Let me state one thing very clearly, AD&D 1st IS playable rules as written. Our group plays ALOT of different games, it was bandied around the table, as more than a few of us have 1st ed books. Which classic campaigns would we as a group like to play?Our DM Blackhand did alot of research (and invested alot of time and money) on our grand experiment.

1. We would play all four (and a half) editions of our granddaddy of all rpgs. (plus pathfinder natch!)

2. We would play in all the most iconic campaign settings, in their native editions. (Ravenloft in second ed! hellz yeah!)

3. We would play the most iconic modules from these editions and settings.

4. We would run each edition RULES AS WRITTEN! gasp.

Its amazing to me how much flak he has taken over running AD&D 1st RAW, i dont normally post on these sites. But i read a few exerpts from this thread and i was inspired to chime in. Some of you guys have made some really helpful suggestions. However some of suggest things like cheating to hit or damage rolls , do you guys really do that in your groups? I mean why dont you just jack off to your own pictures, its more satisfing and you dont have to gather a group of three to eight to do it. Personally, i dont want my rolls to be fudged. If i fuck up, kill me. That way when i finish the dungeon i feel like i accomplished some thing (our group agrees with this philosophy without exception). Otherwise u may as well just play dress up, and have a tea party. I have personally died three times in this run, and i deserved every death. And we have had a great time doing it, scrapping the experiment was never an option. Our group loves pouring through these ancient tomes. (i am thinking of purchasing the fresh new reprints though). This experiment is far from over, the mechanical portion of the game is actually the least problematic. Our DM has put plenty of time working with the books and figuring out the more esoteric rules. Im a huge fan of this campaign but even i never realized how strange the organization of just the core three books is. When we started going through the books this became apparent, what was also apparent is that Blackhand had done his homework. And the players(myself included) have really enjoyed the product. Even amongst the carnage everyone keeps coming back for more. The only failing in the party is that WE havent tried hard enough to come up with plausable reasons why our characters would work with each other, much less, give our lives for each other. We all want to defeat the Temple, too many heroic (or at least brave) characters have given their pseudolives to that abomination. We will continue, the only question is......

Will our old disparate group come together again face death and dismemberment for little reward, with companions we dont like, or trust?

Or will a new group with aligned aims and tactics, step up and avenge the souls lost in the Temple?

I feel that our group has already decided on the latter, and as i stated in my previous post.  I think it makes a great prelude ( a really long prelude, sigh), for a party of truly noble adventurers to step up and raze the temple to the annals of history.

I wasnt mad when i found out you had all that gold, but i was mad I didnt think of hoarding it first. lol, Im looking forward to my new character too.

Honestly, from reading the OP post and the subsequent player posts, my take is:

1) If the current party is bad, make the Temple worse (and make it personal).  Even Evil McEvilson has a grandmother, feed her to an earth elemental.  Make it clear that this is just plain a Thing That Must Be Stopped.  No reason whatsoever that "evil" PCs can't get into that idea.  And nothing glues a disparate group together like an external threat.  

2) If the players just can't see their way clear to justifying things themselves, then it may require a hard reset.  New characters, make it clear that there is a premise here and that they should make PCs to match.  (I feel like this is a last resort.)

3)  Big one, here, and one that the players are already getting wind of - they need to get better at (A)D&D.  I mean that in the most constructive way possible, seriously.  Hear me out:

One of the players has already hit upon a big one in this thread: Group tactics with polearms, shield walls, etc.  The battle line is a big deal in AD&D.  

Retreating when the shit hits the fan.  (OP has touched on this.  Always the hardest lesson to learn.)  

Lastly, simply put, numbers.  Warm bodies.  It was mentioned that there isn't a Cha over 12 - this is a huge weakness for a party in RAW AD&D, for one big reason:  Henchmen.  Whatever assumed balance there is in BTB AD&D (not something I personally worry about, but if that's the premise, here) includes characters acquiring henchmen after a certain level, and it's gonna be a lot easier to get'em and keep'em from running with at least one decent Cha score in the party.  Note that not every one of'em has to go in the hole - my group has taken to having a "B team" for, among other applications, extractions.  In a worst-cast scenario, they're replacement PCs (with some experience under their belt, and presumably pro gear), avoiding the "we're tired of starting at level 1" complaints, and providing (we're coming back around to the point here, haha) party continuity.

