Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="chaochou" data-source="post: 5588544" data-attributes="member: 99817">I think this is a very interesting facet of early D&amp;D and one with implications which I rarely see discussed (here, at least).There's a section on 'Time in the Campaign' DMG p37 with examples that make it clear that play is not intended to revolve around 'a party' but rather that various coalitions of a wide group of players form and dissolve to pursue various agenda.In that environment character death does not involve trying to integrate a new guy into a 'party' while preserving everyone's niche. A TPK is not an ending. The campaign is still going with a whole load of other players now alerted that area x or dungeon y has something very dangerous in it. Stories and rumours of the deaths enter the folklore. Maybe another group forms to investigate and try and find any survivors. These days that seems more like the way a lot of LARP is played.Early in the thread I posted something by thejester about how 'old school' was an attitude or approach. In a game with, say, a 5-strong party I would have misgivings about a lot of those attitudes - they are not ones I commonly share and that wouldn't be a playstyle I'd get involved in much these days. But in a campaign stocked with 25 players forming different adventuring parties I would hold the opposite view and consider them strengths.I think lots of other elements of AD&amp;D which I find less than compelling with a 5-player party become interesting in a 25-player campaign.So the context of the number of players intended to be in a campaign is a valuable point in an 'old school' discussion, imo.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="chaochou, post: 5588544, member: 99817"] I think this is a very interesting facet of early D&D and one with implications which I rarely see discussed (here, at least). There's a section on 'Time in the Campaign' DMG p37 with examples that make it clear that play is not intended to revolve around 'a party' but rather that various coalitions of a wide group of players form and dissolve to pursue various agenda. In that environment character death does not involve trying to integrate a new guy into a 'party' while preserving everyone's niche. A TPK is not an ending. The campaign is still going with a whole load of other players now alerted that area x or dungeon y has something very dangerous in it. Stories and rumours of the deaths enter the folklore. Maybe another group forms to investigate and try and find any survivors. These days that seems more like the way a lot of LARP is played. Early in the thread I posted something by thejester about how 'old school' was an attitude or approach. In a game with, say, a 5-strong party I would have misgivings about a lot of those attitudes - they are not ones I commonly share and that wouldn't be a playstyle I'd get involved in much these days. But in a campaign stocked with 25 players forming different adventuring parties I would hold the opposite view and consider them strengths. I think lots of other elements of AD&D which I find less than compelling with a 5-player party become interesting in a 25-player campaign. So the context of the number of players intended to be in a campaign is a valuable point in an 'old school' discussion, imo. [/QUOTE]

Verification