The mythical ideal of 1E?

[Thasmodious]

For example, lets look at moving from town A to town B. If the game session/story had time for an encounter, I'd throw an encounter at them in most cases. It didn't really matter to me when, and it was not random. If I wanted things to move along, an encounter did not happen.

Perhaps there is a mismatch of definitions here? An encounter while traveling from A to B, representing the dangers of travel in a fantastical world, is the very definition of random encounter.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Perhaps there is a mismatch of definitions here? An encounter while traveling from A to B, representing the dangers of travel in a fantastical world, is the very definition of random encounter.

Its random in terms of the world, but it was anything but random in terms of my game. There were three encounter types in my game:

1. Major story event encounters
2. "An encounter probably should happen here and we have time for it" encounters
3. Encounters that are caused in direct response to party actions/stupidity(in some cases both)

None of these are random in terms of the game.

 

[The Highway Man]

Perhaps there is a mismatch of definitions here? An encounter while traveling from A to B, representing the dangers of travel in a fantastical world, is the very definition of random encounter.

Not if said encounter between point A and point B was prepared before hand. It wouldn't be "random", then, I believe?

 

[T. Foster]

D&D was initially designed based on wargame perspectives. In wargames, your playing pieces are largely expendible, and the original D&D game treated them as expendible, or at the very least fragile. When the roleplaying hobby began to take hold, people started to place value on playing an ongoing character with personality and a story, and fragile expendible characters and "Gotcha!" DMs didn't work well with that, and people started playing the game differently than it was written.

That's not really true, or at least incomplete. Players in Dave Arneson's Twin Cities Blackmoor campaign had ongoing characters with personalities and stories from 1971 (The Great Svenny, Robert the Bald, Marfeldt the Barbarian, Sir Fang, The Blue Rider, Mello the Hobbit, etc.) and the same happened in the Lake Geneva Greyhawk & Kalibruhn campaigns (Robilar, Tenser, Terik, Murlynd, Yrag, Mordenkainen, Bigby, etc.) from 1972. It is true that low-level (especially 1st level) characters were viewed as essentially expendible, and it was considered a waste of time to invest a lot of backstory in a starting character because odds were about even that he'd never survive to 2nd level, but the idea that these folks who were playing the same character week in and week out for a year or more and working them up to 10th+ level didn't feel any more attached to them than a unit counter in an SPI wargame and didn't invest them with personalities and stories, that this is only something that arose in later years and was unintended or even contrary to the rules is absolutely false.

The difference between how characters were played then and how they tend to be played now is that the personalities and stories developed gradually and organically through actual play, rather than being predefined before play ever began. Rob Kuntz didn't arrive in Gary Gygax's basement that first night in 1972 thinking that he was going to play Robilar the sardonic loner who will eventually turn to Evil, he just had a 3x5 index card with a set of character stats that looked more like a fighting man than a magic-user (or cleric, if that class existed yet) and everything else developed gradually over the next couple years of play.

As for the "Gotcha!" DMs, that was (believe it or not) the style of play these folks preferred -- they liked being tricked and challenged and having to think and fight their way out of tough situations where they knew the penalty for stupid mistakes was character death (unless you've got a wish or two handy to save yourself). The better the players did the harder Dave and Gary and Rob tried to come up with things to challenge them, not because they were sadistic power-tripping bastards but because that's what the players wanted and demanded. Look at, for instance, Journey to the City of the Gods, a story based on a D&D game Dave Arneson ran for Gary Gygax (as Mordenkainen) and Rob Kuntz (as Robilar) -- these were both long-term, high-level, fully developed characters who Arneson nonetheless threw in way over their heads and very likely would've mercilessly killed off had Gary and Rob not saved themselves via some quick thinking and a precipitous retreat.

 

[Obryn]

Its random in terms of the world, but it was anything but random in terms of my game. There were three encounter types in my game:

1. Major story event encounters
2. "An encounter probably should happen here and we have time for it" encounters
3. Encounters that are caused in direct response to party actions/stupidity(in some cases both)

None of these are random in terms of the game.

I can see this.

But this doesn't sound like a campaign style where people would be poking around a room with a 10' pole for an hour. It doesn't sound like there'd be much dungeon crawling or wilderness exploration at all, in fact.

IMHO, any setting wherein it might be appropriate or desirable to get obsessive-compulsive about room-entry rituals, is a setting suitable for random encounters.

-O

 

[Thasmodious]

Not if said encounter between point A and point B was prepared before hand. It wouldn't be "random", then, I believe?

