Page 7 of 12
Re: What MUST you include to be considered playing 1E AD&D
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:06 pm
by Matthew
One of my favourite off-stage sequences in
Hour of the Dragon involves a party of Zamorian thieves getting themselves wiped out in the process of acquiring various do-hickeys for the villains:
"Zamorian thieves, partly protected by spells I learned from sources better left unmentioned, stole your mummy-case from under the very talons of those which guarded it in the dark, and by camel-caravan and galley and ox-wagon it came at last to this city.
"Those same thieves--or rather those of them who still lived after their frightful quest--stole the Heart of Ahriman from its haunted cavern below the temple of Mitra, and all the skill of men and the spells of sorcerers nearly failed. One man of them lived long enough to reach me and give the jewel into my hands, before he died slavering and gibbering of what he had seen in that accursed crypt. The thieves of Zamora are the most faithful of men to their trust. Even with my conjurements, none but them could have stolen the Heart from where it has lain in demon-guarded darkness since the fall of Acheron, three thousand years ago."
I have been wondering lately if taking one thief to detect traps is the mistake, when with half a dozen you stand a much better chance of one of them spotting a trap or unlocking a box, or whatever. In the context of Gygax's "large parties" did it make more sense for the thief abilities to be so low on an individual basis (and they actually started somewhat higher in OD&D; you can download a comparative document here:
Thieving Ability).
Re: What MUST you include to be considered playing 1E AD&D
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:07 pm
by TRP
I never enjoyed the "screw your buddy" style of play. Yeah, yeah. I know it goes way, way back, so I don't need a lecture on it's "rich" history.
For my own games, I strive to present an exceedingly challenging milieu, such that, the players don't get bored and turn on each other for excitement.
Re: What MUST you include to be considered playing 1E AD&D
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:10 pm
by Matthew
TheRedPriest wrote:
For my own games, I strive to present an exceedingly challenging milieu, such that, the players don't get bored and turn on each other for excitement.
I once had a character pick up an evil NPC "henchman" who used to encourage him to steal from the party; does that count?
Re: What MUST you include to be considered playing 1E AD&D
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:14 pm
by TRP
Matthew wrote:TheRedPriest wrote:
For my own games, I strive to present an exceedingly challenging milieu, such that, the players don't get bored and turn on each other for excitement.
I once had a character pick up an evil NPC "henchman" who used to encourage him to steal from the party; does that count?
Could everyone in the party see this henchmen? His name wasn't Harvey, was it?
Re: What MUST you include to be considered playing 1E AD&D
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:18 pm
by Matthew
TheRedPriest wrote:
Could everyone in the party see this henchmen? His name wasn't Harvey, was it?
Ha! No, he was real alright, and well liked by the other players as it happened, but he was subtle in his methods; it came as a terrible shock to the party when he eventually betrayed them all! Indeed, my fiancée still contends that he must have been charmed or mentally dominated at the time.
Re: What MUST you include to be considered playing 1E AD&D
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:47 pm
by Geoffrey
Falconer wrote:I found, when I was running WG5, that the Thief class didn’t “work” with the module. I believe because those levels had been created for OD&D either prior to Sup. I and/or for groups that didn’t use that class, even though the published module is of course under the AD&D/WoG logos. Sorry I can’t be more specific (don’t have it with me right now), but it seemed like there were a lot of challenges which required outside-the-box thinking and were supposed to be adjudicated by the DM according to his judgment of how the players were reacting, or according to specific mechanics printed in the module, etc. When the players tried to send in the thief to roll his percentile checks and otherwise threw their hands in the air with this “I don’t have that skill” attitude, that was it. I had to sternly admonish them to forget what was on their character sheets and start using their brains.
Now, this confirmed for me what Foster has said in the past, i.e. that modules written without the Thief class in mind will be different from one that assumes their existence and writes challenges targeted at them.
[emphasis mine]
I much prefer that sort of thing to using the thief class.
Re: What MUST you include to be considered playing 1E AD&D
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:29 pm
by TRP
I think I'm going to restrict my next Advanced Dungeons & Dragon (1st Edition) game to human thief and cleric PCs only.
Re: What MUST you include to be considered playing 1E AD&D
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:33 pm
by Juju EyeBall
TheRedPriest wrote:I think I'm going to restrict my next Advanced Dungeons & Dragon (1st Edition) game to human thief and cleric PCs only.
How about only thri-kreen bards.
You could really shred on the lute with four arms.
Re: What MUST you include to be considered playing 1E AD&D
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:02 pm
by TRP
DungeonDork wrote:TheRedPriest wrote:I think I'm going to restrict my next Advanced Dungeons & Dragon (1st Edition) game to human thief and cleric PCs only.
How about only thri-kreen bards.
You could really shred on the lute with four arms.
Nah, bards aren't hated half as much as thieves and clerics.
Re: What MUST you include to be considered playing 1E AD&D
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:06 pm
by Juju EyeBall
TheRedPriest wrote:
How about only thri-kreen bards.
You could really shred on the lute with four arms.
Nah, bards aren't hated half as much as thieves and clerics.[/quote]
Ick. I'd prefer either instead of a bard.
Re: What MUST you include to be considered playing 1E AD&D
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:24 pm
by blackprinceofmuncie
Re: What MUST you include to be considered playing 1E AD&D
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:33 pm
by geneweigel
Next time a cleric tries to convert another player I'm just going to whack him upside the head with a chair...
Seriously, I don't know about this paring down to a nub. If you disregarded prep and post-game For instance, the MM only comes into play when not playing (design) unless something has been forgotten but the PHB and DMG are popped open more often....
You MUST have a player with a character that has AD&D-like detail either homemade, book or mag.
You MUST have a DM with an AD&D-like adventure homemade or module.
You MUST use the AD&D combat matrices, damages and saving throws either from the PHB and DM's guide and/or screen.
You MUST have AD&D-like spell descriptions and magic items either homemade, book or mag.
Is this rock bottom?
Re: What MUST you include to be considered playing 1E AD&D
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:09 pm
by Terrex
Excepting our brief introduction with the "Blue Book" (Holmes I think people here call it), AD&D is the only D&D we've ever played. The following have been present and in play for better than 95% of our games.
PHB (usually implying a player's perogative to play any of the characters and/or races inside)
DMG
MM
DM Screen (present at almost all our games throughout the years)
PC Miniatures (mainly Grenadier)
Polyhedra Dice (preferably Gamescience)
(For a time, UA made that list. But, we have since backed out of it).
In regard to the thief/assassin PCs, that option is engrained in our game. I would consider its removal a negative. The class has brought as much enjoyment as the others.
Re: What MUST you include to be considered playing 1E AD&D
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:16 pm
by ThirstyStirge
After 4 pages of this, I just feel sorry for the poor elephant we blind men are groping.
Re: What MUST you include to be considered playing 1E AD&D
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:22 pm
by Philotomy Jurament
ThirstyStirge wrote:After 4 pages of this, I just feel sorry for the poor elephant we blind men are groping.
Apropos YouTube video?
You're joking, right?!