Quote from: Batman;769827It was more or less a reference to the idea that a particular play-style, in this case deadly 1E AD&D, is at odds with people who like to character optimize, theory-craft, or enjoy balance.

Raven said that, not the article, anywhere.

Quote from: Batman;769827I'm attempting to establish that the two are not mutually exclusive.

Focusing your attention on something other then an article that did not say that might be a good start.

Quote from: Batman;769827It's making a general idea that older games are deadly. Perhaps "deadlier" than modern games.

Let's just establish right now that the author did in fact say that newer version do not lack hardcore options, so the "perhaps" is all you.

Quote from: Batman;769827I, personally, don't find that to be true when we're comparing death at the system level. Within the context of it's own game, 4E is deadly when looking at it from a 4E perspective and 1E AD&D is deadly looking at it from a 1E AD&D perspective.
The two don't match up enough to cross-reference them. The rules and expectations from the system are to different.

So what is the weakest monster that can kill a 4e character in one hit?  Pretty sure we can establish which one grants a higher percentage chance of death.

Quote from: Batman;769827I never said he made claims that people are whiny bitches, however I said that someone could take his article to imply that.

So you are pointing out that someone might infer something the author did not say, and so that is why you are saying the article may do "more harm then good"?

Quote from: Batman;769827The opinion piece is titled: "The dice can kill you: Why first edition AD&D is king" which can be implied that the dice may not kill you in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th editions. Which is blatantly untrue.

Since the author actually said..."It’s not like third edition and later didn’t offer the "hardcore" alternatives."...it doesn't really seem like he's saying anything you're claiming he said, or really anything you're not claiming he said, but something you think someone just might infer.

Quote from: Batman;769827My beef was to clarify that things like Optimization transcend editions and play-styles

They exist period, sure. Are you suggesting the level of Optimization and numbers of options in the editions are equivalent?  This discussion may be interesting to have, however, again, has absolutely nothing to do with the article.

Quote from: CRKrueger;769914Raven said that, not the article, anywhere.

It's a fair cop. All I really wanted to do was take a cheap shot at the usual suspects. I didn't realize everyone would get all thoughtful about it >.<

Quote from: Scott Anderson;769498Thanks for this.

Also of interest: in video games, roguelikes have made a comeback. That is, deadly, procedurally-generated adventure games. The digital version of OSR in a real sense. Also a kind of game that was pioneered in the late 70s-early 80s.  

I've been playing the awesome new version of Ancient Domains of Mystery every day recently - http://www.ancardia.com/download.html - it has graphics!

Quote from: James Gillen;769704Psychotronicness: That quality to which many big budget, Hollywood films have aspired to yet only low budget, independent horror films and Lucha Libre movies seem able to achieve.  In other words: throwaway cinema filmed for no money by maniac directors without any viable concept of what a movie ought to be to guide them.  Art that contains legitimate Psychotronicness should combine at least three or four genres in some previously undiscovered, highly psychedelic manner.'

Quote from: CRKrueger;769709So if you use the same definition but the movie costs over 100 million dollars, then it's a Michael Bay movie.

Well, no, the first part of it is that big budget Hollywood films aspire to this quality, but only low-budget productions seem to achieve it.  If you give a major game company $100 million to produce a game, you get D&D 4th Edition.  

JG

Good article. Anyone complaining about it is a commie mutant traitor.

But 28 hours straight of play? Dear god.

My OD&D games use 0HP = unconscious and -1 HP equals dead. It smartens up the players when they are at half HP to think harder about not dying.

But when chargen is 5 minutes or less, then easy death is fine in the game. If chargen is lengthy, then its more of an issue.

Quote from: Spinachcat;769944My OD&D games use 0HP = unconscious and -1 HP equals dead. It smartens up the players when they are at half HP to think harder about not dying.

But when chargen is 5 minutes or less, then easy death is fine in the game. If chargen is lengthy, then its more of an issue.

I use 0HP= unconscious and - CON = dead. Anything between that is just a severity of wound factor. The closer you get to - CON the longer it takes to wake up and start healing.

