One of the big design failures of Hackmaster was that it took several hours to make a character who had a good chance of only lasting several minutes in play.

It was fun to do the first couple times just because chargen is so loopy, but not really functional for me over the long term.

(I know some people don't mind, etc.)

Of course, the first thing any real D&D DM does is house rules out all raise dead type magic.

Quote from: Kyle AaronNo, the tradition is that the GM acts as an adversary, but doesn't actually feel adversarial.

As Gygax tells us, [snip DMG quotes]

One of the problems I often find in any discussion of 1st edition AD&D is the gigantic disparity between the theoretical advice Gary gives in the DMG and the actual application of design as seen in the modules -- which for many of us were the only readily available examples of playing the game.

So, if the only thing you knew about AD&D was from reading the DMG, you would think magic items are to be exceedingly rare. But if you read just the modules Gary wrote, why it sure looks like magic items are supposed to be all over the place: hidden underneath anvils, tucked behind a kobold's hope chest, crammed in the gullets of giant frogs.

So I'm forever reading heated discussions about 1st edition, where people stake out two mutually exclusive positions, and I keep finding myself thinking "both of those positions are readily supportable."

I think the counter-example to your DMG quotes would be found in Gary's modules, and one module in particular: The Tomb of Horrors. Probably no other module, ever, has done more to create the impression that D&D was an adversarial proposition. If that module ain't adversarial, what is?

(Yeah, I know that the Tomb was designed specifically for tournament play as the ultimate "fuck you" to power-gaming munchkins; I don't think Gary ever meant it to be used as an example of good design or employed in campaign play. But at the time it was released, there were so few modules available that it couldn't help but be used for those purposes. Its influence, intentional or not, is vast.)

Quote from: CalithenaOf course, the first thing any real D&D DM does is house rules out all raise dead type magic.

I never had to house rule it out. We've rarely had PCs high enough level to cast Raise Dead/ Resurrection (like twice in 27 years), and my settings don't have friendly high level cleric NPCs who go around raising dead members of tomb-robber gangs. When you're dead, you're dead.

I think the modules of the period line up with the DMG very well in a careful analysis.  A lot of treasure was hidden in places and manners where only the most thorough of PC groups would find it.  Also, if one actually followed the training cost rules some adventures could end with the party not much better off in terms of cash on hand.

Quote from: GarnfellowI think the counter-example to your DMG quotes would be found in Gary's modules, and one module in particular: The Tomb of Horrors. Probably no other module, ever, has done more to create the impression that D&D was an adversarial proposition. If that module ain't adversarial, what is?

(Yeah, I know that the Tomb was designed specifically for tournament play as the ultimate "fuck you" to power-gaming munchkins; I don't think Gary ever meant it to be used as an example of good design or employed in campaign play. But at the time it was released, there were so few modules available that it couldn't help but be used for those purposes. Its influence, intentional or not, is vast.)

I think everyone knew that Tomb of Horrors was a "special case" module.  We all knew that it wasn't like other modules, and if you played it your character would almost certainly die.  People made up special characters just to play through Tomb of Horrors.  It wasn't something you ran your regular campaign characters through.

I will agree that the referee / adversary role of the GM can be sort of hazy in D&D, and can largely depend on the style of the individual GM + Players.

In my game it's more clearly defined.  The GM is playing to win. :cool:

Quote from: GarnfellowOne of the problems I often find in any discussion of 1st edition AD&D is the gigantic disparity between the theoretical advice Gary gives in the DMG and the actual application of design as seen in the modules -- which for many of us were the only readily available examples of playing the game.

Excellent point. The only guide I had to how to play D&D when I was the modules I bought. I wasn't patient enough as an 11-year-old to read through pages of boring (to me) advice in the DMG. So those S and G series modules became the model for how to run our games.

Quote from: LostSoul. . .a cow falls on their head and they die.

i must use this sometime.  then duck as the python quotes take over the session.  

I'd just like to point out that I never had much problem just using HD (including asterisks) to guesstimate how dangerous an encounter was in the old days.

Quote from: jgantsI'd just like to point out that I never had much problem just using HD (including asterisks) to guesstimate how dangerous an encounter was in the old days.

I'm with you there.  CR seems a lot more opaque to me.

Me too. But then I'm dense. At least I tend to be after 10pm, which is when I have time for RPG stuff.

Quote from: GarnfellowOne of the problems I often find in any discussion of 1st edition AD&D is the gigantic disparity between the theoretical advice Gary gives in the DMG and the actual application of design as seen in the modules -- which for many of us were the only readily available examples of playing the game.

I think that's a fair observation. Except that you're talking about the only examples of play being in books. You're forgetting the informal apprenticeship system that exists in roleplaying, where experienced players bring new players into the group, and how that's where a person learns what roleplaying games are. People don't usually learn to play rpgs by reading a book.

It's also true, as others have said, that if combined the training rules with the fact that PCs often had to go searching hard for a lot of that treasure, and disarm a lot of traps and kill a lot of monsters, with the occasional spending on healing and resurrection - they'd be pretty hard-up for cash in the end, and would have to sell quite a lot of those magic items.

The end result in play was usually short periods of immense wealth followed by long periods of barely having enough coin for an ale. This is very much like the Conan and other heroic stories which inspire a lot of rpgs, especially D&D.

In general, the play advice given and expressed in the modules of early D&D was that the GM should act as an adversary, but not be adversarial. The GM was there to give the players and their characters an exciting challenge, which with good planning and a little luck, the PCs could overcome. Some of the PCs might die along the way, but since D&D had its roots in wargaming - thus, "campaign", a term for a series of battles in a war under a particular commander - it's not surprising that it was thought fair that the victor should take casualties, too.

Even Conan lost Belit the Pirate Queen, after all.

Quote from: jgantsI'd just like to point out that I never had much problem just using HD (including asterisks) to guesstimate how dangerous an encounter was in the old days.

Not rocket sciece is it? :lol:

Quote from: GarnfellowOne of the problems I often find in any discussion of 1st edition AD&D is the gigantic disparity between the theoretical advice Gary gives in the DMG and the actual application of design as seen in the modules -- which for many of us were the only readily available examples of playing the game.

Thats why there was also basic D&D. If you didn't have other gamers to teach you there was the Mentzer red-box that gave you all you needed to learn the game.

Quote from: CabNot rocket sciece is it?

Not when you're playing Basic/Expert.