Quote from: CRKrueger;912808You three should get a room.  Or at least say something instead of back and forth arguing about what may or may not have been said 5 pages ago.  When you spend more sentences on the personal attack, then you do on your actual argument, time to go.

We tried. But the idiot brigade needed more punting. :cool:

Is low level AD&D or even BX lethal? Depends on the group. Im pretty sure even 4e can be utterly lethal for the PCs if they are playing poorly.

Look at the Tomb of Horrors thread here. Look at the absolute variety in how players approached it and just how dismayed Gary was at how some players just marched their characters to their deaths. While others breeze through it because they thought things through.

Keep on the Borderlands is one of my favourite examples. It can be a real meatgrinder of a module. That is until you learn to think and take precautions, learn caution and learn that not every encounter is solved with sword and spell. Or more recently all the bitching about Hoard of the Dragon Queen by players who just charged everything and got wiped out. While the group I DMed for walked through the first section unscathed due to stealth and bluffing.

Gygax was dismayed at players for playing his game 'wrong' because of one module.  Because players treated their characters as what?  Monopoly pieces? Or not like a wargame, which D&D's ancestor was?

I always thought the strength of this hobby was it's ability to adapt to the play style of it's player base.  Silly me.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;912819Gygax was dismayed at players for playing his game 'wrong' because of one module.  Because players treated their characters as what?  Monopoly pieces? Or not like a wargame, which D&D's ancestor was?

I always thought the strength of this hobby was it's ability to adapt to the play style of it's player base.  Silly me.

There is a game you actually do play right?  You ever want to post about that instead of showing what an obsessed idiot you are about D&D gaming in a era in which you were demonstrably absent, ie. pre-2e?

In answer to your ignorant attack posed as a question, "how dismayed Gary was at how some players just marched their characters to their deaths" is the dismay every GM has when they see characters die due to no good reason at all other than players being stupid and not taking the simplest precautions.  Granted Tomb of Horrors is meant to be a death trap, specifically designed that way by a powerful undead wizard who wanted to be left alone, forever.  So, as a result, you may very well die anyway, but that's different than walking down a hall not even looking for traps, or just diving headfirst into anything your character will fit into.

If to you, "intelligence" is a playstyle, and games need to adapt to the "dumbass" playstyle, that explains oh so very much.

See Omega, balance.

Off topic. But its kinda interesting how classes and there HP have shifted over the years.

We went from everyone using a d6
to magic users having a d4, thieves with a d6, clerics with a d8 and fighters having a d10
to current where wizards use a d6, rogues use a d8 while clerics and fighters are unchanged. And the Ranger got a bump up from a d8 to a d10.

Quote from: Omega;912842Off topic. But its kinda interesting how classes and there HP have shifted over the years.

We went from everyone using a d6
to magic users having a d4, thieves with a d6, clerics with a d8 and fighters having a d10
to current where wizards use a d6, rogues use a d8 while clerics and fighters are unchanged. And the Ranger got a bump up from a d8 to a d10.

That's closer to the topic than what you and the other two have been yammering about, so let's focus on that, instead.

The thing about the original hit die progressions is that fighters get a d6 hit die every level, while M-Us get one every other level (to a point.) So, basically, M-Us have half as many hit dice as fighters. When Greyhawk switched to d8 for fighters and d4 for M-Us, it's basically just an easier way of getting the same result. It even removes the exceptions on the M-U HD progression, making it more regular, but at the cost of lowering max hit points at first level.

Clerics have an irregular progression, but it basically looks like it's trying for something halfway between the other two. When I was fiddling with the progressions to make them regular while still sticking to a d6 for everyone, I set clerics as +3/4 of a hit die per level. Again, Greyhawk's dice changes get the same result: 1d6 per level for clerics is 3/4ths of the hit dice of a fighter (1d8 per level) and between that and the M-U (1d4 per level.)

There is a copy of the pre-Greyhawk thief class floating around on the internet. They use the same progression as pre-Greyhawk M-Us, but without the quirks for higher-level M-Us. It's a straight 1d6 every other level. So, the Greyhawk thief uses the same progression as the Greyhawk M-U, 1d4 per level.

Later changes seem to be about upping combat effectiveness, but a side effect seems to be that for a while, there was less "clumping" (MUs, thieves, clerics and fighters each get a unique hit die type.) Eventually, rogues and clerics are made equivalent to one another, one step below fighters in terms of max hit points. The change in thieves/rogues, in my opinion, is because of the change in their combat role, from "non-combatant support personel" to "primary damage dealer". Not a change I support, though.

