David Goldfarb is a game designer involved in Payday 2, Battlefield, Killzone 2 and several other videogames. Here he writes about what he loves about AF&F 1st, and I think is a nice reading :)
http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/14/5898063/the-dice-can-kill-you-why-first-edition-ad-d-is-king
Jong just posted it on the Facebook group.
That is one seriously cool article and maps to much of my later-day (re) discovery of TSR D&D, BRP and other classics.
It's nice to read an article by someone who still gets it! AD&D uber alles, man!
I absolutely love it. It almost sounds like he was in some of our early games!
That sense of no immunity, having to watch every step, of hard-fought progression....that makes for some of the best campaigns.
The author and I agree that D&D and baseball are two of humanity's greatest inventions.:-)
This makes me think a bit more about 5E, and how it's STILL very hard to lose a character in that game. I'm becoming more and more convinced that simpler is better (especially if one wants a more lethal campaign). If I do go with 5th, I'll have to chunk the whole "death save" thing. Proceed with caution or bite it!
Quote from: cranebump;769044The author and I agree that D&D and baseball are two of humanity's greatest inventions.:-)
This makes me think a bit more about 5E, and how it's STILL very hard to lose a character in that game. I'm becoming more and more convinced that simpler is better (especially if one wants a more lethal campaign). If I do go with 5th, I'll have to chunk the whole "death save" thing. Proceed with caution or bite it!
Yeah...yeah, I'd definitely toss "death save". -10 HP = you dead, sucka.
Wonderful article. Especially this
QuoteIt was awesome, and it was awesome because stories happen when you follow the brutal ethos of the game and Things had a price and a value. Experience felt earned. The game was arbitrary and sometimes random, but this made for more dynamic scenarios.
something the theorywankers and charoppers and balance fetishists will never experience or understand.
Quote from: Raven;769438Wonderful article. Especially this
something the theorywankers and charoppers and balance fetishists will never experience or understand.
Except the part where balance, optimization, and theorycraft =/= hard "earned" experience. They are not mutually exclusive.
That's gonna makes some heads explode.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;769099Yeah...yeah, I'd definitely toss "death save". -10 HP = you dead, sucka.
I don't know, I need to see it in play.
But the "death save" is really "best 3 out of 5", which means it is at least twice as fast than bleeding out to -10 one HP a round. And just like bleeding out, if people hit your body you get closer to death faster. Except death save is faster: any hit gives you one death save failure, a critical hit on you gives you two. A critical miss death save also gives you two fails.
And anything that passes you past negative Max HP is Instant Death.
On paper it is more brutal. Three passes or three fails is faster bookkeeping and half the time, so stabilizing and healing will be very important. But theory is one thing. actual play is another. So I'll see how it is in my PbP.
Thanks 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.
On the topic of real death: -10 is for babies.
Quote from: Batman;769449Except the part where balance, optimization, and theorycraft =/= hard "earned" experience. They are not mutually exclusive.
Forget it, Batman; it's the RPGSite. It wouldn't be a complete thread without a bit of sneering at anyone who doesn't play by the True Way of the Old School. :)
Point taken, Raven drew first blood, but to be fair from reading posts from the people he's actually talking about, he's right, they will never understand the playstyle, because they've never done it.
If you think you're painted with that brush and it isn't true, then argue why not.
If you think you're not painted with that brush, well then, no one is sneering at you, are they?
To complain about sneering by countersneering is...an interesting take. ;)
Frankly "One True Wayism" is beneath you, you've come up with much better and comedic ways to mock everyone here.
Quote from: CRKrueger;769534Point taken, Raven drew first blood, but to be fair from reading posts from the people he's actually talking about, he's right, they will never understand the playstyle, because they've never done it.
I'm not so sure the conclusion follows from the premise. I admit I've never played in a truly 'old school' game (I started in 1989 with a 1E/2E hybrid informed heavily by early JRPG styles), but through listening to discussions, analogies and imaginative sympathy, I think I can get some understanding. Not as full or immediate an understanding as comes from personal experience, but some. And I think that for me, it would be enjoyable in small doses, but would grow frustrating or pall over the longer term.
Others do differ. I have to wonder how well different tastes in play styles correlate with other personality traits--gambling, risk-taking, competitiveness, etc. I tend to have little interest in gambling and am generally risk-averse, for example, so that may be a factor in why the old school/roguelike style holds little appeal to me, at least in theory.
Or are we going to argue that only personal experience counts? That's a dark and purple-shaded path to wander ... :D
QuoteIf you think you're painted with that brush and it isn't true, then argue why not.
If you think you're not painted with that brush, well then, no one is sneering at you, are they?
