What is wrong with race class limits?

[Storm Raven]

S1's definitely for 14th level clerics and wizards, and works well with higher. See the pregens listing below.

Actually, for the most part, with S1, it made little difference waht level you were, since most of the adventure consisted of using metagaming for the players to have their characters avoid the "you die, no save" traps and so on.

No they weren't. You can tell the tournament modules because, like A1-4 or C1-2 or others of their ilk, they have "Tournament" written on the front and a tournament scoring system.

Yeah, they were. The original G series were tournament modules used at Origins 1978. The D series was used as tournament modules for Gen Con 11. Considering I have copies of these on my shelf right now that say "Official Tournament Modules" on their cover and detail their use at Origins and GenCon, I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on.

It's true that the original characters to play the adventures were included in G1, and in slightly different form, in later printings of D1-2. It's also true that S1 included a wide variety of sample characters. Those were intended to give alternative options to the group, rather than necessarily to say that they were characters that SHOULD be used; and they served as a good benchmark against which to evaluate the actual party.

S1 was the original tournament module ever used, at Origins 1.

In fact, I think it's fair to say that those 1978-1979 modules were remarkably non-prescriptive about how the group should approach them (own characters, pregens, whatever).

They were desinged as tournament modules, with the idea that they would be played by the pregenerated characters included in the text. The fact that they got released for sale and general use was a side effect.

Seeing a pattern here?

Not really.

I'm afraid I think you're wrong about this too.

The bits of 1e that most people seem to remember best are the S1/GDQ group. They were certainly the best-selling D&D modules ever produced, with some of them edging up towards 100,000 sold. How do you explain their undoubted success and popularity in terms of a system that should have broken several levels earlier?

Maybe the fact that they were the only game in town when they were released has something to do with it? The subsequent 1e module market was dominated by mid level adventures with a smattering of high level adventures here and there, I think it is clear where most people played the system. Of course, several of the high level adventures you have cited were designed to showcase the battelsystem rules, rather than have actual high level characters adventure using the standard system, which tells me that the marketplace had decided that the system on its own didn't work very well at those points.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Actually, for the most part, with S1, it made little difference waht level you were, since most of the adventure consisted of using metagaming for the players to have their characters avoid the "you die, no save" traps and so on.

The only way to metagame in D&D is if players look at the DM's adventure notes and act on that knowledge. Anything else is application of player skill, which is appropriate. Please pardon me for contradicting.

 

[Lanefan]

Is playing a monster as a PC a privilege (either granted by the rules or by DM)?

In all seriousness, I would say yes it is. (and for the record, I don't consider the core races as monsters, though they were all in the old MM's) Personally, I'm not a big fan of playing non-standard races unless there's a very good in-game reason for it, though I do allow it in my game if someone gets some wacky dice rolls during char-gen. and wants to go that route...or if someone's character gets reincarnated into a bizarre race and the player wants to keep it...

But yes, playing monsters as PCs really shouldn't be the norm, and thus becomes a privilege given either by the DM or the rules. Others, of course, may see it differently.

Lanefan

 

[Geoffrey]

I'm curious. Would your dwarves and elves continue to stand there and contemplate beauty if orcs attacked them, or would they defend themselves? Because the latter is an obvious adventure hook: "orcs are attacking everywhere and we must band together with these humans to repel them".

The demi-humans in my old campaign world would certainly kill any orcs they saw. While your adventure hook would certainly work in many campaign worlds, it would not have worked in mine. The warfare between demi-humans and humanoids was extreme and genocidal, making human warfare look half-hearted in comparison. Further, both demi-humans and humanoids lived in groups of less than a thousand, while humans had populations far, far in excess of that. For the most part humans ignored demi-humans and humanoids, and vice versa. Humanoid numbers were so small compared to humans that humanoids could be only an occasional slight irritation.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Actually, for the most part, with S1, it made little difference waht level you were, since most of the adventure consisted of using metagaming for the players to have their characters avoid the "you die, no save" traps and so on.

High level mattered basically for spell access (the Monster Summonings and Communes and Passwalls that you needed to complete the adventure).

What you call "metagaming" is what I'd call "tactics." Diff'rent strokes, etc.

If I'm playing a WW2 wargame and I'm the British, I'll mass my tanks, and never mind how the Brits "ought" to be played. If I'm the Japanese I won't defend a hopeless position to the last man and the last bullet...

I know some people think this means I play D&D badly and wrongly. I get that.

Yeah, they were. The original G series were tournament modules used at Origins 1978.

Yes, but they weren't necessarily intended to be played like that after publication though.

Maybe the fact that they were the only game in town when they were released has something to do with it?

Well, the other games in town in 1978 included Tunnels and Trolls, Chivalry and Sorcery, Runequest, Traveller, and Empire of the Petal Throne (EPT being admittedly very thinly-disguised D&D).

