The Dnd you never knew and other PAX East panels

[Siegel]

Have a look there: http://www.g33kwatch.com/geek-culture/conventions/pax-east-review-knowledge-is-power-edition/

[Tengu_temp]

Eh. This article talks about two or three things that are loosely related at best, and treats them as if they were naturally flowing from each other. And even if I were there, I probably wouldn't find the stories of X and Morgana to be thrilling or fun at all.

[Totally Guy]

I wish this panel had been recorded and put on youtube...

[Kol Korran]

i played at first edition D&D, and i remember mapping being important, but not to this degree. torch bearer? extra mapper? the encounter ending while exiting the dungeon? what the hell? :smallconfused:

oh well, perhaps there was an earlier version? (i thought the Red box was the first... :smallsigh:)

[Siegel]

Nope, it's the redbox before the redbox i think.

[Jay R]

I have no idea what he's talking about. The third book in the original edition is title The Underground and Wilderness Adventures.

It feels like an absurd reading of a throwaway line in the section on "The Undergound". The description of how the game works ends with the statement, "...the adventure will continue in this manner until the party leaves the dungeons or are killed therein."

But that's on page 14, and is immediately followed by a much larger section that opens by discussing the map of the area between the dungeon and the city. It goes on to give rules for wilderness adventuring, designing cities, wilderness encounters, castle encounters, building your own keep, land combat, aerial combat, naval combat. The last section describes how to reconcile time spent on dungeon encounters and time spent in the wilderness.

Twelve pages on the dungeon, followed by 22 pages on the wilderness, and he thinks the monster can't walk out of the dungeon? Nonsense.

Back when the game came out, we usually stopped when we got out of the dungeon. Most DMs would say, "You make it back to town with no incident." I knew one DM who'd role for a random encounter on the way back. But no DM would have simply ended an encounter in the middle just because we walked outside the door. If we were fleeing a monster, we'd have had to evade or defeat it.

[Starbuck_II]

I find the fact that they made torches run out so soon weird.
I mean, why did they make torches last six seconds? I'm really curious.

And you had to map IC not OCC in D&D? That seems strange to me.

But the adventuring in 1E (basic) based on treasure/exploration (thus mapping) makes it different exp I'd agree.

[Rixx]

In older editions, a round was much longer.

[Jay R]

I find the fact that they made torches run out so soon weird. I mean, why did they make torches last six seconds? I'm really curious..

A round was one minute; a turn was ten rounds, or ten minutes. Torches lasted an hour, or six turns.


And you had to map IC not OCC in D&D? That seems strange to me.

You didn't have to map at all. Trust your memory, if you like. But if you want to guide your character by looking at a map, then your character has to have a map. This is no different from the fact that the character, not the player, has to be holding the sword or wand she uses.


But the adventuring in 1E (basic) based on treasure/exploration (thus mapping) makes it different exp I'd agree.

Most experience came from treasure, simply because most DMs, using the guidelines shown, gave out more treasure than monsters. Consider slaying a 5 hit die monster with 5,000 gp. By the first three books, that's 500 points for the monster, and 5,000 for the treasure.

When the first expansion came out, this got worse, since a 5 hit die monster dropped to 175 to 300 experience points, and the treasure stayed the same.

[GM.Casper]

Giving Xp for gold sounds really weird to me. Spending coin on training lessons is one thing, but just granting xp for finding a chest of treasure?
Not that I care much for ‘kill goblins with a sword- learn how to cast fireball’ either. Xp should be about overcoming challenges, and the new skills/powers should make sense ingame.

[The Glyphstone]

Giving Xp for gold sounds really weird to me. Spending coin on training lessons is one thing, but just granting xp for finding a chest of treasure?
Not that I care much for ‘kill goblins with a sword- learn how to cast fireball’ either. Xp should be about overcoming challenges, and the new skills/powers should make sense ingame.

The idea was that there would always have been a goblin or a trap protecting that chest of treasure, it wasn't just lying around randomly. So to get the XP in the first place, you had to get past the obstacle, but since you got much less XP for killing stuff, it encouraged you to find creative ways to avoid the monster or disarm the trap that didn't consist of simply stabbing it. Also a good idea because you were fragile as tissue paper.

[Aidan305]

The idea was that there would always have been a goblin or a trap protecting that chest of treasure, it wasn't just lying around randomly. So to get the XP in the first place, you had to get past the obstacle, but since you got much less XP for killing stuff, it encouraged you to find creative ways to avoid the monster or disarm the trap that didn't consist of simply stabbing it. Also a good idea because you were fragile as tissue paper.

Oh so very true. I had a go at the Red Box a couple of months back and we went through four thieves on the first two levels of the dungeon. Later editions had spoiled us somewhat and we lacked caution. We learned though. And we learned quickly. The best way to survive when you only have 3hp max is to not get in to situations that would cause you to lose them.

[Jay R]

Oh so very true. I had a go at the Red Box a couple of months back and we went through four thieves on the first two levels of the dungeon. Later editions had spoiled us somewhat and we lacked caution. We learned though. And we learned quickly. The best way to survive when you only have 3hp max is to not get in to situations that would cause you to lose them.

Actually, you were already up to the white box with one expansion. Thieves and Paladins were introduced in Greyhawk, the first expansion.

The original books only allowed three classes - Fighters, Magic-Users and Clerics. And they only specifically mentioned five potential PC races. One of my favorite trivia questions is: What were the first five PC races mentioned in official D&D rules?

[Craft (Cheese)]

Giving Xp for gold sounds really weird to me. Spending coin on training lessons is one thing, but just granting xp for finding a chest of treasure?
Not that I care much for ‘kill goblins with a sword- learn how to cast fireball’ either. Xp should be about overcoming challenges, and the new skills/powers should make sense ingame.

It has nothing to do with realism and everything to do with structuring the player's incentives. Attaching a reward to something means players will naturally want to do that thing. A rule like "You don't get XP from an encounter unless you kill all the enemies" means players will very rarely attempt to use diplomacy or stealth to solve an encounter and will never accept surrender, even chasing down mooks who decide to run away.

[Jay R]

Giving Xp for gold sounds really weird to me.

Back in the early eighties, Gygax wrote a column in The Dragon in which he decided that somebody had to set some universal principles for role-playing. And, he pointed out, who had the credentials to do this except the person who has sold the most role-playing games to the public?

When I read this, I said to nobody in particular, "That won't convince anyone, Gary. Nobody but you measures experience in money."

[bokodasu]

One of my favorite trivia questions is: What were the first five PC races mentioned in official D&D rules?

Was it 5? I remember humans, dwarves, hobbits, and elves. (Also, fighting-man.)

[Jay R]

The original books only allowed three classes - Fighters, Magic-Users and Clerics. And they only specifically mentioned five potential PC races. One of my favorite trivia questions is: What were the first five PC races mentioned in official D&D rules?Was it 5? I remember humans, dwarves, hobbits, and elves. (Also, fighting-man.)

Your memory is excellent. Those are the only four described fully. But there was a single paragraph about allowing other races. In that paragraph, the rules explained that the progression of levels should be used, no matter what race was used. The example given was that "a player wishing to be a Balrog should start as, let us say a 'young' one".

[The Glyphstone]

A trick question then, you base scoundrel.:smallcool: