|
|
Post by Mr Darke on Apr 4, 2015 18:26:07 GMT -5
This is coming off a mention that The Perilous Dreamer and I had in this thread. For those that do not want to read it, we hit on something that had been missed in the standard set of assumptions by OD&D and, by extension, the OD&D clones. This could serve to explain why there can be such a disconnect between players of later editions and the game or the belief that the rules are somehow incomplete or hard to follow. Rather than give a lengthy discussion on this I will start with what I have noticed. Point 1: Chainmail
It is assumed in the LBBs that the Player/DM will have a copy of Chainmail as well as D&D. While many of us know this it is overlooked to the point that the clones mostly use the alternative combat system. However, Chainmail was a part of the game from the beginning and was later removed. Most of the clones out there did not port this over to their game and I do feel something was lost. Point 2: Experienced Gamers
D&D was not written for novice gamers. Besides Chainmail, there seems to be an assumption that the players would be gamers of some stripe. For the most part, I feel this would be miniature games but games like those of Avalon Hill could be included. The game was not written for , nor geared to, novice players. While a DM could teach from it, this would take patience on his part especially with non-gamers. Point 3: Well Read
I thought of splitting this up into two points but one will serve. The assumption here is that those playing would be versed in fantasy and S&S literature as well as history. Notice there are no descriptions of equipment, armor or weapons? I believe that this was an issue of space but also an issue of believing that players would know what the equipment was or would look them up. This would also serve in creating the campaign and adventure. Point 4: Older Players
With the above we can guess that the target D&D player was much older than what we see now. High School and College age would be the low end of the scale here with the higher end going well into adulthood. This would maximize the above points and their potential. It was not until later that the game was geared to a younger audience and this leads me to believe D&D's target audience was at least 18 to 20 years old. Point 5: Everything Else was to be Added by the Group
Older players would have the time, resources, and knowledge to make their own additions to the game. With systems under their belts, a miniature collection and knowing how rules work the idea would be that any additions would be made in group. Yes, the supplements were planned as were articles from Strategic Review and The Dragon. However, this would not trump the assumption that many things would come from in group and would be shared by others. Point 6: Times and Culture
The original game was a product of its time and culture. If you look at what was used for the game and the amount of time a player would have to create there is a disconnect between 1974 and 2015. We have less time to work on leisure, game aids like miniatures are a lot more rare and many of the toys and figures used in those days do not exist anymore. There was also little to no gaming consoles, VCRs or DVDs were not around and television only had a few channels. The amount of media we consumed was a lot less and time was more available to work on the hobby. Now we are in a place where every minute of your time is demanded for something and entertainment screams at you from all sides. Its far easier to fire up Final Fantasy than it is to create a campaign and find players. The above are just what I have seen and observed as well as things that the clone makers need to take into account. While some of these can be worked on, the final point is one we have to make ourselves. I would love to hear how you guys see this. |
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Apr 4, 2015 19:09:01 GMT -5
Hm. I never really stopped to explicitly state any of these assumptions but numbers 1-3 and 5-6 are also assumptions I have made.
Believe it or not, the older you get, the less time and energy you have to work on hobbies- usually only your bank balance gets bigger- but this is also a broad assumption and not axiomatic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 4, 2015 21:44:42 GMT -5
I am in full agreement with Mr Darke on this and the game was initially geared for and played by an older group and the late high school age and college age were the young end of the spectrum those first couple of years along with the other points. |
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Apr 4, 2015 23:59:20 GMT -5
Point 6: Times and Culture
We have less time to work on leisure, game aids like miniatures are a lot more rare and many of the toys and figures used in those days do not exist anymore. I agree with a lot of your points, but I don't think this is correct at all. By the late 70s, there were many lines of fantasy miniatures as well as historical, but there are many, many more fantasy miniatures available today than during the mid-70s. A lot of early D&D groups did a lot of conversions. And miniatures are a lot easier to get due to the internet today. As for toys and figures, yes, a lot from back then are out of production, but I am pretty sure there is way more choice now, and w/ ebay, you can often get older stuff. So I really dispute this part of post. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Darke on Apr 5, 2015 9:28:28 GMT -5
6 is a personal observation and not much more. It is based on a few things I have noticed and a study or two I have read. I just felt it was related to the idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by hedgehobbit on Apr 6, 2015 18:37:34 GMT -5
Here are a list of assumptions I've discovered since first looking at early D&D:
Game club-style open table sessions
Whomever shows up (or is invited) that session plays. There isn't a "party" except for whomever is currently at the table. As a result, XP is earned individually and class-v-class balance is much less important. The character's are not assumed to all be the same level.