Now, it's been noted that the group has been getting it handed to'em, so they probably haven't had time to build up their own levels, much less take on apprentices.  However, with a decent face in the group (and assuming you're making liberal use of one of the most important tools in the RAW DM's toolbox, the humble reaction roll), you could sweet-talk your way into some help from any number of (leveled) NPCs in town.  And make no mistake - T1-4 (the moathouse, in particular) was designed with this in tactic mind.  It sounds like they may have already burned a lot of bridges and left a lot of dead NPCs in their wake already, so this may not be that much help now, but it's worth keeping in mind for the future.


All in all, I think you've got a salvageable situation, there.  And it sounds like the players are still game, and are learning from their mistakes.  Keep at it, you guys'll crack that nut, yet.

Quote from: Blackhand;624799Last night we had our 13th week in the Temple of Elemental Evil, and man was it a doozy.  After 18 deaths over those 13th weeks, in finally seems the party cannot go on after so many deaths.

Here's a log of the campaign so far.

For some time now, I've been pushing for what I call "familiarity".  I've attempted to enact a rule, and for a while it was working.  We got some interesting character hooks and roleplay out of this simple precept.

This is your first blunder. People don't have to know or like one another to cooperate, though it may help.

QuoteYet with so much death, it's been hard to keep tabs on various character story arcs within the framework of the old adventure.

That's funny, since you don't need to follow a "character story arc" for a dead PC any more than you need to track his or her alignment. They're dead.

QuoteSo now we have party decimated by so much death that the remaining characters now have little reason to continue to adventure.

Gold, glory and the other benefits of killing monsters aren't enough? :rolleyes:

QuoteBehold, the current group now, and bear in mind they have known each other only days:

• Kay Oh Stubbs, Half Orc Fighter IV (Lawful Evil)
• Mooshue, Oeridian Cleric of Hieroneous IV (Neutral Good)
• Ewe Gee Stubbs, Half-Orc Fighter IV (Lawful Evil)
• Kakkarakk, Valley Elf Magic-User III  (Neutral)
• Ulfric Broomhandle, Dwarf Fighter III (Lawful Evil)
• Long Fellow, Half Elf Ranger III (Neutral Good)

All of the party's impetus has been slowly killed by the players ignoring the "familiarity" clause, and choosing clashing alignments and even religions.  Ewe Gee Stubbs secretly serves Hextor, Hieroneous' sworn enemy.

A DM who doesn't suck could still make a campaign of it. If you need "character hooks" to provide motivation for PCs then you're a shitty DM.

I'll go one better: If you think you should decide whether a PC has a good enough motivation, you are an unbelievably shitty DM. One character's motivation can be as good as anyone else's.

The PC who decides to sack the Temple for the hell of it ("Because it's there" as Edmund Hillary would say) is just as valid as the one looking for money or the one fighting The Forces of Evil (or an evil PC who resents these Evil Johnny-come-lateleys for poaching on his turf for that matter), or seeking fame, free drinks and pussy that comes from being the one who succeeded where so many others failed.

The very idea of telling a player that his PC's reason for adventuring is "wrong" and that you're thinking of dissolving the group because in retrospect they haven't yet fulfilled it ("You wanted gold but didn't find much? I'm dissolving the group") tells me just how hard you suck as a DM.

QuoteThese mercenaries have seen nothing but death and haven't been paid in the week or so the oldest one has been among the party.

The smart ones will desert then. What's the problem?

QuoteI'm going to give my players a chance to save this party, by having the survivors talk it over in character.  Why would they continue to seek death in the Temple?  They've made it clear that only money motivates them, yet they have seen nothing from the place:  their late leader kept most of the profits of their ventures, and the bodies of the leader and mapper were not recovered from the temple, meaning the party has lost their maps as well.

