Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Original Dungeons & Dragons Trivia
Well, after going off on the origin of computer & console role-playing games, I dug out some old PDFs I had of the original D&D rules, circa 1974. The books tend to reference the wargame rules from Chainmail, but it provides an alternate system for combat if you didn't have the wargames rules. (I don't, though Chainmail is available for only $4.00 as a PDF download from Paizo... yes, I'm a little tempted. When I have more time...)Since I was ripping a little bit on the simplification of the rules in many modern computer RPGs, I figured I should look once again at how the rules were structured in the three 34-page rulebooks where it all began. The rules, from what I can tell, are a roughly organized brain-dump of whatever Dave Arneson had in his notebook and in his head about the game. The books didn't really explain how to play - they assumed a working knowledge of wargames in general, and Chainmail specifically.
Some little bits of trivia for RPG players and game designers that might be a little interesting:
* The "level" of a monster was determined purely by its hit dice. Anything betweed 6 dice +2 and 7 dice + 1 was a 7th level monster.
* Experience Points were based on treasure gained multiplied by a factor of either the monster's level or the dungeon's level divided by your character level. So a 5th level adventurer looting 1000 gold pieces from a 4 Hit Dice monster (or if he found it on the 4th level of the dungeon, if it had no particular guardian) would get 1000 x 4 / 5, or 800, experience points.
* All attacks by players did 1d6 damage, regardless of weapon.
* There were no thieves / rogues: It was fighting-man, magic-user, and cleric. The only real purpose of Strength, Intelligence, and Wisdom were to increase or decrease the advancement rates of the class that depended upon it as a "prime requisite" stat.
* Monsters really only had six basic stats: Number appearing, armor class, movement, hit dice, % in lair, and treasure. Several had special rules in their descriptions (The wyvern had a poisonous stinger that it would use on a roll of 1-4 on a six-sided die... I guess if you were hit by it, you had to roll a saving throw vs. poison or die). The usage of the "% in lair" stat doesn't seem to be explained. With so few stats,
* NPCs cheated just like they do in computer games. From the rules: "Any monster or man can see in total darkness as far as the dungeons are concerned except for the player characters." (italics mine)
* There are lots of key rules that were included in this edition that were dropped in later versions - like rules for building a stronghold, naval combat, taxation, etc. It also seemed like players were pretty much expected to build their own strongholds at a certain level. Why they were expected to do this, I don't know, as all the action seemed to be down in the dungeons. But it did bring a nice taxation income...
Anyway, those were just some interesting tidbits from a guy who thinks about these kinds of things WAY too much.
Labels: Game Design, retro, Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 10:27 PM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
You might consider picking up the Chainmail rules if you're interested in the genesis of D&D. I remember my big brother had a copy of it, and if I remember correctly, there were some proto-RPG rules for fantasy combat in the final pages of the rules which act as a sort of lead-in to the original D&D books.
Woah, you actually have a copy of that.
I started with the famous "blue box" and moved into the classic, "Basic D&D". The rest as they say, is history.
I remember the GP = 1XP rule we used in our campaigns. By the time we got through some of our Monty Haul's, we'd be so uber that the ground would shake when we walked. Egad. :-)
As a both a major fan and theorist, what is your opinion of the D20 ruleset that was introduced around 2000? Do you like 3.0/3.5 edition ruleset? What don't you like about them?
./covert.c
I started with the famous "blue box" and moved into the classic, "Basic D&D". The rest as they say, is history.
I remember the GP = 1XP rule we used in our campaigns. By the time we got through some of our Monty Haul's, we'd be so uber that the ground would shake when we walked. Egad. :-)
As a both a major fan and theorist, what is your opinion of the D20 ruleset that was introduced around 2000? Do you like 3.0/3.5 edition ruleset? What don't you like about them?
./covert.c
Monty Haul. ProgressQuest. What's the diff?
The rules haven't changed. The game hasn't changed. It's either quantity or quality.
I remember reading in the Monster Manual for the first time what the "% in Lair" meant.
- "You enter a 30 by 40 ft room with.. (rolls dice) a kobold lair with (rolls dice) 58 kobolds. Roll initiative."
"Yeah, wouldn't the dragon next to this room eat these guys?"
"The dragon can't fit through the door."
"Oh."
The rules haven't changed. The game hasn't changed. It's either quantity or quality.
I remember reading in the Monster Manual for the first time what the "% in Lair" meant.
- "You enter a 30 by 40 ft room with.. (rolls dice) a kobold lair with (rolls dice) 58 kobolds. Roll initiative."
"Yeah, wouldn't the dragon next to this room eat these guys?"
"The dragon can't fit through the door."
"Oh."
I've seen Chainmail and browsed through the rules - I've a couple of friends who have it (the original or "collector's edition" print version). The evolution of the wargame to the modern RPG (Such as 3rd edition D&D, World of Darkness, etc) fascinates me.