Role-playing is about the experience and not "the character".
Role-playing is a tool that is used to allow the player to experience, as much as possible while sitting at a table in a basement, what it would be like to actually be a character in a dark dungeon surrounded by monsters. Today, there's the assumption that the player creates a character that has goals, likes/dislikes, and behaviors that are entirely separate and distinct from the player. That wasn't always the case. As a result OD&D doesn't have rules like personality mechanics, social skill, social "combat", etc as those things would distract from the player's ability to experience the world first hand.
The setting takes precedence over everything
The setting is persistent and of supreme importance. Everything else, the rules, the party, the character classes, equipment lists are subservient. The game world isn't generated during a special pre-game session and isn't beholden to character traits like "one unique thing" or "Icons" etc. [None of that would make sense considering the above.]
Encounter balance is about choice, not fair fights
The deeper you go, the harder it gets. Players choose the difficulty level of the campaign by the actions their characters make. The DM isn't responsible to make sure the players always win.
Zero to Hero (if you're lucky)
Because there is no party per se, it's up to each individual to make his or her way up to the top. Achieving name level is a goal and a difficult task. It isn't something that all characters will eventually get to just by showing up. XP is NOT a pacing mechanic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 7, 2015 9:13:04 GMT -5
hedgehobbit those are some great points and things that are so basic I don't even think about them. May I quote you on my blog?
|
|
|
|
Post by hedgehobbit on Apr 7, 2015 10:01:30 GMT -5
hedgehobbit those are some great points and things that are so basic I don't even think about them. May I quote you on my blog? Of course. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 7, 2015 10:44:15 GMT -5
Point 6: Times and Culture
We have less time to work on leisure, game aids like miniatures are a lot more rare and many of the toys and figures used in those days do not exist anymore. I agree with a lot of your points, but I don't think this is correct at all. By the late 70s, there were many lines of fantasy miniatures as well as historical, but there are many, many more fantasy miniatures available today than during the mid-70s. A lot of early D&D groups did a lot of conversions. And miniatures are a lot easier to get due to the internet today. As for toys and figures, yes, a lot from back then are out of production, but I am pretty sure there is way more choice now, and w/ ebay, you can often get older stuff. So I really dispute this part of post. For me I completely agree with the less leisure time - the leisure time I had from 18-23 was considerable, from 24-28 I had a fair amount and from 29 to the present I consider my leisure time to small. Some days it is all I can do to check this forum. I would agree with jmccann about the miniatures being more available. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 7, 2015 10:45:10 GMT -5
Thanks hedgehobbit you and Mr Darke have articulated this so much clearer than I did and so much of it are things that I just take for granted as the only way it is done with the amendment by jmccann. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 7, 2015 13:04:32 GMT -5
Point 6: Times and Culture
We have less time to work on leisure, game aids like miniatures are a lot more rare and many of the toys and figures used in those days do not exist anymore. I agree with a lot of your points, but I don't think this is correct at all. By the late 70s, there were many lines of fantasy miniatures as well as historical, but there are many, many more fantasy miniatures available today than during the mid-70s. A lot of early D&D groups did a lot of conversions. And miniatures are a lot easier to get due to the internet today. As for toys and figures, yes, a lot from back then are out of production, but I am pretty sure there is way more choice now, and w/ ebay, you can often get older stuff. So I really dispute this part of post. may I also quote you in my blog as you make an excellent point. |
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Apr 7, 2015 21:40:04 GMT -5
jmccann may I also quote you in my blog as you make an excellent point. Quote at will. |
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Apr 7, 2015 21:45:26 GMT -5
I agree with a lot of your points, but I don't think this is correct at all. By the late 70s, there were many lines of fantasy miniatures as well as historical, but there are many, many more fantasy miniatures available today than during the mid-70s. A lot of early D&D groups did a lot of conversions. And miniatures are a lot easier to get due to the internet today. As for toys and figures, yes, a lot from back then are out of production, but I am pretty sure there is way more choice now, and w/ ebay, you can often get older stuff. So I really dispute this part of post. For me I completely agree with the less leisure time - the leisure time I had from 18-23 was considerable, from 24-28 I had a fair amount and from 29 to the present I consider my leisure time to small. Some days it is all I can do to check this forum. I would agree with jmccann about the miniatures being more available. My personal time is also much reduced from back in the day. But I think the internet has balanced that by opening up so many possibilities, not just for online play but for in-person play as well. There is an old-school group in the greater Seattle area (pretty far flung really, more like Puget Sound) that I got in touch with on Fin's forum. So I do agree on that point as well. But this is getting off the original topic a bit. My only beef w/ the OP is about the choice of minis/ toys/ action figs/ whatever and their availability. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 8, 2015 6:40:53 GMT -5