I think that Batman had it right; there's a sharp distinction between "can't understand" and "understand but prefer other styles of play".
QuoteTo complain about sneering by countersneering is...an interesting take. ;)
Good point; my apologies. I've been hanging around here and TBP too much, perhaps; the hostility and division may be getting to me. :)
QuoteFrankly "One True Wayism" is beneath you, you've come up with much better and comedic ways to mock everyone here.
Now you're just flattering me. :D
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;769548Others do differ. I have to wonder how well different tastes in play styles correlate with other personality traits--gambling, risk-taking, competitiveness, etc. I tend to have little interest in gambling and am generally risk-averse, for example, so that may be a factor in why the old school/roguelike style holds little appeal to me, at least in theory.
I can't presume to speak for everyone but I'm not crazy about gambling (other than the odd poker night, less for the gambling and more for socializing) and I am risk-averse as fuck.
And I relish running and playing risky, gritty, lethal games. I figure it's the one place I feel can go out on a limb and do stupid things without fear.
Quote from: The Butcher;769555I can't presume to speak for everyone but I'm not crazy about gambling (other than the odd poker night, less for the gambling and more for socializing) and I am risk-averse as fuck.
And I relish running and playing risky, gritty, lethal games. I figure it's the one place I feel can go out on a limb and do stupid things without fear.
Reasonable enough. It was a theory, not a Definitive Statement of Truth. And your final sentence may explain another factor of the appeal.
Another crazy theory: Is the 'fail forward' ethos in modern design an effort to bring some of this unpredictability back while at the same time preserving the character continuity and other elements of post-Old School play? (I hesitate to use the term 'New School' because I'm not convinced a single New School exists. A definable Old School does, even if it wasn't the only method of play in those days.)
He's definitely onto something here. All the games I find most exciting to play have one thing in common, despite a huge range in settings, approaches to rules, etc.: it is really easy to die. The highest fatality rate games I know are Boot Hill, Behind Enemy Lines, The Fantasy Trip, and low level pre-3E D&D. All are a total blast. Every game I can think of that is 'well designed' but has minimal chances of character death is usually a bit of a bore.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;769548I'm not so sure the conclusion follows from the premise. I admit I've never played in a truly 'old school' game (I started in 1989 with a 1E/2E hybrid informed heavily by early JRPG styles), but through listening to discussions, analogies and imaginative sympathy, I think I can get some understanding. Not as full or immediate an understanding as comes from personal experience, but some. And I think that for me, it would be enjoyable in small doses, but would grow frustrating or pall over the longer term.
Ok, fair enough. Want to discuss why?
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;769548Others do differ. I have to wonder how well different tastes in play styles correlate with other personality traits--gambling, risk-taking, competitiveness, etc. I tend to have little interest in gambling and am generally risk-averse, for example, so that may be a factor in why the old school/roguelike style holds little appeal to me, at least in theory.
Nevermind, you did discuss why. :)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;769548Or are we going to argue that only personal experience counts? That's a dark and purple-shaded path to wander ... :D
I don't have a problem with people saying they don't like AD&D, I houseruled the fuck out of it myself. What always gets me piping in is when someone claims "Oh, D&D was always like this." or parroting some other "It is known" web mantra from The Gaming Den, awfulpurple or wherever, when it is completely and lots of times downright provably false.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;769548I think that Batman had it right; there's a sharp distinction between "can't understand" and "understand but prefer other styles of play".
This is a true statement, but I can honestly say I've read and played games from all sides of the spectrum. When I actually talk specifics about a game, it's from the text and my experience, not the phantom version of the game in my head created by an echo chamber.
A LOT of the "common wisdom" I see surrounding older versions of D&D is frequently of the "Extractibus Ex Recto Meum." school of game theory.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;769548Now you're just flattering me. :D
I give credit where credit is due. :hatsoff:...that, however, won't save you from the guillotine.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;769559Reasonable enough. It was a theory, not a Definitive Statement of Truth. And your final sentence may explain another factor of the appeal.
Another crazy theory: Is the 'fail forward' ethos in modern design an effort to bring some of this unpredictability back while at the same time preserving the character continuity and other elements of post-Old School play? (I hesitate to use the term 'New School' because I'm not convinced a single New School exists. A definable Old School does, even if it wasn't the only method of play in those days.)
I think the "Fail Forward" ethos is entirely from the "Dramatic Logic" school of thought (someone always derails using the term narrative). What are the key elements of Fail Forward? Pretty much all implementations have the following features.
- Keep the story moving, no "dead" dice rolls.
- Never say no to the player, build on what he does (a hallmark of collaborative storytelling).
