Old D&D Improvisation?

[soldersbushwack]

I have read about about how combat in original D&D focused more on improvisation and cunning then in the newer D&D editions and wasn't just searching for the right spell or ability. How did that work exactly?

[Jay R]

There weren't rules to cover most situations, so you did what seemed reasonable, and the DM made judgement calls. Here are two examples.
In the first D&D tournament I entered (Tacticon I, in 1976), they had a room with a 134-hit die monster.

No, that's not a typo. The hydra had one hundred thirty four heads. The tournament organizers had set it as a trap for any group stupid enough to try to fight a 134-hd monster.

And we killed it.

We opened the door, saw it, and closed the door. Then we made plans. It was in a 10x20 room, just the size of a Web spell. And an area effect attack will hit all the heads.

Player 1: I open the door.
Player 2: I cast Web.
Players 3 & 4: I throw in a flask of oil.
Player 5: I throw in a torch:
Player 1: I close the door.

The DM decided that each head took 1-6 points of damage. After doing it twice, all the heads were dead.

Second example
1st Level Wizard: [Round one] I cast my sleep spell.
DM: Roll your dice. Ok, 6 of the goblins fall over asleep.
…
1LW: [Round 2] I’m out of spells. I get on my hands and knees behind the goblin facing the fighter.
Fighter: I shove the goblin backwards over the wizard.

[Yora]

One important element certainly was the lack of skills. You could not say "I want to scare the guards away with an Intimidation check". You had to describe to the GM what you are doing, and the GM would decide what happens based on how convincing he found it and what would feel right for the adventure at that moment.

Another thing is the frequency of web-like dungeons instead of linear ones. There often was no "final room at the end" because there was no end. Most rooms could be reached through multiple paths through the dungeon and very often there were only one or two rooms you really had to visit to accomplish the goal of the adventure. As a result of this, players always had to consider if it's worth dealing with an obstacle or instead trying to find a way around it.

This goes hand in hand with only a very small portion of the XP coming from fighting monsters. The majority of XP comes from collecting gold. Killing a monster and taking its treasure could be very risky and would surely cost some hit points and spells. Stealing a treasure without fighting the monster still gets you most of the XP, but with some luck it doesn't cost you any hit points or spells and so you can continue looking for more treasure. Getting 75% XP three times pays out much better than getting 100% XP a single time.

Almost everything you encountered was optional. It was very rare that you knew for certain that you really had to win a fight and that running away was not an option. Because failure was always an option, not every obstacle would have to be beatable and GMs probably will have you find enemies that you could not beat in a straight fight. Since you never fully know if a fight is beatable or not, it's much safer to not take any chances with an even fight and always try to come up with plans that would lead to a very uneven fight in your favor.

[BWR]

The lack of skills or other fixed mechanics to accomplish things also resulted in (IME at least) a lot of ability score checks when then outcome of stated actions was in doubt. Roll a d20, get equal or lower than your relevant ability score (with modifiers). In the aforementioned intimidation check, roll Charisma (alternatively Strength) and hope the dice are in your favor.

[soldersbushwack]

Well, Jay R your first example is just silly as a single flask of oil really shouldn't be able to cover a full 10 by 20 room (you'd need maybe around 8 flasks in 5th edition) and your second example is just an aid another action in 5th edition that would give the Fighter an advantage on the shove attempt. It really isn't that improvisatory or non-mechanical.

Yora, I agree that dungeons shouldn't be super linear and that giving most XP from killing monster is bad as that just makes players murderhobos.

BWR, I don't follow. Rolling an ability score check for Charisma or Strength IS a fixed mechanic that is not fundamentally different from making a skill check. The big difference between ability score checks and skill checks is that one mechanic is more generic and gives freedom to govern more types of actions. Maybe skill checks make the best sense for very specific skills such as picking a lock or other tool using skills.

[Knaight]

Well, Jay R your first example is just silly as a single flask of oil really shouldn't be able to cover a full 10 by 20 room (you'd need maybe around 8 flasks in 5th edition) and your second example is just an aid another action in 5th edition that would give the Fighter an advantage on the shove attempt. It really isn't that improvisatory or non-mechanical.

While this indicates that you would probably make a different judgement call there, it doesn't change how in the example, in the absence of a more codified system, the group did something within the fiction and then the DM figured out how it would happen. In this case, the plan involved setting up a web, lighting the web on fire on the assumption that the web itself was flammable (which is a pretty reasonable assumption), and letting it burn. This worked, partially because of the way the game did fiction first definitions, where it was understood that the primary effect of the Web spell was not the mechanics of being stuck in a web, but that in setting it puts a giant web somewhere.

There's also the matter of how the extent to which a system is defined affects how people play the game. In another thread I have a post regarding the implementation of the 5e combat system compared to the 5e skill system, and how the 5e combat system isn't so much complete as appearing to be complete because of how it gets used. It's a long post to retype, but it basically comes down to how the "more complete" design involves both the codification of a space (via a grid) and the heavy codification of actions taken (via a list), and how if the space is altered to fit the grid and the actions taken to fit the list the game can be run with no DM based rules adjudication. If people want to have their characters do things that aren't o n the actions list and don't work well with the codification of space, suddenly there's a heavy need to adjudicate, but the need appears not to be there because people are playing differently than they would if they weren't looking at the heavily codified system.

I had a few examples, but the big ones were the way the DM made spaces that mapped well to a 5'x5' square grid (a lack of things like 3' or 8' wide hallways, floors and ceilings both snapping well to the same grid, etc.), the way players had PCs move in ways that fit the grid (not standing in the middle of a 10' space, not packing more than 1 to a square, etc.), and the way a number of actions that could be attempted in fiction weren't defined but didn't come up because people didn't use them (the example here was the fighter trying to tackle an orc to the ground so the rest of the party could jump over the two of them to keep running from something).

Early D&D tended to be a lot less defined, and because of that game design style there was a lot more improvisation, as it affected how players reacted. You can see the same ting to an even greater extent if you look away from D&D entirely, towards traditionalist rules light games.