Great points all; and I add my vote to the chorus of general agreement (although I do agree that there are many more fantasy miniatures available today)! re: Point 1, I believe that there are a number of clones that integrate Chainmail-isms to a greater or lesser extent. What is a wee bit saddening, however, is the extent to which the larger number of "AD&D-lite" type clones are broadly taken to be the "better" interpretations of OD&D. One further point I might add: Easy Come, Easy GoOD&D player characters can die really easily, particularly at low levels, but even at higher levels. On the other hand, even a 1st level noob can get lucky find a fabulous treasure or perilous magic item. As an example of the latter, in one of Makofan's games my 1st or 2nd level elf pulled a sword with multiple wishes and, soon after, a staff of wizardry! She made it to hero status and retired  These highs and lows of "wild circumstance" are facilitated by OD&D's tables, but are toned down in later editions which became all "balanced", and safe, and (IMHO) comparatively dull. With this in mind players should expect to see multiple characters and treasures come and go during an OD&D campaign, which seems to me quite unlike the more modern approach. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 8, 2015 8:49:47 GMT -5
Great points waysoftheearth and on the subject of Easy Come, Easy Go I think that deserves its own thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 8, 2015 11:57:14 GMT -5
Another thing that occurred to me while we are on this subject is that so many people object to Descending Armor Class. As many know the founders were familiar with other games that used Descending Armor Class IIRC in regard to ships. So again it comes down to background.
In my case I grew up on a farm and here are two quick examples: Shotguns come in .410, 32 Gauge, 28 Gauge, 24 Gauge, 20 Gauge, 18 Gauge, 16 Gauge, 15 Gauge, 12 Gauge, 11 Gauge, 10 Gauge, 8 Gauge, 4 Gauge, 3 Gauge and 2 Gauge. Some of these are rare, uncommon, or collector only and the .410 is roughly 67 Gauge. In shotguns the smaller the number the larger the diameter of the bore.
A similar situation exists with wire gauge. Wire gauge runs from 0000, 000, 00, 0, 1, 2, ... ... 37, 38, 39, 40. With 40 being the smallest and 0000 the largest.
These are two real world examples that I dealt with from early childhood, which made Descending Armor Class simple to both understand and to learn.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 9, 2015 20:48:15 GMT -5
Here are a list of assumptions I've discovered since first looking at early D&D: Role-playing is about the experience and not "the character".Role-playing is a tool that is used to allow the player to experience, as much as possible while sitting at a table in a basement, what it would be like to actually be a character in a dark dungeon surrounded by monsters. Today, there's the assumption that the player creates a character that has goals, likes/dislikes, and behaviors that are entirely separate and distinct from the player. That wasn't always the case. As a result OD&D doesn't have rules like personality mechanics, social skill, social "combat", etc as those things would distract from the player's ability to experience the world first hand. Over on G+ responding to my blog where I quoted this thread: +Gordon Cooper made this reply:On reflection I concur with Gordon take on Role-playing. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 10, 2015 8:22:48 GMT -5
The blog received an additional reply: I wish these guys would come here!  |
|
|
|
Post by hedgehobbit on Apr 10, 2015 11:14:34 GMT -5
I wasn't clear with what I was talking about. Many modern games require the player to describe the personality of the character in terms of Beliefs, Ideals or Flaws and then use mechanics to enforce this (either through awarding points for acting a certain way or actually forbidding not doing so). This creates a barrier between the player and the character and between the player and what is happening in the game.
It's the difference between making the player scared and having the player pretend his character is scared.
I see role-playing in RPGs as one of three types:
First Person Role-playing: "What would I do?"
Third Person Role-playing: "What would my character do?"
Mechanics-based Role-playing: "How should this character act based on his character sheet?"
D&D originally focused on first person role-playing (including elements that might seem like LARPing) early on but doesn't discourage or forbid third person role-playing. Even with the same character and even switching back and forth. However, once you start to add mechanics to the role-playing process you are effectively preventing first person role-playing entirely.
