|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 23, 2015 5:23:22 GMT -6
I was inspired for this post by some comments in Rastus's AAC thread... If your players have any idea what AC or the hit tables are, you're not playing OD&D. "Don't ask me what you need to hit. Tell me what you rolled. I'll tell you if you hit." -- Dave Arneson I have to agree with Gronan. Whenever I’ve run OD&D, we just used “Chain + Shield” style nomenclature, and the players never noted their own AC number, let alone knew what anyone else’s was. I'd like to discuss running OD&D where the players basically have no numbers. I tried something like this back in the 1970's, where I kept the character sheets behind the screen and players didn't get to access the numbers and/or the information during play. In fact, I've tried different versions of this at different times, where I would try hiding some information and allowing other. The problem I see is always that the more numbers I hide, the more work I have when I run the game. The advantage is that you totally squish rules lawyers and power gamers. I'm curious as to what you keep hidden and what you keep open in your campaign. Attributes and/or Attrribute Bonus:This can be tricky. I suppose the best way to do this is to have the player describe what their character is like (e.g. strong, charismatic, or whatever) and then I create the numbers behind the screen. What I tried was giving everyone a "scouting report" of whether their stat was an "A" rating, a "B" and so on. I didn't tell them my grading scale, but they could compare with one another to see who was best or worst. I found this to be a little frustrating, logistically, as I needed to follow 6 numbers per character. Hit Points:I didn't use the term "bloodied" but it's the same concept. I would keep track of the numbers and give verbal clues (healthy, tired, hurt, bleeding, dying....) as to how thier HP were dropping. I ended up with a chart for each character and that became a bit of a bother, but it was kind of neat. Saving Throws:I don't roll Saving Throws much, and one universal chart on my GM screen worked pretty well. The twist was always a matter of if I roll or they roll. Attack and Defense:I like to hide actual AC numbers, as Falconer mentioned in his example and Gronan in his philosophy. I didn't bother hiding damage at first (all d6's so why bother) but tried it later on. That was fun, becasue I would roll "damage" dice time a player swung a sword, but I only used the number if he hit. Other stuff:I'm sure I've hidden other numbers along the line, but the ones above are the most obvious. What have you tried? What made the game work better or worse?
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Aug 23, 2015 6:00:20 GMT -6
When we first started to play the referee rolled everything for the simple reason that we only had the one set of dice that came in the box (Moldvay Basic). That sort of ingrained the concept in me and it stayed until I moved on into RuneQuest, where there was simply too much dice rolling during combat for me to want to deal with by myself.
But back in OD&D, Holmes, B/X or BLUEHOLME™ I'm more than happy to slip all the rolls back behind the referee's screen, no matter which side I'm on.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Aug 23, 2015 6:26:14 GMT -6
I've been thinking a lot about this, too. One of the things I did without telling my players was to start using the critical hit tables from Arduin. I would just have them roll percentiles, and then roll the damage dice indicated on the Arduin chart, and then describe the damage done. I liked the idea of having a referee-facing-only set of charts, although I'm probably not going to use the versions from Arduin in the future because they are a bit too far-out.
You could, in theory, use this as an opportunity to pull out different rules when you want a monster to be more interesting. For instance, a lot of the charts in the supplements might only be useful in certain situations, such as using Blackmoor hit location tables to see if the players hit a vulnerable spot in the monster's hide, or the Greyhawk weapon versus AC charts when fighting figures in armor. Or you could just be making rulings in combat, freed from the assumption that everything works on a straightforward and objective set of die rolls. If a player describes something that gives them the upper hand, then just give them the upper hand, and vice versa.
Gary Gygax had a quote in his letter to Alarums & Excursions #2:
It's certain, then, that Gary and Dave agreed with Mike/Gronan in his philosophy. The more of the game that the referee keeps behind the screen, the more "monster parameters" can be kept as a challenge for the players. For a wargamer there is no reason that a particular monster couldn't have its own sui generis treatment.