Quote from: CRKrueger;912833There is a game you actually do play right?  You ever want to post about that instead of showing what an obsessed idiot you are about D&D gaming in a era in which you were demonstrably absent, ie. pre-2e?

Assumption, because my play experience is nothing like your little special snowflake bubble?  Really?  Wow...  And a personal attack too.  Very nice. I've already detailed my experiences, which if you want to believe or not is not my problem.

Quote from: CRKrueger;912833In answer to your ignorant attack posed as a question, "how dismayed Gary was at how some players just marched their characters to their deaths" is the dismay every GM has when they see characters die due to no good reason at all other than players being stupid and not taking the simplest precautions.

That's not what was said.  Sounds to me like you're projecting...  Also, your next statement invalidates the entire above.

Quote from: CRKrueger;912833Granted Tomb of Horrors is meant to be a death trap, specifically designed that way by a powerful undead wizard who wanted to be left alone, forever.

Story-wise that's absolutely true, but people on this very site have said it was meant to punish players who used to brag about how they 'won' at D&D or had some obscenely high level character.  Which to me, and this is just a personal opinion, sounds like a giant 'Fuck You' to people who played the game differently than expected.  After all, most of the encounters were instant death ones.  It didn't matter ow many hit points, or how skilled the character was.  One screw up, one wrong choice, in a dungeon that did not warn you of this, time to roll up a new character/playing piece.

Quote from: CRKrueger;912833So, as a result, you may very well die anyway, but that's different than walking down a hall not even looking for traps, or just diving headfirst into anything your character will fit into.

But as I understood it, the best way to play it was to treat your characters as playing pieces, sacrifice a few to get to the end, map out and remember where X died.

Because if they 'roleplayed' which is how I would have done it way back when, due to how I was taught the game, using that sort of knowledge was considered metagaming and frowned on.  Worse, the next group of victims (and yes, that's pretty much what they are) could easily die the same way, over and over again, because this is a dungeon you can't 'trial and error'.  You screw up, done.  Make a new character.

Quote from: CRKrueger;912833If to you, "intelligence" is a playstyle, and games need to adapt to the "dumbass" playstyle, that explains oh so very much.

Seriously, I'm honestly a little confused.  I always considered Tomb of Horrors a 'bad' adventure (personal opinion, get those panties unbunched) because it ignored three main stats, Int, Wis and Cha (And your hit points see above.)  All three are not actually used, because the module tests it's players, not the characters.  Which again, to me (personal opinion), is something best left to board games (which they do very well), and frankly the best way to beat the Tomb is actually not go in.  The amount of risk involved for the amount of reward you can potentially get is, frankly, not worth it.

Now, I have no idea what you're wanking off about between 'Intelligence' and 'Dumbass', but, if I'm reading right, 'Intelligence' is about playing the game mechanically, like a board game (which frankly is the only way to beat Tomb of Horrors, assuming you even go into it), and 'Dumbass' is playing Elfric the Elf Cleric and this character, this 'role' a player is taking on to explore the Tomb...  Then, yeah, total dumbass here.  Because I'm an idiot who believes what the game is, because it says so on the tin:  A Roleplaying Game.

To be fair, the ranger used to start with 2d8 (the best starting HP, pre-barbarian) in AD&D.

Thing is, in the "everyone gets a d6" era, there was a huge difference in starting armor class, a 5 point difference being fairly common between The Class That Shall Not Be Commented On In A Negative Way and, say fighters and clerics (thieves being very dependent upon Dex to get that same spread, while The Class had a harder time having a high Dex, since a different stat was important). This effectively meant that everyone's staying power in melee varied quite a bit.

The Class having 3 hp, but a better than 50% chance of being hit, really was more vulnerable than, say, a fighter with 3 hit points, but only a 25% chance of being hit. The was arguably mathematically equivalent to having 6 hit points and no armor, especially in a system where it was very possible to take 1 point of damage in a melee attack.

By 5e, there's been a strong flattening of all this, where even kobolds (in a pack) have a very credible chance of hitting a heavily armored character, and hitting for less than 3 points of damage in melee is a fairly rare event against most monsters.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;912819I always thought the strength of this hobby was it's ability to adapt to the play style of it's player base.  Silly me.

