Illusions

[EOTB]

Right, at the beginning of the initiative section he also used the word colloquially.

Gary played AD&D for many years at tourneys. If getting surprise meant automatic Initiative (capital "I") in round 1, you wouldn't have to look it up in ADDICT because this application would have filtered down. (I have no idea what ADDICT says here, but if it does say that both parties don't roll dice at the beginning of round 1 I would strongly disagree with ADDICT).

If you want to run it that way, you can - just have the surprising party also get to act in segment 1 of the first full round - so another action in the row of uncontested actions. But there is no other answer to "what segment does the party with initiative go on if I remove the dice roll that normally tells me what segment they go on"

 

[Beoric]

(One Edition to rule them all...and in the darkness, bind them...)

Yes, your ongoing discussion with EOTB regarding initiative is convincing me of the grace and elegance of 1e. Keep it up.

 

[EOTB]

I presume that's satire (?) because I wouldn't say 1E is graceful and elegant. I don't particularly think grace and elegance is an overriding goal an RPG should be aiming for, necessarily. IDGAS about how it looks while the sausage is made. I care about tactical nuance and a lot of options that are really good ideas sometimes but also bad choices other times, with a baseline of other choices that are average often.

The whole elegance shtick that the OSR came up with a few years ago is form worship, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Malrex]

Also levied against me (as "bad" designer) is that all the magic items come with a flaw. I felt he was just feeling intolerance of set-backs.

AHA!!! *points the finger of blame*....YOU...YOU SQUEEN!!! I believe you said I was too nice in my adventures for magic items always lacking flaws..aha! yeah....players don't like 'gotcha' moments.......TAKE THAT! SUCKER!!!

For the record, I have started making more flawed items. *cough* but that's not my point!!

I think that Ring of Swimming is kinda cool and does place the importance on Identify and other spells to truly know the powers. However, my guess, is that one reason he got mad is expectations...he expected it to work BtB--so he felt like it was a 'gotcha' moment. Your other items--Crown of Earth, powerful staff, etc.---these are more appropriate in my opinion to have those flaws because they have never been identified or aren't in the book...whereas the Ring of Swimming--might be more of a 'general' magic item. Maybe calling it Ring of the Lagoon or something would of set up the idea that it might not work as intended.

If I'm totally honest, I think I would of rolled my eyes a little bit about the Ring of Swimming like your thief player did, but if it was a Ring of the Lagoon or if the mage was able to discern that it looked like a Ring of Swimming but had some different runes on it or whatever--it would of piqued my interest more, and I would of been kicking myself that I hadn't investigated the ring more closely before trying it out--so it would of been disappointment at myself, rather than the DM. Plus--it would make me look for instances where the flaws could actually be used in situations as boons, rather than just being disappointed that its not a true Ring of Swimming. Does that make sense?

I also like this idea of yours:
"The other bit of fun I'm toying with is presenting Ethereal Plane "natural resources" as treasure. Exotics to be harvested --- possibly more than once. Incentive to return? We'll see where that leads. "

This is cool. You can always have the: 'A wizard wants this special resource, blah blah blah' but I think having other things that are just kinda neat would make things interesting. Like..a special oil that burns like lantern oil but lasts longer..or other mundane things that are a step above the usual. Or maybe cool little crystals that coat armor to make it look spiffy--not a big deal or game changer, but may arouse curiosity of thieves or provide some later hooks or situa...I mean shit shows...later on.

 

[squeen]

@EOTB Understood. I misinterpreted the verbiage. I am still learning 1e. (and yet...makes a kind of sense to me...)

@Malrex I never called it a Ring of Swimming until after he put it on, transformed in an aquatic Lagoon Monster, and noticed the the ring had disappeared under his new green, scaly, skin. I just told him it was a silver ring with 8 fish in a circle. Smaller ones getting eaten by bigger one. He put it on.

My players really have no expectation about magic items. They don't look in the DMG, they've only played with me. I don't tend to have any "standard" magic except potions, scroll, and a few not-too-weird wands. The is absolutely zero expectation about rings, staves, armor, weapons, or other stuff. It's all "magical", often with a slow-reveal feature. Identify is very limited. Things just "are", they don't have "names" unless you give them one---or it tells you one via ESP.

My absolute favorite thing to do is have powerful magic items reveal more abilities to wearers of higher levels (a la Tolkien's Rings of Power) .

Lastest, with regard to "what players like"...you haven't been paying any attention to all the thousands of stupid posts I've written --- PLAYERS DO NOT KNOW WHAT'S GOOD FOR THEM!! THEY JUST WANT TO WIN.
E-V-E-N.......I-F......I-T......R-U-I-N-S.....T-H-E.....G-A-M-E.....P-E-R-M-A-N-E-N-T-L-Y ! ! !

