|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Mar 24, 2016 12:47:08 GMT -5
I've been wondering, today, about something.
Hey, Rob (K.), if you have any insight on this matter, please, elaborate on it.
1. Why did (I'm assuming...) A & G think it was the way-to-go, by having the MU and Cleric gain no additional die upon reaching certain levels, but--instead--just 1 point? (For the MU this comes at L2, L4, L6, L9 and L12 and beyond; for the cleric, it is at L5, then at L10 and beyond.) While the Fighter, sometimes, gains a new HD and 1-3 additional points, he never doesn't gain a HD with each new level; until he tops out at Lord something. Was this due to all sharing a d6 as the hp generator, and the designers' way of keeping the fighter class ahead of the others?
If the latter is true, (see bold portion above), then it summons up in my mind, another point.
2. When OD&D was packaged, didn't it come with multi-sided dice (d20, d12, d8, d4) other than six siders?** Clearly, the d20 makes its appearance in OD&D, with the Alternate Combat rules and Save Throw table. So were others included? If so, what for? And if so, why wasn't the d4 used for non-fighter classes from the outset, since the die was available?
Which leads me to my last ponderence.
3. If, according to our understanding of past events, the separate HD for class hps came about to strengthen the fighter, and which Mr. Gygax & Rob Kuntz* revealed in their GH supplement as a new go-to way of doing things, why wasn't such a notion considered from the outset to begin with? They had the dice. What mitigating factor was it, that mandated the use of six-siders for HD/hp generation?
Let the discussion* begin!
*Edited corrections
** doh! See p.5 of M&M under: Dice! Note, this is listed as "Recommended Equipment"; so, they weren't in the boxes?
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 24, 2016 17:52:05 GMT -5
There's not much to analyze--it's simply that we did not think about it before Supplement #1. In fact Gary and I were about to wrap it up when he telephoned me about the matter of balancing the classes, and I suggested we do that through the polyhedral dice as they now stand, 4, 6, 8, (later changed in AD&D for the fighter to 10 sd./level). BTW: I was co-author of that supplement and, as noted, contributed the dice/class concept which is used to this very day in just about every iteration and/or knock-off of D&D+Supplements, so it is not just , "Mr. Gygax revealed in his GH supplement". It was our supplement. Show some professional courtesy.
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Mar 24, 2016 18:14:27 GMT -5
 zots! So true, Rob. You did, and are, co-create/creator of, Supplement 1. Consider me beyotch-slapped, and apologies forwarded.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Mar 24, 2016 20:28:41 GMT -5
The original box was only booklets. No dice.
Yes, it is about class differentiation.
And I play LLB only. Not a fan of the supplements for anything other than inspiration.
I love the "balance" created by all HD being in terms of d6.
CL and MU don't always get a HD per lvl b/c what makes them rad is their other abilities such as spells and turning.
That means FM have a special ability: 1:1 lvl to HD ratio plus heaps of hp!