More on this later, but I think that's the gist that really differentiates it from Old School play. Now is this done for unpredictability in that Success or Fail Forward is based on a die roll and the "Complication" many times can just be declared by the GM? Maybe. More later, gotta head to work.
I was surprised at TBP they didn't have a 30 page thread about how horrible the article is.
Quote from: CRKrueger;769534Point taken, Raven drew first blood, but to be fair from reading posts from the people he's actually talking about, he's right, they will never understand the playstyle, because they've never done it.
If you think you're painted with that brush and it isn't true, then argue why not.
If you think you're not painted with that brush, well then, no one is sneering at you, are they?
To complain about sneering by countersneering is...an interesting take. ;)
Frankly "One True Wayism" is beneath you, you've come up with much better and comedic ways to mock everyone here.
Indeed. If you don't spend all your time online talking about how unfair and unfun old school play is, or how TSR D&D is a messy, random collection of poorly thought out house rules that only nostalgic neckbeards enjoy, or telling me I'm doing it wrong because I enjoy those things, then it's safe to assume I wasn't talking about you.
I guess I bring "OSR" mentality to all my games regardless of what I run. I think the main points of that article are spot on. I don't *need* to play OSR-Taliban Approved systems to bring that kinda thunder to my "non-approved" games.
When I run my campaigns - bad ill-thought decisions will get you fucking killed. Good well thought out decisions will *also* get you killed if the Gods of Probability aren't flowing through your hands when you toss the dice - but hopefully it will be a good death.
I do agree with Krueger's assertion that if you've never played *like* that before it's a *very* different mindset.
Good article. But I learned nothing from it I didn't already know.
Quote from: Raven;769594Indeed. If you don't spend all your time online talking about how unfair and unfun old school play is, or how TSR D&D is a messy, random collection of poorly thought out house rules that only nostalgic neckbeards enjoy, or telling me I'm doing it wrong because I enjoy those things, then it's safe to assume I wasn't talking about you.
Well, I don't think I'd find it very enjoyable, but using Laws' division of player types from the 4E DMG, I'm primarily an Actor/Storyteller, and Old School play sounds like it falls more along the Explorer/Thinker axis.
I'd argue that TSR D&D is a bit messy in spots--that's part of its charm. Cf. "The Game Wizards" in DRAGON #126. You should be able to find that article if you don't know it already, Raven; you use that issue's cover as your avatar. :) I wouldn't call them random, although I think a few parts are poorly thought out or explained--the initiative system, for example, or the extremely harsh requirements for atoning for an alignment change on p. 25 of the 1E DMG. (If I understand those rules and the XP for treasure rules correctly, a PC will have to have reached 6th level or so before atonement even becomes possible.)
But TSR D&D is very good at creating its own unique fantasy experience. It's sort of 'psychotronic' in that way, at least using the definition from
Lucha Libre Hero.
I have to wonder if part of the problem is that D&D became the 800-lb. gorilla of the hobby. If it weren't the market leader, it could have sustained itself on its own unique model of play and other games would have filled other niches. Instead, it's reached the point where a) a lot of different styles of play have been tried by the game in various editions and ranges (cf. my "Flavors of D&D" threads over on TBP) and b) a lot of players have latched on to each style in turn and find that style enjoyable.
Now, whether the game should have mutated beyond the original Gygaxian/Old School vision is a matter of debate. But it
did mutate, each edition and style brought new people into the hobby, and each one of those audiences has a legitimate stake in the game.
I'm not convinced that 5E will be flexible enough to cover all those different flavors, despite WotC's marketing. It's looking promising, but we'll have to wait for the 3 core books--especially the DMG--to see if it can cover more than the current style, which sounds like it's predominantly a sort of 'middle ground' between 2E and 3E. Even if it's not quite as flexible as the claims made for it are, though, hopefully once it's settled what exactly it is, we can reach some sort of negotiated peace in the Edition Wars. I'm expecting to wind up in Middleschoolland, Newest Grognardia, and the Outlier Colonies, myself. :)
Quote from: thedungeondelver;769099Yeah...yeah, I'd definitely toss "death save". -10 HP = you dead, sucka.
I'll play in that game! You can literally NEVER die. You will abolish death saves and by RAW there is no such thing as negative HP. :D
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.
On the topic of real death: -10 is for babies.
This is why OSR supporters catch a lot of shit. The good thing is, most of us can admit 1E is a massive load of minutiae and still play it. Wouldn't be me, though. If I was gonna actual old school (and not a retroclone), it'd be BECMI and all ITS minutiae.:-)
Quote from: tenbones;769598I guess I bring "OSR" mentality to all my games regardless of what I run. I think the main points of that article are spot on. I don't *need* to play OSR-Taliban Approved systems to bring that kinda thunder to my "non-approved" games.
