Sean McCoy
Level 1 Medium
Co-founder Tuesday Knight Games. Mothership RPG designer.
Posts: 19 
|
Post by Sean McCoy on Mar 3, 2017 11:45:07 GMT -6
Maybe an off-topic question, but is there a standard party size assumed for OD&D? I know MM mentions 4-50, with at least 1 DM per 20 players. That seems insane to me. Is there a context there that I don't know about? We almost always have between 4-7 players. It's likely an artifact of who was playing D&D then. It was introduced to wargamers and the like, who typically congregated in clubs/associations in larger numbers than you would see today (I believe). I'm sure folks were clambering to play, necessitating the 1:20 DM/Player ratio. I remember when I started playing, it was just exploding on the pop-culture scene. My Junior High School had a "D&D Club" that had dozens of members... every group of ten or so players had a "caller" and the games were insanely chaotic. Not my cup of tea; I prefer small groups, regardless of what I'm playing. I'm sure Mike, Paul, et al would have better answers. This would actually be a nice topic for a separate thread.  First thread created here, so maybe in the wrong place! We were talking in another thread about games that work best with a small group, and the above occurred to me. I'm not really sure what the standard assumption was going into the creation of D&D about what a group of players would look like. Foxroe's comment above makes a lot of sense to me, that they were designing more for the social make-up of the clubs at the time, not aiming for any certain experience. Does anyone have any context on this? |
|
|
|
Post by scottyg on Mar 3, 2017 12:32:45 GMT -6
The default assumption was that a DM or DMs would manage a campaign of many players, but parties were not things that lasted more than a session. While the campaign might include 20+ PCs nobody thought they would all be playing at the same time. Some were regular companions, some were enemies, there was solo adventuring. Hirelings and henchmen were standard.The party for life mindset was an alien concept. Each PC was its own entity with its own goals/objectives. Most of the stories I've heard from the early days were parties of 1 to 8 PCs plus hirelings/henchmen /charmed or summoned monsters, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2017 12:46:16 GMT -6
ScottyG, be thou exalted!
Typical group size in Greyhawk was 3-5 players and a total party of 6-9 PCs and NPCs.
Honest to Crom, I STILL can't believe people think Gary was talking about cramming 50 people into one room.
|
|
Sean McCoy
Level 1 Medium
Co-founder Tuesday Knight Games. Mothership RPG designer.
Posts: 19
|
Post by Sean McCoy on Mar 3, 2017 16:20:48 GMT -6
Scottg and Gronan -
Thanks so much for your input! I've been hoping to build one of these campaigns for my group. I'm getting tired of halting for no-shows, or having to deal with rescheduling so more people can make it. I'd much rather just go go go with who we have at the table. I think having players with different goals and experiences actually increases the immersion, rather than decreases it. Hearing rumors about what was found in the last session, or having players with different goals sounds so fun to me.
It sounds like the standard amount of people playing at the table in a given session was roughly the same as it is is now. There was however a greater "pool" of players rotating in and out of the campaign as their schedule allowed. Which sounds like great fun to me. This may be a topic for another thread, but did sessions end in the middle of a dungeon? Did people just "disappear" from play if they couldn't make it the next week? How did EGG and DA handle that?
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Mar 3, 2017 23:14:04 GMT -6
I stand corrected! I knew those cacophonous club gatherings were all wrong!
