|
Post by inkmeister on Jan 15, 2013 17:01:30 GMT -6
Blackbarn, very nice. That's where I'm coming from as well.
Some have discussed traps in terms of "zap traps." These can easily turn into a form of tax. IE, you have a choice; you can painstakingly search everything all the time to avoid the occasional zap trap, or you will pay the penalty of getting periodically zapped. My question: Is this fun? It's a tough question. On the one hand, there is something neat about the idea of paranoid players, and something cool also about the idea of the dungeon game involving a high degree of resource management. In this case, searching means lost time which means more monster encounters, and not searching means getting zapped. Still, after zapping my wife with a pit trap (losing one of her henchmen in the process), I found that she was so cautious that the game seemed to slow down and become kind of grindy in a non-fun way. Around that time I read the suggestion to make all traps obvious, as you say, Blackbarn. Thus the players know there is a trap, but they don't necessarily understand what will trigger it, or what precisely it will do when triggered. So it becomes an interesting puzzle to navigate, rather than a tax on game play. This is the direction I am interested in at the moment, where dungeons are concerned.
I appreciate everyone's thoughts thus far.
|
|
|
Post by harlandski on Nov 25, 2017 8:24:26 GMT -6
THREAD BUMP OF: SECRET DOORS AND TRAPS
Apologies for the necromancy, but this discussion is really useful. I feel just about ready to start running OD&D games now, but was uncertain about how to deal with traps, and everyone's comments here really help. If any of you are still around on this forum - thank you very much!
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 25, 2017 10:13:15 GMT -6
This is an interesting thread to read in light of the recent discussion on using a watch and it's effect on surprise. I wonder if it comes down to people viewing it as primarily a player advantaged game? I mean, the goal is to have fun, right? Yet, I can't help in contrasting the responses to traps and finding secret doors, here, with the ideas of automatic or inflated surprise , in the other thread.
Generally, I'm pretty procedural with all these things. What creates exceptions is player description of intent. So, in the other thread, I stated that a watch negates surprise and was asked about what my starting premise and it's exceptions are. My premise is "does conditions of surprise exist?" The exceptions would be the result of players describing how they would create a condition for surprise where none exist. This is where the Matt Finch free form approach comes in (which I avoid taking to extremes). I pretty much approach detecting traps and secret doors the same way. Then a roll might be made. I avoid over-inflating chances. If anything, I may deflate chances, but tend to stick with what is stated in the rules. So, surprise is 1-2 in 6 and finding secret doors is 1-2 in 6, unless you're an elf. So, no roll is made if the conditions are not present.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Nov 25, 2017 11:32:22 GMT -6
Knowing when and where to look for secret portals or compartments & knowing when and where to keep an eye out for traps (1/2 move!) is as important an element of the game as knowing what combats to fight and which to avoid & when to take risks and when to retreat.
Secret Doors/Caches are typically constructions by creatures. Traps are usually created by creatures too, often as a preemptive act of combat. Paying attention to how the creatures you are facing think is an important part of the game. Knowing how your creatures think and act is essential for lair/dungeon design.
|
|
muddy
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 158
|
Post by muddy on Nov 30, 2017 15:29:05 GMT -6
Here is one of the most helpful things I have found on traps
|
|
|
Post by sirwulf on Dec 1, 2017 14:44:53 GMT -6
I like traps and secret doors, but prefer not to depend on die rolls. Instead, the players can deduce the location of such things from various clues. (“You were inspecting the floor: There’s a bloody handprint by the statue.” or “The hallway is littered with rusted-out pieces of armor, broken bone, and broken weapons. The items are bent and crushed.”)
