Quote from: Old Geezer;700232That's because "modules" were never conceived of in the original creation of the game, and neither were "convention tournaments."

The G modules are published versions of convention tournaments.  Of COURSE they have fuckall to do with D&D.

And yet nobody who bought them knew that. How could they? Once D&D left the confines of the Midwest wargamer community, the original intents of Gygax and co., transmitted by tribal knowledge, became irrelevant. For the millions who learned the game from only the printed material, the GDQ series looked like the model for how the game should be played. What other model did they have?

Quote from: Haffrung;700234And yet nobody who bought them knew that. How could they? Once D&D left the confines of the Midwest wargamer community, the original intents of Gygax and co., transmitted by tribal knowledge, became irrelevant. For the millions who learned the game from only the printed material, the GDQ series looked like the model for how the game should be played. What other model did they have?

It wasn't until one of my groups got their hands on a DMG that we did other things than wander around and kill things for xp. It was fun, but it wasn't so easy to pry people away from that style of play. I thought that GDQ series was great, but we retired our characters afterwards, they were just too powerful.

Quote from: Haffrung;700234And yet nobody who bought them knew that. How could they? Once D&D left the confines of the Midwest wargamer community, the original intents of Gygax and co., transmitted by tribal knowledge, became irrelevant. For the millions who learned the game from only the printed material, the GDQ series looked like the model for how the game should be played. What other model did they have?

Huh.  I disagree with you violently often enough that it seems like the thing to do to say "Well said" when I don't.

Well said.

Quote from: Ladybird;700228I did say character, not player; make them come back with someone more appropriate, if that character can't tone it down. But if they're the type of player who would be a shit about it, that really sucks.

When joining an already-established SLA Industries ops team, the team wanted to interview for their new hire. So I had to create a couple of character concepts and actually play out interview scenes with them, and then detail out the winner. It was fun! It was appropriate.

The player couldnt tone it down, didnt matter what character or RPG he was in. He was aggressive and had no patience for negotiations or town interactions. He wasnt quite the "NPCs = EXP on legs" sort. But he'd be disruptive no matter sooner or later once the group got in town or started chatting up someone on the road for info.

The other characters were as hogtied as the players were. They could push but couldnt risk pushing too much. and they were used to it so it didnt impact them as much. And they were really desperate to get to RP.

Once I saw how things were I made the call to roll with it for the group. Im not going to risk people being stranded upwards of 20 miles from home with no viable way home. I doubt he would have stranded anyone. But Im not going to risk it.

And thats the DMs call to roll or not. In the other instance I finally got fed up and just rolled the campaign to a conclusion and let it go.

But that is perhaps a discussion for its own thread sometime.

Quote from: Haffrung;700234And yet nobody who bought them knew that. How could they? Once D&D left the confines of the Midwest wargamer community, the original intents of Gygax and co., transmitted by tribal knowledge, became irrelevant. For the millions who learned the game from only the printed material, the GDQ series looked like the model for how the game should be played. What other model did they have?

Well, sure, it's entirely predictable that that's what would happen, especially once it became clear that for several years modules were Money On Ye Hoof.  But that doesn't alter the fact that the game was created with no such idea in mind and that modules were crammed in.  The monetization of D&D changed a LOT of shit about the game.

Remember, when Gary and Don Kaye printed a thousand copies, we thought they were insane to print that many.

Quote from: Old Geezer;700308Well, sure, it's entirely predictable that that's what would happen, especially once it became clear that for several years modules were Money On Ye Hoof.  But that doesn't alter the fact that the game was created with no such idea in mind and that modules were crammed in.  The monetization of D&D changed a LOT of shit about the game.

Remember, when Gary and Don Kaye printed a thousand copies, we thought they were insane to print that many.

When lightning strikes you grab the pot of gold revealed and run with it.
Modules were a logical step. Ready made adventures that you did not have to spend hours or days pondering. And best of all. Usually lots of new monsters and magic items. Players eat that stuff up like candy.

And it gave a feeling of being in a larger world perhaps, or a sense of unity.

Sure wasnt for the safety feeling. Alot of modules were lethal un sometimes unexpected ways. Keep on the Borderlands still being my favorite for a starter setting that was absurdly dangerous.

Hilariously one of my former players was an anti-module type and for some reason was allways convinced I was allways running modules. So Id bring in a module and say we are playing so-n-so adventure today and at the end I'd point out that I'd made the whole adventure up on the spot on the fly. I thought he'd explode. He was near neon red trying to parse it. Closest I've cone to causing someone to fail a real world sanity check... heh-heh...

Other times I'd really run modules, but with players who were fine with modules. and they knew I was tweaking things on the fly as needed when they went directions the module could not cover.

WOTC had an anti module mentality for a little bit. No clue why. Probably some exec did a poll that said no one buys modules.

Quote from: Rincewind1;699340This is probably the single most important issue with "Old School Mortality" - the lack of personality/backstory until the character reaches "x" level, because what's the point to bother, if he might be Mario 5.0 in a moment?