|
|
|
|
Post by smubee on Mar 3, 2017 23:40:19 GMT -6
Scottg and Gronan - Thanks so much for your input! I've been hoping to build one of these campaigns for my group. I'm getting tired of halting for no-shows, or having to deal with rescheduling so more people can make it. I'd much rather just go go go with who we have at the table. I think having players with different goals and experiences actually increases the immersion, rather than decreases it. Hearing rumors about what was found in the last session, or having players with different goals sounds so fun to me. It sounds like the standard amount of people playing at the table in a given session was roughly the same as it is is now. There was however a greater "pool" of players rotating in and out of the campaign as their schedule allowed. Which sounds like great fun to me. This may be a topic for another thread, but did sessions end in the middle of a dungeon? Did people just "disappear" from play if they couldn't make it the next week? How did EGG and DA handle that? Okay so I thought of my way around this! For my next campaign, I'm going to blanket invite about 20 people. Each player is going to roll ability scores and then make Six characters (that way each attribute can be the Highest). I am calling this series "The Dungeon Delving Society". That way there can be a group of people that teleport anyone involved in the society to any of the dungeons or nearby ruins, etc. Whatever the adventure calls for! So then all of the people would put their 6 characters into the "pool". The characters that are not being played at the moment can be hired as hirelings, that way they can level up without the player actively participating. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2017 0:31:07 GMT -6
Gary always ended the game at a resting point, though if somebody couldn't be there next time and you were at an inn or something he'd say "So and so got called away."
And that's why we all had a variety of characters, as well as a variety of henchmen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Mar 4, 2017 5:06:09 GMT -6
Gary always ended the game at a resting point, though if somebody couldn't be there next time and you were at an inn or something he'd say "So and so got called away." And that's why we all had a variety of characters, as well as a variety of henchmen. Words of wisdom. I've been running this way for a while now, and it's easily the most fun I've had (and least stressful) as referee. Gronan, did Gary have a hard rule against continuing a party mid-dungeon if one player couldn't be there next week? I've run into that several times, where, say, five players are in the dungeon, stop to rest on Level 2, and then the next week (or three) one of those five can't make it. Would he insist on pausing that party until all five (and exactly those five) were back at the table again, or would he arrange with the absent player to NPC his character for that next session? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2017 13:14:27 GMT -6
Stop to rest in the dungeon? Are you MAD? With a minimum of six wandering monster checks per hour?
|
|
EdOWar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 315
|
Post by EdOWar on Mar 4, 2017 15:38:55 GMT -6
Stop to rest in the dungeon? Are you MAD? With a minimum of six wandering monster checks per hour? One of the things that bothers me about the modern take on D&D: if you're down on HP or spells, just hole up in a dungeon room and spike the door! Sometimes for days at a time! Aside from danger of wandering monsters, can you imagine a group of people trapped in the same dark, dank room for days on end? They'd go stir crazy. And where would they all go to the bathroom? It's ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Mar 4, 2017 17:25:37 GMT -6
Stop to rest in the dungeon? Are you MAD? With a minimum of six wandering monster checks per hour? Yes, fair enough! Point well taken. I suppose I used "dungeons" and "levels" imprudently. In my head I was thinking of something like underground wildernesses, possibly even complete with villages and rooms/areas/zones that could temporarily be turned into (relatively) safe base camps. To rephrase that, then: what about parties that either 1) ended the session while still wandering the dungeon, or 2) found a place to hole up for the time being (be it underground or above ground, but still clearly NOT safely tucked away in town)? How did Gary handle those groups, if say, only one or two of those players couldn't make it for several sessions, or even just stopped showing up to games? Did he make them take out another party? Was he willing at all to arrange with players to NPC their characters when absent? Or did he just use the "So-and-so got pulled away on other business" caveat even in these circumstances? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 1:16:05 GMT -6
It never happened. Gary made sure we ALWAYS ended at a resting place. Well, or dead.
|
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Mar 5, 2017 10:45:19 GMT -6
When I first read my copy of Vol. 1 (M&M) I, too, fell into the mistaken belief that the OP is referring to.
Now that a few years have passed, and I have been schooled in the forums by Michael, Rob and others on the intricacies of the original rules, I am at a different place.
That said, so what? If the original rules have emphasized anything at all, it is to DIYW (do it your way). If you like what you read, there you go. If you don't change the hell out of it to suit you and your players until you've reached the point where you do.