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Aug 23, 2015 8:54:48 GMT -6
The difference between now and then was that few players could reasonably be expected to know monster stats or magic item abilities when those books were relatively uncommon. To be honest, even that didn't last long as evidenced by the need to keep things fresh with a rash of monster books and as stated by Gary in his foreword to Greyhawk. Now, of course, most people have all the books and even if they don't they can easily get hold of electronic copies. At the table the difference is that most normal people won't memorise the entire bestiary of monsters and they won't be expecting the precise surprise the referee or the wandering monster tables is about to spring, so the chances of them knowing exactly what's coming are diminished. But I don't really think monster stats or the players meta-gaming is what this is about, I think it's more to do with the ease of maintaining that suspension of disbelief when all you, as a player, do is to describe the (attempted) actions of your character while the referee handles all the mechanics behind the screen. Taking it as far as not letting players handle numbers at all, not even AC or hit points, is not something I've done, but even so there is a difference in how play flows if I do all the rolling myself.
One odd consequence I've found is that I'm far less likely to fudge a roll behind the screen if I keep all the rolls behind the screen. Psychologically it tends to make me less willing to take it on myself to direct play like that. "The dice never lie" behind the screen then.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Aug 23, 2015 9:09:24 GMT -6
Vile wrote:
Precisely, the players need to be interacting with the world of the game, not the abstraction. Metagaming is just a consequence of placing the preponderance of mechanics in front of the screen.
Finarvyn wrote:
Barring player attack dice most everything, and sometimes the referee rolls all the dice. Even something like a saving throw is interpreted more within the bounds of a dungeon key, a d6 or 2d6 probability.
|
|
|
Post by Punkrabbitt on Aug 23, 2015 9:58:08 GMT -6
I think that witholding numbers from players robs them of the essence of Digits & Denominators...
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Aug 23, 2015 10:10:04 GMT -6
Dungeon World does the opposite. The GM rolls no dice ever during the game. The players roll all the dice. What this does is free the GM to think of story, description and what comes next instead of micromanaging the players combat experience. The GM is the only one to say when dice are rolled, but players roll all dice, even damage dice to their own characters.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Aug 23, 2015 10:20:02 GMT -6
Cooper wrote:
Keeping the abstraction out of the minds of the players leaves the referee something to interpret and feeds the imaginations of the players.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Aug 23, 2015 10:27:36 GMT -6
Rolling dice is fun and DM's do not have infinite mental powers to devote to all aspects of play. And my guess is that any secret dice rolling inevitably leads to DM fudging. As far as the players are concerned, the DM could be not actually rolling any dice, just making a railroad story he wants to tell.
This is a great quote. But its not great because Arneson rolled all the dice, its great because Arneson demanded that the players "lead with the fiction". Its the difference between these two identical scenarios:
DM: You enter a room with a desk in the center. Player: I open the desk draws and look for anything interesting therein. DM: (to player) roll a d6, 1-2 is a success.
vs.
DM: You enter a room with a desk in the center. Player: I use my perception skill. DM: (secretly rolls dice).
Actually, thats not even remotely related to Arneson's quote. But that is actually better than Arneson's quote. Its more important that players describe their actions in the fiction than the DM making the dice roll.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Aug 23, 2015 13:23:04 GMT -6
Cooper wrote:
As this relates to player's imaginations, density of content is not sought, just enough overarching content (a door, a stair, a fire etc.) and minimal and sometimes colorful description (a great door, a long stair, a conflagration) to be supplied by the referee.
A thoughtful interpretation. The obverse: the less of the abstraction/dice in the hands of the players lends to "leading with the fiction".