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 25, 2016 1:49:50 GMT -5
And I play LLB only. Not a fan of the supplements for anything other than inspiration. Well, that would make you in the 10% BITD, as Greyhawk sold 9 copies for every 10 sold for D&D. All of it was optional, true, bit some things were just too good not to be used. And yes, Gary was always concerned with "balance", overly so in my opinion, but often for reasons that were warranted. But in this case I was in accord with it, as the Fighters had been knocked down in relation to the other classes, who were expanded to a degree, so the change to HD affected all classes in the manner of relational balance to each other, of which I am very proud of for accomplishing; and so was EGG excited about it. Seems to have done very well to this day, in fact. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 25, 2016 4:06:45 GMT -5
Greyhawk-style hit dice have become an iconic D&D-ism, so it was clearly a stroke of genius. On the other hand, GH wasn't available until 1975 so a year of D&D (or more!) proceeded it; I don't have any problem with messing about with a no-supplments D&D game if you want to throw back to 1974. Additionally there is--IMHO--something quite elegant about the game where all hits and all hit dice are 1--6; at the least it can help to speed the combat sequences along. In either case, we should remember that the classes require differing amounts of XP to gain their respective levels. The cleric requires the least XP, so he gains his levels--and associated HD--the soonest. I illustrated this as a couple of charts a few years back. From this we can see that the fighter ultimately has the most HD and the most hp, but during the early levels the cleric is nibbling at his heels. However, it's relatively easy to "amend" the 1974 HD progression (if you're so inclined) once you see it plainly laid out  |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 25, 2016 4:18:23 GMT -5
zots! So true, Rob. You did, and are, co-create/creator of, Supplement 1. Consider me beyotch-slapped, and apologies forwarded. Accepted. People strangely forget my involvement: 2 hours after Arneson departed from us experiencing the Blackmoor game session in 1972 Gary and I sat down and attempted to shoe-horn the concept for story-telling purposes; 2 weeks later I read Arneson's typed notes; I was the lead playtester and sounding board for Gary for the rules (and am thanked twice in the credits to OD&D due to that, once by name and another as an LGTSA member, namely, their president at the time). Our combined campaign as used in the playtests shaped not only the original rules but the supplemental material that followed. Greyhawk had a tremendous impact, for it revealed the extensibility of Arneson's concept as then only inferred by Gary's quotes in the original work, something that persists to this day. I sometimes wonder if Greyhawk, at the very least as a supplement. had not been released to not only polish and improve what the original rules had accomplished and set in motion (and Gary felt that they were not polished or complete upon their issuance), that the establishment nay-sayers then, (as noted in some uncomplimentary reviews of D&D making the rounds then) would have had their way in insisting/promoting that its open form was unplayable and indistinct as they were attempting to make it out to be. Greyhawk crushed that negative/uninformed view of the rising concept and set a new example as to how to think and manage a new game form--it was optional, but the ideas contained within it became TSR's real example of the game's infinite scope; and this is why it maintains a pole position to this day as a great example of what Arneson's concept can, at the minimum, attain. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Mar 25, 2016 6:31:13 GMT -5
I play with just the 3LBBs about a quarter of the time and with bits of the supplements the rest of the time. I am quite fond of the variable hit dice as a matter of fact. When I start a group of completely new players I like to start with just the 3LBBs to show them how much fun you can have with just that, then I gradually add in my favorite bits. I do think it is a shame that the Blackmoor supplement does not contain a lot more Arneson. But from Kasks own mouth, we know where the blame for that lies. I think that the reason people sometimes forget your involvment Rob is for two reaons - one is that your name is not on the outside of the 3LBBs and really it should be and two - those who deliberately IMO muddle the history of D&D and also represent the BtB crowd just plain do not like anyone who champions DIY and you are the primary living champion of DIY. There is a document floating around the web that I have heard of where someone did not create a clone but just reorganized the text of the 3 LBBs into one document in the format of either Holmes or B/X (or something similar), but did not remove or change anything that makes OD&D special. I have heard that this document was created by someone outside the US and that it is very understandable, and eminently playable from the gitgo. Perhaps it would have taken something like that to have shut the nay-sayers up. Unfortunately, but true, many of the most promient voices in the "old school" forums have been and are currently establishment nay-sayers that adhere to the "open form was unplayable and indistinct" and deny the DIY nature of OD&D and promote BtB. In this thread I was toying around with defining what the old school DIY style of play was. Obviously with many of the comments Rob has posted over the months since it was written I would hopefully articulate it better if I were to rewrite it at this point. What I wrote was: I posted an early form of this over on a highly promiment "old school" forum and one of the most promimient of the "old school" "experts" on another "old school" forum which focuses strictly on our way or the highway reacted with extreme hostility as I note here below. Imagine that proclaiming DIY as your personal defintion of "Old School Gaming" is to completely invalidate 41 years of adherence to BtB and someone else must create for the DM and that only a "genius-intelect referee" could play this way. Well I am not even close to being a genius, I an not anywhere in that ballpark, yet I have no trouble playing that way. I believe anyone can play the DIY way if one - they want to and two - someone shows them how it is done. So unfortunately the nay-sayers are not going away anytime soon, but I think that with Robs book and some other things that he is going to publish and with all of us promoting the time out of the DIY ethic, we can put the DIY legacy on much more substantial ground. As an aside the statement: Does not rule out or mean that you cannot use a pre-written adventure module. It does inform that when you do so you make it yours for your game. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 25, 2016 7:49:44 GMT -5
A very fine post, PD. As I am about dealing with some business matters atm I will respond in depth to this at a later time. Have an exalt!