One example is morale checks. In early D&D, and most other games of the period, PCs are immune to them. If the player decides to flee from an encounter it's either because he thinks his character would be scared or, more likely, it's because the player is actual afraid of losing his precious character. Either way it's the players choice. Having PCs be subject to morale rules takes this choice away from the player.
In his 1974 version of Empire of the Petal Throne, MAR Barker talks about why he didn't like using Charisma as an ability score, saying he doesn't want to "limit the players to some kind of dice-determined behaviour." I agree.
Note that I'm only talking about what decisions the character makes during play and not really about using a different voice, vocabulary, or mannerisms in portraying a character as that's a separate issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 10, 2015 13:17:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Apr 10, 2015 14:54:15 GMT -5
When I talk about writing a game or choosing rules, I will always try to talk about "the character" or even "the playing piece" but when we play, I run PCs in first person and NPCs in third person. But I never thought about it. Thank you for this discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by hedgehobbit on Apr 11, 2015 8:49:00 GMT -5
When I talk about writing a game or choosing rules, I will always try to talk about "the character" or even "the playing piece" but when we play, I run PCs in first person and NPCs in third person. But I never thought about it. Thank you for this discussion. On thing that I noticed was that in the early days, the term "player" was used for both the player and the character. The early playtest docs use "player" almost universally and refer to NPCs as "non-real players". Here's a portion of Daniel Boggs analysis of the playtest: While Gygax seems to have invented and regularly used the terms Player Character (PC) and Non Player Character (NPC) – the BTPBD manuscript, oddly, uses the term “Non Real Players”. In fact, Arneson often simply called PC’s “players” and continued occasionally to do so as late as a year before his death as shown in this quote “Magic users in the beginning were more of an effort to give the players more firepower. A month or so later the clerics were added to heal up players more quickly.” Here’s another example from his Adventures in Fantasy, co authored with Richard Snider. “Per week that a player is sick, he will loose ONE health point from his health rating.” (1979:7) And another from the FFC, “As the player progressed, he did not receive additional Hit Points, but rather he became harder to Hit.” (1977:3).There's also the anecdote (which, unfortunately, I can't source at the moment) that the initial session of Dave's Blackmoor campaign involved the actual players being transported via a plane crash from Earth into the lands of Blackmoor. So those first characters were actually the players themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 11, 2015 8:53:42 GMT -5
Good post there hedgehobbit, I do remember that bitd we did it mostly the Arneson way and it was just the players and we did play mostly in First Person mode. Have an Exalt! |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Darke on Apr 19, 2015 15:03:17 GMT -5
Here's a question I had: If you were to write an OD&D based clone, or revise a current one, to add in these assumptions how would you do it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Von on Apr 24, 2015 5:47:15 GMT -5
I wasn't clear with what I was talking about. Many modern games require the player to describe the personality of the character in terms of Beliefs, Ideals or Flaws and then use mechanics to enforce this (either through awarding points for acting a certain way or actually forbidding not doing so). This creates a barrier between the player and the character and between the player and what is happening in the game. I think I prefer 'distinction' to 'barrier'. 'Barrier' sounds like something which has to be eliminated and I think that player/character distinction doesn't have to be. I quite enjoy the third person style (although, now that I think about it, my players generally engineer someone who's not that distinct from themselves, and it might be a factor in my assuming the Designated GM role) and I think that a modest degree of mechanisation encourages a thing that I enjoy and is therefore good. One example is morale checks. In early D&D, and most other games of the period, PCs are immune to them. If the player decides to flee from an encounter it's either because he thinks his character would be scared or, more likely, it's because the player is actual afraid of losing his precious character. Either way it's the players choice. Having PCs be subject to morale rules takes this choice away from the player. In his 1974 version of Empire of the Petal Throne, MAR Barker talks about why he didn't like using Charisma as an ability score, saying he doesn't want to "limit the players to some kind of dice-determined behaviour." I agree. I don't know about 'limit', but... OK, look at it this way. I play a lot of that Vampire thing and I think that, mechanically, that game introduces mechanics which do not take choices away from the players but force them to make choices in a risk/reward, resource-management kind of context. Tension exists between blood pool (resource that requires you to do nasty things in order to replenish it), morality (which adjusts up or down depending on the particular nasty things you do and has a mechanical effect on the responses of NPCs to your character) and willpower (which is a finite resource replenished by living up to your character's stated goals). Expressing