Your players would be better served by relieving you of your DM position since you're obviously not cut out for it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;625046Totally agree with this especially the bolded (and the subsequent too)

I think Blackhand here is just pointing out that the new characters that the players have bought in really have no reason to be there beyond the fact that they are controlled by the players who agreed to play this game. If the players stood back and thought about motivation role playing or even jsut alignment the group would brobably disintigrate pretty fast.
I don't think posing that question is bad GMing. I might have an NPC ask the question in play but doing itas the GM is fine.

Oh for fuck's sake. :rolleyes:

Any time you have a group of people who set out to accomplish a task, you're going to have different worldviews and different motives. Think of the motives for people joining the armed forces:

• money (more recently tuition)
• devotion to the country
• to get away from home (for countless reasons)
• drafted or otherwise given no choice
• to impress girls
• to kill people without being prosecuted
• to handle guns
• because that's what daddy did
• glory
• just seemed like the thing to do at the time
• lousy job prospects back home

The same holds true in a business, a sports team -or among players getting together to play a game.

Imp, Tiny Outsider.  You've had some pretty good ideas, and when we reconvene we will probably attempt to integrate them on some level.

Quote from: Imp;624999It strikes me that if you are going to run a meatgrinder (or things take a turn for the meatgrindery) – well, I have no problem with that, but, you need to concoct a unified origin or two for the meat. "The King sends more brave men to fight," at its dumbest... but something like that.

If some of the meat survives long enough for the players to get attached to it, then they can concoct more involved origin stories & quirks. Sorta like a war movie that way.

This would require the players agree to be on some sort of mission for some kingdom, obviously.  I place this reminder here for them, and they can bring it up at the "hearing".

Quote from: Imp;625342Can you have a nearby ruler send some of his knights into the dungeon/ temple/ wherever you are (not very familiar with ToEE, sorry), get them killed, notice that there's an adventuring group in the area that has ventured on the quest he sent his knights to do, and then offer to re-employ the PCs to deal with the threat? (For ruler substitute wizard/ crime boss/ priest/ whatever's interesting, if desired)

I like this idea, and we tried it to some extent - many characters hailed from the Greyhawk City watch.

Quote from: Elfdart;625479This is your first blunder. People don't have to know or like one another to cooperate, though it may help.

Oh Christ, another one of these.  You didn't read any of this, did you?

I'll challenge that. I have made no blunders, other than to think to share the story with this board.  This community continually vomits up fuckrods like yourself, and will do so until it is made up of the garbage people that game with 2 or 3 buddies once a month and claim to be "hardcore" or whatever the fuck.  I can tell you have little experience with games by your backhanded attacks on issues I'm sharing with you.

Quote from: Elfdart;625479That's funny, since you don't need to follow a "character story arc" for a dead PC any more than you need to track his or her alignment. They're dead.

The character arcs we're talking about are the ones belonging the living characters.
 

Quote from: Elfdart;625479Gold, glory and the other benefits of killing monsters aren't enough? :rolleyes:

Death is quite a deterrent, and the players are roleplaying this out.

Quote from: Elfdart;625479A DM who doesn't suck could still make a campaign of it. If you need "character hooks" to provide motivation for PCs then you're a shitty DM.

Oh, so... I'm a shitty DM?

The campaign is great fun here, and you seem to be missing that critical point.  Everyone fucking loves it.

You're just another internet douchebag whose claims literally make my players laugh and wonder.  You're just making them happier it's me that's DM and not you.

Quote from: Elfdart;625479I'll go one better: If you think you should decide whether a PC has a good enough motivation, you are an unbelievably shitty DM. One character's motivation can be as good as anyone else's.

Again, you're not reading the circumstances of the campaign.  This isn't "Free Range Greyhawk".

Don't fucking comment if you've skipped the entire conversation, it makes you look like even more of an asshole than your avatar suggests.