RJK
|
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Mar 25, 2016 8:47:59 GMT -5
Interesting discussion. I too am a big fan of the d6 only HP now. I've run plenty of classic and 1e so I don't mind the variable HD, but my preference now is OD&D LBB (via Delving Deeper) with D6 HD.
And it's a shame that Rob seems to get forgotten so much. He's played a such a large part in the development of the game. I look forward to your book once it's done!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2016 9:01:44 GMT -5
That's exactly what I do with Northwind; because some ideas are just too good not to use, after a little alteration to make it fit your world. For instance, Stonehell of Northwind only superficially resembles Stonehell by Mike Curtis.
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Mar 25, 2016 12:39:46 GMT -5
Interesting discussion. I too am a big fan of the d6 only HP now. I've run plenty of classic and 1e so I don't mind the variable HD, but my preference now is OD&D LBB (via Delving Deeper) with D6 HD. And it's a shame that Rob seems to get forgotten so much. He's played a such a large part in the development of the game. I look forward to your book once it's done! 1. I love the d6ers, too. See my solution below. 2. I'm expecting this to change some once Rob's book is available. 2b. In regards to my OP, it's not that I forgot Rob, who he is, what he has contributed(and continues) to the game-hobby; I (simply-unfortunately) did not list such in the post. Considering I have mild Alz--I think I do pretty good, most of the time. D6ers: Since the characters--by class--do not gain in their combat/save abilities for several level jumps (fighters: 1:3/magic-users: 1:5/clerics: 1:4), I recommend a test period where they (except for fighters) gain no additional HD, until they have reached the level equal to their combat/save skills. They're kind of tied together, aren't they? |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 25, 2016 13:01:12 GMT -5
I play with just the 3LBBs about a quarter of the time and with bits of the supplements the rest of the time. I am quite fond of the variable hit dice as a matter of fact. When I start a group of completely new players I like to start with just the 3LBBs to show them how much fun you can have with just that, then I gradually add in my favorite bits. I do think it is a shame that the Blackmoor supplement does not contain a lot more Arneson. But from Kasks own mouth, we know where the blame for that lies. I think that the reason people sometimes forget your involvment Rob is for two reaons - one is that your name is not on the outside of the 3LBBs and really it should be and two - those who deliberately IMO muddle the history of D&D and also represent the BtB crowd just plain do not like anyone who champions DIY and you are the primary living champion of DIY. There is a document floating around the web that I have heard of where someone did not create a clone but just reorganized the text of the 3 LBBS into one document in the format of either Holmes or B/X (or something similiar), but did not remove or change anything that makes OD&D special. I have heard that this document was created by someone outside the US and that it is very understandable, and emmiently playable from the gitgo. Perhaps it would have taken something like that to have shut the nay-sayers up. Unfortunately, but true, many of the most promient voices in the "old school" forums have been and are currently establishment nay-sayers that adhere to the "open form was unplayable and indistinct" and deny the DIY nature of OD&D and promote BtB. In this thread I was toying around with defining what the old school DIY style of play was. Obviously with many of the comments Rob has posted over the months since it was written I would hopefully articulate it better if I were to rewrite it at