|
There are some of us, still, however, who run low magic games and love the heck out of them.Like those of us who love a good game of Conan? ;)
-Ben.
Heck yes!
I remember running something called "Against Darkness" back in the day.
I keep remembering trying to badly imitate Arnold, "Against Da DaKness!"
|
|
Or......... if I could just find someone who plays....... I'd love to be a player in a Harn campaign. That world encyclopedia is one of the most interesting ones I've ever read. (Came in a two-folder plasic case.) The gods of Harn and the cults that followed them were amazing.
And the whole feel was very gritty, long before grit in gaming became associated with trains, hero points, or Baker.
Harn is very cool.
I have the TSR Conan game designed by Zeb on my shelf. I adore it.
|
Some of my favourite authors are one's whose lush style I feel has some resemblance to Gygax's ouvre - Clark Duncan Smith and A A Attanasio, for example.
I think you'll find it's Clark Ashton Smith.
Are you mixing him up with Michael Clark Duncan, from 'The Green Mile'?Check out this website for some stories you might like.
Edit: wrong thread
OT: Weird Al should do a song called "Sloganizer". Maybe Pax will pen the lyrics.
More OT: To the tune of Britney Spears' "Womanizer".
I've been following this thread for a bit now, and to be honest im a bit intimidated by it.
But ignoring that I would like to share how it has made me rethink my gaming life.
I never have had problems with any of the "editions" and while I prefer 3.5 over any of the others, I have been drawn to my 1e books. What has drawn me though is that, I have realized that I have always been playing 1e. I DM more than play and I cut my teeth on 1e. So as I began rereading the old DMG I realized I have always been running my games as Gygax suggested.
What that means to me is that as folks began turning on 3e, I couldnt see the issues they where having, I remember only having one real complaint about the 2e conversion....how initiative was figured.
Ive never been one for the rule sets I guess being more of a story teller. And that brings me to 4e I had a choice to make convert or not to, and for the 1st time in all these years I had to say no.
To me, and this is only opinion, 4e no longer captures that feeling for me, it lacks the ability for me to run it as I have always ran D&D like 1e taught me to. While it may be a great game its doesnt have that Gygaxian feel to me anymore....
Forgive my poor grammar...
Eric
Welcome, Eric. You've found a safe place to get support from smart, creative, generous people.
To me, and this is only opinion, 4e no longer captures that feeling for me, it lacks the ability for me to run it as I have always ran D&D like 1e taught me to. While it may be a great game its doesnt have that Gygaxian feel to me anymore....Glad to have you join us Eric.
Your feelings about 4E look pretty similar to mine, I think what I've seen of it's a good game, it just doesn't engage me the same way AD&D does. It's good that people are enjoying the new version, but my tastes lie elsewhere.
True, I have thought about running a 4E/Warhammer 40k game because the two seem like they could meld well together. I also would like to get some more use out of my Space Marines....LOL.
1E was caught me up into the RPG world. I devoured every bit of it, and loved playing at school, such a nerd...I know. And like Ive said Ive always ran my games like Gygax suggested....I always felt that the players helped build the worlds we played in, as much as I did.
Re-Reading the 1E DMG has been really great to me here lately, and almost chokes me up that we lost Gygax.
In a few weeks some close friends of mine will be diving into the Tomb of Horrors, Ive not been this excited in years about gaming.
What is it that seems to be drawing some many of us, I assume, to the Old School games?
Eric
In a few weeks some close friends of mine will be diving into the Tomb of Horrors, Ive not been this excited in years about gaming.
Have you ever done Tomb of Horrors before? I wrote a post a couple of years ago outlining the mentality one should take in order survive Tomb of Horrors. It even works best in 1st or 2nd edition as they key spell Monster Summoning comes with excellent components, relatively intelligent humanoids with hands ... very useful for any wizard who wants to traverse the Tomb of Horrors.
|
|
What is it that seems to be drawing some many of us, I assume, to the Old School games?
My thought...