You're far afield. Part of the difference between say pencil and paper rpgs and console gaming or even competitive wargaming is an inherent reliance of trust and cooperation players engage in with the referee.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 24, 2015 12:29:08 GMT -6
The difference between now and then was that few players could reasonably be expected to know monster stats or magic item abilities when those books were relatively uncommon.… Now, of course, most people have all the books… I recruit players from my various social circles. In my experience, “most people” definitely have zero prior experience with D&D of any kind, and own no rulebooks. These good folks are enthusiastic and creative players at the table, immersing themselves in the story and thinking outside the box. And when the session is over, they couldn’t possibly be bothered to study the rulebooks. Specifically: to hit, saving throws, turn undead, thief skills — they roll and I tell them if they succeed. They don’t know their target numbers. Half the time I have to remind them which type of die/dice to roll, and whether they should “try” to roll high or low. Hit points: they do know their score and how much they deal and are dealt. I think this is only fair, simply communicating in-world reality to the players without error. Obviously(?) I won’t tell them exactly how many remaining HP a foe has; that I narrate in vague terms. Searching for hidden doors: I’ve gone back and forth on whether I roll it or they roll it. Most of the time, I’ve decided it’s better if they do it. Caller says, “search for hidden,” they all roll their dice and let me know if they get a 1 (1-2 for elves). I think they like this better because they know they’re not missing something because they can be confident that they “would have.” But this works much better with a large party of 6+ players. With a small group it’s more likely no-one will roll a 1, and then it’s worse knowing they failed but that there might well be something.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 24, 2015 14:30:07 GMT -6
I recruit players from my various social circles. In my experience, “most people” definitely have zero prior experience with D&D of any kind, and own no rulebooks. These good folks are enthusiastic and creative players at the table, immersing themselves in the story and thinking outside the box. And when the session is over, they couldn’t possibly be bothered to study the rulebooks. My main game group is like this -- they have played for years yet don't own/study the rulebooks and are more interested in having fun than maximizing a character. Sometimes I wish that they would carry a little more knowledge over from session to session, actually, since sometimes I feel like they totally forget how to play. My game store (5E) group is very different, however, which is probably what makes the game not as fun to run. The monk keeps spending ki to stun creatures and then they wipe out the monsters without much challenge. The barbarian has a magic item he got in another game that allows him to never be surprised, and anyone within 30' of him can't be surprised, so the monster doesn't always get the first attack. They spend lots of time pouring over rulebooks and hunting for ways to maximize characters and make encounters less fun for me.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 24, 2015 14:32:59 GMT -6
Searching for hidden doors: I’ve gone back and forth on whether I roll it or they roll it. Most of the time, I’ve decided it’s better if they do it. Caller says, “search for hidden,” they all roll their dice and let me know if they get a 1 (1-2 for elves). I think they like this better because they know they’re not missing something because they can be confident that they “would have.” But this works much better with a large party of 6+ players. With a small group it’s more likely no-one will roll a 1, and then it’s worse knowing they failed but that there might well be something. Hidden doors, listening at doors, finding traps ... those kinds of things get frustrating sometimes because if the player rolls he has a good idea if it is a good roll or bad roll. If it's a bad roll and he finds nothing, there's always some other player who pipes up with "okay, I'll search then." One thing I like about 5E is that they have a simple "helping" rule where one guy makes the roll and if someone helps the roll is at Advantage. This seems to diffuse the "can I roll if he fails" thing since it's clear that more than one character is participating in the check.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Aug 24, 2015 14:46:15 GMT -6
Narrative dungeon crawl RPGs deal with the issue of things like secret doors with the philosophy of "failing forward". You still find the secret door on a failed roll, but it comes with a cost. By "cost" I mean something exciting. That cost could be a guaranteed wandering monster, it could be a trap, it could be expending of resources. In D&D it is a binary pass/fail. That is anything but exciting.
Gandalf failed his roll to open the secret door to Moria. The "cost" to the party was not, "well, let's go do a different adventure guys". It was the triggering of the sleeper in the lake because it took Gandalf so long. That trigger lost them resources and a means of exiting out the same door. This is vastly better than 5e's option of just stacking the deck in the players favor because the effect is not to make anything exciting happen. Even with the help, failing the roll in 5e means nothing exciting happens...they just fail.
What players are doing when they fail a search and then another player says "I'll try" is they are trying to advance the game. They are trying to move forward. "Failing forward" fixes this issue. If there is a secrecy door, they will find it, the question is, what will it cost them and are they willing to risk the "fail" forward result if they roll poorly?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2015 21:29:01 GMT -6
If there is a secrecy door, they will find it, the question is, what will it cost them and are they willing to risk the "fail" forward result if they roll poorly? There is no risk because even if a monster attacks, the party will just "fail forward" until the monster is dead. But the entire thing is predicated on the idea that the advemture requires the party to suceed at one particular roll or the players might as well go home. That's just bad adventure design.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Aug 24, 2015 22:04:37 GMT -6
Cooper wrote: If the reference to D&D means OD&D, I don't see what you are driving at. Searching for a secret door requires a full turn (10 minutes). Moreover, "some doors are more difficult to discover, the linear curve being a d8 or d10 (97 AD&D/DMG). Should the party fail to discover a door they believe is hidden there (as Gandalf believed in your example), they may spend another turn searching and so on. There is a cost: a wandering monster die is rolled each turn (10 U&WA). There could be a trap. Depending on how much time passes searching, resources (hit points, arrows, flasks, provisions and water, spells)will be expended should a monster arrive and without advancing the exploration of the dungeon.
