Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gus L" data-source="post: 9345022" data-attributes="member: 7045072">This is basically antithetical to how I run and play OD&amp;D and B/X.&nbsp; The combat in these systems is messy and it feels important to emphasize to players, especially new players at low levels, that direct, fair, face to face, combat will likely end with the party losing members even if they win.&nbsp; To me the heart of these systems is exploration, so a scenario that emphasizes this, and the problem solving associated with exploration obstacles is a good first scenario.&nbsp; Even for combat rich scenarios in older games I find &quot;trick monsters&quot; a better choice then pure bags of HP to slash at.&nbsp; That is monsters who can be tricked, negotiated with, or overcome by learning their weakness.&nbsp; Direct combat is always an option, but it should rarely be the best option in my opinion.&nbsp; This is why there's a room with 523 zombies in it in the last starter adventure I published...&nbsp; It may be the longest part of the rules and so the most hemmed in by rules and procedure, but the play in older editions often emerges from the spaces there aren't too many rules - successful play or PC survival is often about avoiding those merciless dice. Problem solving, cleverness, faction intrigue and stacking the odds in ones favor are to me the hallmarks of good play in my preferred older editions - they simply aren't built for the sort of heroic hack n' slash that modern editions are. That said if one wants combat heavy scenarios in early editions I find it useful to treat it more as a skirmish game: large parties of semi-disposable PCs, retainers - a commando raid rather then adventure archelogy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gus L, post: 9345022, member: 7045072"] This is basically antithetical to how I run and play OD&D and B/X. The combat in these systems is messy and it feels important to emphasize to players, especially new players at low levels, that direct, fair, face to face, combat will likely end with the party losing members even if they win. To me the heart of these systems is exploration, so a scenario that emphasizes this, and the problem solving associated with exploration obstacles is a good first scenario. Even for combat rich scenarios in older games I find "trick monsters" a better choice then pure bags of HP to slash at. That is monsters who can be tricked, negotiated with, or overcome by learning their weakness. Direct combat is always an option, but it should rarely be the best option in my opinion. This is why there's a room with 523 zombies in it in the last starter adventure I published... It may be the longest part of the rules and so the most hemmed in by rules and procedure, but the play in older editions often emerges from the spaces there aren't too many rules - successful play or PC survival is often about avoiding those merciless dice. Problem solving, cleverness, faction intrigue and stacking the odds in ones favor are to me the hallmarks of good play in my preferred older editions - they simply aren't built for the sort of heroic hack n' slash that modern editions are. That said if one wants combat heavy scenarios in early editions I find it useful to treat it more as a skirmish game: large parties of semi-disposable PCs, retainers - a commando raid rather then adventure archelogy. [/QUOTE]

Verification