Fidelity, fun, tribute, imagination, freedom, rejection of 4e Slavicsekism, and perhaps most importantly.... getting back to source in a time where the foundations of the game have been stepped upon.
Some of us are regaining our Gygaxian clarity about the game. Some of us are finding, like you, that we have always executed the game as the 1e DMG taught us to. Still others, may have entered the game at 3e and were duped as the veil of "One true 100% offical D&D material" kept us locked on the wotci rather than 3PPs. Still others, are looking back, yearning for a game table that provides great fun that is free from anything associated with the megacorp that would stiffle our imaginations.
I am sure there are more reasons.
Recently Dungeon and Dragon mags were pulled from print - and many recall the old school games in association with them.
Many of us cannot relate to 4e, or perhaps some want to investigate what the game was originally like in reaction to recent changes.
Some are searching for a perfect balance at their tables between flowing story and preparation that is not taxing but instead fun and free to let imaginations flow.
Though there may be other reasons.... I'm sure I'm forgetting some....
There is one, very quiet, humble reason related to Gary and Dave's passing to the great beyond...
But it is far more subtle than most would try to express....
There is indeed a secret magic that is present during the very best games. For this to happen, players must be free to be in character. Gary knew the right formulae to make this balance between rules and improvisation occur. I've recently seen it returning to my game table in the last year or so - much more powerfully than in the past. And, in my own inarticulate way, I am suggesting that not unlike the concept of "church", there is power in the community of a shared imagination at the fantasy rpg table. There is a private, and unspoken window that opens to the unconscious, and perhaps to other worlds beyond those we perceive... and this is not meant to be some mysterious paragraph - in fact, those who know of what I speak will confirm it to be both simple and sublime. There is a power in the dice, the minds, the imagination... to open worlds in that shared space between players, and within the interactions of the characters. All of this is in direct contrast to any focus on powerz, winds, marks, and whatever. This is the un-game portion of our game. This is the elusive supernatural or perhaps simply inexplicable beauty of our game. And against the backdrop of a realist society, may be difficult to both explain or encounter without the aid of the early editions to prompt its appearance.
(please... I am not looking for any disagreement on this. I am not trying to persuade nor over romanticize.... those who understand this simply... do.)
What is it that seems to be drawing some many of us, I assume, to the Old School games?
My thought...
Fidelity, fun, tribute, imagination, freedom, rejection of 4e Slavicsekism, and perhaps most importantly.... getting back to source in a time where the foundations of the game have been stepped upon.
Some of us are regaining our Gygaxian clarity about the game. Some of us are finding, like you, that we have always executed the game as the 1e DMG taught us to. Still others, may have entered the game at 3e and were duped as the veil of "One true 100% offical D&D material" kept us locked on the wotci rather than 3PPs. Still others, are looking back, yearning for a game table that provides great fun that is free from anything associated with the megacorp that would stiffle our imaginations.
I am sure there are more reasons.
Recently Dungeon and Dragon mags were pulled from print - and many recall the old school games in association with them.
Many of us cannot relate to 4e, or perhaps some want to investigate what the game was originally like in reaction to recent changes.
Some are searching for a perfect balance at their tables between flowing story and preparation that is not taxing but instead fun and free to let imaginations flow.
Though there may be other reasons.... I'm sure I'm forgetting some....
There is one, very quiet, humble reason related to Gary and Dave's passing to the great beyond...
But it is far more subtle than most would try to express....
There is indeed a secret magic that is present during the very best games. For this to happen, players must be free to be in character. Gary knew the right formulae to make this balance between rules and improvisation occur. I've recently seen it returning to my game table in the last year or so - much more powerfully than in the past. And, in my own inarticulate way, I am suggesting that not unlike the concept of "church", there is power in the community of a shared imagination at the fantasy...
Awesome...Bravo!