BWR, I don't follow. Rolling an ability score check for Charisma or Strength IS a fixed mechanic that is not fundamentally different from making a skill check. The big difference between ability score checks and skill checks is that one mechanic is more generic and gives freedom to govern more types of actions. Maybe skill checks make the best sense for very specific skills such as picking a lock or other tool using skills.
It's the difference between the application of a broad mechanic, and the application of a more narrow mechanic that can only be used in certain places. There's an inherent trade off in skills, where making more things covered by skills and making skills more specific allows for better and better mechanical representation of a character's capabilities, while at the same time effectively shutting more and more options that are likely to be there for a character that is painted in broad strokes. On one extreme, you could have the game Monostat, where every character has a numerical Goodness rating they roll against for literally everything. Anyone can try anything, improvisation is basically mandatory and will crop up a lot, and as a mechanical framework to represent a character the game is just about completely useless (it was intended as a joke to make a point to begin with, and as far as I know it's never been played seriously).

[Jay R]

Well, Jay R your first example is just silly as a single flask of oil really shouldn't be able to cover a full 10 by 20 room (you'd need maybe around 8 flasks in 5th edition)...

The web filled 10 feet by 20 feet. That is from the description of the spell, and was the only part of the maneuver that had any rules support. The oil was to make sure the web caught fire.


.. and your second example is just an aid another action in 5th edition that would give the Fighter an advantage on the shove attempt. It really isn't that improvisatory or non-mechanical.

The fact that rules to cover it were written nearly forty years later doesn't mean we weren't improvising in 1976.

It was improvisatory in that we improvised it, without any text in the rules to refer to. It was non-mechanical in that there was no rule or mechanic for it. No rule for shoving, either.

The rules for original D&D fit on 29 sheets of 8 1/2 x 11 pieces of paper. Call it the equivalent of the first 29 pages of the PHB, except in a larger type face.

[manny2510]

1e has alot of adventures where the solution is past the problem. Sometimes looting the castle prior to clearing hostiles will be far more rewarding.

[neonchameleon]

A big part of it was what a good combat is. In oD&D the right time to kill a dragon was when it was asleep in the surprise round before it woke up. Combat was for schmucks - and you got most of your XP from GP rather than killing monsters. Loot the troll cave when the troll is somewhere else and you gain roughly 75% of the available XP for less than 10% of the risk.

In 2e you gain your party XP mostly from killing monsters. Fighting's therefore encouraged.

[Knaight]

The rules for original D&D fit on 29 sheets of 8 1/2 x 11 pieces of paper. Call it the equivalent of the first 29 pages of the PHB, except in a larger type face.

Gygax also had a gift for using a paragraph where a sentence would do, so it's probably worth trimming that estimate down a bit.

[Jay R]

Since there were very few rules for using Int, Wis, or Cha, and no skills, that meant anybody could try to search, spot, listen, convince, bluff, intimidate, etc. It usually meant that the player was trying to outwit the DM.

Consider the following, with a player who has no bluff or intimidate skills.

A guardsman was trying to not allow my lower-level wizard into the city. I said, "I pull out my Wand of Frost and tell him that if he doesn't move, I will freeze him."

He let me through, but about five minutes later the DM said, "Hey, wait a minute. You don't have a Wand of Frost."

"I know. It was a bluff."

"But you don't have a wand."

I replied, "It's been on my character sheet for the last four games. Here, look."

There, in my inventory, it very clearly said, "fourteen-inch polished stick of wood."

[2D8HP]

The fact that rules to cover it were written nearly forty years later doesn't mean we weren't improvising in 1976.
It was improvisatory in that we improvised it, without any text in the rules to refer to. It was non-mechanical in that there was no rule or mechanic for it. No rule for shoving, either.
The rules for original D&D fit on 29 sheets of 8 1/2 x 11 pieces of paper. Call it the equivalent of the first 29 pages of the PHB, except in a larger type face.
The memories are fading, but I mostly remember oD&D as being almost nothing but improvisation. The rules as written were incomprehensible! (%Liar?). We got the gist of the RAI but as written? Not so much (we sure had fun trying!). I remember that when Holmes and especially 1e came out, trying to play RAW was a real adjustment. Last year when I re-read the Men & Magic booklet, I had two thoughts, "Man this takes me back", and "Nope, I still wouldn't get it"!

[Yora]

I imagine playing AD&D 1st edition by RAW would be an adventure in itself.

[hamlet]

Since there were very few rules for using Int, Wis, or Cha, and no skills, that meant anybody could try to search, spot, listen, convince, bluff, intimidate, etc. It usually meant that the player was trying to outwit the DM.

Consider the following, with a player who has no bluff or intimidate skills.

A guardsman was trying to not allow my lower-level wizard into the city. I said, "I pull out my Wand of Frost and tell him that if he doesn't move, I will freeze him."

He let me through, but about five minutes later the DM said, "Hey, wait a minute. You don't have a Wand of Frost."

"I know. It was a bluff."

"But you don't have a wand."

I replied, "It's been on my character sheet for the last four games. Here, look."

There, in my inventory, it very clearly said, "fourteen-inch polished stick of wood."

OK, that's just spectacular. Bluff the guard and the DM all in one swoop!

Of course, if I were the DM, the guard would have let you pass, but about 10 minutes later, most of the rest of the guards in town would have been told about the dangerous and fickle wizard who'd just forced his way in . . .

[Jay R]

The memories are fading, but I mostly remember oD&D as being almost nothing but improvisation. The rules as written were incomprehensible! (%Liar?). We got the gist of the RAI but as written? Not so much (we sure had fun trying!). I remember that when Holmes and especially 1e came out, trying to play RAW was a real adjustment. Last year when I re-read the Men & Magic booklet, I had two thoughts, "Man this takes me back", and "Nope, I still wouldn't get it"!

It's worth remembering that many of the rules only made sense after the first supplement (Greyhawk) came out, with a D&D-specific combat system instead of using Chainmail. In a very real sense, the first really playable game is original D&D plus Greyhawk.

[Falcon X]

Here's a pretty good article on what OD&D did better than current D&D.
Summary of topics:
- Lethality
- Higher cooperative play
- party focus
- value of bland PCs

http://dungeonofsigns.blogspot.com/2013/04/thoughts-regarding-character-mortality.html?m=1

[Jay R]

... and your second example is just an aid another action in 5th edition that would give the Fighter an advantage on the shove attempt.

The difference was that I couldn't say, "I perform an Aid action to give him an advantage on a shove attempt," because there were no rules to indicate what aiding an attempt was, and no rules for shoving. I had to describe the specific action. You can interpret that as aiding another action only because you grew up with a different approach to role-playing.