Traps (active or sprung) can: 1.) Establish the nature of the place (“From the maps in his satchel, the body impaled on those spears must be Sir Kennick! I warned him that we were nearing the treasury of the Soulbinder Pharaoh!”) 2.) Form an obstacle to channel movement (“We better not try that crumbling ledge until we get more ropes and spikes.”) 3.) Act as a puzzle (“We must get to the ledge over there, but the room’s floor is deadly!”) 4.) Form a “healing tax” (“There’s no way around the dart throwers in the time we have left. We’ll have to just suck it up.”) 5.) Complicate a fight (“As his warriors charge, the gnoll chieftain yanks on the idol’s tongue and a 30 foot deep pit opens behind you!”)
Secret doors (hidden or revealed) can: 1.) Hide treasures so only the clever can find them (“The scroll said that he hid the amulet near here. I’m checking to see if the bas-reliefs in the bath chamber have any loose bits or parts that would fasten a hidden compartment.”) 2.) Complicate fights (“The wall opens to reveal a horde of skeletal figures marching forward!”) 3.) Delay encounters until the party reaches a level that can handle them… ("According to this parchment, we missed a secret room near the temple chamber. It's labeled as the 'Demon King's Sanctum'.") 4.) Make an area make more sense (“How could the sultan get from here to there?”)
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 20, 2017 8:56:23 GMT -6
My question to those of you who run dungeons is whether you use many secret doors and traps in your designs, and how you feel these affect play. There are some various theories of how these things work or should work. The Old School Primer seems to posit a free form, verbal description approach to these features; you actively describe how you are searching and how you are trying to operate various mechanisms. The actual rules give basic probabilities for trap and secret door detection on the d6, coming in to play when players are actively searching. These two approaches seem to be at odds with each other. Furthermore, there is the question of how these impact play. The structure of the game takes into consideration what may happen when players become ultra paranoid or curious and decide to constantly search for traps or secret doors; they pay the price of time, resources, and the added risk of wandering monster checks. That's fine, but is it FUN to have paranoid players laboriously searching every 10 foot section of wall for secret doors, and constantly searching for traps? One blogger - I forget who it was - took the interesting approach of deciding to make all traps obvious! I should say that it was obvious that some sort of trap was present, but the precise risk or method of operation was not obvious. Thus, players had to approach traps carefully. This approach mitigated the constant trap-searching, but still allowed for interesting traps and risk associated with them.
I think a similar approach could be viable for secret doors; it could be apparent that there is some passage present, but how to utilize it must be discovered. So again, my concern is how traps and secret doors affect play - are they fun for you and your players in practice? How do you utilize them? Do you take a free-form Old School PRimer approach, or by the book? I run Dwarves as that blogger describes. It works well.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 20, 2017 8:58:37 GMT -6
Does anyone have a table or list of secret door or trap types? I'm not very good at creating them myself; particularly the secret doors.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Dec 20, 2017 21:03:51 GMT -6
countingwizard, look up Courtney C. Cambell's Tricks, Empty Rooms and Basic Trap Design. Good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 21, 2017 13:46:28 GMT -6
countingwizard , look up Courtney C. Cambell's Tricks, Empty Rooms and Basic Trap Design. Good stuff. Very enjoyable source. Great find! I'm still wrestling with how to use this info, since I'd probably be notating ambiguous secret doors and traps as I go. I also don't agree with the percentage rule as a method of detecting secret buttons/activators, and I'd want to make them a bit easier to notice. I usually rule that most doors in a dungeon area are jammed shut, but I'd really like to work in more locked doors. I also have this rule where if you fail the first attempt (each character), and you still can't get it open, you have to break it down. But I do my breaking down as a 3d6 strength check (normal doors) or cumulative strength check of strength score + ally aiding strength scores as a percentage roll (reinforced doors). Then I just mark the door as an X, showing that it is broken. I love making my own dungeons, but I love learning how to run other people's dungeons. Especially Jimm's stuff. I could probably run the entire 1st floor level of Palace of the Vampire Queen without having to refer to a map or notes; in fact when I explain to my work friends what D&D is like, I usually run them through that module for 5 minutes to get a feel for the game.