When I run my campaigns - bad ill-thought decisions will get you fucking killed. Good well thought out decisions will *also* get you killed if the Gods of Probability aren't flowing through your hands when you toss the dice - but hopefully it will be a good death.
I do agree with Krueger's assertion that if you've never played *like* that before it's a *very* different mindset.
Good article. But I learned nothing from it I didn't already know.
I ran a WEG d6 Star Wars game for some guys who had only played RPGA style AD&D2 before about 10 years ago. One of the Players had his character, for no apparent reason, throw a grenade at a Hutt and its security entourage. The Hutt lived and its security entourage all foccussed their attention on the character and fired every weapon they had at him. Character was deader than ratshit in a single round.
That Player still to this day whines about how I was trying to deliberately kill his character, no matter how many times I point out that he threw a grenade at a Hutt first.
hey, I actually like the death save mechanic! During our very limited time with 4e we had several people go down and get to test that one out. My friend Mike in particular had it happen to his fighter 3 times, and 2 of those he squeaked by on his last chance. It was pretty exciting to see it in action. He still talks about it today.
Now I wouldn't port death saves over to ACKS or anything, but I look at 5e as more of a high action/cinematic alternative anyway. I also like spending HD during short rests (although full overnight heals is pushing it) and warlord-style shouty healing.
See, I'm not a total sneering grog!
Of course, if you go down to -10 and live you should also spend a few months game time recuperating.
Oddly enough I think GURPS is the game that most benefits from an old school outlook. If that disadvantage kills you you're dead balances out a lot of the silliness that disadvantages can bring to the table.
Quote from: jeff37923;769611I ran a WEG d6 Star Wars game for some guys who had only played RPGA style AD&D2 before about 10 years ago. One of the Players had his character, for no apparent reason, throw a grenade at a Hutt and its security entourage. The Hutt lived and its security entourage all foccussed their attention on the character and fired every weapon they had at him. Character was deader than ratshit in a single round.
That Player still to this day whines about how I was trying to deliberately kill his character, no matter how many times I point out that he threw a grenade at a Hutt first.
That's fucking brilliant. If I had that player. I'd hold my belly and go... /Jabbavoice 'Ho ho ho! Stupid fucker thougth you could kill me? Put your blast-vest on your fucking face next time."
Actually in my last big Pathfinder (Forgotten Realms) game - I had a player who had the antidote to cure this plague (partially concocted and set loose by the fucking PC's themselves) that were wiping out this Drow city. So literally millions of Drow are dying (yes granted they're Drow), and he's got enough antidote to save one-thousand. He sets up a deal with this Drow Assassin (he's their head assassin) - and the deal was to bring all the antidote for an assassination the PC wanted done. The Drow did it, and the player decided to only give him half... and wanted another job for the other half. So the Drow said - "You're telling me, you won't give me what you promised, but you'll give me half now for services already rendered? You're no human. You're more like us." Player laughed, produced the half of the antidote and threatened to smash it unless the Drow agreed. So the assassin sneak-attacked him and killed him, took it and left.
To this day he still gripes at me about it. It's been like three years.
ACKS' Mortal Wounds table are a great way of handling "not quite dead at 0HP".
For so-called "cinematic" low-lethality stuff I generally skip D&D and BRP in favor of Savage Worlds. And I still wish I could get FATE to work for me, but there you go.
Quote from: CRKrueger;769534Point taken, Raven drew first blood, but to be fair from reading posts from the people he's actually talking about, he's right, they will never understand the playstyle, because they've never done it.
In my experiences and even in the article the David admits that it's based on the DM, a Game can be deadly or have that level of "next roll determines if we all die or save the day." It's a play-style that's rather edition-neutral. Sure, some editions
do have a cushion (say, 4E or Next for requiring 3 Death Saving throws) but to get to that point, some risks were certainly taken and lost and coming back from that is still as exciting and rewarding as only having 1 chance too.
Quote from: CRKrueger;769534If you think you're painted with that brush and it isn't true, then argue why not.
Ok, I'm a character optimizer and I love to delve into the numbers of the game and all that jazz (we'll leave if I'm good at it for another discussion) and I find such scenarios like gritty games and "the die fall once.." and playing with "gimped" characters require
MORE Char_OP and Balance and running a LOT of theory craft so that I give my character the
BEST opportunity to survive.
In the wake of this article, I decided to do some rolling (3d6, in order of Str - Dex - Con - Int - Wis - Cha) and came up with 10, 5, 10, 12, 16, 15. Now looking at the game from a v3.5 perspective (it's the system that I can pull from my brain the quickest) I think that could serve as a commendable Cloistered Cleric of Pelor (or Lathander of the Forgotten Realms). My mind instantly starts going through options and feats and spells that will accommodate these stats and the class decided upon.