Similarly, I couldn't just roll a bluff attempt or diplomacy check. I had to invent what the character said, and try to be convincing. One result is that my cleverness mattered more than my character's Intelligence, and my persuasiveness mattered more than my character's Charisma, and my description of searching a room mattered more than my chracter's Wisdom or (nonexistent) Search skill.


OK, that's just spectacular. Bluff the guard and the DM all in one swoop!

That's pretty much what bluffing meant.

[hamlet]

That's pretty much what bluffing meant.

Oh, I know, I just don't see it very often even at my AD&D 1e table. Stuff that awesome is absolutely great.

[Yora]

It's used so rarely because there are so few situations where you could use it. So in games with skills, people usually put no points into it. With no points in it the chance of success is negible, so barely anyone tries to use it.

And this is why more rules options generally mean that the players have fewer viable options in play. There is little room for spontaneous ideas if you have to customize your character for it 4 levels in advance.

It's not just adventure design that makes AD&D, and especially Basic, so much more improvisational. The rules also make a big difference.

[Knaight]

And this is why more rules options generally mean that the players have fewer viable options in play. There is little room for spontaneous ideas if you have to customize your character for it 4 levels in advance.

That's not a matter of more rules options so much as it's a matter of how D&D 3e specifically set itself up, particularly with things like the prestige class and feat tree system.

[LibraryOgre]

That's not a matter of more rules options so much as it's a matter of how D&D 3e specifically set itself up, particularly with things like the prestige class and feat tree system.

I have to agree with this. In 3.x, many of the combat options required a feat (or more) to be viable. "If you don't have X feat (which has Y and Z prerequisites), then attempting this opens you to an attack of opportunity" is pretty much a way of saying "Doing this will hurt you."

[hamlet]

I have to agree with this. In 3.x, many of the combat options required a feat (or more) to be viable. "If you don't have X feat (which has Y and Z prerequisites), then attempting this opens you to an attack of opportunity" is pretty much a way of saying "Doing this will hurt you."

I've found that it also tends to focus players on their character sheets much more intently than any other version of the game rather than getting into their character's head. When you have mechanical rules covering what used to be a matter of DM adjudication and spontaneity, it means a lot more focus on "what can you do?" rather than "what do you want to do?".

That is not to say, though, that it's universal or a hard and fast rule, just something I've experienced.

[Yora]

Yes, when players encounter an obstacle and start looking at their character sheet if there is something that might be useful, something has gone wrong.

[Scots Dragon]

I have to agree with this. In 3.x, many of the combat options required a feat (or more) to be viable. "If you don't have X feat (which has Y and Z prerequisites), then attempting this opens you to an attack of opportunity" is pretty much a way of saying "Doing this will hurt you."

I'm going to have to start making a properly numbered list of things that severely irritate me about 3rd edition at the rate I'm going, and honestly this one would be near the top of the list.

[Yora]

I ranked it as number 3 (http://spriggans-den.com/?p=637) of the biggest errors in the evolution of RPGs.

[Scots Dragon]

I ranked it as number 3 (http://spriggans-den.com/?p=637) of the biggest errors in the evolution of RPGs.

I don't agree with all of the ones on that list (I quite like Vancian Magic, the Storyteller System, and Alignment), but yeah.

[Mordar]

I have to agree with this. In 3.x, many of the combat options required a feat (or more) to be viable. "If you don't have X feat (which has Y and Z prerequisites), then attempting this opens you to an attack of opportunity" is pretty much a way of saying "Doing this will hurt you."

Well, that's certainly one way to view it...and maybe the dominant way. I believe the intention had always been "if you have X feat you are better at that thing than average people", but the risk-averse view point (in the case of AoO) or optimization viewpoint says "If I am not specially trained to do exactly that thing, I shouldn't do it because I might get hurt, or I am failing to optimize the value of my action".

I think this is both a cause of and a reinforcement of the drive to specialization and "spamming X" as rote character actions. Kind of too bad that you have to go to the opposite extreme (Feng Shui, 7th Sea, etc) to get people to try things other than spamming X (even if x = "cast this, this and this, destroy opponents").

- M

[Khedrac]

I have to agree with this. In 3.x, many of the combat options required a feat (or more) to be viable. "If you don't have X feat (which has Y and Z prerequisites), then attempting this opens you to an attack of opportunity" is pretty much a way of saying "Doing this will hurt you."

It's actually slightly worse that this - for most of them the action is also negated if the attack of opportunity hits (e.g. attempting to grapple without improved grapple/improved grab).

[hamlet]

Well, that's certainly one way to view it...and maybe the dominant way. I believe the intention had always been "if you have X feat you are better at that thing than average people", but the risk-averse view point (in the case of AoO) or optimization viewpoint says "If I am not specially trained to do exactly that thing, I shouldn't do it because I might get hurt, or I am failing to optimize the value of my action".

I think this is both a cause of and a reinforcement of the drive to specialization and "spamming X" as rote character actions. Kind of too bad that you have to go to the opposite extreme (Feng Shui, 7th Sea, etc) to get people to try things other than spamming X (even if x = "cast this, this and this, destroy opponents").

- M

Yeah, except people don't actually think that way. If you find yourself facing a challenge in life, you don't worry about "optimizing the value of your action," you worry about how you're going to overcome the situation.

[Scots Dragon]

It's actually slightly worse that this - for most of them the action is also negated if the attack of opportunity hits (e.g. attempting to grapple without improved grapple/improved grab).

To compound this, AD&D does actually have explicit rules for all of those manoeuvres, albeit not always by the precise same name and sometimes merged or split off to become different manoeuvres. There are also, thanks to the Player's Option books, two versions of each (and in a rare instance, the Player's Option: Combat & Tactics versions are better handled). They do not incur attacks of opportunity.

Similarly, the 5th edition Dungeon Master's Guide has similar options that do not require feats or special combat styles. The few special combat styles that do exist in this context are treated as a bonus to the roll rather than a penalty.

[Mordar]

Yeah, except people don't actually think that way. If you find yourself facing a challenge in life, you don't worry about "optimizing the value of your action," you worry about how you're going to overcome the situation.

People don't in real life...but oh my gosh do they* ever at the D&D 3.x tables...when things like action efficiency and resource allocation are far more pressing concerns than the large strange beast about to try and smush my head...because they do not see a physical threat, they see a logistical challenge.

