The mythical ideal of 1E?

[thecasualoblivion]

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...

My longest running 2E campaign of which I was a player featured the grind through PCs to a large extent. We took about 18 months to get to level 5, and definitely grinded through 20-30 PCs without breaking a sweat, if not more. At level three, we had all but three characters die(out of eight), and the DM made everyone restart at one. Those first level characters were dying every week at that point. Its kind of interesting that three of us survived the entire campaign with our first characters, one Bard, one Fighter/Mage that never fought in melee, and myself playing an Elf Fighter. I take pride in the fact that I survived that game while putting myself in harms way.

 

[joethelawyer]

3e to 3.5 is a different story altogether. All the little changes, many of which were absolutely unnecessary resulted in a lot of compatibility issues with 3e and 3.5 material, some hefty conversions as well. While on the surface the changes between 3e and 3.5 seem small, they actually added up to some significant differences in how the game was played and even the flavour of the game in some minor but important ways. Many spells no longer worked the same way, many skills were very different and a lot of the flavour started to goin a wildly different direction. The latter isn't really a compatibility issue though. For an example of what I mean look to Return to the Temple of ELemental Evil's conversion document from 3e to 3.5 or City of the Spider-QUeen... ugh.

can you explain this more? the reason i ask is that we still play 3.0 base with some house rules to make it more old school style. that's basically because when our group got together we all realized we all had 3.0 phb's. if we all had 3.5 phb's, we would have gone 3.5 what are the style differences between 3.0 and 3.5? how would you describe them?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

The base assumption was that you were not sure, as you had no idea (either as players or characters) what you were getting into.

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.

That's 0e Basic. Jump this up to 1e, where plate mail is more costly (thus 1st-level types are less likely to have it) and the numbers change a bit...the front line AC gets a bit worse, but the damage the front line gives out goes up a bit (most useful weapons do d8 or 2d4). End result would be the same, only it'd take less time. That said, by no means are all the baddies in B1 merely 1 HD.

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

May I introduce you to my friend the Giant, and His Buddies. Giants, which pretty much only have straight damage going for them (though I will throw in the occasional Giant spellcaster for variety) were by quite a way the single most successful enemy type in terms of causing PC death in the last long campaign I ran. Dragons and magical accidents were each a distant second. Straight save-or-die effects were'nt that much of a factor, if only because people kept making their saves.

Even in closer-to-RAW 1e games of old, I recall more than enough mid-level characters dying via straight damage.

The point of my little story was that you could repeatedly engage enemies at a 3:1 disadvantage and come out on top more often than not.

If the enemies had nothing going for them except quantity, this is true. But if they had any sense of tactics, you could still easily get in trouble.

Lanefan

 

[howandwhy99]

I see many people invoking a mystical ideal of 1E AD&D that seems to me far above the objective reality of how the game was actually played. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a lot of the small changes and refocusing of D&D that occured with the 2E revision a response to how most people played the game, and the most commonly used houserules? A lot of what 2E revised and/or discarded from 1E are included in this mystical ideal of 1E that gets brought up here. While the 2E revision alienated some people, the vast majority of D&D players happily converted. I think that fact gets lost in the cloud of 1E nostalgia sometimes.

I don't play 1E D&D, but it is an objectively better system for role-playing than 2E was. I do admit it does have some poor design elements, but 2E compounded those problems instead of fixing them. Ditto for later editions in my opinion.

 

[jdrakeh]

I don't play 1E D&D, but it is an objectively better system for role-playing than 2E was.

I think the word that you're looking for is subjectively (seeing as how the cited statement is one of personal opinion).

 

[Hussar]

May I introduce you to my friend the Giant, and His Buddies. Giants, which pretty much only have straight damage going for them (though I will throw in the occasional Giant spellcaster for variety) were by quite a way the single most successful enemy type in terms of causing PC death in the last long campaign I ran. Dragons and magical accidents were each a distant second. Straight save-or-die effects were'nt that much of a factor, if only because people kept making their saves.

Sure, if you chuck giants at 1st level characters, they are going to die. But, G1 for example, is for 8th level characters. And features 42 hit point giants. Two fireballs later and the main encounter is a smoldering ruin.

As far as AC in 1e goes, I'll agree to a point. Banded and Shield is certainly possible at 1st level, although chain and shield (AC 4) is more likely. However, since Method 1 of chargen gives me 4d6 drop the lowest, I've got a much higher chance of having a -1 or -2 to my AC. A 1st level 1e fighter with a 2 AC isn't a stretch IMO.