DM: Hey player X...Do you want a Ring of Infinite Wishes? No catches!
Player X: Heck yeah!

 

[Malrex]

Ahh! Ok..then you played that right in my opinion!.

Oh, and I've been paying attention (although barely, I've been slammed for like 70 days now..), but not sure I agree. I don't necessarily play to 'win'. "Win" can have so many different meanings in D&D in my opinion. Do you actually 'win' in D&D? It's ongoing....I win if my character dies in glorious combat, or I win if my lame roleplay 'plan' somewhat works...I guess I feel I win if my character made some sort of impact before death or did something cool. The only time I feel I don't win is when I miss a saving throw and die of poison..heh. I hate that type of death.

The infinite wishes example doesn't do it for me..I'd be bored. Honest. I have more fun with the challenge of being 1st-3rd level.
Honestly, winning the game for me is having a mage who just reached 5th level and found the spell Fireball...lol.

 

[Beoric]

I presume that's satire (?) because I wouldn't say 1E is graceful and elegant. I don't particularly think grace and elegance is an overriding goal an RPG should be aiming for, necessarily. IDGAS about how it looks while the sausage is made. I care about tactical nuance and a lot of options that are really good ideas sometimes but also bad choices other times, with a baseline of other choices that are average often.

The whole elegance shtick that the OSR came up with a few years ago is form worship, as far as I'm concerned.

Ideally, the sausage shouldn't be made at the table.

I believe "elegance" in this context is used in a similar fashion to science, mathematics and engineering. It is a reference both to simplicity and effectiveness. A core mechanic is more elegant that 50 disparate subsystems if it is simpler than using 50 disparate subsystems and does the same job as or more effectively. It is more than merely "form worship".

 

[EOTB]

Beoric, who are you trying to convince? Me? Squeen? Who cares? I'm happy you're happy with your game. Snipe if you like, its not going to suddenly make me think elegance is something to care about.

Honestly, I do not understand the people who want to snipe when they see someone extolling their own game. I could understand getting pissy about people crapping on your game.

 

[The Heretic]

Beoric, who are you trying to convince? Me? Squeen? Who cares? I'm happy you're happy with your game. Snipe if you like, its not going to suddenly make me think elegance is something to care about.

Honestly, I do not understand the people who want to snipe when they see someone extolling their own game. I could understand getting pissy about people crapping on your game.

Hmm. I don't think he was sniping. Perhaps this is the inherent danger with internet. It's easy to read (or miss) intent that wasn't there.

I, for one, found his comment to be a neutral observation.

 

[EOTB]

Yes, your ongoing discussion with EOTB regarding initiative is convincing me of the grace and elegance of 1e. Keep it up.

You read that as a neutral observation that my conversation with Squeen was convincing him that 1E doesn't have 50 disparate subsystems, as opposed to gratuitous sarcasm from the gallery?

Whatever, I'll tune out the static. The whole point is that commenting on what you don't like is a waste of time, and that also includes my re-commenting on it.

 

[Beoric]

@EOTB I play 4e, I know all about people crapping on my game. It is not my intention to crap on your game, as I have said before I am interested in comparative mechanics; that is, I am interested in what mechanics in a game actually accomplish, as opposed to what people think they accomplish, and how different games handle the same problem, and what those differences in mechanics to the operation and feel of a game. It is just a difficult conversation to have when "analysis" is interpreted as "attack".

My comment to squeen was in response to his "One Edition to rule them all...and in the darkness, bind them..." comment, which I interpreted as being tongue in cheek reference to the ongoing discussion, and my response was intended to be the same. It is just gentle ribbing between (internet) friends, with no malice on either side.

To be clear, I am going to keep talking about mechanics, because I think mechanics matter, and because I think it is helpful to have a meta understanding of what mechanics do. It is likely that many of those discussions will involve 1e, because I know it better than LBB or B/X or 3e or 5e. I had many enjoyable years of playing 1e. I happen to prefer 4e, not because it is objectively better, but because it is better for me. I readily borrow or adapt systems from 1e when I think they will improve my enjoyment of 4e, which I can only do if I have an understanding of both systems and a meta understanding of what the differences in mechanics accomplish. When I ask questions about any system, including 1e, it is not because I am looking for things to criticize, it is because I am genuinely interested in knowing the mechanics and analyzing their impact on the game. I don' t know where that leaves us but I, for one, harbor no ill will.