* they = high optimizers, not necessarily all, but many...those folks who spend minutes figuring out what they should do during combat, and spend hours researching what they should consider doing between games

[hamlet]

Which is largely the point. If a person doesn't act/think like that, why should a character?

Just because, according to the rules, a high enough level character can fall from orbit and realistically survive doesn't mean that any character would realistically willingly fling themselves from the top of a tower.

[ComaVision]

Yeah, except people don't actually think that way. If you find yourself facing a challenge in life, you don't worry about "optimizing the value of your action," you worry about how you're going to overcome the situation.

I don't see how those are different. You don't consider the value of changing the oil yourself versus paying someone else to do it? When I have to do errands, I plan out a route that has the least amount of overall travel, and if some of those errands have to be done at specific times then that's considered too. I value my time, thus it's a consideration when I face challenges.

Maybe you don't use terminology like "optimization" when considering personal decisions but I'm sure you're still doing the act.

[2D8HP]

Judging by many posts on the 5e Forum, I have been playing and more importantly DM'ing/GM'ing/Refereing RPG's mostly wrong since I started in the hobby over 35 years ago, as there seems to be an effort to adhere to RAW that simply has never occured to me.
My game philosophy has been rather loose and another poster on another thread wrote it better then I have

In the novel Glory Road, Heinlein had his character Rufo say:
"Any social organization does well enough if it isn’t rigid. The framework doesn’t matter as long as there is enough looseness to permit that one man in a multitude to display his genius. Most so-called social scientists seem to think that organization is everything. It is almost nothing—except when it is a straitjacket. It is the incidence of heroes that counts, not the pattern of zeros."
Change "social organization" to "game system," and you have Heinlein's Law of RPGs.
My RPG backround:
I started probably in 1978 with the "bluebook" Holmes authored Basic Dungeons and Dragons box set, which is probably the only RPG that I really ever tried to use strictly, completely and exclusively as written, I can still remember that I felt the need to read the less then 50 page rulebook three times over before I felt "I got it". Sometime in 6th grade I was reading the "bluebook" in class, when a classmate noticed and invited me to game at his house, where his older brother was the DM, which was the first RPG that I played. The "Edition" played was oD&D (the LBB's) plus the TSR supplements, plus, the AD&D "Monster Manual" plus, the "Arduin Grimoires", and "All the Worlds Monsters". The primary rule was "of cool", and "whatever seems to work". I looked over the LBB's (and soon bought them myself) and while I was enchanted by them, I also pretty much found the RAW so incomprehensible that there was no way I could play them straight, and when I re-read them last year that was still my impression. Getting the "Chainmail" game (which was supposed to be used as well) sometime in the 80's did not change my mind, as it still required what I assume was a base knowledge of 1960's wargames that I lacked.
I soon got the AD&D PHB, and then the DMG, and by the mid 80's I had many more RPG's (and still keep being them, much to the detriment of my storage needs).
While I would study the ruleswhen I wasn't actually playing After character creation, I would almost never crack open the rule books in play, beyond a couple of charts as DM/GM. And when a PC would attempt a task, as often as not as DM/GM, I would improvise a percentage chance of success, and have the player roll dice to see "if it worked". And mixing rules/setting "fluff" from other "editions" and games has often been used.
I have never played "online" and when I have gone to conventions (DUNDRACON typically) It has always been as a player, and the only "rules" that I was concerned with, was how many hit points my PC's had left!
I have been using 5e the same way I used "Basic","oD&D, 1e AD&D, and other RPG's. But in reading the 5e forums an adherence to RAW that I simply haven't done (and with my lack of memorization abilities am probably incapable of), seems required, leading me to believe I've playing contrary to the way the game is mostly played.
Have I?

[Yora]

I think most people who hang out in 5th edition forums are probably old 3rd and 4th edition players. And those games were a lot about learning huge amounts of tiny rules and finding possible exploits synergies between them.

[Jay R]

Judging by many posts on the 5e Forum, I have been playing and more importantly DM'ing/GM'ing/Refereing RPG's mostly wrong since I started in the hobby over 35 years ago, as there seems to be an effort to adhere to RAW that simply has never occured to me.

It never occurred to Gygax, Arneson or the Blume brothers when they wrote original D&D either.

And don't assume that online forums give a statistically valid picture of how people play in general. People who play like you don't need to ask those questions, and so don't show up nearly as much on the forums. Unless you plan to play RAW, you don't need as much advice on what the rule means.


I also pretty much found the RAW so incomprehensible that there was no way I could play them straight, and when I re-read them last year that was still my impression. Getting the "Chainmail" game (which was supposed to be used as well) sometime in the 80's did not change my mind, as it still required what I assume was a base knowledge of 1960's wargames that I lacked.

Correct. It became an understandable play-alone game without wargaming experience only with the addition of the first supplement, Greyhawk. I consider original D&D plus Greyhawk to be the first true rpg.


I have been using 5e the same way I used "Basic","oD&D, 1e AD&D, and other RPG's. But in reading the 5e forums an adherence to RAW that I simply haven't done (and with my lack of memorization abilities am probably incapable of), seems required, leading me to believe I've playing contrary to the way the game is mostly played.
Have I?

You are playing contrary to the way 5e is mostly played, I think. But you are playing as original D&D was explicitly written, and as AD&D was still implicitly written, even though Gygax had some idea for awhile that AD&D would answer all rules questions).

Starting in 3e, the idea that you would play exactly by the rules came in.

You aren't playing contrary to the way the game has been played for forty years. You are playing old-school, exactly as the game was originally intended and played.

[Khedrac]

Judging by many posts on the 5e Forum, I have been playing and more importantly DM'ing/GM'ing/Refereing RPG's mostly wrong since I started in the hobby over 35 years ago, as there seems to be an effort to adhere to RAW that simply has never occured to me.
I think 3E D&D made RAW conformance an issue for a couple of reasons:

1. Character creation became so complicated that for anything other than a simple character it is necessary to plan the build in advance.
This means that players can have great ideas and then spend quite a lot of time working out how to achieve them. This means they really don't want to find out half-way through the campaign that the DM does not agree with their ideas.

2. Online play.
With online play it is much harder to sit down and discuss the rules and how to interpret them - if the group is together one is using up gaming time with rules discussion - boring.
It also makes reason 1) much more important.