I understand where you're coming from, but I'm feeling the opposite. I played 2e and several boxed games, and a lot of the numbers didnt make any sense to me at the time (I was 10). I didn't see why there was a limit on armor class, I didn't see why there were a lot of limits period. In my experience, no matter how good someone is at something, there's always someone better. There's always a bigger fish... So when 3e came out, I was overjoyed! 3e really pulled me in and gave me the fantasy/medieval experience I was looking for.
I think one thing we can agree on, all of us, is that our "DnD experience" is as individual as our opinions; nobody can tell you what should be the game or shouldn't. If 4e players are having a blast and it feels right for them, then we can't tell them otherwise. The same goes for them; if 3e feels right for you, no amount of numeric nitpicking about "armor class" and "hit point escalation vs. damage output" will convince you that the game you enjoy is "wrong". This is a fantasy game about using your imagination and playing with friends. I think when we started adding all the numeric formulas everything went downhill...
There is indeed a secret magic that is present during the very best games. For this to happen, players must be free to be in character. Gary knew the right formulae to make this balance between rules and improvisation occur. I've recently seen it returning to my game table in the last year or so - much more powerfully than in the past. And, in my own inarticulate way, I am suggesting that not unlike the concept of "church", there is power in the community of a shared imagination at the fantasy...
Would have made a nice foreword to the PFRPG - like it brother... like it alot.
Consider the interaction between saving throws and magic/other "attacks" in Original/BECMI/1e/2e D&D, and contrast with their treatment in 3e and 4e. Analyse the relationship between hit point escalation and damage increase in the same editions, and consider the implication of Armour Class limits on this. Think about the implications that these two basic concepts (there are others) have on the nature of the world. My conclusion, which I suspect you will refuse to reach, is that the reason people are considering returning to earlier editions is that they provide the "authentic D&D experience" that is not provided by either 3rd edition or for different reasons 4th edition. Or to put it another way, people who complained when 3rd edition first came out that it wasn't D&D were partly justified in their opinion.
You mean the math behind 3.X at high levels doesn't work? "Say it ain't so, Joe!" Well, of course it doesn't! We've known that since the first time we played a 3.5 party past 15th level. But that's not really fair; the math behind 1st edition was almost as bad, but in the opposite direction.
But Gygax had a "fix" that 3.0 lacked. Instead of continuing to scale, he more or less cut off progression ("+1 hp/level" anyone? There is nothing above 9th level spells, ever?) but shifted the entire focus of the game from active adventuring to political -- and provided no math for that second half of the game, so that it was totally open-ended. And he set it up so that the active-adventuring game would segue, hopefully smoothly, into the political game, so that (hopefully) people wouldn't even notice they were being re-routed away from the numbers and into more open territory. To me, THAT'S the main thing that 1st edition provided that 3.X lacks.
For your second paragraph. My favourite version of D&D, still. Rules Cyclopedia.
Yay! :D Seconding the RC love.
The game is not a simulation, Gygax admited that, so good math or bad math matters little. Why? Because its a Role Playing game 1st.
I can roleplay any game if I ignore the ruleset, ie Monopoly. I ignored the West Ends version of Star Wars and allowed the players to think I gave a crap about the rules.
They would roll their 12d6 lightsabers and I would decide whether or not they hit, not based on the rules but on how we all wanted the story to go. They never knew I was always ignoring the ruleset and its crap math.
I guess Ive played that way for a long time no matter what game we played, Rifts, Call of Chuthulu, Rune Quest....the story was more important than the rules.
I think Gygax would agree, the math mattered little it was about the story being told.
Eric
The game is not a simulation, Gygax admited that, so good math or bad math matters little. Why? Because its a Role Playing game 1st.
In other words, we shouldn't play D&D at all, we should just have story hour. Who brings the milk and cookies?
|
|
The game is not a simulation, Gygax admited that, so good math or bad math matters little. Why? Because its a Role Playing game 1st.In other words, we shouldn't play D&D at all, we should just have story hour. Who brings the milk and cookies?
Yeah, why have dice at all? Really, if it's all about "story", and the GM just makes up whatever, who needs dice and rules?