this point. What I wrote was: I posted an early form of this over on a highly promiment "old school" forum and one of the most promimient of the "old school" "experts" on another "old school" forum which focuses strictly on our way or the highway reacted with extreme hostility as I note here below. Imagine that proclaiming DIY as your personal defintion of "Old School Gaming" is to completely invalidate 41 years of adherence to BtB and someone else must create for the DM and that only a "genius-intelect referee" could play this way. Well I am not even close to being a genius, I an not anywhere in that ballpark, yet I have no trouble playing that way. I believe anyone can play the DIY way if one - they want to and two - someone shows them how it is done. So unfortunately the nay-sayers are not going away anytime soon, but I think that with Robs book and some other things that he is going to publish and with all of us promoting the time out of the DIY ethic, we can put the DIY legacy on much more substantial ground. As an aside the statement: Does not rule out or mean that you cannot use a pre-written adventure module. It does inform that when you do so you make it yours for your game. The btb establishment crowd have no concern for btb if they do not take heed of all that is in the book, as written, implied or inferred. Make it your own is everywhere in Gygax's and Arneson's quotes, starting with OD&D; so how can it be otherwise unless that same crowd is selectively re-engineering the game just as Gary and TSR did for AD&D? The original concept was multi-dimensional, it has no limits regarding its expansion. In order to rope it to the market as a platform for adventures, however, standardization occurred--and this is where that mentality derives from. What was once free--self-organization--became paid for. We see it in all sectors of our society and it is not less so in the RPG sector. But this perforce inverts, or reverses, the original philosophy. As I note in my book's chapter, "What Gygax Knew and What he Changed": "If an RPG was just entertainment then Gary Gygax, myself, my brother Terry and others of that time would have gladly bought an adventure and played it just as we had done with board wargames. But we didn’t. And so is revealed a philosophical divide that has existed to this day and comes up all too often embodied in the question, “What is an RPG?” And the best answer I can give for having been involved so long with RPGs is: 1) If you create the experience, more than what you see is yours and it keeps growing; 2) If you don’t it’s only a partial of the above and one that doesn’t grow along all lines but that tends to recycle itself among a few. One gives more by asking for more; and one gives less by demanding less, yet both provide entertainment and social interaction. So an RPG is where you ultimately want to be within its many expanding spheres. Thus an RPG is life. "And as Marcus Aurelius noted, “Our life is what our thoughts make it.”" From A New Ethos in Game Design, Copyright 2013-2016, Robert J. Kuntz. All Rights reserved. All one can do in this life is to keep demanding more of ourselves and less from others. Therein lies growth and freedom. |
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Mar 25, 2016 13:45:00 GMT -5
2b. In regards to my OP, it's not that I forgot Rob, who he is, what he has contributed(and continues) to the game-hobby; I (simply-unfortunately) did not list such in the post. Considering I have mild Alz--I think I do pretty good, most of the time. Sorry I didn't mean you in specific I just meant the gaming hobby as a whole. |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Mar 25, 2016 13:55:40 GMT -5
No problem. I didn't think you were. But, I wanted to address my error which was, in fact, so obvious I am embarrassed I did not catch it in the review before posting.