I think it the combination of these two reasons that made RAW so important.

There's a minor 3rd reason - Living Campaigns (which started during 2nd Ed).
With the growth of campaigns where DMs are expected to use the same rules for groups of players who may have never met before a commons rules standard is essential.

We had a shared RuneQuest campaign world (3rd Ed Avalon Hill) at university, not all of the GMs ruled the same way, but it did not matter - the system was simple enough that the differences were merely interesting not things that made major differences to the viability of characters. Most people played in specific groups, but other players where welcome to drop in and join other groups if available. GMs rotated and swapped, one group one night had so many players turn up then it as split in two - one party upstairs, one down (though one of the GMs was doing something weird enough that people popped back and forth between the groups - confused the other GM more than the players I think.
Without the complex character planning of D&D 3E the rules differences did not matter - we could enjoy all of the games as they were.

I think the complex planning might do it on its own, for groups where access to discuss options with the DM are limited, but the internet and online games really make it essential to know what rules you will be playing under - hence "RAW".

[Knaight]

It never occurred to Gygax, Arneson or the Blume brothers when they wrote original D&D either.

By AD&D, Gygax was downright cantankerous about it. There are a number of articles in Dragon where he basically says that people who houserule AD&D aren't playing the same game anymore. Arneson meanwhile was clearly a loose-rules guy, who assigned no value to the concept now referred to as RAW.

[Jay R]

By AD&D, Gygax was downright cantankerous about it. There are a number of articles in Dragon where he basically says that people who houserule AD&D aren't playing the same game anymore. Arneson meanwhile was clearly a loose-rules guy, who assigned no value to the concept now referred to as RAW.

Yup. In one editorial, he maintained, simultaneously, that if you were playing any role-playing game, you were "really" playing D&D, and also that if you changed any rules of AD&D, you weren't "really" playing D&D.

That's when I quit reading The Dragon.

[Knaight]

Yup. In one editorial, he maintained, simultaneously, that if you were playing any role-playing game, you were "really" playing D&D, and also that if you changed any rules of AD&D, you weren't "really" playing D&D.

That's when I quit reading The Dragon.

This sort of stuff is exactly why I really don't care what Gygax's opinion is on things, even beyond the usual policy of not really caring what some self appointed RPG authority thinks about a game they aren't playing in.

[Mordar]

This sort of stuff is exactly why I really don't care what Gygax's opinion is on things, even beyond the usual policy of not really caring what some self appointed RPG authority thinks about a game they aren't playing in.

While I'd really be interested in seeing these number of articles and editorials again with a fresh eye (collected quite a lot of Dragon magazines...from back around issue 30 or so), I just don't remember that level of tyrannical declaration. From a standpoint of him opining about games he's not playing in...it doesn't quite align with lots of the "these are guidelines, play how makes sense for you guys" elements of those AD&D books I got long long ago.

All of that aside, I don't know that I'd apply a "self appointed RPG authority" label to Gygax. While his status as an innovator, position as a founding father of the hobby, and someone who has positively influenced virtually every successful RPG designer or game in some fashion doesn't mean you have to agree with everything he said, but I think you have to at least consider the words "self appointed" as a bit of a stretch. :smallwink:

- M

[Digitalelf]

I just don't remember that level of tyrannical declaration. From a standpoint of him opining about games he's not playing in...

This is an excerpt from an article by Gary Gygax from issue #26 of The Dragon (June 1979)...


AD&D rectifies the shortcomings of (Original) D&D. There are few grey areas in AD&D, and there will be no question in the mind of the participants as to what the game is and is all about. There is form and structure to AD&D, and any variation of these integral portions of the game will obviously make it something else...

While (Original) D&D campaigns can be those which feature comic book spells, 43rd level balrogs as player characters, and include a plethora of trash from various and sundry sources, AD&D cannot be so composed. Either a DM runs an AD&D campaign, or else it is something else. This is clearly stated within the work, and it is a mandate which will be unchanging, even if AD&D undergoes change at some future date. While DMs are free to allow many unique features to become a part of their campaign—special magic items, new monsters, different spells, unusual settings—and while they can have free rein in devising the features and facts pertaining to the various planes which surround the Prime Material, it is understood they must adhere to the form of AD&D. Otherwise what they referee is a variant adventure game. DMs still create an entire milieu, populate it and give it history and meaning. Players still develop personae and adventure in realms of the strange and fantastic, performing deeds of derring-do, but this all follows a master plan.

The advantages of such a game are obvious. Because the integral features are known and immutable, there can be no debate as to what is correct. A meaningful dialog can be carried on between DMs, regardless of what region they play in. Players can move from one AD&D campaign to another and know at the very least the basic precepts of the game—that magic-users will not wield swords, that fighters don’t have instant death to give or take with critical hits or double damage, that strange classes of characters do not rule the campaign, that the various deities will not be constantly popping in and out of the game at the beck and call of player characters, etc. AD&D will suffer no such abuses, and DMs who allow them must realize this up front. The best feature of a game which offers real form, however, is that it will more readily lend itself to actual improvement—not change, but true improvement Once everybody is actually playing a game which is basically the same from campaign to campaign, any flaws or shortcomings of the basic systems and/or rules will become apparent. With (original) D&D, arguments regarding some rule are lost due to the differences in play and the wide variety of solutions proposed—most of which reflect the propensities of local groups reacting to some variant system which their DM uses in his or her campaign in the first place. With AD&D, such aberrations will be excluded, and a broad base can be used to determine what is actually needed and desired.

[Jay R]

This sort of stuff is exactly why I really don't care what Gygax's opinion is on things, even beyond the usual policy of not really caring what some self appointed RPG authority thinks about a game they aren't playing in.

Oh, he covered that, too. The same editorial said that there needed to be an ultimate authority on the subject of how to play rpgs, and who better than the person who had sold the most games?

I remember thinking at the time, "Gary, nobody but you believes experience can be measured in gold."

[Yora]

Experience for gold is one of the most genius uses for XP I've ever seen in an RPG. Or for gold.

It's completely arbitrary, but as a game mechanic it works wonderfully. It rewards and promotes adventuring as a whole, not only monster slaying.