And it's pretty dang cheap at $4. I'm just gonna have to buy all of the supplements if I go that route...
As to my opinion on D20 ruleset... I like it. We're playing D&D 3.5 right now. I like the flexibility of the game, though that has led to possibly too much complexity (and the amount of information that has to be tracked at one time). I don't like how combats take much longer in 3.0 / 3.5 than they did in the AD&D days (I come from the AD&D / Basic & Expert D&D days), but I do like how much more interesting and exciting the combats are. I like how a fighter is much more than "just a fighter" now.
There are a lot of factors, and some things that annoy me, but that's my quick take on D20. We keep playing D20 based games for simple expediency reasons (and for the same reason we were playing mostly Hero-system based games last decade) - the players don't have to keep learning new rules.
I'm also a fan of the new D&D miniatures game, though I haven't played much.
And it's pretty dang cheap at $4. I'm just gonna have to buy all of the supplements if I go that route...
As to my opinion on D20 ruleset... I like it. We're playing D&D 3.5 right now. I like the flexibility of the game, though that has led to possibly too much complexity (and the amount of information that has to be tracked at one time). I don't like how combats take much longer in 3.0 / 3.5 than they did in the AD&D days (I come from the AD&D / Basic & Expert D&D days), but I do like how much more interesting and exciting the combats are. I like how a fighter is much more than "just a fighter" now.
There are a lot of factors, and some things that annoy me, but that's my quick take on D20. We keep playing D20 based games for simple expediency reasons (and for the same reason we were playing mostly Hero-system based games last decade) - the players don't have to keep learning new rules.
I'm also a fan of the new D&D miniatures game, though I haven't played much.
Monty Haul. ProgressQuest. What's the diff?
Well, yeah. Though in a non-Monty Haul game, players would at least have to use some tactics to deal with the 58 kobolds or the dragon. Or preferably figure out how to get the dragon to eat the kobolds.
Actually - there's an interesting story there, that I'm afraid I'm going to totally screw up on the source of the story. Maybe it was Gary himself in an article. Anyway, Gary Gygax returned to GenCon (? Or some con) and was running some one-shots through his more famous modules (using the original 1E rules, of course). Players - many of them veterans who'd played through those modules back in the day - were getting SLAUGHTERED. So they asked him later what was going on, and why they did so poorly.
He answered that they were continually going up against challenges they weren't prepared for, and they were always trying to fight their way out. But the thing was, the old D&D games weren't designed to be "balanced" or so that the players could defeat every challenge. There were always other options that players HAD to seek in order for their characters to survive. Things like negotiation & parley. Like hiding or simply running away. Like NOT continuing to tinker with the deadly trap because they knew it HAD to conceal some kind of wonderful treasure.
Sure, you'd (eventually) clear out a dungeon level in these old games. But even then, it wasn't JUST about beating on every monster you found until they quit moving.
I've heard this attributed to the "videogame mentality." An unfortunate moniker, as a fan and developer of videogames, but it does kinda fit.
Well, yeah. Though in a non-Monty Haul game, players would at least have to use some tactics to deal with the 58 kobolds or the dragon. Or preferably figure out how to get the dragon to eat the kobolds.
Actually - there's an interesting story there, that I'm afraid I'm going to totally screw up on the source of the story. Maybe it was Gary himself in an article. Anyway, Gary Gygax returned to GenCon (? Or some con) and was running some one-shots through his more famous modules (using the original 1E rules, of course). Players - many of them veterans who'd played through those modules back in the day - were getting SLAUGHTERED. So they asked him later what was going on, and why they did so poorly.
He answered that they were continually going up against challenges they weren't prepared for, and they were always trying to fight their way out. But the thing was, the old D&D games weren't designed to be "balanced" or so that the players could defeat every challenge. There were always other options that players HAD to seek in order for their characters to survive. Things like negotiation & parley. Like hiding or simply running away. Like NOT continuing to tinker with the deadly trap because they knew it HAD to conceal some kind of wonderful treasure.
Sure, you'd (eventually) clear out a dungeon level in these old games. But even then, it wasn't JUST about beating on every monster you found until they quit moving.
I've heard this attributed to the "videogame mentality." An unfortunate moniker, as a fan and developer of videogames, but it does kinda fit.
Great stuff. I love those old books. I have the Player's Manual and Monster Manual from the early 80s, but I can't remember right now what edition that was. I loved flipping through them.
And I like your last comment there. You mean it's not all about hack 'n' slash?
And I like your last comment there. You mean it's not all about hack 'n' slash?
# posted by 
: September 06, 2006 3:24 PM
: September 06, 2006 3:24 PM
If they were called the "Monster Manual" and "Player's Handbook," and they were from the early 80's (original publication was in 1979 I think), then they are 1st edition.