That said and all, some days I got it, and others...it kind of goes missing. lol
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 25, 2016 17:05:29 GMT -5
2b. In regards to my OP, it's not that I forgot Rob, who he is, what he has contributed(and continues) to the game-hobby; I (simply-unfortunately) did not list such in the post. Considering I have mild Alz--I think I do pretty good, most of the time. Sorry I didn't mean you in specific I just meant the gaming hobby as a whole. People know who I am as a name, sure. By products? Yes. That too. As a designer? Very little. As a person, probably nothing. Assumptions based on incomplete history, guessed at events, etc, etc. continue to proliferate, even though I still live and folks could have just asked me a question or more over the time that they were "accounting for my history". The same happened with Arneson, and even a little bit with Gary. There's a lot of assumptive self-importance proliferating the 'net which drives this. Like the phrase, "Gygaxian" [ whatever, fill in the blank], the latter from the same crowd that PD referred to in passing. Gary never referred to himself, his designs, his anything as "Gygaxian" or "Arnesonian" for Dave; or "Kuntzian" for me, et al. The assumption that Gary's or Arneson's works are then categorizable into a narrowly defined area and then branded with their own names--sans speaking with them to verify said guesstimates, or of being aware of their very comprehensive design thoughts except by way of an obtuse calculation derived second-hand from game design samples alone--is the height of tom-foolery. One could have asked me about Gary as well, as our design philosophies were quite the same at one point, as can be expected. But these self-important folks who make proclamations from on high do not want the real truth, but only what they are leveraging for their own purposes, and so PD is correct. I am ignored because I do not sing their tune, a discordant one at that, that is played for their own mystical reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 25, 2016 17:13:34 GMT -5
Interesting discussion. I too am a big fan of the d6 only HP now. I've run plenty of classic and 1e so I don't mind the variable HD, but my preference now is OD&D LBB (via Delving Deeper) with D6 HD. And it's a shame that Rob seems to get forgotten so much. He's played a such a large part in the development of the game. I look forward to your book once it's done! 1. I love the d6ers, too. See my solution below. 2. I'm expecting this to change some once Rob's book is available. 2b. In regards to my OP, it's not that I forgot Rob, who he is, what he has contributed(and continues) to the game-hobby; I (simply-unfortunately) did not list such in the post. Considering I have mild Alz--I think I do pretty good, most of the time. D6ers: Since the characters--by class--do not gain in their combat/save abilities for several level jumps (fighters: 1:3/magic-users: 1:5/clerics: 1:4), I recommend a test period where they (except for fighters) gain no additional HD, until they have reached the level equal to their combat/save skills. They're kind of tied together, aren't they? What are you expecting to change come the advent of my book? I hope nothing. I am preaching to the choir here for the most part. There will be further insights for all to ponder and maybe depart upon, but I assure you they are not "supplemental" to the concept, only additives, and some very strong and delicious ones at that.  |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 25, 2016 17:21:39 GMT -5
Interesting discussion. I too am a big fan of the d6 only HP now. I've run plenty of classic and 1e so I don't mind the variable HD, but my preference now is OD&D LBB (via Delving Deeper) with D6 HD. And it's a shame that Rob seems to get forgotten so much. He's played a such a large part in the development of the game. I look forward to your book once it's done! 1. I love the d6ers, too. See my solution below. D6ers: Since the characters--by class--do not gain in their combat/save abilities for several level jumps (fighters: 1:3/magic-users: 1:5/clerics: 1:4), I recommend a test period where they (except for fighters) gain no additional HD, until they have reached the level equal to their combat/save skills. They're kind of tied together, aren't they? I already resolved this back in 1975: It's called 4, 6, 8, and then it was time to celebrate (as we went to print). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2016 1:03:12 GMT -5
Interestingly I've gone back to the original LBB for hit dice. The most amazing change is that first level magic users no longer cower and whine and witch continuously.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 26, 2016 2:41:27 GMT -5
MU's must be careful and use their spells discriminately. If you want more hp to be able to battle, get some good CON, carry some healing potions, fortify yourself in other way, but likely the best tactic is still knowing when to fight and when to run.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2016 12:42:22 GMT -5
Sure. But I mostly run at GaryCon now, and I always have people start at first level. Considering the armor difference, a first level magic user is still in no place to act as a front line fighter, but I've noticed that a couple extra HP makes them a lot less reluctant to act as classical light infantry and, if the party is fighting one tough opponent, try to get behind. Even if they don't get a thief backstab bonus, they're still attacking from behind.
But now we're starting to verge on my "people need to learn some ****ing TACTICS" rant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2016 18:21:23 GMT -5
Not to mention "First level magic users SUCK" which we've been hearing for years.