[Knaight]

Oh, he covered that, too. The same editorial said that there needed to be an ultimate authority on the subject of how to play rpgs, and who better than the person who had sold the most games?
I need to track down an original of this thing, it sounds hilarious. I'd seen more than enough quotes to be familiar with his stance regarding the very specific way people had to play AD&D, but I didn't know that there was even better evidence in here for the self appointed authority label. After all, there are other designers who have come somewhat close to saying to play the games the way they are written and only the way they are written, though in later cases it's usually a case of emphasizing that the mechanics are very carefully designed, fairly counter intuitive, and thus shouldn't be messed with until you really know the game. The whole concept of the ultimate authority on RPGs, that's a new one.


I remember thinking at the time, "Gary, nobody but you believes experience can be measured in gold."
Sounds about right.

[Jay R]

Experience for gold is one of the most genius uses for XP I've ever seen in an RPG. Or for gold.

It's completely arbitrary, but as a game mechanic it works wonderfully. It rewards and promotes adventuring as a whole, not only monster slaying.

Specifically, it rewards adventuring in the form of taking the gold while (whenever possible) leaving the monstrous threats to humanity where they are.

With gold for experience, you could play any kind of character you wanted - a selfish, sneaking, gold-obsessed Thief, a selfish, sneaking, gold-obsessed Fighter, a selfish, sneaking, gold-obsessed Cleric, a selfish, sneaking, gold-obsessed Paladin, ....

[Mordar]

Specifically, it rewards adventuring in the form of taking the gold while (whenever possible) leaving the monstrous threats to humanity where they are.

With gold for experience, you could play any kind of character you wanted - a selfish, sneaking, gold-obsessed Thief, a selfish, sneaking, gold-obsessed Fighter, a selfish, sneaking, gold-obsessed Cleric, a selfish, sneaking, gold-obsessed Paladin, ....

Based on the premise that every "dungeon denizen" was, in fact, a murderously evil threat to humanity hell bent on wiping the nearest settlement of people from the planet and taking all of their stuff. You know, like the selfless, mass-murdering, gold-obsessed Thief, selfless, mass-murdering, gold-obsessed Fighter, selfless, mass-murdering, gold-obsessed Cleric and selfless, mass-murdering, gold-obsessed Paladin just did to that last village of goblinoids... :smallwink:

Sure, gold as the sole source of experience isn't the most perfect idea, but really...is slashing/blasting/stabbing/arrowing apart "monsters" as the sole source any better?

- M

[Yora]

Okay, I admit, once paladins, druids, and bards entered the picture and the game was clearly no longer about treasure hunting, the justification became rather shakey.

It's a good mechanic for OD&D and Basic, but doesn't translate well to AD&D. Though switching to XP for fight merely replaced the problem with an equal problem without really solving anything.

[2D8HP]

IIRC the actual mechanic was XP for getting the DM pizza :smallsmile:

[Telok]

Yeah, I've seen the "Kill it or we won't get xp" and the "It's in the dungeon/wilderness and not a PC race, therefore it's supposed to be killed" styles that only being able to kill monsters for xp promotes.

The closest I've come to having spells 'break' a game was a setting where exploration was supposed to be a big thing. Go out, find stuff, learn how idfferent areas and populations interact as part of the plot. You know, a break from the "all knowing NPC of exposition" trope. So flight and teleportation magic were unstable, like near deadly if you used them for more than a few miles. There was an artifact that empowered flying spells to multi-hour effects in the setting.

It was 3.5 and at about 8th or 9th level the players started a combo of the Phantom Steed like spells and one guy could grow wings and fly for a while. So the flying guy would scout, missing or ignoring a fair bit of ground level stuff and people, and then they'd zoom off at 50 miiles an hour on magic force horses to their destination. They ended up missing about two thirds of the setting content while still technically completing one of the three main quests. Of course they completed it in a manner that got them all killed and put thier stuff into the hands of the BBEG's heir, because they'd skipped and ignored so much.

It didn't help that most of them are stuck in the NPC = video game merchant or quest giver and insulted or ignored all the other NPCs in the setting. It's a real mood killer to hear "Dude, we go turn in the quest to that guy!" when they don't even remember who asked them to do something or even what city that person was in.

And before anyone jumps to the usual assumptions, they were aware that exploration was important and they all bought in to the campaign premise before we started. It was f***ing talked about.

[Jay R]

Based on the premise that every "dungeon denizen" was, in fact, a murderously evil threat to humanity hell bent on wiping the nearest settlement of people from the planet and taking all of their stuff.

No, not at all. It was based on the idea that there *were* threats to humanity, and stopping them wasn't worth nearly as many xps as taking treasure.

An original D&D 1st level Paladin who stops 50 goblins from attacking a farmhouse gets a few xps. But the same Paladin who kills a single goblin in his lair and finds 2,000 gps goes up to second level.

Stopping a dragon who was attacking a town was not nearly as valuable as slaying a dragon who was sleeping in its lair.

All the over-simplified assumptions about 'every "dungeon denizen"' were your addition. I didn't write them.


Sure, gold as the sole source of experience isn't the most perfect idea, but really...is slashing/blasting/stabbing/arrowing apart "monsters" as the sole source any better?

No, of course not. Replaced a stupid, over-simplistic idea with a different stupid, over-simplistic idea is not an improvement. Therefore pointing out that the first one is no better than the second is not a meaningful defense of the first one.

[Yora]

Which is why I dumped XP entirely. Once you start going into story games and don't do dungeon crawling, the achieving of story goals should be the primary motivation. Complete the goal quickly and with no unnecessary fights, and you have fewer situations in which your character might die. Then you get a new character level which improves your chance of survival in any upcoming situations where your character might die.

[2D8HP]

Which is why I dumped XP entirely.
From another thread:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?484971-XP-alternatives-for-D-amp-D

Basically; XP for audacious attempts of difficult tasks. And more XP for when those attempts actually succeed.
WDYT?

[neonchameleon]

This is an excerpt from an article by Gary Gygax from issue #26 of The Dragon (June 1979)...

Gygax really was a case of "Do as I say, not as I do" there. And it's important to remember that 1e AD&D was a spite edition - created to screw Arneson out of royalties by making it just different enough from D&D to be able to call it a different game.

[hamlet]

Gygax really was a case of "Do as I say, not as I do" there. And it's important to remember that 1e AD&D was a spite edition - created to screw Arneson out of royalties by making it just different enough from D&D to be able to call it a different game.

That's just a little harsh.