Yeah - in my mind, hack & slash is just mindless dice-rolling - which is largely what many new players do. "What do I need to hit?" *ROLL*. It's kinda fun for a little bit, but it's basically "ProgressQuest." I want tactics. I want to outwit the enemy. I want non-combat options.
But I'm the kind of goober who likes to play a rogue, who loads up on unusual tools like alchemist's fire and a Hat of Disguise. :)
Yeah - in my mind, hack & slash is just mindless dice-rolling - which is largely what many new players do. "What do I need to hit?" *ROLL*. It's kinda fun for a little bit, but it's basically "ProgressQuest." I want tactics. I want to outwit the enemy. I want non-combat options.
But I'm the kind of goober who likes to play a rogue, who loads up on unusual tools like alchemist's fire and a Hat of Disguise. :)
Interesting stuff. I think the "Monty Haul" (or shoot-em-up videogame) mentality can exist in any system. We played AD&D like that for ages, but hey, we were thirteen. The system is quite irrelevant to how the players want to approach the game.
Once I graduated from Basic/Expert to AD&D (yes, it felt like convocation, a big moment in my RPG life), I went to a mini-convention and played my very first AD&D module : the famous S1 : Tomb of Horrors. That module is arguably the most well-known and controversial adventure in the entire AD&D canon, and seemed so UN-D&D to me. Eleven experienced and well-equipped adventurers intrepidly stepped through that spooky opening and were promptly slaughtered within forty minutes of our descent. Even though it was a miserable failure, I realised that there was more to this game than just tromping through stone corridors and annihilating everything that moved. In a way, I grew up a little, blooded by the depraved creativity of the module's author.
Anyone else have a similar experience with S-1?
I put down AD&D in my mid-teens, only to pick it up again in 2000, when 3.0 was released. I found a great group online and played their campaign for almost six years. I loved how 3.0 had progressed the game. I like the feats, the attack of opportunity, the increased combat precision. It seems to formalize all of the possibilities that have always existed in the game since back in the 1980's. If I were to say one bad thing about it, I'd probably echo Coyote's appraisal - combat can take quite a long time, and the bonusses and penalties are critically close to being unmanageable. I think computer-assisted automation could really help matters here. Perhaps we'll see the day where laptops are integrated into the game mechanics of a pen&paper system. I hope so. Eve further into the future, I think every tabletop gamer fantasizes about stuff like this!
Coyote's observation about the videogame mentality is very instructive when fed back into online RPG design. Today's games are basically on rails, linearly guiding the players along tracks of story or quests. Aside from the obvious combat-centric focus of old D&D campaigns, and their modern computer-mediated equivalents, is the basic linearity of our old D&D modules to blame?
Once I graduated from Basic/Expert to AD&D (yes, it felt like convocation, a big moment in my RPG life), I went to a mini-convention and played my very first AD&D module : the famous S1 : Tomb of Horrors. That module is arguably the most well-known and controversial adventure in the entire AD&D canon, and seemed so UN-D&D to me. Eleven experienced and well-equipped adventurers intrepidly stepped through that spooky opening and were promptly slaughtered within forty minutes of our descent. Even though it was a miserable failure, I realised that there was more to this game than just tromping through stone corridors and annihilating everything that moved. In a way, I grew up a little, blooded by the depraved creativity of the module's author.
Anyone else have a similar experience with S-1?
I put down AD&D in my mid-teens, only to pick it up again in 2000, when 3.0 was released. I found a great group online and played their campaign for almost six years. I loved how 3.0 had progressed the game. I like the feats, the attack of opportunity, the increased combat precision. It seems to formalize all of the possibilities that have always existed in the game since back in the 1980's. If I were to say one bad thing about it, I'd probably echo Coyote's appraisal - combat can take quite a long time, and the bonusses and penalties are critically close to being unmanageable. I think computer-assisted automation could really help matters here. Perhaps we'll see the day where laptops are integrated into the game mechanics of a pen&paper system. I hope so. Eve further into the future, I think every tabletop gamer fantasizes about stuff like this!
Coyote's observation about the videogame mentality is very instructive when fed back into online RPG design. Today's games are basically on rails, linearly guiding the players along tracks of story or quests. Aside from the obvious combat-centric focus of old D&D campaigns, and their modern computer-mediated equivalents, is the basic linearity of our old D&D modules to blame?
I have all 3 base rule books from 1974, and the Greyhawk supplement, and the Chainmail rules.
I started playing in 1979 and have been playing ever since.
I started playing in 1979 and have been playing ever since.
1979! You got me beat by two years. My very first D&D game was in April 1981. I got hooked on both D&D and videogames the same year. Hard to believe it's been so long...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
<< Home