No, they don't. Learn to play. (Also, some referees really really want to make sure that playing a first level magic user who has used their spell is no fun.)
|
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Mar 27, 2016 9:22:17 GMT -5
Not to mention "First level magic users SUCK" which we've been hearing for years. No, they don't. Learn to play. (Also, some referees really really want to make sure that playing a first level magic user who has used their spell is no fun.) I think the reason for this is the way a lot of later campaigns were run by many of us. I started at 10 years old and the way we started running and playing was killing everything in sight for XP. Plus slaughtering monsters is fun. So back to the point A lot of people that started gaming in my generation and after (mind you I started in 81ish) tended to ignore the gold = more xp then killing monsters. So instead of approaching each possible combat encounter with a "realistic" outlook, realistic as in if I was really in this situation would I want to risk serious physical injury or death for the reward. Most don't think about it like that monsters are treated as bags of XP instead of trying to avoid combat when possible. So many groups just attack wandering monsters on sight, etc... The aspect of exploration seems to have been replaced with combat. So in essence they fall for the drain the resource trick. Less fighting means less the MU has to cast spells so less downtime. Which would curb the MU's suck. Modern gaming is even worse about it. The other group I game with is currently finishing up the last book in an Pathfinder adventure path. I don't like PF at all so when they run that game I don't play, but I have one player in my group that plays in both so I hear the reports. And the whole of an adventure path seems to boil down to : combat encounter A ----> some filler combat encounter B----> some filler combat encounter C, etc... It seems to be a case of test your current build against an encounter and see how well you built your deck....err character. And it's not like you can skip combat encounters as so much of later editions are built upon the premise of XP for killing instead of exploration and treasure. That was a bit of a ramble but really it boils down to play style has shifted focus from exploration and treasure gathering to mostly combat, which means the MU runs out of spells much sooner. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 28, 2016 2:46:22 GMT -5
You have, BW, rightly identified not only the change in play styes but also the change in design philosophies that engender these; and they didn't start with Paizo or Wotc, no, but were only perfected by them.
I cover this at great length in my book while sluicing in other facets that have been abandoned of the original concept. The modern game has become one-dimensional, a mere penny-arcade illusion of the original RPG concept and on many more levels than herein suggested and/or readily apparent.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 28, 2016 3:51:46 GMT -5
Sure. But I mostly run at GaryCon now, and I always have people start at first level. Considering the armor difference, a first level magic user is still in no place to act as a front line fighter, but I've noticed that a couple extra HP makes them a lot less reluctant to act as classical light infantry and, if the party is fighting one tough opponent, try to get behind. Even if they don't get a thief backstab bonus, they're still attacking from behind. But now we're starting to verge on my "people need to learn some ****ing TACTICS" rant. The idea of a "possible" missing 2 hps in the spread (d4 compared to d6) is dealt with by me having all character classes re-roll on a roll of 1. This immediately offsets the need to increase the MU HD. Thus the spread is very good for the MU on the average. Further, and as you've noted, it's only a skewed perception, their weakness. They can still position themselves behind the monster for a rear attack, what's the difference? Probably none in a 1-4 or 1-6 spread IF the opponent turns on them anyway. I find the whole idea of HPs, in this instance, non-sequiteer. But the perception, as loudly promoted, is real, but it's a false reaiity only as we are dealing with the ability to survive as a first level "whatever" and must take chances in so doing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2016 10:07:39 GMT -5
I'm firmly in the D6 Hit Dice/Weapon Damage camp, myself; but I go a step further. All PCs start at 3rd level with Max. Hit Points and No XP. They have to earn all the XP needed to be third level before they can truly begin advancing. This has no adverse affects on the game that I've noticed, and seems to have absolved the death rate slightly. I used to run games at straight 1st level character, but as of their first wilderness random encounter, we would have TPKs. Yes, the PCs would play smart and run if need be, but movement rates can be a real killer, as well. I don't believe in difficulty levels for monsters encountered randomly in the wild, but neither do I go out of my way to slaughter PCs.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 28, 2016 12:11:35 GMT -5
