Something about the Tower of Gygax at GENCON 2009 thrilled me. I hadn't had a feeling of "just play and ignore the rules" in a long time. You know, that feeling where every second of an experience is enjoyable. Well, with the exception of having to wait to play...Maybe it was the high-quality DMing (which in the Night Shift was beyond excellent), but I think there was something else at play. Another contributing factor that led me to enjoying that game was that it was based on the 1st Edition rules, which to me is (pretty much, at least to me) the original DND.
No, DNFND.
That game that makes you really think anything is possible, and even probable. Before Spelljammer. Before Dark Sun. Before feats, prestige classes, and even skills as we know them. Before weapon specialization and weapon speeds. Before minor actions. When casting haste actually aged your character.
Okay, so there is THAC0, which seems at first to be a hair-brained idea of a character's combat effectiveness. Actually, it makes the to-hit calculations simple. No adding a bonus if someone has used a daily power to buff those within 5 squares. No squares (necessarily).
Things we just simpler in those rules. Only thieves (not rogues) and monks could hide in shadows. Saving throws weren't tied to abilities. And bards were strange conglomerations of fighters, magic-users (not wizards or sorcerers), and thieves. Everyone needed different amounts of XP based on their classes; magic-users required more XP to advance in level, so they stayed frail and difficult to level for a long time. Everyone needed a party; there were no min-max characters because no class could do everything, and multi-classing was painful. So there was no need to define strikers and leaders.
These are a few things I find interesting about the game, but I forget the rest. Inspired by my GENCON experience, I have recently unearthed my old copies of a few of the 1st Edition sourcebooks, and bought a very nice copy of the Player's Handbook (replacing an aged copy) for $6 at my local used bookstore so I can research the old game and report on it.
I hope to take a moment every now and again and note elements I like (and those I don't like so much) about good ole 1st Edition (Advanced) Dungeons and Dragons.
Yep, DNFND.
2 comments:
I too was caught up in the excitement and the fantasy of Chris's Night Shift Tower of Gygax game, and hugely inspired. What Chris did was bring together many things that make a great DM. I'm glad to have seen them in a DM and am trying to do those things in my games.
He was engaging. He was dramatic. He was imaginative. He listened to each player as they took their turns with his full attention. These are all good communication skills both in and out of D&D.
He made adjudications quickly. He used the rules in ways that engaged you in the story or action. When you did something not covered by the rules he used good rules of thumb - like skill checks. He did like it says in the DMG - use the rules you like, ditch the ones you don't, and make up the rest. All classic advice for a DM, but it takes a confident DM to step outside constraining themselves with rules and really take that advice to heart.
He also ran the adventure, which happened to be a very 1st edition-feeling adventure, in a "tough but fair" way. You never felt he was out to get you even as he described how the gibbering mouther held you down while descending roof trap crushed you to death. I recently read a great article by Monte Cook about this very "Old Schoole" DMimg style, where the DM is more of a referee who's adjudicating the dungeon, not the player's adversary as often happens when the DM has written the material.
I liked it :)
And I have seen a good referee take these skills and techniques and run a great game under different systems - from 1st Ed. D&D to FASA Star Trek, to 3rd Ed. D&D. In my opinion, it's really more about how you DM than what system you're using.
Agreed. We've had some great 3.5 sessions and in other systems as well...
The key here is that 1st Ed didn't overspecify a lot of things (okay, it DID overspecify certain things, like weapon vs. armor tables, etc), so it let the DM just make decisions without the players saying "but on page 36 of the DMG, it says..." It also seemed to encourage the DM to know more than the players by putting a lot more info in the DMG than in the PHB. This to me encourages players to let the DM make stuff up and handle things their own way.
Thanks for the comment. Very good points.
Post a Comment