|
|
|
Post by AborTheMighty on Jul 10, 2019 22:11:52 GMT -6
Title: Looking for DM Advice
I am a new OD&D DM trying to take things to next level with my game play & I could really use advice. I am running a campaign set in Greyhawk (folio edition). I am trying to make a conscious effort to play "by the book," but it is a little bit difficult for me balancing flow and doing things right. I want to keep things fast paced and keep things exciting, so my group has fun. But I also want to be mindful of things like time, light, encumbrance, movement. We started using module B1 and in about 2 hours play got through 4 encounters. The players were very cautious, stopping to listen every 30' or so. Evey door was listened to and the thief checked each for traps. I don't mind them being so cautious, I want them to do what they think needs to be done. Are there things I can do to speed things up? Are we going at an OK beginner pace? How much of a dungeon level is reasonable to search in a couple of hours? Any tips would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 10, 2019 23:20:03 GMT -6
Are you talking about speed of play, or speed of exploration? Or, to ask another way: do you think the game system is too slow, or do you think the characters are too slow?
|
|
|
Post by AborTheMighty on Jul 10, 2019 23:36:39 GMT -6
Are you talking about speed of play, or speed of exploration? Or, to ask another way: do you think the game system is too slow, or do you think the characters are too slow? Hi Talysman,
I am talking about speed of play. I am OK giving the players time to explore every nook & cranny if that is what they think they need to do. I guess my real concern is that the game doesn't slow down to the point where players get bored because so much time is being spent making sure things are done by the book, if that makes any sense.
Like, I know one of advantages of OD & D is supposed to be encounters, combats and explorations are so much quicker when compared to later editions of the game, because they aren't bogged down with mechanics. I just want to make sure all that is happening.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2019 2:42:19 GMT -6
My very general advice would be: If you're still new to DMing, consider evaluating your game session by session. You need to do that by yourself, usually, and not involve the players. Make a very basic plan of where the game session is supposed to go (Phase I, Phase II, Phase III, etc.) and then look how you handled each part. Also, set your time for each of those parts: Say, "Introduction: 60 minutes", "Encounter #1: 30 mins", etc. - How do your own plans match with the game's reality? Finally, the one advice that I was given that really changed my game: Read the table, and adapt your adventure according to it. Don't "listen to what the players say", read them like you would during a poker game. What do they enjoy, where do they need your help, what do they dislike? What sort of encounter can you create for them that favors these qualities and tastes? For example, if you have a group that is inexperienced and overly cautious, reward them for exploring things faster - through humor, maybe. One classic example where this is done is "I6: Ravenloft" - after some point, the players realize that in certain areas of the dungeon, they will find a lot of tongue-in-cheek, funny "easter eggs". That's a little bit meta for modern standards, but it keeps them exploring - if only out of the immediate motivation to have a couple of good laughs. If you have a group that is unacquainted with the ruleset, insert a "training session" where they are allowed to fail miserably - for example: "The lord of the castle requires all his mercenaries to train in melee combat once per week. Today, your patrol unit is supposed to compete." Basically, take the pressure away, and give the players - and yourself - room to fail, and to develop. The ONLY goal of the game is for the players to have fun in a world that you're supplying. As long as they keep coming back for every gaming session, you can be sure that you're doing more or less the right stuff.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 11, 2019 8:51:57 GMT -6
Are you talking about speed of play, or speed of exploration? Or, to ask another way: do you think the game system is too slow, or do you think the characters are too slow? Hi Talysman, I am talking about speed of play. I am OK giving the players time to explore every nook & cranny if that is what they think they need to do. I guess my real concern is that the game doesn't slow down to the point where players get bored because so much time is being spent making sure things are done by the book, if that makes any sense. Like, I know one of advantages of OD & D is supposed to be encounters, combats and explorations are so much quicker when compared to later editions of the game, because they aren't bogged down with mechanics. I just want to make sure all that is happening.