Very few PCs died in the original campaigns; and those that did made bad choices for the most part to get their characters offed. Perhaps DMs should start running pre-game tactical stunts for new players rather than trying to offset something that is learned by giving more hps, which seems to me to admit that PCs/players need time to acclimate and that one doesn't want them dying before that occurs. This, IMO, is not the correct route for making people aware, but YMMV. Of course Gary and I were not wanting for players, we perhaps had too many, so if someone was to get miffed at what can be a normal occurrence in the game--death of PC--and went stomping about and never returned, that was not a loss to us in that respect, but, as I stated, very few died anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 28, 2016 12:20:57 GMT -5
I would also like to point out that the 4, 6, 8 dice system is a distributed system when one considers that a party is made up of various classes. So, the fighter has the burden, not the MU. He is right up front and is the meat grinder and one ground, or the shield, so to speak. MU's have it much easier by comparison, let's say, in bringing down an ogre, etc. On the other side of the distributed system, it takes more damage to incapacitate the fighter, so the distribution works out as a party factor (even) when all is said and done: 6 +6+6, or 4+6+8, in each case = 18. So, the 2 hps straying from one class that is essentially added to another in the party makes absolutely no difference. One cannot divorce the group from the equation by isolating the MU. It's a straw target.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Mar 28, 2016 12:24:05 GMT -5
I'm firmly in the D6 Hit Dice/Weapon Damage camp, myself; but I go a step further. All PCs start at 3rd level with Max. Hit Points and No XP. They have to earn all the XP needed to be third level before they can truly begin advancing. This has no adverse affects on the game that I've noticed, and seems to have absolved the death rate slightly. I used to run games at straight 1st level character, but as of their first wilderness random encounter, we would have TPKs. Yes, the PCs would play smart and run if need be, but movement rates can be a real killer, as well. I don't believe in difficulty levels for monsters encountered randomly in the wild, but neither do I go out of my way to slaughter PCs. I fully understand why you do this, although it is not something I do. From the posting I have read on many sites, it seems fairly common for players (that have been spoiled elsewhere) to come into an old school game and as a result of making bad choices they get killed and leave upset never to return. I have not personally had a problem with that, partly because I am mostly playing with friends and partly because I clue people in up front that if there character were to get killed, it is quick to create a new character and I can work them back in fairly quickly with the new character. Very few PCs died in the original campaigns; and those that did made bad choices for the most part to get their characters offed. Perhaps DMs should start running pre-game tactical stunts for new players rather than trying to offset something that is learned by giving more hps, which seems to me to admit that PCs/players need time to acclimate and that one doesn't want them dying before that occurs. This, IMO, is not the correct route for making people aware, but YMMV. Of course Gary and I were not wanting for players, we perhaps had too many, so if someone was to get miffed at what can be a normal occurrence in the game--death of PC--and went stomping about and never returned, that was not a loss to us in that respect, but, as I stated, very few died anyway. Bitd when we started playing there were a lot of deaths the first month of the game, then we it settled down to not a frequent thing as we learned from our mistakes. When I started playing we had plenty of players, now they are harder to come by, but I counter that by playing in a public place and by networking through the players that I have and that seems to be working so far and I do not feel the need to do anything to make the PCs harder to kill. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2016 12:40:07 GMT -5
Perhaps DMs should start running pre-game tactical stunts for new players rather than trying to offset something that is learned by giving more hps, which seems to me to admit that PCs/players need time to acclimate and that one doesn't want them dying before that occurs. This, IMO, is not the correct route for making people aware, but YMMV. So, you are saying I'm doing it wrong. I don't know how to make players any more aware of a gargoyle pack chasing their 1st level characters - actually happened with a random wilderness roll and ended badly for everyone involved. I could have changed the encounter, I guess, but I try to stay neutral as a referee. If we walk into the woods, we might encounter deer or a squirrel - which we can deal with; or we might encounter a bear or a pack of wolves - which we cannot. Tossing rations at bears or wolves may or may not work, depending on whether the animals detect the offering. I thought I had a pretty good grip on tactics, at least on par with the players, for sure. Are you saying there should be a qualifying training level for new and even old players? Hypothetical scenarios to force them to embrace better tactics? I just want to understand/learn ... |
|