Elevating the level of danger apply this ruling on listening at doors to the search for concealed and secret doors: "Only three attempts can be made before the strain becomes too great. After the third attempt the listener must cease such activity at least five rounds before returning to listen again" (60 AD&D/DMG). Given the search for secret doors is defined in turns, the cessation of the search should be in turns.
Hedgehobbit wrote:
Agreed. The example from The Fellowship is rather exceptional, as the secret door is not in question, but more so how long it will take to open it, i.e. what spell or words will open it.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Aug 25, 2015 8:41:37 GMT -6
Also, the Moria-gate in LR was not the Fellowship's only option, just the most secret.
I would say that individual rolls or actions are not meant to be independently exciting in D&D. The excitement comes from the ongoing development of the whole. Just decide in one way or another whether the party finds a secret door and get on with things.
As for "no-numbers D&D," you don't have to eliminate ability scores; just don't tie them absolutely to any game mechanics the players know. Joe knows his fighter has a strength of 14 on a scale of 3–18, and that he's quite a bit stronger than Bob's magic-user, who has a strength of 9. He DOESN'T need to know that his strength gives him a bonus to X or that it lets him do Y.
I believe players should know how many hit points they have, because this is an important part of knowing when to flee or go home. This is a tactical aspect of the game that players should have control over.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Aug 25, 2015 11:20:01 GMT -6
The difference between now and then was that few players could reasonably be expected to know monster stats or magic item abilities when those books were relatively uncommon.… Now, of course, most people have all the books… I recruit players from my various social circles. In my experience, “most people” definitely have zero prior experience with D&D of any kind, and own no rulebooks. These good folks are enthusiastic and creative players at the table, immersing themselves in the story and thinking outside the box. And when the session is over, they couldn’t possibly be bothered to study the rulebooks. For me, the ideal RPG is one where the players think as little about the numbers or the system as possible. Keeping all numbers behind the screen would be one extreme way of achieving that, although I personally wouldn't go as far as hiding ability scores and hit points from players. Players can know what their Strength score is, as long as there's nothing more to think about than "is this high or low?" It's when you start attaching specific meanings to specific numbers, or adding clever ways of manipulating the numbers, that the problems come in. Players start thinking about how to play the game right, what the best character builds are, and garbage like that. I wrote up a table linking score ranges to seven descriptive labels: Low, Normal, High, and Very and Extremely Low or High. My goal there was to label each ability score, so that your character sheet -- or better yet, index card -- would look something like this: Groolag the Warrior Troll
VHi Strength 16 Lo Intelligence 8 Lo Wisdom 8 Norm Dexterity 9 Hi Constitution 13 Lo Charisma 7
The numbers would be there, but not the various bonuses, and the stuff before the numbers would be all you would need to know as a player. And really, for most purposes, it's all you need to know as a GM, as well, because once the system is hidden away from view, there's really no need for a complicated system. All those clever rules in later systems seem to mainly exist to give players a system to master. Once they are behind the screen, there's no need for them to be all that complicated. You can make the chance of most things "5+ on 1d6" and make other things a reaction roll or standard attack or save, and stop worrying about the rest. But getting around to my point, I think falconer raises an important issue when he mentions recruiting from may different social circles and not just from hardcore modern RPG players. Few people are interested in immersing in a game system. Whenever you hear "ordinary" people making fun of games like D&D, they tend to focus on the big rule books and the obsession with math. Both of these are a big turn-off, not because learning all those rules or doing math is hard for them, but because it's just not fun. Look at computer RPGs: they do lots of complicated math, but few if any games show it to the player. The better games just show a couple tracker bars or numbers so you know when something is too low or too high and hide everything else. Whenever there's a forum or blog discussion about the "death" of the hobby, this is what I think of: the hobby is shrinking because it can't recruit new players, and it can't recruit new players because of the obsession with high-crunch, high-investment systems. Rolling back to a "no-numbers OD&D" would help make the game more appealing to ordinary folks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 12:12:39 GMT -6
Also, the Moria-gate in LR was not the Fellowship's only option, just the most secret. This is a good point. The Fellowship had already failed to cross the mountains (in the movie at least, not sure about the book), so the door to Moria was already their second attempt. If the Fellowship had "failed forward" through the mountains they never would have met the Balrog, Galdalf wouldn't have died so he wouldn't have become Gandalf the White. In other words, it would have been a completely different story. So, in this case, a binary failure made the adventure more exciting.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Aug 25, 2015 14:46:01 GMT -6
Also, the Moria-gate in LR was not the Fellowship's only option, just the most secret. If the Fellowship had "failed forward" through the mountains they never would have met the Balrog, Galdalf wouldn't have died so he wouldn't have become Gandalf the White. Very true, and more poignant than what I was really getting at: that the Gap of Rohan was an option as well. It was the one that Boromir wanted to take, and others of the Company would have been willing to take had they not been forced into the mines. And they COULD have gone over the High Pass at Rivendell, but they wanted to stay west of the mountains where the spies of Sauron were seldom seen.