That's all that really matters... isn't it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 15:14:02 GMT -6
Scottg and Gronan - Thanks so much for your input! I've been hoping to build one of these campaigns for my group. I'm getting tired of halting for no-shows, or having to deal with rescheduling so more people can make it. I'd much rather just go go go with who we have at the table. I think having players with different goals and experiences actually increases the immersion, rather than decreases it. Hearing rumors about what was found in the last session, or having players with different goals sounds so fun to me. It sounds like the standard amount of people playing at the table in a given session was roughly the same as it is is now. There was however a greater "pool" of players rotating in and out of the campaign as their schedule allowed. Which sounds like great fun to me. This may be a topic for another thread, but did sessions end in the middle of a dungeon? Did people just "disappear" from play if they couldn't make it the next week? How did EGG and DA handle that? One site that I found interesting (regarding people rotating in and out as a campaign goes on) is this one called "The Open Table Manifesto" at the Alexandrian: thealexandrian.net/wordpress/38643/roleplaying-games/open-table-manifesto. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Mar 5, 2017 15:27:19 GMT -6
Stop to rest in the dungeon? Are you MAD? With a minimum of six wandering monster checks per hour? One of the things that bothers me about the modern take on D&D: if you're down on HP or spells, just hole up in a dungeon room and spike the door! Sometimes for days at a time! Aside from danger of wandering monsters, can you imagine a group of people trapped in the same dark, dank room for days on end? They'd go stir crazy. And where would they all go to the bathroom? It's ridiculous. A group, no. But maybe a solo adventurer. Back in '81, I had a player get badly injured by a troll on a solo adventure (technically, it was TFT, not D&D, but I ran dungeoncrawls practically the same in both.) He decided to camp out next to the fried troll corpse and try to recover a little health before limping home, using fried troll meat as a food source. Still, there were wandering monster rolls, and honestly, if you can walk, even if only at a slowed pace, it's better to travel back to town or at least creep up to the surface and set up a campsite there than to fight off all the monsters that wander by in a dungeon. It takes less time and is really less dangerous. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 16:15:19 GMT -6
That said, so what? If the original rules have emphasized anything at all, it is to DIYW (do it your way). If you like what you read, there you go. If you don't change the hell out of it to suit you and your players until you've reached the point where you do. That's all that really matters... isn't it? Except for the huge amount of abuse and vitriol I've seen directed at Gary in various fora over the years. "Gygax is a moron, how can you play with fifty people at once?" |
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Mar 5, 2017 17:27:22 GMT -6
Well I don't like the name calling or any of that kind of BS either.
|
|
Sean McCoy
Level 1 Medium
Co-founder Tuesday Knight Games. Mothership RPG designer.
Posts: 19
|
Post by Sean McCoy on Mar 5, 2017 17:44:44 GMT -6
That said, so what? If the original rules have emphasized anything at all, it is to DIYW (do it your way). If you like what you read, there you go. If you don't change the hell out of it to suit you and your players until you've reached the point where you do. That's all that really matters... isn't it? Absolutely agree. So many of my questions about OD&D come from two distinct places: 1. A general curiosity and respect for the original designers. I'm a game designer myself, and I'm really curious about the context or general assumptions that were made by the original designers and their audience. High level play is a good example here: building a castle and raising an army wouldn't make a lot of sense to a modern player who doesn't understand the original wargaming implications. 2. An attempt to improve my own games. Sometimes I misunderstand things or overlook them. A great example of this from my own life is skill checks and timing in my previous games. Someone would say they search the room, I'd have them make a search check. They don't find anything. Another search check. Eventually they do. So what did we just accomplish here? It was only after I learned about wandering monster checks that I started understanding how to search rooms, and what the cost would be to take certain actions over others. Anyways - wasn't really disagreeing with anything you said, just a little bit more about me and why I have so many questions! :-) |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Mar 6, 2017 7:50:23 GMT -6
It never happened. Gary made sure we ALWAYS ended at a resting place. Well, or dead. That's impressive. Since this thread is in part about Gygax's advice on running groups, I think it's worth pointing out to those of us who never got a chance to witness his DMing firsthand that Gygax really must have been a cut above. At best, I think I can only manage that kind of denouement 80-85% of the time, even if it's just 5-10 minutes of cliffhanging that needs to be resolved next session, or through conversation away from the game. Occasionally I still get stuck simply having to say, 'Well, that's all folks; let's pick up this expedition again next time everyone's together. If know you can't make it, let me know if you're happy to have your character NPCed.' |
|
|
|
Post by scottyg on Mar 6, 2017 8:06:48 GMT -6
You have to remember what kind of game Gary was DMing most of the time during these recollections. With an OD&D Greyhawk mega-dungeon campaign with expeditions into the nearby dungeon and the occasional romp in the wilderness it isn't that tough to end the session back in town.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Mar 6, 2017 9:10:53 GMT -6
That's a good point. I think it's still worth pointing out, though. That sort of game is exactly what I run and play in these days, but to be honest it was a steep learning curve even getting to the point where I could say that my groups usually end on time and back in town. Part of that I'm sure is myself and the people I play with grew up playing a different sort of RPG, and have had to spend years relearning a new skill set for running old school games. But to me that just reinforces the idea that running 'that kind of game' is a learned skill—one that's probably fairly easy to learn, but difficult to master.
