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 ...

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.

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.