Quote from: Elfdart;625479The PC who decides to sack the Temple for the hell of it ("Because it's there" as Edmund Hillary would say) is just as valid as the one looking for money or the one fighting The Forces of Evil (or an evil PC who resents these Evil Johnny-come-lateleys for poaching on his turf for that matter), or seeking fame, free drinks and pussy that comes from being the one who succeeded where so many others failed.

LOL

Not if the character has seen no money, fame, free drinks or pussy.  Not if he's reticent from the almost certain death that's looming.  Not if his companions can't be trusted.

You're a fucking fool.

Quote from: Elfdart;625479The very idea of telling a player that his PC's reason for adventuring is "wrong" and that you're thinking of dissolving the group because in retrospect they haven't yet fulfilled it ("You wanted gold but didn't find much? I'm dissolving the group") tells me just how hard you suck as a DM.

Once again you failed to comprehend anything in this thread, and this pretty much proves to me you're just using this opportunity to tell me I suck as a DM.  Who the fuck are you, other than a fucking asshole on internet with no redeeming qualities who knows nothing about my players, my campaign or myself, and refuses to learn these facts before spitting up garbage all over the forum.

Quote from: Elfdart;625479The smart ones will desert then. What's the problem?

That's the entire party, you fuckwit.  What do you think this is about?  It wasn't even MY idea in the first place to dissolve the party - it was suggested by one of the survivors from the Earth Temple.  I think it's a good idea and I'm just going to enforce it if no one can provide hooks when we convene on Sunday.

Quote from: Elfdart;625479Your players would be better served by relieving you of your DM position since you're obviously not cut out for it.

A slanderous attack that shows you're not paying attention and just trolling with bullshit.

Quote from: Elfdart;625479Oh for fuck's sake. :rolleyes:

We're not stopping the game.

If I decide I want a little more effort from my players in terms of compelling storyline, it is entirely in MY purview as DM to tell that player to get with the program.  If he can't provide his own hook, it's within my purview to disallow that character.

I can't even believe you think this is an issue, instead I must conclude you are simply angling for a overreaction.  You're not even the first person to show up in this thread with this bullshit.

I don't know if it's because the term "dissolve" as I have used it alludes that the campaign is over and I'm telling everyone to go home or what, but the reading comprehension level of most users on this site is fucking LOW.

Perhaps a better term to have been used would have been "reconvene" - that is, new characters and a new attempt at cracking the dungeon from a new perspective.

I didn't come here for validation, just to get some thoughts.  And most of those thoughts from a vast majority of the gamers here is that I suck as a DM.  It's a good thing I trust my instincts, and that my players love the game.

We've actually had a higher turn out lately, in part stemming from the death toll.

Posts like yours affirm to my players and myself that you are fucking stupid.  I truly doubt you have much experience as DM, or at least as DM in any game that uses rules or adventure plots.  You know.  I'll spell it out.  RPG's.

Man!  This thread sure had a lot of unproductive wrangling!  We're the masters of GM-Fu, so let's HELP the guy, not rip him a new one for his failure to run everything perfectly (Read as:  "the way I would do it...").

There have been a lot of PC fatalities.  It is important to make sure that the GM and players are on the same sheet of music regarding the game's brutality level, but it does sound like you have a group of players who would battle through Masks of Nyarlathotep (which can go through CoC investigator sheets faster than some people use up toilet paper) and still tell you "Bring it on!"

I particularly agree with one of the previous posts:

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;625428If the current party is bad, make the Temple worse (and make it personal).  Even Evil McEvilson has a grandmother, feed her to an earth elemental.  Make it clear that this is just plain a Thing That Must Be Stopped.  No reason whatsoever that "evil" PCs can't get into that idea.  And nothing glues a disparate group together like an external threat.

If the players have a hard time getting motivated, the ToEE can bring the motive to them. Some surviving cult leader can use their intrusion as a chance to make alliance with another power group in the temple, uniting the troops by facing a common foe.  "These INFIDELS have trespassed upon our sacred halls.  We will relentlessly visit death upon them until all know that to interfere with us is to die!"

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;625428If the players just can't see their way clear to justifying things themselves, then it may require a hard reset.  New characters, make it clear that there is a premise here and that they should make PCs to match.  (I feel like this is a last resort.)