It was also largely about marketing. Gary was trying to sell copy. Especially since his self admitted greatest fear was that one day the players and DM's would all realize that there was absolutely no need for them to buy most of what they were peddling.

Doesn't make it a whole lot better, just understandable.

In the end, Gary didn't even play AD&D. He played the original three little books with additions from the other books and the animosity between him and Arneson was somewhat overstated.

[neonchameleon]

That's just a little harsh.

It was also largely about marketing. Gary was trying to sell copy. Especially since his self admitted greatest fear was that one day the players and DM's would all realize that there was absolutely no need for them to buy most of what they were peddling.

Doesn't make it a whole lot better, just understandable.

In the end, Gary didn't even play AD&D. He played the original three little books with additions from the other books and the animosity between him and Arneson was somewhat overstated.

You mean the animosity that lead to five separate lawsuits was overstated?

[hamlet]

You mean the animosity that lead to five separate lawsuits was overstated?

Yup. Both of them, well after the fact, essentially said as much: that it was "just business." It got ugly, sure, but in the end, after the fight was done and the dust settled, they were ok with each other.

I didn't say they didn't have a fight, I simply said it's painted as much worse than it actually was, just like Lorraine is painted as far greater an ogre than she ever was.

[kyoryu]

No, not at all. It was based on the idea that there *were* threats to humanity, and stopping them wasn't worth nearly as many xps as taking treasure.

An original D&D 1st level Paladin who stops 50 goblins from attacking a farmhouse gets a few xps. But the same Paladin who kills a single goblin in his lair and finds 2,000 gps goes up to second level.

But you're missing the fact that the original game was played strictly as a megadungeon game. You started in town above the dungeon, went into the dungeon, and left the dungeon at the end of the session.

Gold for XP is an amazing mechanic *in this situation*, as it incentivizes exploration over everything else.

Gold for XP is an amazingly stupid mechanic in almost all other situations.

The problem with "gold for XP" is that most people don't play a strictly dungeon-centric, open-table version of D&D. You know, the type of game that the system actually evolved around.

[Yora]

Wilderness adventures and building strongholds was already in the very first box set. It has always been more than dungeons. (Even long before paladins.)

[hamlet]

But you're missing the fact that the original game was played strictly as a megadungeon game. You started in town above the dungeon, went into the dungeon, and left the dungeon at the end of the session.

Gold for XP is an amazing mechanic *in this situation*, as it incentivizes exploration over everything else.

Gold for XP is an amazingly stupid mechanic in almost all other situations.

The problem with "gold for XP" is that most people don't play a strictly dungeon-centric, open-table version of D&D. You know, the type of game that the system actually evolved around.

Which is by 2nd edition, it was an entirely optional rule. Apply as needed.

Yora: By "originally" we're talking pre-publication, Gary's home game timeframe. Wilderness adventures were actually an innovation he created when his players started wanted to explore the wider world that the dungeon sat in and it made it to the first boxed set before anybody thought hard enough about the consequences.

[kyoryu]

It was also largely about marketing. Gary was trying to sell copy. Especially since his self admitted greatest fear was that one day the players and DM's would all realize that there was absolutely no need for them to buy most of what they were peddling.

It's also worth noting that when he talks about players being Balrogs, he isn't talking about crazy stuff that he heard about those durn kids doing. He's talking about something that happened in his own game.

In a lot of ways, that statement is less about "do it my way or don't do it!" and more of starting an almost proto-organized-play situation.

[Knaight]

In a lot of ways, that statement is less about "do it my way or don't do it!" and more of starting an almost proto-organized-play situation.

Other than how organized play organizations never try to claim influence outside of the actual organization, and Gygax was insisting that everyone playing the game do it his way.

[hamlet]

Other than how organized play organizations never try to claim influence outside of the actual organization, and Gygax was insisting that everyone playing the game do it his way.

It's important to realize that 1st edition AD&D was also designed as a way of having a unified rule set that could be used in tournament play. A lot of the time, he was also specifically talking about tournament play rather than what anyone did at their home table.

[kyoryu]

Other than how organized play organizations never try to claim influence outside of the actual organization, and Gygax was insisting that everyone playing the game do it his way.

Not really. It's not really different than Vincent Baker saying if you don't play AW by the book, you're not playing AW. Which he has said.


The advantages of such a game are obvious. Because the integral features are known and immutable, there can be no debate as to what is correct. A meaningful dialog can be carried on between DMs, regardless of what region they play in. Players can move from one AD&D campaign to another and know at the very least the basic precepts of the game—that magic-users will not wield swords, that fighters don’t have instant death to give or take with critical hits or double damage, that strange classes of characters do not rule the campaign, that the various deities will not be constantly popping in and out of the game at the beck and call of player characters, etc.

He's pretty clearly talking about things like campaign interop and the like.

Meanwhile...


Either a DM runs an AD&D campaign, or else it is something else.

He's not really saying that's *bad*. Just different, and not interchangeable with other AD&D games.

[Jay R]

But you're missing the fact that the original game was played strictly as a megadungeon game. You started in town above the dungeon, went into the dungeon, and left the dungeon at the end of the session.

In original D&D, the third pamphlet was The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures (emphasis added). Pages 3-13 were about the underworld, and pages 14-24 were about the wilderness, and pages 25-34 were about large scale outdoor battles.

Most often, you're right, it was just about the dungeon outside of town. But that was the DM and players' decision, not the structure.

And why did players always go down into the dungeon, instead of playing the wilderness game as described? Because that was where the most gold was.

GP as xps did indeed incentivize people to go dungeon-diving exclusively. And by doing so, mostly eliminated what was supposed to be a major part of the game. That wasn't a clever feature; it was an unintended bug.

[kyoryu]

To be clear, I'm literally talking about how Gary played when he ran his games, as described by people that played with him, not what the published rulebooks say.

While at the end of the day, I don't think that's necessarily "the right way" to play, I think understanding the style of game that was actually played in Lake Geneva, and that the rules evolved around, is useful in understanding why the rules are the way they are, and then aids in understanding which rules should be tossed if not playing that style of game.

[Yora]

Speaking of which: Are there any good accounts of Arneson's campaigns? I often get the impression that this whole roleplaying idea was mostly his creation.

[Knaight]

Speaking of which: Are there any good accounts of Arneson's campaigns? I often get the impression that this whole roleplaying idea was mostly his creation.