 

[Malrex]

You read that as a neutral observation that my conversation with Squeen was convincing him that 1E doesn't have 50 disparate subsystems, as opposed to gratuitous sarcasm from the gallery?

Whatever, I'll tune out the static. The whole point is that commenting on what you don't like is a waste of time, and that also includes my re-commenting on it.

I could see his first response as being snarky......BUT then it was neutered, in my opinion by Beoric's second post about 'elegance', which makes me think he was being legit...but I don't want to speak for Beoric because maybe his intention was different.....DOH looks like he just responded...

BUT--I will say I do disagree with you EOTB on "the whole point is that commenting on what you don't like is a waste of time..." This may be true on other forums (a colossal waste of time, holy shit dont get me started) and I'm just a participant on this one with no power, but that's what is special about this forum in my opinion. I believe this forum IS about stating what you don't like. I don't view this as another forum...I view it as a school. I view it as a discussion. I view it as people having the balls to post what they are working on for feedback so they don't publish bullshit. I view it as a place for people asking questions. I believe people who actually post here are trying to learn something...to be better, no matter what edition. Whether its for publishing or just trying to be a better DM. And commenting on what you DON'T like is PARAMOUNT to helping people become better. That's why we are here---or at least I'm here.

I know I value your opinion greatly and others about what they 'don't like'...especially from other editions who may have a different or fresh viewpoint. It makes me think about other options...it makes me think in general.



In the end, we can always just come together and blame Bryce...

 

[EOTB]

For adventures sure - I want critical comment on content if I post it. Commenting on why someone disagrees with the 40 year-old game I play, that neither of us editorially control, doesn't help me.

I'm not engaging with it anymore. I'm just done with that mindset. And that's just a me thing, which is all I can manage.

 

[EOTB]

is just a difficult conversation to have when "analysis" is interpreted as "attack".

My comment to squeen was in response to his "One Edition to rule them all...and in the darkness, bind them..." comment, which I interpreted as being tongue in cheek reference to the ongoing discussion, and my response was intended to be the same. It is just gentle ribbing between (internet) friends, with no malice on either side.

Sorry - didn't see this earlier. You're probably right that it's difficult to have that conversation. And I'm not saying you shouldn't have it. I'm just not interested in hammer design discussion at a place I joined to talk about building houses. That's not on you, it's me. I don't spend a whole lot of time comparatively discussing rule sets, tend to avoid places dominated by those conversations, and didn't see this as that type of joint.

I can still participate here in the discussions I'm interested in having and filter out other stuff. So its fine.

 

[squeen]

The infinite wishes example doesn't do it for me..I'd be bored. Honest. I have more fun with the challenge of being 1st-3rd level.
Honestly, winning the game for me is having a mage who just reached 5th level and found the spell Fireball...lol.

@Malrex You are a mature player then --- a DM in disguise! I should preface my rant(s) with the fact that D&D tends to go to the dogs in the hands of undisciplined "youth". Unbridled wish-fulfillment comes in many forms. As DM/outsider, are the bridle. The dirty-little-secret is that challenging the players (at least the kind of player you want to be playing with) doesn't drive them away, it keeps them coming back. Honestly, I think if a solid (and un-fudged/ogre'd) 75% of all magic-items were malign, you'd still have players eagerly scouring the Oerth for the 25% that were beneficial.

Despite all the flawed creations, my youngest player still said recently she didn't care too much about wealth or XP/levels --- just wants the magic items.

My comment to squeen was in response to his "One Edition to rule them all...and in the darkness, bind them..." comment, which I interpreted as being tongue in cheek reference to the ongoing discussion, and my response was intended to be the same. It is just gentle ribbing between (internet) friends, with no malice on either side.

@Beoric That's how I took it --- my bad for the tiny-font trolling. I need to control myself. I knew my public stumbling through learning 1e could easily be seen as a systemic problem and not just my own stupidity. Sometimes, when I see the system working as intended, I get a heady rush. An affirmation that I am not failing as a DM and mucking D&D up through ineptitude. These small nuances (like the role that Wandering Monsters fulfill) --- well, they are both overt and subtle. No one latched on to it --- but that AHA! moment when (through player feedback --- and remember these are/were "virgin" players unpolluted by Internet Game Theory) I realized that wandering monsters that had not even appeared---were still subtly influencing play. Amazing!

That 1e takes a bit of practice to master is not a deterrent to me. Friends, I'm an engineer. I design aerospace control systems all day, every day. I LOVE a challenge (with a pay-off). I see that you (Beoric) have that kind of mindset too. A desire to take things apart and see what makes them tick---with no fear with regards to building your own widget. More power to you! Keep kicking the 1e tires. I don't mind. Someday I may return the favor with 4e, but for now I'm focused on a 0e --> 1e transition.

