What was "player skill"?

[Maggan]

Finally the question posed was in regards to what the meaning of "skilled palyers" was in the AD&D works cited, and I am the single authority on that matter here on these boards. What I states is essentially the case when the term was printed in those modules, and I initially put it on all of them other than Slave Pits

Erm ... eh ... well, yes, that would be an answer from a definitive source.

One of the reasons I'm asking is that I'm putting some players' PCs through Tomb of Horrors, and they have created a dwarven warband with a complete retinue, and have had secret planning sessions and strategy meetings to properly prepare for the dungeon.

Basically they are going to go through it military style. I'm trying to figure out how to handle that.

Sounds like they are doing what skilled players would have done back in them days.

Thanks for the input, all of you who contributed to answering the question.

Cheers!

/M

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Erm ... eh ... well, yes, that would be an answer from a definitive source.

One of the reasons I'm asking is that I'm putting some players' PCs through Tomb of Horrors, and they have created a dwarven warband with a complete retinue, and have had secret planning sessions and strategy meetings to properly prepare for the dungeon.

Basically they are going to go through it military style. I'm trying to figure out how to handle that.

Sounds like they are doing what skilled players would have done back in them days.

Thanks for the input, all of you who contributed to answering the question.

Cheers!

/M

Heh-heh-heh...

Best if they have some new recruits to take the point

Otherwise it sounds right, provided that they use a good deal of thought and care along the way, retreat and regroup as necessary. A cleric or two is essential for a party of four or more.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Barak]

Erm ... eh ... well, yes, that would be an answer from a definitive source.

One of the reasons I'm asking is that I'm putting some players' PCs through Tomb of Horrors, and they have created a dwarven warband with a complete retinue, and have had secret planning sessions and strategy meetings to properly prepare for the dungeon.

Basically they are going to go through it military style. I'm trying to figure out how to handle that.

Sounds like they are doing what skilled players would have done back in them days.

Thanks for the input, all of you who contributed to answering the question.

Cheers!

/M

Reading Mr Gygax.. Err, He'll get mad. Gary's response, I guess it puts me in the ranks of "skilled players" that when I see "retinue", I read "people to walk 10' ahead and open doors".

 

[merelycompetent]

Reading Mr Gygax.. Err, He'll get mad. Gary's response, I guess it puts me in the ranks of "skilled players" that when I see "retinue", I read "people to walk 10' ahead and open doors".

Minimum 65'. Lightning bolts, y'know.

 

[Herobizkit]

And now you lost me. Why are people so incapable of describing the good parts of their chosen game without bashing other games? Are 1e games so incredibly poor that people can't just focus on the good stuff?

I'm not sure where I lost you. What I meant in my last paragraph is what you touch on here:

The role of the DM was frequently very openly adversarial. I don't think that's an unfair characterization. So, the players had to work together to beat the DM. The DM had almost all the cards - he set the stage, he had time to plan, but the players had the advantage of having six or eight heads working on a problem.

"Back in the day", the game really was Player vs. DM. When you made your character, he was no more valuable to you than a little plastic marker in a game of of Sorry! or what have you. Nowadays (the operative word I used in my other post as well), many people see their characters as "actual" people in an interactive story. There's a lot more into making a character these days then there was back then, and as such, people don't like to lose their characters. IMO, today's adventures reflect this sentiment by assessing things like "balance", "fair play", and "ensuring the PC's survival".

 

[Herobizkit]

I think the intention was to compare and contrast, rather than to bash 3.x.

Exactly that, PnP. Thanks for seeing my post the way I intended.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I merely object to yakkers giving themselves airs about "more mature" or "proper RPG play." that is nonsense, of course.

Hear, hear!

 

[Hussar]

This is where you lost me:

Nowadays, fights are balanced so that there are expected losses, nothing is TOO hard, and the PCs get most (if not all) of the advantages... or if they don't, the adventure is written so they will have the necessary advantage to overcome whatever monster is in the way.

I would point to the plethora of scrolls of stone to flesh lying around in basilisk's and medusae lairs in published adventure modules. Never mind that a hoard of a fairly tough monster will invariably stock healing potions and, if it has poison, something to fix that too.

The idea that things have changed so much that the players will always have the right tools for the job is nonsense.

However, what you said here:

"Back in the day", the game really was Player vs. DM. When you made your character, he was no more valuable to you than a little plastic marker in a game of of Sorry! or what have you. Nowadays (the operative word I used in my other post as well), many people see their characters as "actual" people in an interactive story. There's a lot more into making a character these days then there was back then, and as such, people don't like to lose their characters. IMO, today's adventures reflect this sentiment by assessing things like "balance", "fair play", and "ensuring the PC's survival".

I almost agree with except for "ensuring the PC's survival". Again, this is simply not true. Look at the recent Age of Worms AP. There's some unbelievably nasty encounters in there. Actually, all you have to look at is the Monster Manual. As I mentioned before, a couple of lucky die rolls and you kill a PC in one round with a 3.5 creature.

Earlier edition creatures, no matter what you rolled, couldn't kill PC's in one round. Except maybe the wizard. And, even then, you were likely going to knock him into negatives, not dead. 3e combat is far and away more lethal than earlier editions. The idea that PC's are somehow being "coddled" so their characters survive means you just haven't tried very hard.

 

[Numion]

I do think my statements are accurate characterizations of the facts.

Let me be the judge of that

Do you disagree that 3E scenario design emphasizes a "balanced schedule of CRs"? Do you disagree with my assertion that this design philosophy encourages an attitude of "we can kill everything in this dungeon"?

BS. Bother to read the DMG. It encourages that a percentage of encounters should be 5+ ELs above the party level. That will kill PCs, so it's patently untrue to claim that in 3E you can kill everything in dungeons.

Add to that the experience that many WotC adventures are downright lethal!

Heart of Nightfang Spire, Bastion of Broken Souls, Return to the Temple .. they have all eaten a lot of characters.