Or at least what we now call Hardcore mode.
Mike Monard says in this post:
There were a couple of times where a wandering monster got surprise and achieved a TPK before the players could even react, and every time the referee said "Well that's not fun so it didn't happen."
Individual characters suffering bad luck happened all the time.
So bad luck to individual PCs? Fine.
Bad luck wipes out the group in a no-fun fashion? Restore from save, try again.
Interestingly, we played this way sometimes when we were younger, but as I got older I learned this was bad, bad, bad and I was "supposed" to have the TPK and have everyone start back up with new guys if they wanted to. Saying it didn't happen? Nah, bad idea. Except that apparently the Lake Geneva crew did that sometimes.
Interesting.
Thanks to Talysman for mentioning it, or I'd have missed the whole thread.
I saw that same post (also by Talysman's referral) and also considered blogging about it. It's a fascinating thread overall.
ReplyDeleteAlso saw it through Talysman. I greatly enjoy the discussions that Mike Mornard has had online regarding how the game was played "back in the day".
ReplyDeleteI do note that that restore didn't happen in every TPK, just in the ones that were "not fun", which looks like it meant ones where the players were not able to make any choices at all in regard to the tactical combat situation. That seems completely reasonable to me!
It's interesting that they didn't seem to consider alleviating the matter by modifying the rules (reducing the effect of surprise or whatever). Rulings, not rules. Totally old school.
Yeah. Although I'd have fixed the rules at some point. Although they clearly tried, and we ended up with the mess that was AD&D's initiative system. ;)
DeleteOr, one might even say, systems! I swear, there seem to be at least three different systems for determining initiative in those rules, all intertwined and only partly (and badly, at that!) reconciled.
DeleteI saw a similar sentiment about fudging dice from Tim Cask (I think) in a video with Michael Curtis at NTRPGCon. It surprised me and seemed kind of weak sauce. The rationale being have PCs killed is no fun for the players, and the point of the game is to have fun, since it is just a game. Maybe I'm paraphrasing badly.
ReplyDeleteI actually don't read this example as endorsing the position that character death is bad. Just that an entire TPK where nobody got to do anything is possibly bad. I agree with faoladh that it seems slightly odd that they didn't just tweak the surprise rules. Maybe such incidents happened infrequently enough that it was not a big deal.
DeleteThat's pretty much how I read it, too - only when it wasn't fun because no one got to do anything.
DeleteBut like I said above, we played that way occasionally when we were younger but as I got older, it was, well, too bad.
I think the platonic ideal of this sort of game is one in which PCs never die, but players are constantly afraid that they will. Obviously this is impossible of achievement: if no PC ever dies, players will notice. But the various solutions that GMs have come up with over the years can be quite fascinating...
ReplyDeleteYeah, I like that as a platonic ideal. Of course, it's too hard to hew to realistically - if there is a real threat of death PCs will die from a bad die roll or bad decision. You can't achieve 100% fear of death with 0% deaths. Generally in more plot-and-story arc games I'll dial down the lethality so death can happen but it's significant. In beer-and-dungeons games like I'm running now I'll dial up the lethality because death should happen. But yeah, if it was possible to exactly set "just enough threat of death" it would be an interesting way to play.
DeleteThere are some GMs (like myself) that don't care for killing off character most of the time. But as others have noted, it can't be impossible, or some of the fun goes away. There must be a risk of death!
ReplyDelete