The GM is not the only one responsible for coming up with party motivations.  Put the responsibility onto the players to come up with reasons their PCs are involved with this.  "My character tells others that he's just in it for the money, but someone from the ToEE killed his kitten when he was 5.  It's time for payback!"

As far as explaining why so many characters are showing up to explore the temple, you're going to have to suspend your disbelief a bit further:  It's the same as asking "why do comic book superheroes get in so many pointless fights with each other", "Whay are there orcs in the cave beneath the city" or other genre-based cliches:  "It's just the way it is."

I would also stop worrying so much about alignment.  So most of your guys are evil scumbags and others aren't :  Big whoop!  Even evil jerks can make friends and have people they care about.  Similarly, even jerks can see when they should back down.  They may consider taking more than their fair share of treasure or consider letting another PC get killed, but then remember that even the nicest of guys will hang their ass out to dry if they know they've been dealt with shabbily.  "Remember when you stole that wand in the chamber of echoes?  You thought I didn't notice, but guess what: I did.  I suspect that's why my god didn't give me as many healing spells as I usually carry.  He knew I wouldn't need any for you."

Revenge has been cited more than once as a reason, but you have to remember the timeline.

For many years, the temple has been nonexistent.  Now, it's still very secret.  The only folk to have truly encountered it's budding power are dead, or about to get hell out of Hommlett.  Therefore, if your kitten was killed it probably wasn't a cultist of Elemental Evil.  And even if it was, you don't know that.

Vendettas not born in-game are not happening.

I also must point out that there are no shield wall rules (which has been repeatedly suggested) in AD&D - and that you can't use pikes in the dungeon, or even in single combat (DMG p.66 "Weapon Speed Factor").

Quote from: Blackhand;625491Revenge has been cited more than once as a reason, but you have to remember the timeline.

For many years, the temple has been nonexistent.  Now, it's still very secret.  The only folk to have truly encountered it's budding power are dead, or about to get hell out of Hommlett.  Therefore, if your kitten was killed it probably wasn't a cultist of Elemental Evil.  And even if it was, you don't know that.

The PC might be mistaken, or might have been lied to, etc.  My main point is that the players can come up with additional hooks for their PCs on their own:  There's no reason that the GM has to carry the whole load.  I'd ask the players "So, why DO you want to explore the temple?" instead of feeling frustrated that they lack credible motives for pursuing the adventure.

Quote from: Sir Wulf;625495The PC might be mistaken, or might have been lied to, etc.  My main point is that the players can come up with additional hooks for their PCs on their own:  There's no reason that the GM has to carry the whole load.  I'd ask the players "So, why DO you want to explore the temple?" instead of feeling frustrated that they lack credible motives for pursuing the adventure.

Yeah, you would ask the players this.  I have done so, and there are no compelling answers.  The #1 answers were:

• I came to find my cousin. (x2)
• I was hired by the Brothers Ralpar. (x2)
• I was just in the neighborhood and thought these guys had a good idea - they didn't.

Also, it's very clear in the module if the Temple starts making any real moves they will be crushed out, and not by the player characters.  Already the Archcleric of Veluna has sent more agents to the area, and if anything resembling a unified front from the Temple is exposed the campaign will be over as the powers that be make a repeat of what came before.

Quote from: Blackhand;625496Also, it's very clear in the module if the Temple starts making any real moves they will be crushed out, and not by the player characters.  Already the Archcleric of Veluna has sent more agents to the area, and if anything resembling a unified front from the Temple is exposed the campaign will be over as the powers that be make a repeat of what came before.

This sounds like a viable strategy would be to work out who these agents are, make sure they get evidence (or "evidence") of such a united front, then swoop in after the Velunan SWAT teams, scooping up treasure as you go.

Quote from: Malphaeus;625371I know you wouldn't have left me either. When Hambone was left we both felt terrible, that was our mistake. It's good to know there was no embezzlement too!

