor painting. There is too much information to lay out explicitly, in rigid rules; all one can practically offer is pointers toward the experience of discovering for oneself one's own way.
Similar Threads