For adventures sure - I want critical comment on content if I post it. Commenting on why someone disagrees with the 40 year-old game I play, that neither of us editorially control, doesn't help me.

I'm not engaging with it anymore. I'm just done with that mindset. And that's just a me thing, which is all I can manage.

@EOTB You have been my Spirit Guide in finally learning AD&D properly for the first time. Despite having danced around it's periphery for over 40 years, I know (now) that I never really understood the Advanced game. Here, at K&KA, and all over the D&D blogosphere---you have been everywhere, a stanch defender of 1e and interpreter of rules. It's amazing to watch....and a heavy burden to shoulder. You have my sincerest thanks. If you want to take a load off, and rest for awhile...by all means, pull up a chair by the fire---in my book, you've earned it buddy. Try just being snarky, silly, and logically inconsistent for a while---takes WAY less effort.

(Sometimes that's the problem with heroes...people tend to rely upon them a bit too much. Hi Ho Silver, away!)

Ending with @Malrex again.

BUT--I will say I do disagree with you EOTB on "the whole point is that commenting on what you don't like is a waste of time..." This may be true on other forums (a colossal waste of time, holy shit dont get me started) and I'm just a participant on this one with no power, but that's what is special about this forum in my opinion. I believe this forum IS about stating what you don't like. I don't view this as another forum...I view it as a school. I view it as a discussion. I view it as people having the balls to post what they are working on for feedback so they don't publish bullshit. I view it as a place for people asking questions. I believe people who actually post here are trying to learn something...to be better, no matter what edition. Whether its for publishing or just trying to be a better DM. And commenting on what you DON'T like is PARAMOUNT to helping people become better. That's why we are here---or at least I'm here.

Well said! When I read this I wanted to stand up and applaud.

Welcome back (with a bang!). Been missing your stabilizing influence.

In the end, we can always just come together and blame Bryce...

Not it!

(seriously though...our benevolent overlord has been worryingly absence of late...hope all is well with The Lynch.)

 

[squeen]

OH...one last observation about the swim-ring-with-consequences.

I am calling it an unconditional success as a game-item because now---whenever the party gets into a tight spot---the other players "helpfully" suggest that the theif put on his "Ring of Swimming".

DM Mission accomplished! ;P

 

[Beoric]

Honestly, I think if a solid (and un-fudged/ogre'd) 75% of all magic-items were malign, you'd still have players eagerly scouring the Oerth for the 25% that were beneficial.

I've played in campaigns like this, and eventually learned that it was safer to do without magic items. At which point the DM started getting frustrated that I would never pick up his unique, carefully crafted magic items. Once in a while I would throw him a bone - and invariably end up with a cursed item that made my life miserable until I could get rid of it.

So you can go too far with this. My feeling is that, on balance, the rewards of picking up an unknown item must outweigh the risks, or you are going to lose interest. The same goes for the shiny red buttons Bryce is always talking about. No one is going to push the button if the DM has trained them that it is usually a bad idea.

 

[squeen]

I've played in campaigns like this, and eventually learned that it was safer to do without magic items. At which point the DM started getting frustrated that I would never pick up his unique, carefully crafted magic items. Once in a while I would throw him a bone - and invariably end up with a cursed item that made my life miserable until I could get rid of it.

So you can go too far with this. My feeling is that, on balance, the rewards of picking up an unknown item must outweigh the risks, or you are going to lose interest. The same goes for the shiny red buttons Bryce is always talking about. No one is going to push the button if the DM has trained them that it is usually a bad idea.

Sure. Balanced is better---good with the bad.

Also malign is probably too strong a word --- I prefer "quirky". My favorite "curses" are the socially awkward ones.

 

[The Heretic]

And here I thought this was a boring thread about illusions.

Except that knowing things approximately is fine for play, but wanting/demanding precise knowledge and small incremental (5%) advantages so you can play out the mechanic is a dull way to play. Realistically, you go through life without precise knowledge and are able to juggle nebulous risk. In most of the game, the dangers and modifiers are also unknown. "I am strong." "That guy's wearing platemail", etc. are enough. Then you try.

In my younger days I did a bit of experimentation with player knowledge. I came up with a scheme where the PCs would have a rough approximation of where their hit points were, similar to 4e's 'bloodied'* term, except that there were about ten categories to let the PCs know approximately where they were. I thought this would make the game more interesting for everyone.

Didn't work. The players were frustrated by the system and I was annoyed because I gave myself even more work as the DM.

 

[squeen]

How about monster hp --- do you reveal that?