To compare it to teaching, I think of it like when you first start lecturing. After awhile we think, 'Eh, a one-hour lecture? Sure, that's not very hard, I'll just wing it,' but we often forget how many complete tanks we had to go through before we learned to internalize the tricks of making a decent lecture: how to maximize preparation, present the ideas effectively, field questions and bring them back on topic, move progressively from one concept to the next, and all while keeping to time. And even after all that, there are plenty of lecturers who go through their whole careers never getting to the point where they can rely on delivering a genuinely successful, top-notch session that consistently brings it all home at the top of the hour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2017 10:13:33 GMT -6
Thanks so much for your input! I've been hoping to build one of these campaigns for my group. I'm getting tired of halting for no-shows, or having to deal with rescheduling so more people can make it. I'd much rather just go go go with who we have at the table. I think having players with different goals and experiences actually increases the immersion, rather than decreases it. Hearing rumors about what was found in the last session, or having players with different goals sounds so fun to me. Having played in, and now run, a couple "open table" games with a huge variance in the number and class/level of people showing up at each game, what I've found to be the best remedy is to prep adventures of a variety of power levels. Dungeons are perfect for this as they natural scale in difficulty by level and there's usually a bit of upper level dungeon left unexplored. So, if two people show up, they hang at at the first level. If six show up, they progress to the third level, etc. The advantage of playing in a game like this is the variety of character combos. You might be the lowest level character one session and the highest the next. You might be the only fighter and later be in a party of almost all fighters. You don't get stuck being the second best fighter for months on end. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Mar 6, 2017 11:14:15 GMT -6
Gary always ended the game at a resting point, though if somebody couldn't be there next time and you were at an inn or something he'd say "So and so got called away." When I was running a Doctor Who campaign, this was simplicity itself: "So-and-so has decided to stay in the TARDIS." Even the Doctor took a break from time to time, and he always refused to believe that his companions had been up to anything interesting outside. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2017 12:23:37 GMT -6
It's likely an artifact of who was playing D&D then. It was introduced to wargamers and the like, who typically congregated in clubs/associations in larger numbers than you would see today (I believe). I'm sure folks were clambering to play, necessitating the 1:20 DM/Player ratio. I remember when I started playing, it was just exploding on the pop-culture scene. My Junior High School had a "D&D Club" that had dozens of members... every group of ten or so players had a "caller" and the games were insanely chaotic. Not my cup of tea; I prefer small groups, regardless of what I'm playing. I'm sure Mike, Paul, et al would have better answers. This would actually be a nice topic for a separate thread. First thread created here, so maybe in the wrong place! We were talking in another thread about games that work best with a small group, and the above occurred to me. I'm not really sure what the standard assumption was going into the creation of D&D about what a group of players would look like. Foxroe's comment above makes a lot of sense to me, that they were designing more for the social make-up of the clubs at the time, not aiming for any certain experience. Does anyone have any context on this? While my current game only has four to five players on a consistent basis, back in 1975 when I started playing in college we started with a ref and 12 players and the majority of games over the four years had 12-18 players at the same time and occasionally more. We had 25-30 players in the same game session on at least 6 occasions and over 20 at least a couple dozen times. I never found it to be a problem at the time. Of course, all of the players were college kids all within the same age group and all of us were steeped in fairy tales, folklore, legends and myth and the like. Now 40+ years later I have had up to 15 players in a game session with ages ranging from ten to 55 with minimal exposure to myth,legends and the like and that made it much more challenging. The biggest challenge now compared to bitd is none of my college players were decision challenged and so the game never slowed down while people agonized over making a decision, which happens with some players now. The second biggest challenge now is the culturally deprived wasteland that most people grow up in these days. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2017 13:45:18 GMT -6