The sarcasm is thick in here.
Roleplaying without dice is just theater.
Dice without roleplaying is just a game.
Gary knew better than us all, that sweet spot between storytelling and game mechanics. He internalized this dichotomy, and it is expressed in all his works. To understand this logically, it is neither that rules do not matter alone, nor that rules do matter alone.... it is, perhaps instead, that dice and math do matter and don't matter at the same time. This is the purview of the Gamemaster.
The game is not a simulation, Gygax admited that, so good math or bad math matters little. Why? Because its a Role Playing game 1st.In other words, we shouldn't play D&D at all, we should just have story hour. Who brings the milk and cookies?Yeah, why have dice at all? Really, if it's all about "story", and the GM just makes up whatever, who needs dice and rules?The sarcasm is thick in here.
Roleplaying without dice is just theater.
Dice without roleplaying is just a game.Gary knew better than us all, that sweet spot between storytelling and game mechanics. He internalized this dichotomy, and it is expressed in all his works. To understand this logically, it is neither that rules do not matter alone, nor that rules do matter alone.... it is, perhaps instead, that dice and math do matter and don't matter at the same time. This is the purview of the Gamemaster.
Yeah, you made my point clearer than I did.
Eric
To me, the advantage of roleplaying games over story telling is the interaction between:
a)the planned out development, by the Game Master
b)the reactive decisions of the players and their characters
c)the random developments due to unexpected results based on the die rolls
When the Game Master decides his planned out decisions are better than those of the players or the effects of the dice, I think something is lost.
Yeah, why have dice at all? Really, if it's all about "story", and the GM just makes up whatever, who needs dice and rules?
Ha! Or maybe its just the LARPer in me screaming to get out....
When I was younger I never really got hung up on the Rules, It seems to me arguements over rule sets for D&D only gained any real notice when 3.0 appeared on the seen. Then when 4e emerged it seemed that the older versions where horrble pains that we all slugged through, waiting for the day some one would rescue us.
I never had a TPK in 20+ years of gaming, sure I lose loved characters, but never a TPK, but now thats all I hear about. Maybe if the DMs where more focused on story and less on rules the TPK would never happen.
Ive heard 1e was all aboutthe DM besting the Players, I cant find that anywhere in my 1e DMG, sure plenty of paragraphs on challenging the players but nothing on beating them up.
Gygax talks about running a game like this, he metions its determental to the game and its community as a whole. DMs that abused 1e ruleset where just plain @$$hats.
Story 1st, rules second. Im not gonna change that Ideal, and Ive never lost a player because of it. Telling a story is vital to a Role Playing game, period, else like its been said it turns into just a boardgame.
Rejection of the story telling elements of the game to me equate to playing the old Gauntlet Video Game. Where I continue to shove quarters in the machine in hopes of gaining the next level.
I could whip out Undermountain randomly roll every encounter and have the players slog through it, but why?
My players have ruled nations and headed theives guilds, ran mercenary companies in the Blood War and bested the sphinx at its own game. All the while the players where challenged and pushed to the limits of their own ability, both as their characters and as players themselves.
Eric
|
Yeah, why have dice at all? Really, if it's all about "story", and the GM just makes up whatever, who needs dice and rules?Ha! Or maybe its just the LARPer in me screaming to get out....
When I was younger I never really got hung up on the Rules, It seems to me arguements over rule sets for D&D only gained any real notice when 3.0 appeared on the seen. Then when 4e emerged it seemed that the older versions where horrble pains that we all slugged through, waiting for the day some one would rescue us.
I never had a TPK in 20+ years of gaming, sure I lose loved characters, but never a TPK, but now thats all I hear about. Maybe if the DMs where more focused on story and less on rules the TPK would never happen.
Ive heard 1e was all aboutthe DM besting the Players, I cant find that anywhere in my 1e DMG, sure plenty of paragraphs on challenging the players but nothing on beating them up.
Gygax talks about running a game like this, he metions its determental to the game and its community as a whole. DMs that abused 1e ruleset where just plain @$$hats.