OK, so basically, you're getting more dice rolls than you suspect you should, or otherwise think the system is taking too long to get from encounter to encounter. You haven't discussed exactly how you are playing "by the book", but you dropped a couple hints and I have some advice based on that. But I will also have a caveat at the end. I assume you're using U&WA + Greyhawk, but search rules there are pretty sparse and don't work the way they would in newer editions, not even AD&D 1e, so you may be "backporting" ideas of how to run the game from your previous experience. For example, are your GM/Player exchanges something like: Or more like: The first way prompts players to do things in arbitrary increments (they chose 30 feet, in this case.) The second way prompts them to do things feature by feature (next intersection, next door, next choice.) It goes faster the second way. Also, you assign the penalties of their actions after the players tell you what the actions are, which in this case would be how many turns it takes to get to that intersection. You roll once for wandering monsters for every turn it takes to do something. If the intersection takes one turn to reach, roll once. If they stop to do something like listen, roll for wandering monsters again. If they do something noisy, roll twice. There should always be a constant tension between taking more time/being cautious and taking too long/increasing the chance of ambush by monsters. This should not take that much play time to resolve. You might, however, be rolling for the wrong things. Examples you mention are listening and searching for traps. The only time you roll to listen in OD&D, with or without Greyhawk, is when listening at a door. This is basically to detect faint signs of activity as a warning of what's behind the door. Maybe you can expand this to include listening for extremely distant sounds. But anything making more noise than a gust of wind should be obvious, no roll required, any time the party stops making noise themselves. If you tell players obvious things immediately, you'll save time. Similarly, there is no "search for traps" roll in U&WA or in Greyhawk. If there's light to see a trap, it's obvious, or at least the trigger is obvious (the effect might not be.) Don't roll for it, don't waste time on it. Just find out if the players want to risk the trap, try to disarm it, or whatever. Searching for other things doesn't take a roll, either, except for rolling for secret doors. Just roll once in an area (1d6 for everyone involved) and give the results, taking note of the time it would take to do that: (U&WA, page 8) And then roll at least once for wandering monsters. It will all go pretty quickly. But I said I'd have a caveat. You also talk about only having four encounters in two hours. If you mean "point of interest", like a room that has a hidden treasure, that can be fine. But I get the feeling you mean "meet-up between the party and monsters." Because a lot of later editions focus on encounters in that sense and make it the whole point of play. If you are used to that, then taking 30 minutes to get to an encounter might seem horrible. To old school players, though, two hours with only four encounters doesn't sound bad, as long as you don't waste resources, lose party members, and get some treasure as a result. Two hours with no encounters and decent treasure is the dream we strive for.
|
|
|
Post by AborTheMighty on Jul 11, 2019 10:08:03 GMT -6
Hi Talysman, I am talking about speed of play. I am OK giving the players time to explore every nook & cranny if that is what they think they need to do. I guess my real concern is that the game doesn't slow down to the point where players get bored because so much time is being spent making sure things are done by the book, if that makes any sense. Like, I know one of advantages of OD & D is supposed to be encounters, combats and explorations are so much quicker when compared to later editions of the game, because they aren't bogged down with mechanics. I just want to make sure all that is happening.