|
|
|
Post by Fearghus on Aug 25, 2015 20:28:24 GMT -6
If the Fellowship had "failed forward" through the mountains they never would have met the Balrog, Galdalf wouldn't have died so he wouldn't have become Gandalf the White. Very true, and more poignant than what I was really getting at: that the Gap of Rohan was an option as well. It was the one that Boromir wanted to take, and others of the Company would have been willing to take had they not been forced into the mines. And they COULD have gone over the High Pass at Rivendell, but they wanted to stay west of the mountains where the spies of Sauron were seldom seen. Seems like it could be a fun setting for a game. Trying one of the other routes.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Aug 25, 2015 21:24:21 GMT -6
I was inspired for this post by some comments in Rastus's AAC thread... If your players have any idea what AC or the hit tables are, you're not playing OD&D. "Don't ask me what you need to hit. Tell me what you rolled. I'll tell you if you hit." -- Dave Arneson I have to agree with Gronan. This is actually one of the core rules of D&D imho, not the suggestions to the DM inside the books. The players don't know and should have no access to the modules, the monster manuals, the treasure troves, the campaign board/map/dungeon, or anything the DM is doing behind the screen. But the DM is still honor bound to follow the "rules" as he or she pre-selected behind the screen throughout the game. The problem I see is always that the more numbers I hide, the more work I have when I run the game. The advantage is that you totally squish rules lawyers and power gamers. D&D is designed with those statistical abstractions and board generators specifically because it needs to be easier to run for the DM during a session. Try doing this style with any D&D ruleset in the last 25 years. They were never designed to be played as D&D. I'm curious as to what you keep hidden and what you keep open in your campaign. Attributes and/or Attrribute Bonus:Hit Points:Saving Throws:Attack and Defense:Yes to all of this stuff ...as to each player's personal Player Character (remember when looking at another player's PC log without permission was a form of cheating?) As for the stats for everything and every creature in the game otherwise, no. The players never have access to this information. Instead the design itself is described by the referee to the player as their PC gains access to it.
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Aug 26, 2015 7:01:03 GMT -6
Very true, and more poignant than what I was really getting at: that the Gap of Rohan was an option as well. It was the one that Boromir wanted to take, and others of the Company would have been willing to take had they not been forced into the mines. And they COULD have gone over the High Pass at Rivendell, but they wanted to stay west of the mountains where the spies of Sauron were seldom seen. Seems like it could be a fun setting for a game. Trying one of the other routes. We actually had to go over the top in our Middle Earth / RuneQuest / Mythago Wood mash-up of many years past, because we just couldn't get into the back door. Lost a lot of good men on the way.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Aug 26, 2015 13:16:04 GMT -6
The gap of Rohan was never a real option because Boromir's intent was to hopefully, at the gap of Rohan, encounter a patrol of men and, as son of the Steward of Gondor, command them to capture the ring from frodo (Strider was not in any position to command any men they met, at that time, except his Edain Rangers). Gandalf knew this. He also knew that it was possible that the Rohiirim could have already fallen under Sauron's rule (except they nearly collapsed under Saruman and not Sauron as they came to find out) and so they could not trust the realms of men to be safe even if Boromir could resist the rings power (which he, of course, could not). The pass at Carahadras was beset by sorcery of Sauron and/or the ancient primeval spirits of the mountains who had no love for men.
