The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
Did B/X do training? I don't think they did, so in this case it's not a problem.
B/X differences
- Thread starter squeen
- Start date
The1True
My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
I have to admit, Take 20's and/or pixel-bitching Search/Perception checks has taken the fun out of this (as well as most traps). I can trick players occasionally with distractions or by panicking/hurrying them, but it feels cheap. There's a strong argument for doing away with arbitrary traps and strongly broadcasting trapped 'gauntlets' so players relax elsewhere in the dungeon. Secret doors are a little more difficult. Although that 1e elven 1:3 autodetection makes for a passive solution that might be carried over.
The1True
My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
Yeah, but in a lot of cases there's enough monsters/treasure to go up the advertised 3 levels.
But yeah, in B5's case, the DM notes for the dragon allude to the Basic Set rules for subduing a dragon, suggesting the creature may be sleeping when first encountered.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
My player love it when they get in a situation where they have out grown a dungeon. It's so rare they have a solid upper-hand, I just let them enjoy it.
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
Wasn't it 1 in 6 chance of detected concealed doors by autodetection only?
<stuck up rules elitist> It would help if you had read the rules before trying to play the game. </stuck up rules elitist>
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
@The Heretic: You are correct.
Also, I think it's totally normal that player walk past stuff and never see it. No need to pixel bitch. If it's important, there always other ways to find things (or should be in a well design scenario).
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Doesn't using Take 20 imply you are spending a lot of time at it? Pixel-bitching certainly does. That is what random encounter checks are for, assuming they are no treasure and low XPs so they are not a reward in and of themselves.
I don't like 4e and 5e passive perception as a concept because it removes any possibility of randomness. I may use it to trigger a random roll, or to hint to a player that something is nagging at them without telling them what it is. For traps, so there are no arguments, I set DCs higher than any passive perception could reasonably be for the level, but allow for automatic detection if the right narrative choices are made (if deployment of 10' poles is SOP, pits are always detected, for instance).
The1True
My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
Yeah, it turns out this is more of a discouragement for the DM than the players. The rewards of finding secret stuff are too high and the penalties of stirring up random encounters too low for players. Meanwhile, running randos is a total pain in the ass for a DM. Particularly on a VTT. Particularly with 3e monster stats.
yeah yeah. who has the 2:6 in 1e then? Thieves? Or is it elves if they're actively searching. Anyway, the long and the short of it was when I was playing Baldur's gate I just walked really slowly. Eventually everything in the dungeon would passively pop up. That said, I could also open the door to the boss monster, let him cast his suite of buff spells, maybe throw a long-duration spell like cloudkill in there, shut the door and walk my characters to the bottom of the screen and watch the NPC buffs slowly expire and the incremental damage soften them up for the next five minutes. So maybe a terrible example...
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
I'm going by memory here, but I think it was 2 in 6 when actively searching for a secret door and 3 in 6 when actively searching for a concealed door. Add that to the elven resistance to sleep and charm and it made them a must have race.
I'm sure @squeen probably banished them as a 'candy race'.
robertsconley
*eyeroll*
Perhaps, but afterward, I would write up an explanation of how I could do that with only half of a water-logged Basic book, coconuts and sheer gumption.
My main criticism of AD&D is that it was the wrong solution for the problem that D&D faced. Which was TSR was bombarded with the 1970s version of spam via mail and phone. On its own, it is an excellent RPG marred only by the fact it was designed rather than organically grown through actual play like OD&D was.
robertsconley
*eyeroll*
You can run Basic (or AD&D 1e) modules find in 5e as well. Something I put into practice several times running successive (and once concurrent) Majestic Wilderlands campaigns using my Majestic Fantasy rules based on OD&D and 5e rules.
robertsconley
*eyeroll*
People liked my explanation from.
How many editions of Dungeons & Dragons are there?
How many editions of Dungeons & Dragons are there?
rpg.stackexchange.com
- Original Dungeons & Dragons published in 1974
Note that the basic game uses d6's for almost everything, and is written to use Chainmail as the combat system, rather than the "alternate combat system," which would later become the standard D&D combat mechanic. Further, only three classes exist - Fighting Man, Cleric, Magic-User — and neither multi-classing nor demihumans work the same as later. - Supplement I: Greyhawk published in 1975
The added rules made Dungeons & Dragon into a form we recognize today. It changes to the HD mechanic that is used in every later edition, added thieves and the thief skills, changed multiclassing towards what would be used in AD&D - Basic Dungeons & Dragons by Holmes in 1977
- Advanced Dungeons & Dragons in 1977-1979
- Basic/Expert Dungeons & Dragons by Moldvay/Cook in 1981
- Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal Dungeons & Dragons by Mentzer in 1983
- Unearthed Arcana for AD&D (Some say that this made AD&D 1.5.)
- Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition in 1989
As it mattering in practice I found most classic edition fans today and back in the day to run their campaign with AD&D stuff (classes, monsters, spells) with B/X style rules. The first major division being whether you used Unearthed Arcana or not.
The historical break points I found are
Do you play with 3 LBB of OD&D only or not?
Do you play OD&D with supplements or not?
Do you play BECMI culminated in the RC or not?
Do you play AD&D with the 3 core books or not?
Do you play AD&D with UA or not?
Do you play AD&D with UA with the Survival Guide proficiency rules or not?
The debut of the OSR added the following
Do you play B/X or not?
Do yo uplay B/X with some of AD&D's stuff or not?
The main reason the above isn't historical because BECMI was in print in the 80s and B/X was not. And BECMI so close to be B/X that they were interchangeable to most. Plus the Rules Cyclopedia was a well done compilation of the BECMI line. Of which meant in the 80s or 90s if a referee was not a fan of AD&D but liked D&D likely they were using BECMI or the RC.
As for the significance of it all, my experience is that both then and now hobbyists respond negatively to suggestions about what rules they ought to be using. For example, a AD&D referee uses the equivalent of B/x combat sequence to resolve melee and ignores those sections in the DMG. Then a player pipes up and tries to cite a rule from those sections.
Or suggesting to a OD&D group using the supplements that they ought to be playing AD&D Instead
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Rewards and penalties are both knobs that can be adjusted. I can't help you with 3e stat bloat, though.
I thought the problem it was trying to solve was having to share IP with Dave Arneson.
robertsconley
*eyeroll*
My opinion that the attitude was more
In my opinion, the initial impetus of AD&D was to stop all the damn questions along with dealing with the fact that D&D tournaments had to have several pages of "rules clarifications" to run them.
As for not wanting to share IP with Dave Arneson. I view the situation as nuanced. It is clear to me that the initial flashpoint was not greed but resentment by Gygax feeling that he has done all the work writing OD&D, running the company and subsequently making D&D a success. Having dealt with small businesses and their owners (I write metal cutting software to control machinery) for decades people doing things just to be greedy is not as common as one would think. Instead what I found happens is that there is some initial dispute that may or may not be justified. The greed part happens later using what happened first as a justification for later actions.
In the case of OD&D Gygax did most of the grunt work getting it published, then building up TSR, and so on. Although creatively it was a collaborative effort. I run often in the case of small businesses where there are two or more partners and one is the creative genius and the other the guy while smart does the grunt work. The guy doing the grunt work can feel resentful at the creative. This leads to bad things happening down the line unless the group works at keeping the relationships on an even keel. And that didn't happen within early TSR by any of the accounts.
Dave was gone by the time the need for AD&D became apparent.
Finally, this is not about taking sides. As far as I am concerned blame is to be found on all sides of early TSR. I consider the situation to be tragic rather than a case of evil corporate Gary versus saint Dave the father of tabletop roleplaying.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
It's true, as so many of you have noticed, that I tend to be vocally dismissive of things I personally do not like (<cough> B/X<cough>), but here's a quasi-redemptive quote from an art blog's comment section
and what I thought was an intelligent reply...
Of course, sometimes it's also six-of-one-half-dozen-of-the-other...and we just chalk it up to personal taste, digging no further.
https://illustrationart.blogspot.co...showComment=1195498440000#c820825566970558744
and what I thought was an intelligent reply...
One tries to dissect differences in the search for truth and understanding of quality. Is what one person perceives as "better" a real thing, or just an false dichotomy? Can we isolate quality in design, or is it an accident of mixed reagents?
Of course, sometimes it's also six-of-one-half-dozen-of-the-other...and we just chalk it up to personal taste, digging no further.
The1True
My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
Don't yuck other people's yum. If you have to make a comparison, use relative words. Instead of saying something is bad, say why you personally don't like it in a way that won't have half the internet crawling down your throat. All of us need to learn how to do this I think.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
My kids do this constantly and literally with foods. I've been told a thousand times that pasta is awful and beans are disgusting. It's not something we all get too worked up about.
I generally do prefer the company of passionate people --- even if I don't share their passion.