OK, so basically, you're getting more dice rolls than you suspect you should, or otherwise think the system is taking too long to get from encounter to encounter. You haven't discussed exactly how you are playing "by the book", but you dropped a couple hints and I have some advice based on that. But I will also have a caveat at the end. I assume you're using U&WA + Greyhawk, but search rules there are pretty sparse and don't work the way they would in newer editions, not even AD&D 1e, so you may be "backporting" ideas of how to run the game from your previous experience. For example, are your GM/Player exchanges something like: Or more like: The first way prompts players to do things in arbitrary increments (they chose 30 feet, in this case.) The second way prompts them to do things feature by feature (next intersection, next door, next choice.) It goes faster the second way. Also, you assign the penalties of their actions after the players tell you what the actions are, which in this case would be how many turns it takes to get to that intersection. You roll once for wandering monsters for every turn it takes to do something. If the intersection takes one turn to reach, roll once. If they stop to do something like listen, roll for wandering monsters again. If they do something noisy, roll twice. There should always be a constant tension between taking more time/being cautious and taking too long/increasing the chance of ambush by monsters. This should not take that much play time to resolve. You might, however, be rolling for the wrong things. Examples you mention are listening and searching for traps. The only time you roll to listen in OD&D, with or without Greyhawk, is when listening at a door. This is basically to detect faint signs of activity as a warning of what's behind the door. Maybe you can expand this to include listening for extremely distant sounds. But anything making more noise than a gust of wind should be obvious, no roll required, any time the party stops making noise themselves. If you tell players obvious things immediately, you'll save time. Similarly, there is no "search for traps" roll in U&WA or in Greyhawk. If there's light to see a trap, it's obvious, or at least the trigger is obvious (the effect might not be.) Don't roll for it, don't waste time on it. Just find out if the players want to risk the trap, try to disarm it, or whatever. Searching for other things doesn't take a roll, either, except for rolling for secret doors. Just roll once in an area (1d6 for everyone involved) and give the results, taking note of the time it would take to do that: (U&WA, page 8) And then roll at least once for wandering monsters. It will all go pretty quickly. But I said I'd have a caveat. You also talk about only having four encounters in two hours. If you mean "point of interest", like a room that has a hidden treasure, that can be fine. But I get the feeling you mean "meet-up between the party and monsters." Because a lot of later editions focus on encounters in that sense and make it the whole point of play. If you are used to that, then taking 30 minutes to get to an encounter might seem horrible. To old school players, though, two hours with only four encounters doesn't sound bad, as long as you don't waste resources, lose party members, and get some treasure as a result. Two hours with no encounters and decent treasure is the dream we strive for.
Thank you, both of you. I think I got a better idea of where to go now. I like the idea of giving myself a bit of a roadmap/plan until I get my wings. Searches were done for secret doors, but the thief also would check each door for traps. He would roll, of course he didn't know that the door wasn't trapped. I didn't want to give the impression that there is only something if I have you roll or if I roll. Yes, the encounters consisted of magic mouths, a wandering monster patrol, examining some corpses, the elven thief broke rank a couple times to scout ahead, searching a few doors for traps, searching for a secret door, clearing a room of a monster and searching it for treasure before we called it and they set up a camp to rest. Time in game (excluding going to the dungeon and gathering rumors) exploring was roughly 90 minutes into the dungeon at this point.
It sounds like I can also help my cause by how I learn to phrase things. Also, perhaps since I know they are cautious, maybe preempt their hallway listening with unexplained noises such as chain-rattling, laughter, "bumps in the night" and so on.
As far as I am doing for a rules set, it is the 3 LBBs as well as the 4 supplements, plus the ranger, illusionist and bard from The Strategic Review. In hindsight, maybe not as much OD&D as some but everything I am using (excluding module B1 and the Greyhawk folio version of the setting is pre-AD&D.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 11, 2019 12:10:51 GMT -6
Thank you, both of you. I think I got a better idea of where to go now. I like the idea of giving myself a bit of a roadmap/plan until I get my wings. Searches were done for secret doors, but the thief also would check each door for traps. He would roll, of course he didn't know that the door wasn't trapped. I didn't want to give the impression that there is only something if I have you roll or if I roll.
YOu're welcome! To be clearer, though: you never roll to find traps in OD&D. Even if there is a trap. Just tell them "the door looks trapped" or "there's a discolored stone in front of the door" or whatever you prefer when they first see the door, if there is a trap. AD&D thieves have a Find & Remove Traps thief skill. OD&D thieves have Remove Traps, but there is no Find Traps ability in Greyhawk, because anyone can find traps automatically, without a roll, if they look. This is a big difference between AD&D and OD&D that isn't obvious.
|
|
|
Post by AborTheMighty on Jul 11, 2019 12:45:44 GMT -6
Thank you, both of you. I think I got a better idea of where to go now. I like the idea of giving myself a bit of a roadmap/plan until I get my wings. Searches were done for secret doors, but the thief also would check each door for traps. He would roll, of course he didn't know that the door wasn't trapped. I didn't want to give the impression that there is only something if I have you roll or if I roll.
