James M Ward is the DM in these excellent videos.

[dicebro]

www.youtube.com/channel/UCz5Wuc9yHCicbTBeNjt__1g

[JasperAK]

Burned these to a mp3 cd to listen to in the car on 2 hours drives. Very entertaining but I now see what the early adversarial DMing was like. And the deaths and raises, holy OD&D batman! Very different from the AD&D 1e/2e that I grew up with. I wonder if TSR and D&D would have done better if it stayed an entertaining game instead of an outlet for successful and failed novelists. And emo kids that had to work through personal issues.

[dicebro]

Apr 17, 2021 5:49:22 GMT -6 JasperAK said:

Burned these to a mp3 cd to listen to in the car on 2 hours drives. Very entertaining but I now see what the early adversarial DMing was like. And the deaths and raises, holy OD&D batman! Very different from the AD&D 1e/2e that I grew up with. I wonder if TSR and D&D would have done better if it stayed an entertaining game instead of an outlet for successful and failed novelists. And emo kids that had to work through personal issues.

A referee needs to be a part-time adversary in order for a game to exist. If there is no adversary, then we’re all just farting around in a non-game. 

[rsdean]

On the DM as adversary; yes, but ... Given the miniatures gamer origin of the rules, it’s not too surprising that I view this as being similar to a tabletop miniatures game. The referee designs the opposition and then plays it to provide a challenge (i.e. interesting game) to the players, but they do need to calibrate it so that the players have a chance of winning or surviving to keep them having fun and coming back. As the referee can always drop in the proverbial huge ancient red dragon, they can’t take the adversarial role too far without losing players (and characters...)

[Deleted]

May 1, 2021 5:58:17 GMT -6 rsdean said:

On the DM as adversary; yes, but ... Given the miniatures gamer origin of the rules, it’s not too surprising that I view this as being similar to a tabletop miniatures game. The referee designs the opposition and then plays it to provide a challenge (i.e. interesting game) to the players, but they do need to calibrate it so that the players have a chance of winning or surviving to keep them having fun and coming back. As the referee can always drop in the proverbial huge ancient red dragon, they can’t take the adversarial role too far without losing players (and characters...)

I like the idea of presenting risk and rewards. Like, there are all these threads on the internet about how Undead are too powerful in early D&D and level-drain sucks for players. Yeah, you're d**n right it does, which is why you tread in places haunted by Undead at your own risk, probably because you heard the Scepter of Ra was buried deep in the pyramid. You chose to pursue this over other objectives, at your own peril. That's a D&D scenario to me. You choose to face the Mummy Lord and its traps and servants, and you encounter all that comes along with that. Risk vs. Reward. Of course, you have a chance to succeed, and opportunities to flee if you change your mind, in theory. There's always a chance. 

[JasperAK]

May 1, 2021 4:32:42 GMT -6 dicebro said:

A referee needs to be a part-time adversary in order for a game to exist. If there is no adversary, then we’re all just farting around in a non-game. 

This is true to a certain point. In my researches into early D&D, I've been reading back issues of Dragon, specifically the 'Up on a Soapbox' and 'Design Forum' articles. One article written by Michael Crane in Dragon #26 (June 1979) just has to be quoted.

Design Forum
Notes from a Very Successful D&D Moderator
by Michael Crane

In recent issues of The Dragon we moderators have had to listen to the cute tricks of various D&D players who were apparently successful. This is all fine, but I think that it’s about time that we moderators share some of our good tricks with one another. Determined to right this wrong (if this is published, that is) I have decided to divulge some of my dark moderating secrets to all of you deprived moderators out there.

One of my favorite devices is the pit. However, my players, after having several promising players impaled at the bottom of one, got together and brainstormed on a solution to the problem. Their solution: tie everyone together in mountain climber fashion so that when a player fell into a pit he would be saved by a safety line. My countermove: I decided to have a weight (1 ton) drop from above the pit when it was sprung, which would carry the player and all his confederates into the pit, crushing or impaling (take your pick) them all.