First of all, if you waste time writing a background for a newly-created PC that is more than two or three sentences long, then you are a wanker plain and simple.

Quote from: Haffrung;699644Make up several characters at start. One of them will likely make it to level 3. And we were doing this 30 years before Goodman put the funnel into Dungeon Crawl Classics.

Discourage heavy backstories. Tell the player that their characters will develop in play.

Not play a system that take three hours to make up a PC. Use a system where you can make up three characters in an hour and Bob's your uncle.

My sentiments exactly.

When I kick off a campaign, I allow each player to choose from the following:

• one 2nd-level character


• two 1st-level characters


• one 1st-level and two men-at-arms (d6+1 hp, skilled with 2-3 weapons, THAC0 21)


• one 1st-level and three lackeys (d6 hp, skilled with 1-2 weapons*, THAC0 22)

* one of the two must be club, knife, hand axe or dagger

Lackeys who gain experience may become men-at-arms or possibly 1st-level PCs. Men-at-arms who gain experience may become 1st-level fighter-types.

I also allow 5 re-rolls that may be used at any time, from rolling stats, combat, saving throws, etc, etc.

Between the options of having backup PCs on hand, and getting five "do-overs", there has never been whining about the deadliness of the setting I run -and even with those bonuses, it's deadly.

Quote from: Old Geezer;699795Just like any wargame.  You can play CHAINMAIL by lining up all your troops and rolling them straight ahead, but if your opponent is smart enough to shit unassisted she will hand you your ass in a bucket.

OD&D was written under the same assumption.  You can play with your head up your ass, but your character will die.  Then, some of the people who played that way got put in charge of later editions.

I think I'll sig that. :rotfl:

Quote from: mhensley;699876I don't mind playing an old school game with high mortality just as long as the dm runs the game in an old school way.  The problem I encounter frequently is when a dm tries to run high mortality d&d with a severe nerfing of old school tactics like not allowing us hirelings or dogs, nerfing spells like sleep and charm, removing gp for xp, and then expecting us to actually worry about backstories and shit when our life expectancy is effectively one encounter.

If you had to play for that kind of a cocksmith DM, you have my sympathy.

Quote from: Elfdart;700339First of all, if you waste time writing a background for a newly-created PC that is more than two or three sentences long, then you are a wanker plain and simple.

I'm not talking about writing a bloody novel, but whatever, screw you too and the rest of "Internet tough guys" brigade.

Oh, won't someone think of those poor poor back stories and all the precious creativity lovingly poured into them...

Don't let me get the icky roleplaying into your wargaming.

Story story story story.

Oh there's plenty of roleplaying when I play, to the hilt even. But I let backstory emerge in play as opposed to jerking off to my special creativity coming up with some precious background for my PC. But you're not one for subtleties... ...or taste... ...anyways.

Benoist has only seen me DM, but I'm sure he'll back me up on me not being some pawn moving wargamer.

Quote from: Planet Algol;700378Oh there's plenty of roleplaying when I play, to the hilt even. But I let backstory emerge in play as opposed to jerking off to my special creativity coming up with some precious background for my PC. But you're not one for subtleties... ...or taste... ...anyways.

Benoist has only seen me DM, but I'm sure he'll back me up on me not being some pawn moving wargamer.

Save me the weak - limped attacks about my "subtlety" or "taste", especially after pulling the Internet Tough Guy routine. So far I haven't seen anything that makes you Brummel yourself.

I'm okay with "emergent backstory" as well, I don't really require character backstories. But so far this thread made one huge  point for existence of Grognards.txt, which is pretty sad.

One does not have to be an internet tough guy to think that back story fetishization is for wankers. But you're not the brightest bulb in the fridge anyways.

Are you experiencing some educational regress tonight, or have you stopped at primary school invectives' wit? Though judging by the lack of usual swears, I suspect it's simply sobriety hitting hard. So what'll we next, going the "Oh I'm adjusting my level to yours" routine or "My my, swear words cause you to pearl clutch"?

Also I didn't know that

QuoteThis is probably the single most important issue with "Old School Mortality" - the lack of personality/backstory until the character reaches "x" level, because what's the point to bother, if he might be Mario 5.0 in a moment?

is an overfetishisation of backstories. But apparently, if you invest at start more into your character than encumbrance, level and attributes, you are a wanker.

The only wankers I see in this thread are those who are trying to prove how tough they are by playing RPGs like Real Men (TM).

I have absolutely no problem playing a PC with personality regardless of their level or expectations of mortality.

When they die, I roll up another set of stats, look at them, and a distinct PC emerges.

I don't waste others, or my own, time with their biography. That is improvised via in-game banter.

To claim that old school mortality precludes personality/backstory until level x is a binary, and false, argument.

I don't think anyone can prove how tough they are by rolling dice for their imaginary hobbit's attack rolls.