There were other D&D modules as well, do you remember Judges' Guild? White Dwarf were publishing adventures too.

The subsequent 1e module market was dominated by mid level adventures with a smattering of high level adventures here and there, I think it is clear where most people played the system.

Sure. I wasn't pretending that high-level adventuring was the norm; I was merely correcting certain misinformation from previous posts. There were higher level adventures than S1 or GDQ, and people did enjoy playing S1 and GDQ despite the fact that these were past the "name" level at which it was alleged that the game "broke down", and those were among the best-selling D&D products of all time, and not because there were no other choices.

Of course, several of the high level adventures you have cited were designed to showcase the battelsystem rules, rather than have actual high level characters adventure using the standard system, which tells me that the marketplace had decided that the system on its own didn't work very well at those points.

Battlesystem wasn't mutually exclusive with play using the standard system (thank goodness -- Battlesystem sucked a lot). I certainly agree that the H-series showcased Battlesystem pretty hard, but I don't agree that Battlesystem replaced the rest of 1e. It was just supposed to provide a mechanism for resolving large-scale battles and the H-series contained more than that.

I'm not defending H1-4 as modules, mind. I thought they were rubbish. All I'm doing is correcting misinformation.

 

[Lanefan]

The only way to metagame in D&D is if players look at the DM's adventure notes and act on that knowledge. Anything else is application of player skill, which is appropriate.

Disagree. Metagaming involves using player knowledge to gain an advantage instead of sticking with what the character would know...example could be something as simple as a character wanders off and gets killed; the other players know but their characters do not, and whether the character is alive or dead makes all the difference as to whether the party will try to find and-or rescue her. A player proceeding on the "knowledge" the dead PC is dead is metagaming...and that's not skill, that's just poor play.

Lanefan

 

[Crothian]

Disagree. Metagaming involves using player knowledge to gain an advantage instead of sticking with what the character would know...example could be something as simple as a character wanders off and gets killed; the other players know but their characters do not, and whether the character is alive or dead makes all the difference as to whether the party will try to find and-or rescue her. A player proceeding on the "knowledge" the dead PC is dead is metagaming...and that's not skill, that's just poor play.

But in a deadly dungeon if Joe wonders off and we don't see him for 10 minutes, it is not a great leap of logic to assume he got himself killed. It completelyt depends on the set of circumstances.

 

[Lanefan]

But in a deadly dungeon if Joe wonders off and we don't see him for 10 minutes, it is not a great leap of logic to assume he got himself killed. It completelyt depends on the set of circumstances.

True enough, but if you as players *know* he's dead (via, for example, the DM and Joe's player RP-ing the scene with everyone else still at the table) that cannot be allowed to influence what your PCs do. If Joe wanders off and gets killed within 10 minutes, but you'd told him you'd wait an hour for his return, there's some metagaming going on if the party decides to move off after 11 minutes only because the *players* know there's no further point in waiting for Joe. See what I'm getting at?

Lanefan

 

[Gentlegamer]

Disagree. Metagaming involves using player knowledge to gain an advantage instead of sticking with what the character would know...example could be something as simple as a character wanders off and gets killed; the other players know but their characters do not, and whether the character is alive or dead makes all the difference as to whether the party will try to find and-or rescue her. A player proceeding on the "knowledge" the dead PC is dead is metagaming...and that's not skill, that's just poor play.

Obviously I disagree. You're equating role-immersion style of play with the "correct" way to play. The primary objective is to challenge the players. The characters are merely means to this end.

Now, the example you give isn't exactly what I was disagreeing with. Storm Raven used "metagaming" in the sense of using what the players have learned over the course of their game playing lives and applying general principles to in game situations. Or put another way, treating the game like a game. Since metagaming is generally viewed as tantamount to cheating, I disagree with calling this situation metagaming.

Using player knowledge as you described might be cheating, but only if they found about their dead comrad through peaking at the DM's notes (or eavesdropping, etc.). Or perhaps if the DM allows them to find out but makes them promise not to act on that info (for ease of play without having to take players in another room), acting on the info would be cheating. If, however, the DM doesn't get such a promise, his failure to keep that info secret from the players doesn't mean the players acting on it are "metagaming" (i.e. cheating). It's up to the DM to keep such things secret.

This is going off-topic, however. Perhaps this would make a good separate thread.

 

[Crothian]

True enough, but if you as players *know* he's dead (via, for example, the DM and Joe's player RP-ing the scene with everyone else still at the table) that cannot be allowed to influence what your PCs do. If Joe wanders off and gets killed within 10 minutes, but you'd told him you'd wait an hour for his return, there's some metagaming going on if the party decides to move off after 11 minutes only because the *players* know there's no further point in waiting for Joe. See what I'm getting at?

So, PCs aren't allowed to get impatient? See what I'm getting at, you are just assuming becasue they have out of game knowledge they are acting on it. When they could also very easily playing in character. It can go either way.