But never underestimate the player! They again brainstormed on a solution and came up with another award winning idea: since my traps were sprung by weights they would take a small cart with them, loaded with lead, which they would push in front of them. They also would bring several pairs of wheels and a carpenter, so they could continually reuse the same cart. My countermove: I decided that when a player reached a trap it would not only activate but would also activate several other previously-unactivated traps that would lie along the player’s approach paths. Not only did this prevent the players from using their cart idea, it also deterred them from ever trying to weasel around my pits again!

...

Another method which I find works to good advantage is the reward method: for every adventure in which a player survives and goes up a level, he is allowed to start an additional character. The player is allowed to take as many of his characters on an adventure, but regardless of how many he takes, he can only gain 1 additional character (to a maximum of 15 characters, which is seldom reached). This means that a player will not have to start out at the bottom, but also prompts the player to be careful with his charactors-too many dead characters and the player will be starting out at Level 1.

I don't think I'd like to play in this type of game. This guy comes off as a condescending jerk and seems to revel in killing characters. G-d forbid the players try not to fall into his stupid traps. I'm not really impressed with this guy with the exception of his obviously sadistic tendencies. I can see it now, 'Ok guys, he put another pit in the middle of the corridor. Let's just jump in and start with one of the many other characters he allowed us to create to run through his grinder.'

[dicebro]

May 1, 2021 14:24:35 GMT -6 JasperAK said:

May 1, 2021 4:32:42 GMT -6 dicebro said:

A referee needs to be a part-time adversary in order for a game to exist. If there is no adversary, then we’re all just farting around in a non-game. 

This is true to a certain point. In my researches into early D&D, I've been reading back issues of Dragon, specifically the 'Up on a Soapbox' and 'Design Forum' articles. One article written by Michael Crane in Dragon #26 (June 1979) just has to be quoted.

Design Forum
Notes from a Very Successful D&D Moderator
by Michael Crane

In recent issues of The Dragon we moderators have had to listen to the cute tricks of various D&D players who were apparently successful. This is all fine, but I think that it’s about time that we moderators share some of our good tricks with one another. Determined to right this wrong (if this is published, that is) I have decided to divulge some of my dark moderating secrets to all of you deprived moderators out there.

One of my favorite devices is the pit. However, my players, after having several promising players impaled at the bottom of one, got together and brainstormed on a solution to the problem. Their solution: tie everyone together in mountain climber fashion so that when a player fell into a pit he would be saved by a safety line. My countermove: I decided to have a weight (1 ton) drop from above the pit when it was sprung, which would carry the player and all his confederates into the pit, crushing or impaling (take your pick) them all.

But never underestimate the player! They again brainstormed on a solution and came up with another award winning idea: since my traps were sprung by weights they would take a small cart with them, loaded with lead, which they would push in front of them. They also would bring several pairs of wheels and a carpenter, so they could continually reuse the same cart. My countermove: I decided that when a player reached a trap it would not only activate but would also activate several other previously-unactivated traps that would lie along the player’s approach paths. Not only did this prevent the players from using their cart idea, it also deterred them from ever trying to weasel around my pits again!

...

Another method which I find works to good advantage is the reward method: for every adventure in which a player survives and goes up a level, he is allowed to start an additional character. The player is allowed to take as many of his characters on an adventure, but regardless of how many he takes, he can only gain 1 additional character (to a maximum of 15 characters, which is seldom reached). This means that a player will not have to start out at the bottom, but also prompts the player to be careful with his charactors-too many dead characters and the player will be starting out at Level 1.

I don't think I'd like to play in this type of game. This guy comes off as a condescending jerk and seems to revel in killing characters. G-d forbid the players try not to fall into his stupid traps. I'm not really impressed with this guy with the exception of his obviously sadistic tendencies. I can see it now, 'Ok guys, he put another pit in the middle of the corridor. Let's just jump in and start with one of the many other characters he allowed us to create to run through his grinder.'