I don't think most people see random as not DM prepared or tied to rolling dice or anything, but more as throwaway encounters not really part of the main story to highlight dangerous travel, represent randomness in a dangerous location, to break monotony on an encounter light evening, etc. Even when I used random encounter tables tied to specific game world areas, I had those encounters statted out and prepared in full, it was just a question of which one turned up. Now, I just keep a couple encounters handy (scaling is easy in 4e) and break one out when called for.

To me, #2 is a random encounter (random because its not really tied to anything but location. You're in the jungle of Ick, so here's a mob of four-armed gorillas). And sometimes 3, depending on the circumstances. "It sure was stupid of you guys to go wandering off into the Jungle of Ick where you could be attacked by four-armed gorillas."

 

[Delta]

The difference between how characters were played then and how they tend to be played now is that the personalities and stories developed gradually and organically through actual play, rather than being predefined before play ever began.

Well put. Personally, I think that's the single biggest difference between old-school and modern play. Games that demand I write a lengthy backstory before sitting down to play make me want to tear my hair out.

 

[garyh]

The difference between how characters were played then and how they tend to be played now is that the personalities and stories developed gradually and organically through actual play, rather than being predefined before play ever began.

Well put. Personally, I think that's the single biggest difference between old-school and modern play. Games that demand I write a lengthy backstory before sitting down to play make me want to tear my hair out.

I've also come around to seeing the appeal of an old-school "couple sentences or so of background and determine the rest in play," even when playing the current system. I like the organic development, plus, I play a lot of PbP, and given the flameout rate of PbP games, I hate to waste time writing a novel for a character when the game may never finish the first encounter.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Are you honestly trying to say that there was an expectation that you would lose? No, let's state it stronger than that, that the base assumption was that you would fail? I don't think so. The base assumption was that you would succeed. You might burn through a couple of characters in the process, but, it wasn't a guaranteed death sentence either.

There was no base assumption a party would succeed. What kept a party of 1st level adventurers out of the bugbear cave? Or the minotaur maze? Or even the gnoll caves?
Burning through characters isn't generally an indication of success to most folks...certainly fun if you can learn from it and enjoy being challenged.

And, again, it comes down to numbers. Sure, we've got 6 PC's, standard party 3 fighter (types) a wizard, cleric and a thief. Ok, our 3 fighter types all have an AC of 2 (basic D&D plate was only 60 gp, plus a shield) and the baddies have a THAC0 of 19, meaning they only hit on a 17 or better. Three baddies on each fighter, assuming we're blocking the way to get to the easier hit guys. The fighters are getting hit maybe once per round. For a d6 points of damage.

The very first time the party has to run away from overwhelming odds is when the fighters discover plate mail isn't always a good idea. Or they want to actually carry treasure out of the dungeon.


Since you mention numbers-
Against goblins a 1st level D&D fighter in plate with a shield using the rules B2 was originally authored for would be able to inflict a likely 1.4 pts of damage a round. 3 goblins (with 3hp each) facing him would likely dish out 2.1 pts of damage a round against him. That fighter is probably going to have 5 HP or less that means kill the goblins in 3 rounds or die trying.

The chance of killing all 3 goblins in 3 rounds? - less then 2%. (the fighter has a 40% chance of hitting and then a 66% chance of doing 3 or more points of damage so a 26% chance of killing a goblin each round. The goblins each have a 20% chance of hitting, and 33% chance they will kill him in a blow so all 3 have about a 20% chance of killing him in the first round.They are 10 times more likely to kill him in round 1 then he is to kill all 3 by then end of round 3. Typically by the end of round three he will have dished out 4.2 pts of damage enough to kill one goblin. They will have dished out 5.6 (if they lost initiative) so likely a dead fighter in platemail.

Past first level, killing PC's in early editions with straight up damage was not the easiest thing in the world to do.

It was insanely easy.

That does not speak to me of a character that is just slightly above average. You certainly don't need those henchmen and the rest. That's just icing on the cake.

Never played with a character with 3 or less HP? That fellow sure doesn't feel like he is above average.

 

[Remathilis]

There was no base assumption a party would succeed. What kept a party of 1st level adventurers out of the bugbear cave? Or the minotaur maze? Or even the gnoll caves?
Burning through characters isn't generally an indication of success to most folks...certainly fun if you can learn from it and enjoy being challenged.

<SNIP>.

Once again, I am reminded why I liked my D&D group. Sure, we had our deaths, but I can't think of a single "grind through 20 PCs before 2nd level" game. Not in Basic. Not in 2e. Not in 3e, 3.5 or 4e. Multiple DMs. Multiple modules (from B2 to S1). Never averaged more than 1 death a level, and even then pretty rarely. Truth was, we usually DID succeed, but never easily (well, rarely easily).

Maybe the DMs up here in the Mitten are soft, but I've rather enjoyed developing some of my PCs into actual characters...