Story 1st, rules second. Im not gonna change that Ideal, and Ive never lost a player because of it. Telling a story is vital to a Role Playing game, period, else like its been said it turns into just a boardgame.
Rejection of the story telling elements of the game to me equate to playing the old Gauntlet Video Game. Where I continue to shove quarters in the machine in hopes of gaining the next level.
I could whip out Undermountain randomly roll every encounter and have the players slog through it, but why?
My players have ruled nations and headed theives guilds, ran mercenary companies in the Blood War and bested the sphinx at its own game. All the while the players where challenged and pushed to the limits of their own ability, both as their characters and as players themselves.
Eric
But...
If you are constantly pulling back, or just allowing characters to die when it suits the "story", how cab you say, with a straight face, you're pushing them to the limit? You already said the dice do not determine stuff, you do. The dice are just there to allow the illusion of a game.
I've played with Kirth, and will again, precisely because he tells a good story, but will kill an entire party if they play stupidly. Well, ok, it wasn't technically a TPK because the wizard was sitting in a prison cell, but still...
I don't want to sit at a table where DM fiat rules all. I don't want to sit a a table where "deus ex machina" is constantly in effect (and that is what advancing story over what the dice say is, really).
And, are you seriously suggesting the author of Tomb of Horrors had a problem with TPKing a party? There is a HUGE gap between a DM who will allow a TPK and one who is out to get the players. Gary was specifically referencing "killer DMs" in that passage, not advocating a "no TPK" play style. DMs who only run games to kill as many characters as possible are tools. DMs who will allow a whole party to die if they make poor decisions isn't.
To me, the advantage of roleplaying games over story telling is the interaction between:
a)the planned out development, by the Game Master
b)the reactive decisions of the players and their characters
c)the random developments due to unexpected results based on the die rollsWhen the Game Master decides his planned out decisions are better than those of the players or the effects of the dice, I think something is lost.
a) the planned out development is important to the game and its storytelling elements. A DM that has to ability to "shoot from the hip" when the players decide to leave that planned out development is just as important. That comes from knowing how to be a storyteller. I had a group of players decide to go completlly off path before, all my work perparing the nights encounters was wasted. Should I have FORCED the characters back on to my path? Hell no. The game is meant to be shared, I have just as much fun as my players. They help me build the story and the campaign, they decide the paths their character choose. I just set up the challeges, the whys and the hows.
b)This part I agree with you completly, The desicions the players make help craft the story being told.
c)The random throw of a die is great! I can spin the story in new and exciting directions. Ive had characters die because of a bad roll or two, and it lead to storys of revenge, saddness or new quests to revive the fallen comrade.
The DM should never force HIS story it should always be a group effort.
Eric
|
But...
If you are constantly pulling back, or just allowing characters to die when it suits the "story", how cab you say, with a straight face, you're pushing them to the limit? You already said the dice do not determine stuff, you do. The dice are just there to allow the illusion of a game.
...
I don't want to sit at a table where DM fiat rules all. I don't want to sit a a table where "deus ex machina" is constantly in effect (and that is what advancing story over what the dice say is, really).
And, are you seriously suggesting the author of Tomb of Horrors had a problem with TPKing a party? There is a HUGE gap between a DM who will allow a TPK and one who is out to get the players. Gary was specifically referencing "killer DMs" in that passage, not advocating a "no TPK" play style. DMs who only run games to kill as many characters as possible are tools. DMs who will allow a whole party to die if they make poor decisions isn't.
QFT...
|
|
To me, the advantage of roleplaying games over story telling is the interaction between:
a)the planned out development, by the Game Master
b)the reactive decisions of the players and their characters
c)the random developments due to unexpected results based on the die rollsWhen the Game Master decides his planned out decisions are better than those of the players or the effects of the dice, I think something is lost.