All of the above was discussed in the books at one point or another. The gap of Rohan would have either put the ring in Wormtongue's (aka Saruman's) hands or in Denethor's. Neither was worth risking. The only people with armies who could simply seize the fellowship if they desired, whom the fellowship could trust to house Frodo and the Ring, were the Noldor realms led by Elrond and Galadriel, ironically, those who already had rings of power.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Aug 26, 2015 18:04:46 GMT -6
The gap of Rohan was never a real option because Boromir's intent was to hopefully, at the gap of Rohan, encounter a patrol of men and, as son of the Steward of Gondor, command them to capture the ring from frodo Eh? Boromir had no such plan. He didn't plan to take the Ring for himself. His primary goal was to return to Minas Tirith with Aragorn to fight Sauron. He was tempted by the Ring and succumbed to temptation at Parth Galen, but it was a moment of madness only. I don't know where you heard about him hoping to encounter a patrol of men and command them to take the ring from Frodo. Taking the Ring through the Gap of Rohan was not a good idea, but it WAS a possibility. Certainly Sauron and Saruman both were guessing they'd go that way.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Aug 27, 2015 2:04:12 GMT -6
Boromir's stated intent, oft reiterated at the council and after, was that the ring should go to Minas Tirith and would do the most good there. Once the company could not pass caradhras he again councils the party toward Gondor. The subcontext was if Aragorn wouldn't wield it, he would and once they were in the realms of men (not just in areas patrolled by Dunadain Rangers or in elf kingdoms) he could take the ring by force. He didn't think or say that out right, but that was the subtext that kindled Gandalf and Elronds fear.
In Rohan or Gondor the company would be at the mercy of whatever King or steward there ruled. They worried that Rohan had already fallen and they did not trust Boromir son of Denethor. Aragorn's hope was Carhadras and Gandalfs was Moria, neither counciled the gap of Rohan.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 27, 2015 4:14:54 GMT -6
If there is a secrecy door, they will find it, the question is, what will it cost them and are they willing to risk the "fail" forward result if they roll poorly? There is no risk because even if a monster attacks, the party will just "fail forward" until the monster is dead. But the entire thing is predicated on the idea that the advemture requires the party to suceed at one particular roll or the players might as well go home. That's just bad adventure design. Probably fodder for another thread, but I don't think that's how "fail forward" is supposed to go, and lots of adventures hinge on one or two key rolls. Fail forward is the notion that the party will succeed, but with unanticipated setbacks. It doesn't mean automatic success in situations like combat, but is aimed at other actions that are needed to advance the storyline. You might hack into the computer system with a failed roll, but also set off an alarm. I suppose you might apply it to combat if you rule that you deal damage on a success and take damage on a failure, thereby making all combat rolls player-based and none monster-based. It's an interesting notion. The key roll issue was addressed in the creation of the Gumshoe system, specifically designed to deal with situations found in Call of Cthulhu and other investigation-based games, where the party might miss a key clue or investigation check roll and thus the adventure might flounder while the party wanders without key information. Gumshoe has the notion that if you are good at something (and they divide up the skills so that someone in the party has pretty much what you need) then you will succeed given enough time. So, these are all advance-the-story tools. Not really OD&D, but there's no reason why they couldn't be brought into an OD&D campaign. Just my two coppers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2015 8:05:45 GMT -6
"Fail Forward" has nothing to do with OD&D. IN OD&D if you fail, you fail. This is a feature, not a bug.
If this group of PCs doesn't find the secret door, somebody else might.
|
|
|
Post by funkaoshi on Aug 27, 2015 15:39:01 GMT -6
The way we usually play, the cost associated with failure is usually time. So you can search for the door again and again, but there is a wondering monster check to be had, maybe your torch will go out, etc.
|
|
|
Post by funkaoshi on Aug 27, 2015 15:44:01 GMT -6
Also, seems like it would be straight forward to work "failing forward" into OD&D. (Even for combat, though seems like that'd be a more drastic change.)
|
|