If, instead, I were to roll 4d6, drop the lowest and place where ever I want then things like Character_Optimization and Theorycraft and trying to find Balance is less of a character-death / deal breaker. I
don't have to delve into char-op to find out the best combo or stat match or Min/Max stuff.
So to me the article, as I read it, would make me want to do MORE character optimizing and theorycraft because it's far more "required" (IMO) to have a surviving character than if the reins of character creation weren't as strict.
To complain about sneering by countersneering is...an interesting take. ;)
Quote from: CRKrueger;769534Frankly "One True Wayism" is beneath you, you've come up with much better and comedic ways to mock everyone here.
I have to agree that articles like Davids do more "harm" than good when discussing the game. It's one thing to say "I remember the days when such-and-such" but it's when that person paints THOSE times with those games as better than recent times with recent games. It puts a value to it, something that isn't shared or experienced by all.
So for one person it reads as just an opinion piece of Nostalgia and "Back then, games were intense and crazy...lots of fun" while to others it reads "Back then, games were intense and crazy and were much better that way than the way games are today because player's are coddled".
If you're not coddled then why are you taking offense?
CR, magic wish lists, removal of "save or suck", easy recovery energy drain. If you're arguing 3 and 4 are not inherently more safe then 1, & 2, I'd like to see the argument, frankly. However, the article isn't talking about any of that.
Where in the article does he say "Those new players are whiny little bitches!" He said in the old games, frequently a single roll could spell Doom or success beyond any reasonable hope, and that outlook, and the experience it brings has value as is evidenced by a return to a more old school sensibility.
- He does not express frustration for newer systems like Schwalb did.
- He specifically says the newer versions have had hardcore options as well.
- What he is doing is, as a game designer, expressing appreciation of the danger of AD&D and the games it has inspired.
Where's the beef?
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;769600But TSR D&D is very good at creating its own unique fantasy experience. It's sort of 'psychotronic' in that way, at least using the definition from Lucha Libre Hero.
Psychotronicness: 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;769696Where's the beef?
Well, the article does comment on "the masochistic appreciation of "low level" gaming, something we have undervalued up until relatively recently in modern games. Those first few levels where you’re struggling to off a goblin and you have one copper to your name and you can’t afford rope ... fun! " and uses a comparative when it says that "the game was arbitrary and sometimes random, but this made for more dynamic scenarios."
But I think we're all just a bit shell-shocked and trigger-happy after the past decade or so of edition wars, and prone to see any praising of one edition as denigrating others, especially if they make word choices that seem to tread too close to some of the terms favored in the Wars. This article doesn't intend to say '1st Edition was for Real Hardcore Gamers, unlike you New School Wimps!', but it seems to me that it uses some similar phrasing to people who
have said that, which can set off reactions.
So I think we all need to be calm and patient with each other, especially over the next few months, until we can establish some level of comity and peace.
If we can ...
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.'
Yep, that's the definition; thanks for pulling it out.
Does anyone want to contend that old-school, Gygaxian D&D does
not fit within that description? :D
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.'
So if you use the same definition but the movie costs over 100 million dollars, then it's a Michael Bay movie.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;769706Yep, that's the definition; thanks for pulling it out.
Does anyone want to contend that old-school, Gygaxian D&D does not fit within that description? :D
It doesn't, but Arduin sure as hell does. Way more Heavy Metal sensibilities there.
Quote from: CRKrueger;769711It doesn't, but Arduin sure as hell does. Way more Heavy Metal sensibilities there.
I would think that any game that has Bilbo Baggins, Conan the Barbarian, Holger Carlsen, Aragorn, and Cugel the Clever teaming up to fit orcs, giant apes, mushroom people, Fafnir the Wyrm, Hammer vampires, Arabian djinn, Japanese oni, pagan demons and Christian-inspired devils while hopping between Christian, Greek, Buddhist, Native American and other afterlives would certainly count as 'psychotronic'. And that's before you start adding in the sci-fi elements that were around from nearly the beginning, or the Blackmoor train ...
Quote from: cranebump;769604This is why OSR supporters catch a lot of shit. The good thing is, most of us can admit 1E is a massive load of minutiae and still play it. Wouldn't be me, though. If I was gonna actual old school (and not a retroclone), it'd be BECMI and all ITS minutiae.:-)
On the real improbability of actual character death: I always hated it but I forgot that it used to be better the other way. Over the last six months I've reintroduced that hardcore ethos to my kids and they love it.