There's an excellent one involving pamphlet distribution, where Arneson is the one creative player in it and wins it as an afterthought after spending the rest of the game roleplaying a character who doesn't actually care that much about it.

[Tanarii]

It's also worth noting that when he talks about players being Balrogs, he isn't talking about crazy stuff that he heard about those durn kids doing. He's talking about something that happened in his own game.

In a lot of ways, that statement is less about "do it my way or don't do it!" and more of starting an almost proto-organized-play situation.No he wasn't talking about his own game. He was exactly talking about "crazy stuff that he heard about those durn kids doing." The quote provided was part of his lashing out at the west-coast playstyle. It was part of the west-coast east-coast Fantasy RPG rivalry that developed. The west coasters would do things like make 100+ level characters, 43rd level Balrog players, etc. Gary explicitly said things over and over again about how they were doing it wrong, and D&D was about the low level, mostly pre-name level, play.

Deities and Demigods was part of that rivalry. It was Gary publishing a book to tell the west-coasters what a God looked like, telling them they were doing it wrong if their characters could beat that or looked like that. The excerpt in the AD&D 1e DMG about monsters not being used as player characters, about the world being humano-centric, was another "you're doing it wrong" from Gary to the west-coasters. It wasn't a small deal in his mind, and he often ranted about it.

[kyoryu]

No he wasn't talking about his own game.

Yeah, he was. Having a player play a Balrog is something that happened in his game.

[Knaight]

Yeah, he was. Having a player play a Balrog is something that happened in his game.

This isn't exactly a convincing counter point to the particular quote being lashing out against others. Gygax's views on RPGs weren't exactly consistent over the years.

[Raimun]

I think now days things are better. You can still improvise but because there are now skills and special abilities, your chances of success are always dependant on them.

If you were trying to bluff a city guard, the run of the mill Wizard or a Knight would not be the best candidate to try it. Instead, a Bard or a Cleric who worships the god of thieves would find such a task right up their alley.

That's not to say improvisation and planning are useless now. If you have all the skill ranks and modifiers in the world but can't think like a thief, any attempts at cat burglarly are bound to fail. Improvisation and planning feature in how you apply your skills. Skill ranks (etc.) determine who is best suited to actually carry out the plan. Even if you can make plans, it doesn't necessarily mean you have the competence to execute them. For example, it is a solid plan to try to gain an access to a local lord's castle with forged papers. However, the execution will be very poor if no one involved with the plan is a skilled forger (ie. possessing Forgery-skill).

See the difference?

[Tanarii]

Yeah, he was. Having a player play a Balrog is something that happened in his game.No, he wasn't. Mike Mornard was the one who played a Balrog, and he never made it anywhere near 43rd level.

[kyoryu]

No, he wasn't. Mike Mornard was the one who played a Balrog, and he never made it anywhere near 43rd level.

Didn't catch the 43rd level part.

So, yeah, he had a Balrog, but it wasn't 43rd level :D

[2D8HP]

I saw this link, which I found on playgrounder Yora's blog:
http://www.jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/Archive_OLD/rpg2.html
Which fits how I can dimly remember the game was played in the 1970's, and seems to show another example of how integral improvisation was to early DnD (please tell me how much a part of the game improv is now). To paraphrase Mike Mornard "We made some stuff up we thought would be fun".
I don't see why we need to dig up the old rules from storage (which my wife will likely make me sell or throw out, thus preventing my son from getting) in order to play with the same spirit.
Or do the current (FREE!!) RAW somehow inhibit improvisation for those who learn the game based on latter editions?

[Khedrac]

I don't see why we need to dig up the old rules from storage (which my wife will likely make me sell or throw out, thus preventing my son from getting) in order to play with the same spirit.
Or do the current (FREE!!) RAW somehow inhibit improvisation for those who learn the game based on latter editions?
A lot depends on what you mean by the "current RAW".

If you are referring to 3.5 then they are not really current and the RAW are not legally available for free - the SRD is intentionally not complete.
If 4th or 5th Ed D&D then I don't know the rules well enough to comment.
If earlier versions of D&D then the rules are not legally available for free.
If retro-clones, well no retro-clone is identical to an older version of the game, they all change things their authors thought could be done slightly better.

The other thing (and it still applies if you use the original rules) is that one can need to get newer players to break out of the mentality engendered by the more rules-heavy modern version they are used to.
For example, take a typical 3.5 player who has never played any other system:

Combat: they are used to a system which has fairly detailed rules for trying anything fancy in combat, most of which either requires a feat to even attempt, or, if not, a feat to have any chance of succeeding. For them, without the feats, combat is usually two people standing next to each other trading basic attacks, with more people combat starts getting really tactical (worrying about reach, flanking, 5' steps etc.).
With older (1st Ed, BECM D&D etc.) if you try something fancy the DM will adjudicate there and then because there are no rules for most options they might want to try.
Players are to be encouraged to ask if they can do weird things during combat (e.g. "I try throw a curtain over the head of the bugbear pummeling our fighter" - in 3.5 not only RAW is that unlikely to work, but one probably gets hammered by an AoO in the process). The tactical positioning emphasis of 3.5 really isn't relevant.

Skills: skill systems like 3.5 (and BECMI D&D Gaz's skills) encourage an attitude of "unless it is trivial don't even bother without being a specialist at the skill".
For me, these systems define what one cannot do not what one can (I prefer the percentage-based skill systems where all characters have all skills at base, so apart from the base 0 skills they can at least try).
In skill-less systems (or ones with more generalized skill systems like 2nd Ed or so I am told - I have totally forgotten it) then there is no list of skills to say "if it is not in this list you cannot do it" - giving the characters more options.
Next time I get to run BECM D&D I intend to use the character backgrounds to give me an idea as to which characters will be better at certain tasks (e.g. the one who grew up in the country is more likely to recognize edible plants and fungi than the city-boy, but he was the son of an inn cook and knows how to cook more things than the forester's son) but everyone can have a go. Also this should enable me to make it more of a team effort with an observant character saying "well I found these fruits, are they edible?" the forester saying "yes, but not fresh - they have a poison in that has to be removed but I don't know how" and the cook saying "oh is that what they look like fresh harvested? - Yes I know how to safely prepare them." Or similar

I don't think it hard to break the player into a more flexible style of play, but it can need to be done. Hopefully they will enjoy it and try to see how they can be more flexible next time they play 3.5 too.