Wait. How does a hobby adapt? I'm assuming you're not suggesting thousands of hobbyists must change and adapt what they love and are doing just because some people with different tastes comes along. I mean, if the hobby was building model airplanes, and some new model kits came along that do all the work for you, or are designs for planes that don't even exist, or are off in their proportions, that doesn't mean the old guard who enjoys building WWII era models from scratch has to stop what they're doing.

I want to believe you're not suggesting that. But in your bashing of Tomb of Horrors, no matter how many parenthetical notes you make about your personal taste, it's like kicking down the door to someone else's clubhouse, telling them they're doing everything wrong, then crying like a baby at their audacity to even exist and not accommodate YOUR preferences. Talk about projection! I mean, at the end of the day, if you don't like ToH, you don't have to play it. Nobody's forcing you. It's not like elves are coming in the night turning all your other game books into ToH. They're not easy to come by. I had to fork over $35 to get my copy.

I'm also not sure, why can't the player adapt to the game? You know, like it's a two-way street? When I think of the narcissism bred by the RPG form being so adaptable, I begin to question if on balance that hasn't proven to be weakness of the hobby rather than the strength. Speaking for myself, when I buy a module, I expect it to challenge what I'm doing and show me something new. Otherwise, why waste the money? I could have just kept on serving up more of the same of what we've been doing in my group. I also know Gary had said on more than one occasion that when it came to module writing, he tried to avoid repeating previous efforts. He was always trying to do something he'd never done before.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;912848Gygax was dismayed at players for playing his game 'wrong' because of one module.  Because players treated their characters as what?  Monopoly pieces? Or not like a wargame, which D&D's ancestor was?

QuoteStory-wise that's absolutely true, but people on this very site have said it was meant to punish players who used to brag about how they 'won' at D&D or had some obscenely high level character.  Which to me, and this is just a personal opinion, sounds like a giant 'Fuck You' to people who played the game differently than expected.  After all, most of the encounters were instant death ones.  It didn't matter ow many hit points, or how skilled the character was.  One screw up, one wrong choice, in a dungeon that did not warn you of this, time to roll up a new character/playing piece.

QuoteBut as I understood it, the best way to play it was to treat your characters as playing pieces, sacrifice a few to get to the end, map out and remember where X died.

QuoteBecause if they 'roleplayed' which is how I would have done it way back when, due to how I was taught the game, using that sort of knowledge was considered metagaming and frowned on.  Worse, the next group of victims (and yes, that's pretty much what they are) could easily die the same way, over and over again, because this is a dungeon you can't 'trial and error'.  You screw up, done.  Make a new character.

QuoteSeriously, I'm honestly a little confused.  I always considered Tomb of Horrors a 'bad' adventure (personal opinion, get those panties unbunched) because it ignored three main stats, Int, Wis and Cha (And your hit points see above.)  All three are not actually used, because the module tests it's players, not the characters.  Which again, to me (personal opinion), is something best left to board games (which they do very well), and frankly the best way to beat the Tomb is actually not go in.  The amount of risk involved for the amount of reward you can potentially get is, frankly, not worth it.

QuoteNow, I have no idea what you're wanking off about between 'Intelligence' and 'Dumbass', but, if I'm reading right, 'Intelligence' is about playing the game mechanically, like a board game (which frankly is the only way to beat Tomb of Horrors, assuming you even go into it), and 'Dumbass' is playing Elfric the Elf Cleric and this character, this 'role' a player is taking on to explore the Tomb...  Then, yeah, total dumbass here.  Because I'm an idiot who believes what the game is, because it says so on the tin:  A Roleplaying Game.

All of these comments indicate quite clearly that you literally know nothing about Tomb of Horrors. You're merely regurgitating, in telephone game-like fashion, what you've heard said about ToH.

Quote from: Lunamancer;912878All of these comments indicate quite clearly that you literally know nothing about Tomb of Horrors. You're merely regurgitating, in telephone game-like fashion, what you've heard said about ToH.

Welcome to the latest episode of "Brady Makes Himself Look Like An Idiot When He Talks About 1e D&D."

Quote from: talysman;912845The thing about the original hit die progressions is that fighters get a d6 hit die every level, while M-Us get one every other level (to a point.) So, basically, M-Us have half as many hit dice as fighters. When Greyhawk switched to d8 for fighters and d4 for M-Us, it's basically just an easier way of getting the same result. It even removes the exceptions on the M-U HD progression, making it more regular, but at the cost of lowering max hit points at first level.

Right. The OD&D oddity was how each class progressed in gaining HP. Though in AD&D there was the other quirk of where each class stopped gaining HD and just gained HP.