Every recently published game I can immediately think of are pretty hard to die in. 4E is pretty iconic in this respect at this point, but there are others. You have to just about go out of your way to commit character suicide. I'm a little worried about the extent to which this remains true in 5E. It seems likely that the only way a character can even be knocked out of action for more than 8 hours is a total party kill.
Quote from: The Butcher;769632For so-called "cinematic" low-lethality stuff I generally skip D&D and BRP in favor of Savage Worlds. And I still wish I could get FATE to work for me, but there you go.
Savage Worlds is surprisingly very deadly. In the game I'm running, I've lost a player character every session for the past ten sessions. Hell, my players are considering the edge "Hard to Kill" near mandatory.
Quote from: Larsdangly;769754Every recently published game I can immediately think of are pretty hard to die in. 4E is pretty iconic in this respect at this point, but there are others. You have to just about go out of your way to commit character suicide. I'm a little worried about the extent to which this remains true in 5E. It seems likely that the only way a character can even be knocked out of action for more than 8 hours is a total party kill.
This pretty much the opposite from my experiences (which mostly include v3.5 and 4E). Over the course of playing 3.5 I've run games where TPKs would happen often (thanks CR!!) and in 4E I've had character deaths in nearly every single campaign I run or have played in (my hybrid Swordmage|Warlord just perished in our Dark Sun campaign).
The difficulty is honestly what's being discussed here, but I feel it's relative to the DM's way of playing a game, the decisions of the players, and how much give any particular system has at "forgiveness". Perhaps we play our v3.5 games and 4E games differently but going up against a lich in 3E was scary (same thing with Ghouls too or spells that just straight up remove you from the fight). In 4E you did NOT want to lose surges....ever due to monsters.
And of course the monsters have effects that can end you in 2-3 turns. But I guess that's it right there, isn't it? The fact that it takes the monsters 2 or 3 turns to kill you outright instead of just 1. But if the end result is the same, such as it adds tension and is fun and can be deadly, does it matter if it's 1 roll or 2? Certainly I feel it's more suspenseful if I've already failed a 2 death saving throws and I'm on the brink of my 3rd and there's this feeling of like "oh man, I have this feeling I'm gonna screw it up." and then that dreaded 9 rolls and you know "crap, I'm dead. Dammit, why didn't I grab that feat that gives me +1 to saving throws!" *shakes fists at the dice gods!!*
New project: I'm going to try like heck never to use the word "roll" in conjunction with dice.
Gonna try to always say "throw."
Totall OT but not worth its own thread, and "throw the dice" just sounds older.
Quote from: CRKrueger;769696If you're not coddled then why are you taking offense?
Who said I was taking offense? It 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. I'm attempting to establish that the two are not mutually exclusive.
Quote from: CRKrueger;769534CR, magic wish lists, removal of "save or suck", easy recovery energy drain. If you're arguing 3 and 4 are not inherently more safe then 1, & 2, I'd like to see the argument, frankly. However, the article isn't talking about any of that.
First, magic wish lists are just that,
wish lists. And they need not EVER be catered to. Ever. I'm not entirely sure what CR has to do with this discussion? Save or Suck are present in 3E and in 4E except it takes more than just 1 roll to take effect (in 4E's case).
But your right, the article isn't really discussing those concepts. It's making a general idea that older games are deadly. Perhaps "deadlier" than modern games. I, 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.
Quote from: CRKrueger;769696Where in the article does he say "Those new players are whiny little bitches!" He said in the old games, frequently a single roll could spell Doom or success beyond any reasonable hope, and that outlook, and the experience it brings has value as is evidenced by a return to a more old school sensibility.
I never said he made claims that people are whiny bitches, however I said that someone could take his article to imply that. The 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.
Quote from: CRKrueger;769696Where's the beef?
My beef was to clarify that things like Optimization transcend editions and play-styles
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. I'm attempting to establish that the two are not mutually exclusive.
I hear you. No one took to OD&D as quickly as our resident CharOp wizard, but I chalk it up to him being a smart cookie in general.
The GNS, Big Model or whatever it's called crowd did lump player-skill enthusiasts and the CharOp crowd together under "S" and I can see how you might argüe that both reward player skill, although a very different set vof skills in each case. But my game table experience agrees with you that they're not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Case in point: upon rolling Str 6, Dex 13, Con 8, he picked the Fighting Man class and armed himself with a longbow. "The best class choice for a low Con OD&D character who wants to survive, is Fighting Man." mind = blown :D
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! :D
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. :D
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.
Quote from: Opaopajr;770128LBB 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.
Stat inflation has nothing to do with
need. In 2E high stats provide the same kinds of bonuses as 1E.