I understand, and that's how my PRPG games roll. But, it simply isn't that black and white. Not really.
|
|
Yeah, why have dice at all? Really, if it's all about "story", and the GM just makes up whatever, who needs dice and rules?Ha! Or maybe its just the LARPer in me screaming to get out....
When I was younger I never really got hung up on the Rules, It seems to me arguements over rule sets for D&D only gained any real notice when 3.0 appeared on the seen. Then when 4e emerged it seemed that the older versions where horrble pains that we all slugged through, waiting for the day some one would rescue us.
I never had a TPK in 20+ years of gaming, sure I lose loved characters, but never a TPK, but now thats all I hear about. Maybe if the DMs where more focused on story and less on rules the TPK would never happen.
Ive heard 1e was all aboutthe DM besting the Players, I cant find that anywhere in my 1e DMG, sure plenty of paragraphs on challenging the players but nothing on beating them up.
Gygax talks about running a game like this, he metions its determental to the game and its community as a whole. DMs that abused 1e ruleset where just plain @$$hats.
Story 1st, rules second. Im not gonna change that Ideal, and Ive never lost a player because of it. Telling a story is vital to a Role Playing game, period, else like its been said it turns into just a boardgame.
Rejection of the story telling elements of the game to me equate to playing the old Gauntlet Video Game. Where I continue to shove quarters in the machine in hopes of gaining the next level.
I could whip out Undermountain randomly roll every encounter and have the players slog through it, but why?
My players have ruled nations and headed theives guilds, ran mercenary companies in the Blood War and bested the sphinx at its own game. All the while the players where challenged and pushed to the limits of their own ability, both as their characters and as players themselves.
Eric
Hey - you're in the club. How soon can we game together you and I.
Well said, OSG.
|
|
Yeah, why have dice at all? Really, if it's all about "story", and the GM just makes up whatever, who needs dice and rules?Ha! Or maybe its just the LARPer in me screaming to get out....
When I was younger I never really got hung up on the Rules, It seems to me arguements over rule sets for D&D only gained any real notice when 3.0 appeared on the seen. Then when 4e emerged it seemed that the older versions where horrble pains that we all slugged through, waiting for the day some one would rescue us.
I never had a TPK in 20+ years of gaming, sure I lose loved characters, but never a TPK, but now thats all I hear about. Maybe if the DMs where more focused on story and less on rules the TPK would never happen.
Ive heard 1e was all aboutthe DM besting the Players, I cant find that anywhere in my 1e DMG, sure plenty of paragraphs on challenging the players but nothing on beating them up.
Gygax talks about running a game like this, he metions its determental to the game and its community as a whole. DMs that abused 1e ruleset where just plain @$$hats.
Story 1st, rules second. Im not gonna change that Ideal, and Ive never lost a player because of it. Telling a story is vital to a Role Playing game, period, else like its been said it turns into just a boardgame.
Rejection of the story telling elements of the game to me equate to playing the old Gauntlet Video Game. Where I continue to shove quarters in the machine in hopes of gaining the next level.
I could whip out Undermountain randomly roll every encounter and have the players slog through it, but why?
My players have ruled nations and headed theives guilds, ran mercenary companies in the Blood War and bested the sphinx at its own game. All the while the players where challenged and pushed to the limits of their own ability, both as their characters and as players themselves.
Eric
But...
If you are constantly pulling back, or just allowing characters to die when it...
C'mon Houston D, you get this stuff better than all of us. You know what OSG is talkin' about.
You understand the secret, so don't get caught up arguing against it. There isn't any fiat that a good GM admits. And there isn't any GM ex machina that should be obvious. A great GM hides these things, and keeps the mastrey of the game all his own.
But...
If you are constantly pulling back, or just allowing characters to die when it suits the "story", how cab you say, with a straight face, you're pushing them to the limit? You already said the dice do not determine stuff, you do. The dice are just there to allow the illusion of a game.
I've played with Kirth, and will again, precisely because he tells a good story, but will kill an entire party if they play stupidly. Well, ok, it wasn't technically a TPK because the wizard was sitting in a prison cell, but still...