In AD&D a MU caps at level 11. Thats an average of 27 HP. Then +1/level thereafter. So a level 20 MU averages 36 HP. Compared to a 5e Wizard with an average of 72 hp. Even if you knocked it back to a d4 thats still 51 HP.
The AD&D Fighter meanwhile caps at 9. Average of 49 HP and at level 20 something like 82 HP. While the 5e one has 114 on average.
Neither of course factoring in any CON bonuses.

Meanwhile a huge ancient red dragon in AD&D has 11d8 HD and a total HP of 88 since age determines HP per die instead of rolling. A single AD&D fighter without any STR bonus might be able to kill it in 5-6 rounds. While the 5e red has 28d20+252 freaking HP! (average given is 546) A single fighter with a pumped up STR can kill it in about 10-12 rounds with a little luck. Two fighters can do the deed in 5 or so.

The real difference here is that the AD&D red dragon can kill the fighter in just one blast of flame breath. Two if he makes both saves. The 5e version can do about the same. But even on a failed save might not kill the 5e fighter in one shot. Or might.

At low levels is where you really see the differences. In AD&D theres no starting max HP and every possibility your CON isnt enough to rate. The fighter killed by a wizards familliar cat. how embarassing! :cool:

But even so you can mitigate the chances of being offed by pets or a stiff breeze with some prep and planning and maybe a ton of stealth and negotiation.

Quote from: Lunamancer;912878All of these comments indicate quite clearly that you literally know nothing about Tomb of Horrors. You're merely regurgitating, in telephone game-like fashion, what you've heard said about ToH.

I've read it, that's as far as I've gotten, I've never had the displeasure of playing it, or running it.

Quote from: talysman;912845Later changes seem to be about upping combat effectiveness, but a side effect seems to be that for a while, there was less "clumping" (MUs, thieves, clerics and fighters each get a unique hit die type.) Eventually, rogues and clerics are made equivalent to one another, one step below fighters in terms of max hit points. The change in thieves/rogues, in my opinion, is because of the change in their combat role, from "non-combatant support personel" to "primary damage dealer". Not a change I support, though.

Once the designers in their infinite lack of wisdom, decided that every class had to be roughly equal at combat, and said combat would be the focus of play then the whole reason for different classes went out the window. Every class became a fighter with a fighting style of (specialty here).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;912848Seriously, I'm honestly a little confused.  I always considered Tomb of Horrors a 'bad' adventure (personal opinion, get those panties unbunched) because it ignored three main stats, Int, Wis and Cha (And your hit points see above.)  All three are not actually used, because the module tests it's players, not the characters.  Which again, to me (personal opinion), is something best left to board games (which they do very well), and frankly the best way to beat the Tomb is actually not go in.  The amount of risk involved for the amount of reward you can potentially get is, frankly, not worth it.

[Yoda]  That is why you fail. [/end Yoda]

ALL games are for the benefit/challenge of the players. A character is not real, cannot think or reason, and thus cannot be challenged. Attempting to do so is a brain dead exercise in futility. What challenge is there to be had in and endless comparison of numerical values? Games are for the entertainment of the players. Any challenge that is experienced is likewise for the players.

Sitting around comparing numerical values might be amusing as an exercise in probability but its not much of a way to run an engaging role playing game.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;912913I've read it, that's as far as I've gotten, I've never had the displeasure of playing it, or running it.

Perhaps you should do so before yapping endlessly about it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;912913I've read it, that's as far as I've gotten, I've never had the displeasure of playing it, or running it.

Define "read it". Your comment about "playing the game mechanically" indicates you have zero familiarity with the module. Now if you equate glossing over it with your obviously shitty attitude towards the thing with reading, then yeah, I guess it's possible to read it and still be that clueless about what's in there. But for me, "read it" means actually reading the thing with the goal of understanding what's being communicated and doing so with at least a modest level of success.

As I mean the word "read" you clearly have not read it.

Chris reads D&D with hate tinted glasses so. So EVERYTHING Gygax says is read in the most negative interpretation possible.

And I'd still rather debate things with him than some of the others here because when not off on another anti-D&D crusade he actually makes sense and has valid points.

Quote from: Omega;912954Chris reads D&D with hate tinted glasses so. So EVERYTHING Gygax says is read in the most negative interpretation possible.

And I'd still rather debate things with him than some of the others here because when not off on another anti-D&D crusade he actually makes sense and has valid points.

I agree while i disagree with him regularly at time he strikes the nail on the head.