If a big bonus exists in the game and YOU don't happen to have it then you are hopeless, a gimp, etc.
Thats the attitude. :rolleyes: Nothing at all to do with qualifying for anything or being a viable character. Everything is about needing the best numbers to survive.
Thats why OD&D stands alone. A 12 STR character can adventure right beside an 18 STR character and the 12 STR character's player doesn't have to watch the 18 STR character get +3 to hit and possibly even more damage killing nearly every 1 HD opponent in a single swing.
In OD&D both fighters are in the human STR scale and have 0 bonus to hit/damage. The 18 STR guy can lift & carry more and gets bonus XP if he is a fighter. Thats it.
Once crazy significant bonuses that affect every combat roll are part of the stat spectrum, players who don't happen to get those high stats feel like Santa left a lump of coal in their stocking or something.
Quote from: S'mon;769926I've been playing the awesome new version of Ancient Domains of Mystery every day recently - http://www.ancardia.com/download.html - it has graphics! :D
For all of the time I spend thinking about games (all day every day) and all the gaming systems my family owns, I don't spend a ton of time playing. When I have a free hour and the desktop PC, I am usually adding to my homage RPGs and original concept games.
It's like the other side of the char op coin I guess. System op.
Also, it smells like manginas in here.
Quote from: mhensley;770179I'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 think Kuntz (Robilar) sneaked around invisible a lot, and avoided a lot of needless combat. Not sure about Gygax fudging. I have no insight into how he GM'd.
Quote from: JRR;770170It 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.
Yes, some of the options merely jack up average scores aross the board without giving the player any choice in distribution. But those are all
options and non-exhaustive suggestions ; there is no rule imposing one or another.
This is a very minor note, not a disagreement with a central point of the article.
Quote from: Will;770185I'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.
Like a lot of people in the 1970s, I played D&D along with a wide variety of games from Avalon Hill, SPI, etc.. Different games focused on different subjects, or different aspects of the same larger subject.
What was superfluous to one game might be central to another, and vice versa. Enjoying one did not necessarily, or even usually, preclude enjoying others.
Whether a given frequency of character demise adds interest or merely frustration, can vary not only from player to player but also depending on the game at hand.
Ludicrously obvious illustration from hypothetical video games: I dig Frogger, but if it were
too hard to cross the road, the game would be boring. On the other hand, getting stuck trying to survive a trip across town would be a drag in a game advertised as being about championship football or world conquest: I want to get on with the real game!
The real-world lethality of a weapon may be as much beside the point of one game, as a host of much, much more actually common causes of morbidity and mortality are to one of the more conventional sort of combat-oriented RPG.
Quote from: mhensley;770179I'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.
We were all wargamers, and Robilar and Tenser were the best of the best.
Rob has a photographic memory... he NEVER got lost, and NEVER mapped.
And no, Gary DIDN'T fudge. In fact, "Tomb of Horrors" got started because Rob (Robilar) and Ernie (Tenser) complained that the game was getting boring because it was too easy!
Yeah, Tomb of Horrors, that horrible soul scarring module that killed all your best characters and made you cry, got beat by a 14 year old kid.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;770191[...]If a big bonus exists in the game and YOU don't happen to have it then you are hopeless, a gimp, etc.
Thats the attitude. :rolleyes: Nothing at all to do with qualifying for anything or being a viable character.[...]
[...] Once crazy significant bonuses that affect every combat roll are part of the stat spectrum, players who don't happen to get those high stats feel like Santa left a lump of coal in their stocking or something.
Ahh, attitude, yes. Which was hilarious because all the really high stat TSR character I've seen were living on like borrowed time, how quickly they all died. But yeah, without straight 18s it is like Santa's reindeer themselves pooped in their stockings.
Quote from: Old Geezer;770254We were all wargamers, and Robilar and Tenser were the best of the best......
Yeah, Tomb of Horrors, that horrible soul scarring module that killed all your best characters and made you cry, got beat by a 14 year old kid.
Those bastards. Just because they had Monty Haul for a GM they had to go and ruin it for the rest of us. :p
D&D's real "Monty Hall" was Jim Ward, who had plenty of nifty stuff either used by mighty monsters or guarded with treacherous traps.
Quote from: Phillip;770287D&D's real "Monty Hall" was Jim Ward, who had plenty of nifty stuff either used by mighty monsters or guarded with treacherous traps.
I meant Monty Haul.
This is Monty
Hall(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5AQ3EwIeAqA/UDdGoUMgMlI/AAAAAAAAT-4/bM4DAEbWIqY/s320/monty%2Bhall%2B1969.png)
;)
I thought the actual reference _is_ Monty Hall, and people started using Monty Haul because they didn't realize where the term came from.