The first thing Goldfarb makes a big deal about -- getting stuck with this score for that stat -- was definitely not by the book 1e!  Also, a pair of 17s off the bat would be awesome, and the whole array as well, if rolled straight 3d6 instead of with the Advanced methods that inflated scores.

The four "awful" rolls average 9.25. However poor that is relative to the 3d6 average of 10.5 (or the higher averages of btb pc-generation methods),  the lowest score -- a 7 in I'm not sure what -- would probably not even have presented a significant penalty. It would be in the "just average" range.

Quote from: Phillip;769964The first thing Goldfarb makes a big deal about -- getting stuck with this score for that stat -- was definitely not by the book 1e!  Also, a pair of 17s off the bat would be awesome, and the whole array as well, if rolled straight 3d6 instead of with the Advanced methods that inflated scores.

The four "awful" rolls average 9.25. However poor that is relative to the 3d6 average of 10.5 (or the higher averages of btb pc-generation methods),  the lowest score -- a 7 in I'm not sure what -- would probably not even have presented a significant penalty. It would be in the "just average" range.

Straight 3d6 take what you get works best for core LBB OD&D. Not getting a bunch of high scores or having a few low ones isn't going to impact play greatly compared to any other edition.

In no other edition of D&D is this true, not B/X, 1E, or even OD&D with supplements.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;769971Straight 3d6 take what you get works best for core LBB OD&D. Not getting a bunch of high scores or having a few low ones isn't going to impact play greatly compared to any other edition.

In no other edition of D&D is this true, not B/X, 1E, or even OD&D with supplements.

Which reinforces the point: Goldfarb's big deal at that point is not about 1st ed. AD&D; if anything it's about 2e. It's not even about whatever he was playing except to the extent that something else has jacked up "player entitlement" even more.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;769971Straight 3d6 take what you get works best for core LBB OD&D. Not getting a bunch of high scores or having a few low ones isn't going to impact play greatly compared to any other edition.

In no other edition of D&D is this true, not B/X, 1E, or even OD&D with supplements.

In B/X, OD&D and 1-2E, base power is much more about levels than stats. But you don't have to have high stats to succeed at any of them. I would argue that, when we went to granting higher bonuses with lower numbers, that's when the focus on stats changed. You try to get involved in a game now, the worst you're gonna see is maybe one person with an 8 (-1). Zero is considered a gimp. Bah!

Quote from: Exploderwizard;769971Straight 3d6 take what you get works best for core LBB OD&D. Not getting a bunch of high scores or having a few low ones isn't going to impact play greatly compared to any other edition.

In no other edition of D&D is this true, not B/X, 1E, or even OD&D with supplements.

LBB OD&D... and 2e.

Don't need much beyond a single 9 in one of four stats, and most of the penalties float around 3-6, and don't hurt much until closer to 3, and mostly on something like CHA with a GM that rolls reactions.

Quote from: Phillip;769964The first thing Goldfarb makes a big deal about -- getting stuck with this score for that stat -- was definitely not by the book 1e!  

It is if the DM used method 3 - my preferred method.  It generates strong characters, and (que Forest Gump) you never know what you're going to get.

Method 3:
Scores rolled are according to each ability category, in order, STRENGTH,
INTELLIGENCE, WISDOM, DEXTERITY, CONSTITUTION, CHARISMA. 3d6 are
rolled 6 times for each ability, and the highest score in each category is retained for that category.

I've recently been reading up on early D&D history from the Hawk & Moor ebooks on amazon (which are pretty good reads) and one thing that stuck out to me is that the earliest pc's survived a lot.  The guys running literally the very first D&D pc's (Robilar, Tenser, ect) survived everything that Gygax threw at them.  This seems strange to me considering how random death is in much of old D&D and also because everything would have been brand new to them.   Either Gygax was doing some serious nerfing of results or they were the luckiest guys in the world.  I've run a bunch of basic and it's a rare pc that even make 2nd level.

I'll point out that some of us refined low-lethality games because we -hated- that high mortality way of playing.

Heck, in the 80s I ran some near-system less games where you only died if you really did something stupid (or martyrly).

I do think people should revisit older types of play, though, because even if they don't end up liking it, it might inspire cool ideas or refinements.