You probably wouldn’t enjoy playing in my world. Player Characters end up getting killed all of the time. My dungeons are pretty deadly. I’d say you’d have about a 26% chance of getting out alive and a 16% chance of getting out with a backpack full of gold.

[jeffb]

Hmmm...I did not listen to the link in question but...

I err on the side of being a fan of the players/characters. I was not always this way.

The game is supposed to be fun. It is part game, and part collaboration.

Sometimes the way characters die is super fun and leaves us with a great tale

Too much character death and the game quickly becomes not-fun.

Meaningful character death is fun.

Stupid character death is fun.

Michael Crane is not the kind of DM I would want to play under. Don't find increasingly absurd ways to power trip kill the characters because the player's outsmart your designs. Do better as a DM. I'm reminded of Schindler's List- It's not power to kill someone. It's power to let them live when you could kill them on a whim.

[Deleted]

I am early into it but unless I missed something a cleric turning to stone is the first casualty. I do not want to spoil it and say when it occurs, but think hours not minutes. Even with that, James immediately told them how to get it reversed.

It has been fair and challenging. Nobody needs to rope themselves together or push a cart in front of the party . I would happily sit at James’ table.

These are fantastic. Thanks for linking them out. I doubt I would have ever found them by chance.

[JasperAK]

May 1, 2021 16:58:06 GMT -6 dicebro said:

May 1, 2021 14:24:35 GMT -6 JasperAK said:

This is true to a certain point. In my researches into early D&D, I've been reading back issues of Dragon, specifically the 'Up on a Soapbox' and 'Design Forum' articles. One article written by Michael Crane in Dragon #26 (June 1979) just has to be quoted.

I don't think I'd like to play in this type of game. This guy comes off as a condescending jerk and seems to revel in killing characters. G-d forbid the players try not to fall into his stupid traps. I'm not really impressed with this guy with the exception of his obviously sadistic tendencies. I can see it now, 'Ok guys, he put another pit in the middle of the corridor. Let's just jump in and start with one of the many other characters he allowed us to create to run through his grinder.'

You probably wouldn’t enjoy playing in my world. Player Characters end up getting killed all of the time. My dungeons are pretty deadly. I’d say you’d have about a 26% chance of getting out alive and a 16% chance of getting out with a backpack full of gold.

I've listened to the first ten or so streams of the game James ran and have to say it was entertaining to listen to. I might have even had fun playing myself. That was my original point. If the game (even yours as deadly as you make it to be) is fun and entertaining than I'm all for it. James seems mostly fair and that is the kicker. No one seems bent out of shape when something bad happens. Everyone is having fun. It's the powertripping DMs and all players that don't see this as just a fun game are my concern.

[dicebro]

May 2, 2021 13:37:08 GMT -6 JasperAK said:

May 1, 2021 16:58:06 GMT -6 dicebro said:

You probably wouldn’t enjoy playing in my world. Player Characters end up getting killed all of the time. My dungeons are pretty deadly. I’d say you’d have about a 26% chance of getting out alive and a 16% chance of getting out with a backpack full of gold.

I've listened to the first ten or so streams of the game James ran and have to say it was entertaining to listen to. I might have even had fun playing myself. That was my original point. If the game (even yours as deadly as you make it to be) is fun and entertaining than I'm all for it. James seems mostly fair and that is the kicker. No one seems bent out of shape when something bad happens. Everyone is having fun. It's the powertripping DMs and all players that don't see this as just a fun game are my concern.

I don’t see Crane as a problem.  He’s merely having fun telling the tale of the back and forth gameplay between creative players and revamped obstacles. Back then losing a character wasn’t a big deal. Players had bunches of them and they were basically red shirts. The idea was to solve the obstacles placed before you, not fall in love with the character you built. Players expected a dangerous game. It was once a war game after all. People die in war. But there are innovations that come out of the carnage. On both sides. Crane was gleefully illustrating this point. I’m sure the players got to whoop a ton of Crane’s monsters who were defending his dungeon obstacles and rebuilding them. It’s just an illustration of good game play.