YOu're welcome! To be clearer, though: you never roll to find traps in OD&D. Even if there is a trap. Just tell them "the door looks trapped" or "there's a discolored stone in front of the door" or whatever you prefer when they first see the door, if there is a trap. AD&D thieves have a Find & Remove Traps thief skill. OD&D thieves have Remove Traps, but there is no Find Traps ability in Greyhawk, because anyone can find traps automatically, without a roll, if they look. This is a big difference between AD&D and OD&D that isn't obvious. Thank you for pointing that out. I guess some AD&D is creeping in after all. So then if I am following this line of reasoning, as long as there is sufficient light to see the mechanism whereby the trap is sprung then any class or race should find it. This brings me to another question. Is it possible to construct a trap where said trigger is not visible, thereby not giving players a chance to remove it? Also, does failure in removing a trap result in a trap being sprung and doing damage to the thief? I guess that would be DM's discretion; based on situational factors.
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Jul 11, 2019 18:31:37 GMT -6
Is it possible to construct a trap where said trigger is not visible, thereby not giving players a chance to remove it? Also, does failure in removing a trap result in a trap being sprung and doing damage to the thief? I guess that would be DM's discretion; based on situational factors. Being devious with traps, forcing players to be creative in removing them, is half the fun. And yes, trap triggers/penalties are discretionary--the Thief class suggests they trip on a failed removal, but U&WA is only otherwise blatant about traps happening 1/3rd of the time.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jul 11, 2019 19:13:05 GMT -6
The main thing is that you're going to want to take ownership of your game and make yourself happy with it. Good for you for being focused on the pacing of the gameplay! After every session I come away and make some notes for what to improve/iterate on next time (and I've been DM'ing for nearly forty years at this point).
Wandering monsters should definitely be the countering resource to players being overly cautious/slow. Feel free to dial that around to your taste; I would recommend that you be absolutely transparent with the players about how that mechanic is working, so they can make decisions taking it into account. Case study: Currently I roll for wandering monsters every 15 minutes of real time, measured by my watch. If PCs do something very time-consuming or loud, then one or more extra checks occur (e.g.: search every single section of wall in a room, chop down a door). These rolls are made in the open and the target declared: "If a '1' shows up on this d6 then something finds you." (There's a lot of tension/drama/interest about whether a "1" shows up.) I've even heard of a DM who publicly posts the wandering monster chart for a given location, but I don't do that (actually: once for a seafaring game I did). I would not recommend that you make hidden, fake dice-rolling checks (as suggested in the AD&D DMG).
Not everyone agrees that rolls to find traps are prohibited in OD&D. There are 2-in-6 rolls for explorations like secret doors, and listening for noises, so by extrapolation a like check to find traps (by any class) seems within reasonable interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by AborTheMighty on Jul 11, 2019 19:15:40 GMT -6
I have been looking closer at my books, and I think I am learning a valuable lesson. That is don't read into the rules what isn't there. Said another, simpler way, if it doesn't say roll then don't roll. I guess this is why guys like Mike Mornard and Tim Kask often talk about reading comprehension turning into a lost art. Kind of a the rule means what it says sort of thing. I slowly began putting all this together when reading about dwarves being able to detect sloping passages and such. It doesn't say they have to roll to do it, it just says they can detect. I think I am starting to understand what the original intent was, but then also what makes OD & D so great. Bringing it back to my original query, eliminating lots of unneeded rolls seems like a good way to increase the fluidity/pace of our game.