However you choose to spell it, the evocation of game show "Let's Make a Deal" tends to suggest an easy, "give-away" game. As Ward wrote in an article in The Dragon, though, he was really into a game with what iirc he called "equilibrium" as opposed to tidy "balance".
I gather that instead of trying to keep characters "reasonably" weak, he thought it was more fun to see what they would do with magical goodies. He ramped up both reward and risk to provide a challenging high-powered environment in which figures that survived -- he was big on using traps to guard treasures -- could wield tremendous powers and face the consequences. lf something really looked to spoil the fun of the game, he was not above a Hand of God intervention.
That's also my impression of Dave Hargrave's style in his Arduin campaign, but the "gonzo" ethos is perhaps most popularly associated with Ward's Gamma World.
From what I've gathered, James Ward is also a big fan of high-powered, over-the-top elements for their own sake--he was the one who pushed for "really big, mean dragons" in the DRAGONLANCE: FIFTH AGE game.
And I say this as one of the half-dozen people on Earth who likes the Great Dragons and the original Fifth Age. :D
Quote from: Will;770310I thought the actual reference _is_ Monty Hall, and people started using Monty Haul because they didn't realize where the term came from.
We knew who Monty Hall was. Back in the day there were so few TV channels that it was almost impossible not to see Let's Make a Deal on TV. But Haul evoked hauling loot out of the dungeon, thus we used Monty Haul for the overly generous DM.
Quote from: Phillip;770238Yes, some of the options merely jack up average scores aross the board without giving the player any choice in distribution. But those are all options and non-exhaustive suggestions ; there is no rule imposing one or another.
This is a very minor note, not a disagreement with a central point of the article.
They are not really optional, in that there is no single default. Rather, they are interchangeable.
it is hilarious to watch you guys tie yourselves in fucking knots over someone saying something powerfully pro-AD&D1.
Wanna see knots, go to TBP. Second or third response I read was some asshole complaint about old devs and their nostalgia, and how WotC needs to fire those 40, 50 year olds and hire some 20 year olds (ostensibly to make a system more attuned to kissing his entitled, millennial ass).
Quote from: cranebump;770465Wanna see knots, go to TBP. Second or third response I read was some asshole complaint about old devs and their nostalgia, and how WotC needs to fire those 40, 50 year olds and hire some 20 year olds (ostensibly to make a system more attuned to kissing his entitled, millennial ass).
Maybe they could hire some women, homosexuals or transgendered to help them write their games... rather than just putting in a token paragraph about their existence so they can Tangency things up.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;770523Maybe they could hire some women, homosexuals or transgendered to help them write their games... rather than just putting in a token paragraph about their existence so they can Tangency things up.
Mearls could put on a dress, say he's now Michele Mearls, but she still likes girls. That'd be a threefer.
Dani Bunten and Jenelle Jaquays probably do more for transgendered gamers by designing great games.
Quote from: Phillip;770623Dani Bunten and Jenelle Jaquays probably do more for transgendered gamers by designing great games.
I'm not sure anyone who designed a level of WG7 Castle Greyhawk can ever blot out that stain, no matter how sterling the rest of their body of work might be. :)
It's late. We had been playing for roughly 28 hours. There are two empty cases of Mountain Dew on the table. I'm so tired I'm beginning to hallucinate goblins.
Which was great and loads of fun, but some of us have jobs and lives now.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;770671It's late. We had been playing for roughly 28 hours. There are two empty cases of Mountain Dew on the table. I'm so tired I'm beginning to hallucinate goblins.
Which was great and loads of fun, but some of us have jobs and lives now.
and...?
and kids.
Man.
(Though if there were gamers in my town I could probably do tabletop again, it's just that 45+ minute drive + kids + jobs = sigh)
Yeah, I've been playing this game a LOT of years (over 30 now). Never ran 28 hours. Guess I've always had something approximating a life.:-)
I don't recall ever doing 15+ hours without a break. During a long-weekend 4e marathon, I think we were playing it for 8 to 10 hours total (not continuous) on one or two of the days . In the 1970s-80s, when I was a kid in school, it might sometimes have been 12 to 14.
When I was in the Air Force, we did a few 15+ hour mega-sessions.
Quote from: Phillip;770623Dani Bunten and Jenelle Jaquays probably do more for transgendered gamers by designing great games.
Case in point: MULE.
In addition to Jenelle, I'd also add her partner (I believe) Rebecca Heineman, also in the computer game space.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;769942Good article. Anyone complaining about it is a commie mutant traitor.
But 28 hours straight of play? Dear god.
Bah. I once did 60. Mind you, I don't remember most of it after the first 12 hours or so.