It never happened. Gary made sure we ALWAYS ended at a resting place. Well, or dead. That's impressive. Since this thread is in part about Gygax's advice on running groups, I think it's worth pointing out to those of us who never got a chance to witness his DMing firsthand that Gygax really must have been a cut above. At best, I think I can only manage that kind of denouement 80-85% of the time, even if it's just 5-10 minutes of cliffhanging that needs to be resolved next session, or through conversation away from the game. Occasionally I still get stuck simply having to say, 'Well, that's all folks; let's pick up this expedition again next time everyone's together. If know you can't make it, let me know if you're happy to have your character NPCed.' He was married with six kids. He kept an eye on the clock. About a half hour before we were going to stop he'd tell us it was time to leave the dungeon. In wilderness he'd tell us to find a town. |
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Mar 6, 2017 15:29:38 GMT -6
You have to remember what kind of game Gary was DMing most of the time during these recollections. With an OD&D Greyhawk mega-dungeon campaign with expeditions into the nearby dungeon and the occasional romp in the wilderness it isn't that tough to end the session back in town. Agreed, particularly in a mega-dungeon like Castle Greyhawk. In AD&D movement through known/mapped areas is at 5x standard rate (and 10x while fleeing): In OD&D it's not spelled out so clearly, of course: Allan. |
|
EdOWar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 315
|
Post by EdOWar on Mar 6, 2017 16:35:38 GMT -6
That's impressive. Since this thread is in part about Gygax's advice on running groups, I think it's worth pointing out to those of us who never got a chance to witness his DMing firsthand that Gygax really must have been a cut above. At best, I think I can only manage that kind of denouement 80-85% of the time, even if it's just 5-10 minutes of cliffhanging that needs to be resolved next session, or through conversation away from the game. Occasionally I still get stuck simply having to say, 'Well, that's all folks; let's pick up this expedition again next time everyone's together. If know you can't make it, let me know if you're happy to have your character NPCed.' He was married with six kids. He kept an eye on the clock. About a half hour before we were going to stop he'd tell us it was time to leave the dungeon. In wilderness he'd tell us to find a town. I'm curious, was it simply a matter of saying "We go back to town." Or did the party have to trace a safe path out of the dungeon, wandering monsters and all, to get out? I always thought part of the importance of mapping was being able to find your way home without getting lost. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2017 19:56:09 GMT -6
You had to navigate your way back. Greyhawk is full of one way doors, slides, teleporters, and other such fun. No "hup ho we go back to town'. Because the fun begins when you realize your map is no longer accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Mar 11, 2017 19:37:48 GMT -6
He was married with six kids. He kept an eye on the clock. About a half hour before we were going to stop he'd tell us it was time to leave the dungeon. In wilderness he'd tell us to find a town. That is interesting. I know most places I've played simply hand wave missing PCs away, but I never really liked that. I do like the idea that they are simply in a safe place -- where I can charge them food and lodging if they didn't adventure.  I may start doing this or at least offering the suggestion to the players to head for safety, if it's feasible. I do offer options when refereeing, like: "hang out in the background", "another player runs as a 2nd PC under original player's orders", or "another player runs without orders". |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Mar 13, 2017 8:26:27 GMT -6
You had to navigate your way back. Greyhawk is full of one way doors, slides, teleporters, and other such fun. No "hup ho we go back to town'. Because the fun begins when you realize your map is no longer accurate. Did Gary allow a faster "you've already mapped this part of the dungeon" movement rate? |
|