Delta, I guess that is another point. Different people do things differently. As I understand it, another plus of the original games is for DM's to solve these problems themselves and make decisions how they think it should be done, hence the "no hand holding" that often comes out.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jul 12, 2019 15:40:28 GMT -6
Admittedly, the founding fathers "say a lot of things". E.g., they'll switch from "you need more reading comprehension" to "we never played by the written rules", or "we wouldn't care about those contradictions" pretty quickly. Others' experiences can be informative and helpful, but ultimately you'll need to own your game play for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by AborTheMighty on Jul 12, 2019 16:44:36 GMT -6
Admittedly, the founding fathers "say a lot of things". E.g., they'll switch from "you need more reading comprehension" to "we never played by the written rules", or "we wouldn't care about those contradictions" pretty quickly. Others' experiences can be informative and helpful, but ultimately you'll need to own your game play for yourself. Heh, I hear you. I thought I had read somewhere where that was the reason for AD & D in the first place, that if people were gonna start playing the game at conventions and such then things needed to be codified and uniformed so everyone was on the same page. I guess the bottom line is if everyone in the group is having fun then your doing it right. I appreciate all the good advice I got here, it gives me a place to start. I am looking forward to putting the new things I have learned in play our next session.
I did a bit of reading on Talysman's blog where he posted about my initial question on the forums and he posted "It’s the GM’s Job to give players information… all the obvious details they see and things they know about the current situation." (Italics mine) That's something I am going to have to practice, but it makes sense. Give them everything they need and the game almost runs itself, it seems like. Just be prepared to keep feeding them information as needed and let the react to what they know.
Some of it might be I am psyching myself out (and overthinking) because I think because it is OD&D it is by default harder and I got to "know more." But I think a lot of it is how situations are approached. Ex. Do the players figure it out vs. do they have some skill they can roll that gives them the answer. Old school, of course, is it is the player's smarts & not a die roll that says "you know the answer." I have also been looking at Matthew J. Finch's "Quick Primer for Old School Gaming," and I feel like I am starting to understand things from a different perspective than how my friends and I played RPG's in the mid to late 80s.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 13, 2019 11:26:47 GMT -6
Some of it might be I am psyching myself out (and overthinking) because I think because it is OD&D it is by default harder and I got to "know more." But I think a lot of it is how situations are approached. Ex. Do the players figure it out vs. do they have some skill they can roll that gives them the answer. Old school, of course, is it is the player's smarts & not a die roll that says "you know the answer." I have also been looking at Matthew J. Finch's "Quick Primer for Old School Gaming," and I feel like I am starting to understand things from a different perspective than how my friends and I played RPG's in the mid to late 80s.
Thanks for starting this thread. Most of what I would have said has been said by all these people I trust. I will say this in response to the above: Because it is the original publication of D&D, it is by default EASIER (that is to say, both more intuitive and minimalist in aesthetic) and you only need to "know more" about S&S, fantasy, myth, legend, how dice work, battle formations, etc. You don't need to know more about D&D rules sets! Have fun and Fight on!
|
|
noteef
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 52
|
Post by noteef on Jul 15, 2019 6:15:42 GMT -6
Because it is the original publication of D&D, it is by default EASIER (that is to say, both more intuitive and minimalist in aesthetic) and you only need to "know more" about S&S, fantasy, myth, legend, how dice work, battle formations, etc. You don't need to know more about D&D rules sets! Well said! I constantly have to go back and forth between wanting to draw inspiration from other RPG sources (I like to hook up with 1e DMG and/or OSRIC from time to time) and cleansing the palate from those same sources. Focusing instead on what you laid out above does not come with that drawback.
|
|
eotb
Level 1 Medium
Posts: 22
|
Post by eotb on Aug 1, 2019 16:00:55 GMT -6
A little late to the thread, but to echo Talysman above, I have a faster monkey time tracker that I keep prominently on the table. Players can see the time tick down as if it were a clockface, and they can see those wandering monster rolls tick closer.