Werd

Quote from: Captain Video;625401I wasnt mad when i found out you had all that gold, but i was mad I didnt think of hoarding it first. lol, Im looking forward to my new character too.

LOL! All that Gold was mine... I never spent any real money or had magical stuff at the beginning...

Quote from: Blackhand;625491I also must point out that there are no shield wall rules (which has been repeatedly suggested) in AD&D - and that you can't use pikes in the dungeon, or even in single combat (DMG p.66 "Weapon Speed Factor").

"Shield wall" in this context could probably be better phrased as "fully-armored front line.  And while pikes are obviously out, that still leaves every other polearm.  The humble spear serves admirably in this capacity, doubling the attacks you'll get in a front line formation.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;625567"Shield wall" in this context could probably be better phrased as "fully-armored front line.  And while pikes are obviously out, that still leaves every other polearm.  The humble spear serves admirably in this capacity, doubling the attacks you'll get in a front line formation.

No, it does no such thing.  I've spoken about this in a similar thread, this always seems to be what folks suggest - even though there are no rules for this.

There aren't rules for ranking up like this in AD&D 1e.  There simply are not.  You can't attack a creature not adjacent to you without missile weapons.  Weapon reach has no mechanical application, being used only to determine who hits first during a charge.

Remember that in AD&D 1e combat, combatants are paired up.  Initiative does not work like subsequent editions, this seems to be something a lot of folk have problems with (*dur you play RaW lol that's impossible how do you do initiative DERP*).

If you think you can attack through another character or that the 3e "Reach" condition applies, feel free to find that in the rulebook and quote the page number.  

I will totally listen.

Yet I'm going to tell you no such rules exist, and we are not making up new ones.  That sort of thing is reserved for masses of troops in AD&D.


Now don't start on the whole "you're a shit GM because you don't houserule Reach".  That's erroneous.  That falls into the "making shit up" category and has no place in this game.  It's explained in the DMG why polearms don't really work in a dungeon, and why they are reserved for mass troops.

Quote from: Blackhand;625572No, it does no such thing.  I've spoken about this in a similar thread, this always seems to be what folks suggest - even though there are no rules for this.

Well, sure.  There also aren't rules for sticking to the floor rather than floating around - you simply don't need them, these are things you can just do

QuoteThere aren't rules for ranking up like this in AD&D 1e.  There simply are not.

Not explicit ones, no.  The game does assume a certain amount of critical thinking.

QuoteYou can't attack a creature not adjacent to you without missile weapons.  Weapon reach has no mechanical application, being used only to determine who hits first during a charge.

You're right, it doesn't.  You can simply attack any target within 10 feet of you.  10 feet.  More than enough to get in a few ranks.

QuoteRemember that in AD&D 1e combat, combatants are paired up.

Except when they're not, as explicitly covered in the combat rules.

QuoteInitiative does not work like subsequent editions, this seems to be something a lot of folk have problems with (*dur you play RaW lol that's impossible how do you do initiative DERP*).

No one is saying this.  YOU are saying you're having problems playing RAW, and then come up with these bizarre selective interpretations of those rules.

QuoteIf you think you can attack through another character or that the 3e "Reach" condition applies, feel free to find that in the rulebook and quote the page number.  

I will totally listen.

3e?  Do you think you're on the GITP forums, here?



Well, in any case, good luck with your game.

Quote from: Blackhand;624799What do you think?  Is dissolution the only answer?

To return to this original question as I have no interesting the details of what AD&D does and does not allow (as for me, it doesn't allow anything I want to do, and disallows much that I do want).


I'm amazed that here in the den of the "GM is King" mindset that anyone would contest the idea that you have the right to dissolve a group. The GM is under no obligation to run any campaign he does not enjoy, nor does he have to continue to accept players who will not conform to the requirements of his campaign.

He may not have players after setting his foot down, but really if the campaign isn't working I'd call that the best possible outcome.

I'd close the campaign and tell them I'll reopen it when you come up with new characters that fit it.*



*Actually that's not what I'd do. I'd look at all these players who want to run evil characters, and boot them out of my house and find new players.