Again, yes, if you go into the bugbear cave at first level, you are going to die. But, the assumption certainly wasn't that you would. You'd run from the first bugbear you saw if you were smart and then go into the kobold cave. After all, I keep being told how a good DM will give hints to the players so that sort of thing never happens. And kobolds or goblins are back to only hitting on a 18 or so. If I've got percentile strength (again, not a huge stretch for a 1e fighter), I autokill most kobolds and goblins with their 2 or 3 hit points each.

Look, this is just proving my original point. Our experiences are so far removed from each other that it makes discussion extremely difficult. IME, while you did lose the odd PC to melee damage, it was Save or Die that got you most of the time because the baddies just didn't do enough damage. Heck, IIRC the worst a troll could do to you back then was about 25 points of damage. Sure, it would hurt, but, that was the WORST he could do.

Oh, and,

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

The Basic rules, as an option gives you the choice of rerolling hit points that are that low. And, let's face it, if a DM forced you to play a 3hp fighter, you jumped on your own sword at first chance and rolled up another one.

 

[RFisher]

Gygax himself said there are rules in 1e he included as "favors" to other players that he himself never used.

He included things he didn’t like, but that doesn’t mean he thought they weren’t sensible. Even if he did, other people didn’t, and Gary was humble enough to give credit to the opinions of others.

He said that while he was in control, nothing got printed that he didn’t approve of. Sure, there was the mistake with the Field Folio, but that was a mistake. And the incident with the OA, but that was at the beginning of the end.

Again “approved for print” didn’t mean he liked it or used it at his table. But Gygax-era TSR seldom printed anything that at least two people didn’t feel were sensible.

The crux for me is remembering the time and minutia that the modern die rolls cut out in favor of moving to the next important plot point or fight and from time to time, put the PCs in a place where this detail can be explored and fleshed out meaningfully.

Yep. That’s why I like simple, highly abstract combat. I want to get that often boring stuff out of the way with some die rolls and get back to the adventure.

But, exploration is one of the most important aspects of the game to me. When I DM, I do tend to gloss/rush over the boring part.

e.g. If the party has established a thorough search routine and they come to an empty room, I’m likely to say “you search it thoroughly and find nothing”. Does that mean I sometimes telescope “metagame” hints? Sure. I’m OK with that.

But I don’t want it reduced to some die rolls the rest of the time.

Nope, can't say that I did. I never found wandering monsters a terribly compelling concept.

I prefer to call them “wandering encounters”.

“Wandering” because they don’t have to be random. Either it content or time/place.

“Encounters” because they don’t have to be monsters.

Sure, some random monsters are good for establishing and maintaining the flavor and danger of an area. (And even in these cases, it’s better to use frequency and monsters customized for the area.)

But some wandering encounters should be designed exactly like placed encounters. The difference being that the time and place will be decided at the table—whether by dice or DM.

To me they are as important to adventure design as placed encounters. They are a second dimension that adds richness.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think the word that you're looking for is subjectively (seeing as how the cited statement is one of personal opinion).

Per the definition of role-play, it is objective. As a game, it's subjective. I personally think 4E is a more fun game than 3E, but it's not as objectively a role-playing game as 3E.

 

[Hussar]

Per the definition of role-play, it is objective. As a game, it's subjective. I personally think 4E is a more fun game than 3E, but it's not as objectively a role-playing game as 3E.

Please, for the love of little fishies, DO NOT start this up again. Your definition of role play is NOT one that is commonly held. You have to see that by now.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Look, this is just proving my original point. Our experiences are so far removed from each other that it makes discussion extremely difficult. IME, while you did lose the odd PC to melee damage, it was Save or Die that got you most of the time because the baddies just didn't do enough damage. Heck, IIRC the worst a troll could do to you back then was about 25 points of damage. Sure, it would hurt, but, that was the WORST he could do.

1st ed. AD&D trolls could do as much as 28 points in a round.

And, let's face it, if a DM forced you to play a 3hp fighter, you jumped on your own sword at first chance and rolled up another one.

And you'd be a bad roleplayer. Playing the wimp trying to desperately better himself can be fun. If your bad at it you certainly will not be doing it for long.

Also 3hp in AD&D, BD&D and original D&D wouldn't be all that low for a 1st level character it's the lower end of average.