Every time they ask to do something that takes time, I make them roll how much time it takes (I play AD&D). "Ah, this listening at doors attempt moved the clock forward 3 rounds"...then I move that spinner hand in their view.
When that spinner hand hits or goes past a required wandering encounter check - I make THEM roll the encounter die. If it comes up as an encounter, I make THEM roll the dice for what monster is encountered. They don't know the chart, but they kind of know ranges of rolls that were unpleasant in the past.
They absolutely hate this, that their immediate fate is in their hands. It usually only takes a session or two where over-caution results in their rolling lots of encounter checks, and eventually realizing that checking every door leads is a powerball draw of possible character death, before they start saying "you know, I don't think we need to bother checking this door/wall/widget/noise".
|
|
|
Post by AborTheMighty on Oct 28, 2019 14:28:29 GMT -6
Once again, thanks for all the comments and suggestions. The campaign ended up on hiatus due to conflicts due to employment changes for 3 out of the 4 in our group. Hoping to resume sometime after the first of the new year. Still reading up on various approaches and such. Have come to the conclusion I am a lot of the problem because I am trying to be sure that all the rules are followed. Ex. Stopping every 30 ft. Was my doing because that is range of vision. So the party looks as far as they can. If nothing there, they go another 30 feet and do it again. Not sure how to use time, distance, vision, torch duration and the like without feeling like a bean counter.
I want to use the rules as written, but I am still having trouble using them as intended with out getting myself mired.
Thinking back to high school, we never worried about time or light or encumbrance. It was just let me see your equipment. OK, you can carry all that or no, you can’t carry all your gear and still have 5 swords + a shield. For corridors, I never said anything about distance or traps unless the players stopped to look or they triggered something.
I guess my end goal is to try and do it closer to the way I played in school while still being conscientious of things like time, distance & encumbrance.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Oct 29, 2019 11:54:40 GMT -6
It helps me to make a list of each step in a
Combat round Exploration turn Wilderness day Down time period (this one will be up to you to think up.)
Literally a little list. Point by point.
Then post it on the inside of your dm screen or in another very handy place and run through the steps one by one.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on May 8, 2020 8:32:09 GMT -6
Title: Finding Traps
This had to have been discussed, though I'm not finding it using search.
Until recently, finding traps was a matter of the player describing how their characters was searching and where. If they got warm enough, they found the trap.
Then I noticed in M&M that Dwarves "note slanting passages, traps, shifting walls and new construction in underground settings"— somehow I'd missed traps in the middle of that.
I had been playing detection of slanting passages, shifting walls and new construction in underground settings as automatic, but recently after looking at Homles, Moldvay and AD&D started give a chance of detecting these.
This led to treating finding traps the same way finding hidden passages works, but replacing passages with traps and elves with dwarves. The player still has to tell me where they are looking, if they are warm enough (more leeway since there is a roll) then I secret roll and the result is the result. So 1–2 for non-Dwarves to find a trap, 1–4 for a Dwarf looking and 1–2 for a dwarf passively noticing if looking towards the thing.
I'm on the fence. I like how my old way kept things moving, kept the players in role and being more descriptive both adding to a more immersive experience. On the other hand, I like the newer way meshes with the finding passages, but rolling to find the trap and then having to roll to disarm it on top of that seems like double jeopardy and makes the trap too likely to get them.
How are you running this?
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 8, 2020 8:49:42 GMT -6
I like how my old way kept things moving, kept the players in role and being more descriptive both adding to a more immersive experience. My gut call is to say, "if it has been working, no reason to change it." Stick with what works. On the other hand, I like the newer way meshes with the finding passages, but rolling to find the trap and then having to roll to disarm it on top of that seems like double jeopardy and makes the trap too likely to get them. On the other hand, if you LIKE to tinker with stuff then try it for one game to see how you like it and how your players like it. If it's not better, go back to yours.
|
|