Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5279746" data-attributes="member: 80487">It surely can be appealing to think that each mishap in the game should be directly traceable to an error in play, a case of "not doing what one ought to have done".It can also be appealing to think that "what ought to be done" should be just a matter of common sense. That may in turn suggest that the algorithm for a "perfect" performance should be plain enough with complete knowledge to make it very straightforward to discover with minimally skilled play.In other words, one may come to consider the "perfect" performance the default, and any deviation an aberration that one must chalk up to either poor play or poor game design.It is pretty clear to me that old D&D was not designed on this premise! Stuff often happens, or does not, on what is overwhelmingly likely to be a random basis.It is to be expected, for instance, that whether at least one PC gets turned to stone upon discovering the medusa in the Caves of Chaos is going to hinge on a saving throw. It is not a penalty for notably poor play!To the contrary, obviating it would probably be an example of notably excellent play.==================================================As general rule, a claim that something is impossible in old D&D is probably wrong and a claim that something is possible is probably right. However, it is often accurate to speak of things being unlikely. The unlikelihood can increase by orders of magnitude when the game is removed from its original campaign context. The very likelihood of anyone even considering a problem, much less of solving it, can go right down the drain when the game's horizons have been reduced to a series of discrete "encounter" games.Playing that way and designing scenarios (and rules sets) that way go together as a natural fit. Getting mentally too far in a rut, though, can make it hard to understand what's going on in a different model!===================================================OD&D was inspiration for Zork. Recent games are more likely to take inspiration from the heirs to The Secret of Monkey Island -- if their designers or GMs are acquainted at all with the Adventure genre for which more than one obituary has been written.Even writing purely as a hobbyist, for people who generally enjoy the challenges of classic Infocom, Sierra and Magnetic Scrolls games, there are criticisms -- old ones, really -- that I would take to heart along with appreciation of the added dimensions of interest vs. the more modern point-and-click games.On the other hand, for a commercial undertaking I would look to the likes of Lucas Arts. If you have different ends in mind, then different means may be more appropriate.The big hang-up for us is a tendency to insist that "the game remains the same" even when it is very much to the point that it does not. Gamer A is after things b and c, while Gamer X is after things x and y and does not want a or b.</blockquote>

Verification