I don't want to sit at a table where DM fiat rules all. I don't want to sit a a table where "deus ex machina" is constantly in effect (and that is what advancing story over what the dice say is, really).
And, are you seriously suggesting the author of Tomb of Horrors had a problem with TPKing a party? There is a HUGE gap between a DM who will allow a TPK and one who is out to get the players. Gary was specifically referencing "killer DMs" in that passage, not advocating a "no TPK" play style. DMs who only run games to kill as many characters as possible are tools. DMs who will allow a whole party to die if they make poor decisions isn't.
I hated the West End version of Star Wars, I ignored the rolls in that game. I tend to do a LITTLE of that in D&D. Rolling the dice behind the DM screen was a tactic of Gygax, even if the rolls meant nothing, so in a since they can be an illsion.
Stoopid players are stoopid players and never play for long, and sometimes players just do dumb stuff and need to be kicked in the @$$ for smart mouthing a Dragon. But if you and your players spend 3 weeks building a story only to have a random dragon encounter wipe them off the map why play?
What if the Fellowship all failed their climb checks and fell down the side of the mountain. Story over, Suaron wins. Sure we could roll up new characters, and try it again but then if I just re run the same story I lose something to the emmersion of the game. Then its a video game.
Why let the players know you fudged a roll? Dont tell them. Thats why you got a DM screen. ]
Look, it takes a balance between the two, Ive killed players off, Ive killed the whole party off leaving only the cleric or the theif or what ever. It happens and sometimes you just have to go with the Dice rolls.
Its just as lame for the Deus Ex as it is the 16th level theif failing a climb check and dropping to his death.
But hey it happens even in my campaigns, but not often I would rather a fighter die as he plunges his sword into the dragons neck saving the day for one and all.
Tomb of Horrors written by Gygax, was originaly designed as one shot Tournement play at Origins I. Gygax called it a "Thinking person's module" It is survuvable. I own and orginal copy of the Module.
Ive never ran it but will be doing so next week, a group of Army buddys are coming together for a bit of a reunion. They will all die Im sure.
As a player it was the final challege in a long campaign (three real world years). Our group went in with 8 characters, two survived, although the Ranger was missing a arm and the Magic-User was forever cured with the inability to cast magic.
I love The Tomb. Im sure no one will survive next week.
Eric
|
|
Look - here is what the game publishers won't tell you.
...its the same famous quote by E.G.Gygax...
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."
-Quote popularly attributed to Gary Gygax
"Behind the mirrors... behind the smoke.... sits the gamemaster. A perfect puppet master, and the greatest bard of modern times. He knows how to open the window to another plane, and let the dreams and horrors of the unconscious dance upon the game table. His role, done well, should take you elsewhere - beyond rulebooks, to a realm of shared imagination that appears all at once, immersive theater, and a functioning game system. The game can expand the mind and manifest meaning from the substances stored in our subconscious. An experience not unlike that of a church-like community forms when the players suspend disbelief in favor of the game master's world. And so it is the appearance of a system that makes the game magical, not the actual existence of it."
-Pax Veritas-
Valerian wrote:
"My players just had such an opportunity and failed ... "Grab 4d6 everyone". It's rare a whole party is rash but it happens. Gary did you ever slay an entire party."Yes, and each time it was because of poor play.
The worst was when my play-test group for the Unhallowed horror RPG were at the concluding session of a campaign that had lasted for many weeks. When the main antagonist, a witch, did not die immediately when thay shot her, they decided in their wisdom to shiit the sacrificial victim on the altar. The resulting innicent blood there enabled the demon to gate into the place and and do for the lot of them. I just said, "Time for you to go home," rather than make a gory account of the end. I was so disappointed in their play that I never invited any member of that group to be a part of one of my RPG campaigns thereafter.
All the other TPK incidents, six or so, occurred when groups of non-old-school players, or old-schoolers that had lost touch with their roots, adventured into my originsl dungeon, where most were slain in the first level by a band of kobolds, not known as the Old Guard Kobolds.