those things mechanically brings them to the attention of players and forces them to make a choice and those choices are one of the things that makes the game fun to play. That said, there are too many dice involved in some aspects of that system and it does need to be tinkered back around to a focus on player choice and rationale or rationalisation. It's a bit like playing a Paladin as opposed to a Fighting-Man... but then, for some people I imagine the Paladin is the thin end of the wedge. This is a very roundabout way of saying that I enjoy the mechanisation of character personality up to a point, but that it has to be centred on action and consequence rather than randomness, and it has to respond to players' behaviour rather than be a stick with which to rap them over the knuckles. If a player changes the way their character behaves I am more likely to model that change through mechanics than use mechanics to discourage the change. |
|
|
|
Post by hedgehobbit on Apr 24, 2015 10:50:45 GMT -5
Expressing those things mechanically brings them to the attention of players and forces them to make a choice and those choices are one of the things that makes the game fun to play. I'm not so much saying that mechanics-based role-playing is bad, just that including mechanics takes away from one aspect of the game while adding another. It isn't an evolution of role-playing, just one that stresses a different thing. My main point was that these early games assumed that how the player role-played (whether in first person or third person and whether they used voices/mannerisms) is entirely up to the player. I've often heard claims that OD&D isn't a role-playing game because it doesn't have "rules" for role-playing or it doesn't force the player to role-play a certain way. These early games wanted the player to feel like he/she was actually there and having personality mechanics would distract from that goal. This topic is sort of related to the discussion of dissociated mechanics. Does the choice that the player is making have a one-to-one correspondence with a choice the character is making? In Vampire, the concept of blood vs morality (i.e. becoming more monstrous) is part of the game world and something the characters themselves are thinking. The same cannot be said for Aspects in FATE or Artha in Burning Wheel. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Apr 24, 2015 11:23:01 GMT -5
hedgehobbit and Von, I read you both as contributing helpful things to this discussion. I play 0e because I want the "personality mechanics" to be "rules-lite." That said, I do not mind things like morale checks, even for PCs. I hold to a pretty traditional anthropology (and certainly the medieval world we game did so) where we can be "taken over by our passions." Sometimes the body runs away whatever the mind may or may not be telling it! So I would see a mechanic like that as part of the contingencies of the game world that the player must imaginatively work around.
|
|
|
|
Post by Von on Apr 25, 2015 11:45:39 GMT -5
Expressing those things mechanically brings them to the attention of players and forces them to make a choice and those choices are one of the things that makes the game fun to play. I'm not so much saying that mechanics-based role-playing is bad, just that including mechanics takes away from one aspect of the game while adding another. It isn't an evolution of role-playing, just one that stresses a different thing. My main point was that these early games assumed that how the player role-played (whether in first person or third person and whether they used voices/mannerisms) is entirely up to the player. I've often heard claims that OD&D isn't a role-playing game because it doesn't have "rules" for role-playing or it doesn't force the player to role-play a certain way. These early games wanted the player to feel like he/she was actually there and having personality mechanics would distract from that goal. This topic is sort of related to the discussion of dissociated mechanics. Does the choice that the player is making have a one-to-one correspondence with a choice the character is making? In Vampire, the concept of blood vs morality (i.e. becoming more monstrous) is part of the game world and something the characters themselves are thinking. The same cannot be said for Aspects in FATE or Artha in Burning Wheel. That's all pretty fair stuff. I never brought good/bad to the table either, more advantage/disadvantage or fun/not fun. And you're spot on about the claims about OD&D and "where are the rules for roleplaying" too - I've heard the same claim made and have had to explain, at length, that the point is not to distance player from character but to focus on choices made in context. Role-playing can be tactical or theatrical or whatever. I'll take your word for it in ref. FATE and Burning Wheel. As far as the Vampire thing goes I've been rereading the relevant sections of those rules and think that by and large the dice should be eliminated from frenzy and degeneration. It is possible that the player will have to choose whether to accept the Storyteller's referee's "you frenzy" or buy it off with Willpower, and accept degeneration as an imposed consequence rather than something you roll to avoid, but that's life, and I think fiat makes more sense than "roll to see if your protective rationalisation takes." Returning to the Paladin - whether you Fall or not is down to the referee, at the end of the day. |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Jan 5, 2016 13:50:13 GMT -5
Very enjoyable thread. I guess it ran out of gas?  |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jan 6, 2016 13:10:11 GMT -5
Very enjoyable thread. I guess it ran out of gas? Feel free to add some.  |
|