Cheers,
Gary
Found this on a site I lurk, It was part of a series of Q&A's.
I can totally agree here. poor players bring the whole game down. Ive killed off a players character for being stoopid too. Did to get rid of a jerk who was dragging the whole game down.
Eric
Yeah, why have dice at all? Really, if it's all about "story", and the GM just makes up whatever, who needs dice and rules?
I need dice and rules so that I can't be held to my own devices, which might be, to kill everyone, take the gold, and RUN!
To me, the advantage of roleplaying games over story telling is the interaction between:
a)the planned out development, by the Game Master
b)the reactive decisions of the players and their characters
c)the random developments due to unexpected results based on the die rollsWhen the Game Master decides his planned out decisions are better than those of the players or the effects of the dice, I think something is lost.
I agree, I don't mind a GM having a broad idea of a story he wishes the pc's to participate in, but I HATE GM's railroading pc's down routes they really don't want to go 'because that's the plot'.
Rpg's are magical because they enable stories to spin off in ways the planner of the story never expected. Players need to be free to act and dice are needed to randomise things, and thereby allow the unexpected to occur; the wrong wandering monster to be met, someone to die at a point that was unexpected, for combat even to feel dangerous and therefor exciting.
Dice and rules are essential imo.
The game is not a simulation, Gygax admited that, so good math or bad math matters little. Why? Because its a Role Playing game 1st.In other words, we shouldn't play D&D at all, we should just have story hour. Who brings the milk and cookies?
I'm down for nap time and playing house :)
Look - here is what the game publishers won't tell you.
...its the same famous quote by E.G.Gygax...
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."
-Quote popularly attributed to Gary Gygax
"Behind the mirrors... behind the smoke.... sits the gamemaster. A perfect puppet master, and the greatest bard of modern times. He knows how to open the window to another plane, and let the dreams and horrors of the unconscious dance upon the game table. His role, done well, should take you elsewhere - beyond rulebooks, to a realm of shared imagination that appears all at once, immersive theater, and a functioning game system. The game can expand the mind and manifest meaning from the substances stored in our subconscious. An experience not unlike that of a church-like community forms when the players suspend disbelief in favor of the game master's world. And so it is the appearance of a system that makes the game magical, not the actual existence of it."
-Pax Veritas-
No rules = anarchy. YAY!
|
|
C'mon Houston D, you get this stuff better than all of us. You know what OSG is talkin' about.
You understand the secret, so don't get caught up arguing against it. There isn't any fiat that a good GM admits. And there isn't any GM ex machina that should be obvious. A great GM hides these things, and keeps the mastrey of the game all his own.
Yeah, but if I don't throw out some contrariness once in a while, the thread slows down. I love this thread, I want to see it grow!
;)
|
|
To me, the advantage of roleplaying games over story telling is the interaction between:
a)the planned out development, by the Game Master
b)the reactive decisions of the players and their characters
c)the random developments due to unexpected results based on the die rollsWhen the Game Master decides his planned out decisions are better than those of the players or the effects of the dice, I think something is lost.
I agree, I don't mind a GM having a broad idea of a story he wishes the pc's to participate in, but I HATE GM's railroading pc's down routes they really don't want to go 'because that's the plot'.
Rpg's are magical because they enable stories to spin off in ways the planner of the story never expected. Players need to be free to act and dice are needed to randomise things, and thereby allow the unexpected to occur; the wrong wandering monster to be met, someone to die at a point that was unexpected, for combat even to feel dangerous and therefor exciting.
Dice and rules are essential imo.
Yes. Absolutely. Dice and rules provide the verisimilitude of a "game." And, most often, as you and I agree with Press Man on the a,b,cs of gaming, the dice and rules actually help adjudicate the game. Except - when they don't. And that's where our frog-friend is also right. We're all right.
All right?
*breaks into song...
Well its all-right. Even when you're old and grey.
Well its all-right. Every day is Brewfest festival day.