As far as not telling players about magic items goes: I try to use flavor and description to give them a hint. Sure the sword feels lighter-than-normal (+1), but in the presence of specific creature it becomes not only weightless in your hands, but it feels almost as if it is fighting for you, like it has a vendetta against that creature. Or you can go the ol Sting route and have it glow etc. I like to have a lot of fun with this and make the magic item really stick out in their minds without ever attaching a stat to it.
Very early on I had lost several characters. My newest character was not doing well in combat. That's when we found the "named magic sword". I decided to use it and suddenly I was doing great in combat. I was rolling hits very often and killed several monsters. I thought, what a great sword. I didn't find out until much later that it was a -1 cursed sword, I was just rolling really good. I later used the name of that cursed sword for what became my best character.
B/X is the first RPG I’ve ever refereed. I love how simple the rules are relative to later iterations of DND. Some friends and I had a blast the other night just goofing around in an adventure module. Thanks for making these videos :)
I think you can judge the smoothness of a game and elegance of the rules simply by looking at character creation and the character sheet. So many of these modern games have 4 page character sheets and myriad abilities, skills,and feats to cover every situation. Half the game is spent looking through the sheet for the ability. I can roll up a basic character in under 10 minutes and have way more fun actually playing. And a good DM can create a mood or tone. You don't need a raft of meta-gaming mechanics like you have in say, "The One Ring," or "Conan."
I agree for most instances, but with The One Ring in particular, the flavor of the game is really all about the odd mechanics like councils and journeys and Yule and such. Now, if that’s not the kind of game you’re interested in, I definitely get that, but I think TOR is great at the experience it’s aiming for.
I'm enjoying the BX videos. I especially liked the one where you created an adventure. Anything I can find about a GM's creative process I like to watch because everyone has different styles and procedures. Since I'm looking to get that old school feel in my games these are really helpful. Also, 100% agree on that last rule.
A way I tried for keeping track of a magic weapon is this: make up a description and let the player give it a name; now the dm in his little diary has a name for that particular weapon. Next time the character uses it, it will not just be an attack, it will be a slit with harjelt, the sword with the rune of death on it. The dm will check his diary and know that the player needs to add the bonus to his attack, revealing the weapon.
One of the best campaigns I was ever in, my character and another got into a duel. His died, and the group exiled mine and we both brought in new characters (on level with the party, as was this GMs style) and the table dynamic was better than ever from that moment forward
Great video as always. Regarding the bad advise, I find fascinating the way real life and game life were entangled in those days. Almost as if the game was capable of bringing the magic in the real world. A gold dragon that can fix an argument between two rela people. That's some good shit ahhhaahha!
I'm really enjoying your exploration of BX/OSR mechanics, houserules, and gamemastering. Back in early 1981 a buddy gave me a copy of Moldvay basic and I figured it out on my own and ran it for a while and then transitioned, as many did at the time, to a hybrid game between BX and AD&D. I've played BX, AD&D(1e), AD&D(2e)(briefly), D&D 3e, 4e ((briefly) and now 5e. I've run a little S&W, a bit of OSRIC, and a fair bit of LL. I'm playing 5e in a game run by one of the guys I learned to play BX/AD&D with years ago and he's playing in my LL campaign. The style of play found in old-school games still holds appeal for me now: simplicity, flexibility, and adaptability. I think that, like a box, OSR rules merits are as much defined by their rules as by what they don't have rules for. The negative space is filled by the players.
The thing I like the most about old school, at least as far as my recollections and experiences, is that the rules were much less involved and explicitly did not even attempt to cover everything. The best times were when players would discover the game as they developed their characters, there was real creative vibe and a true sense of adventure and mystery. I LOVE level 1 campaigns with new players in a new system. The "better" games gave rise to metagaming and rules lawyering and sucked the life out of running games for me.
Agreed. I like rules that get out of the way. Nothing takes me out of a game like stopping to look up how a fiddly rule works then having a debate about it.
Was first exposed to D&D in 1978 at age 7. Watched an older brother of a friend playing with his friends in the basement of their house. I later started playing in 1981 after having made a cross country relocation due to my father's promotion. Lost my friends group and picked up the basic set at Walden Books with some allowance money. Read the books and started playing with a couple of buddies at the new school. We were all self taught D&D basic players that went on to play Expert set then AD&D. Played every week each summer break and scattered throughout the school year from age 10 until 15 or so. Tried playing once in college but the DM was stingy with treasure and adversarial. Saw where it was headed after 3 sessions and said nope. Watched that group play an entire year and fighters only got to level 3. Yeah... NO. Don't know why some DMs are like that, but they're out there.
The Gold Dragon example is a good example of how we see these (awesome, admittedly) old rules sets through rose tinted glasses sometimes. I love b/x D&D and Original/0e D&D, warts and all, but there are definitely multiple warts, and one good thing to be said about modern OSR games that emulate this style is they're written and edited by folks who benefit from the fifty years that trpgs have existed. Moldvay was doing his best and hitting it out of the park for the most part, but he truly was a pioneer in the field of trying to present a basic game, following in Dr. Holmes' footsteps as best he could, but not truly refining the concept yet.
It is funny though how on so many RPG forums people will give very similar advice to that even today. I’m not sure why the “talk to your friends out of the game” method seems so odd people. And these are people who have never played these old games so they’re not getting it from there, maybe it’s human nature.
Charging with a sword makes sense, but charging with a spear should be better if the same warrior ever has an opportunity to compare the two side by side. I like the idea of being a little flexible on this. I'm reminded of how my little brother used to play a jester-warrior who would hold swords by the blade and pummel people with the hilt, just trying to be silly as a kid. Much later I found out this was a legitimate sword technique used to defeat heavily armored opponents when a mace, maul, or warhammer wasn't handy, turning the hilt into an improvised mace (and not only is this usually done while wearing gauntlets to mitigate self-harm, proper holding technique will also mitigate getting cuts on your hands while doing this).
"You can't charge with a sword" Top kek, swords could be blunted in low down of the edge to give you a handhold relatively similar to a spear, that is unless the handleitself is long enough to give a decent grip!
Characters not knowing things. Yes I agree that they shouldn't know many things going on in the campaign. I did however ask my DM one time if I had heard any rumors about an event that happened some time in the past. He had to think about that. It was a prominent figure. He was prone to bragging. So the next session he did give us some information which clued us in on some events that happened. That wasn't enough for us to know everything but it was enough for us to "suspect" what may have happened. We never were able to act on it but it did give the DM some ideas I'm sure.
My favorite part of the old school play has to be how spontaneous and living the dungeon and exploration aspects are I’ve been wanting to try incorporating more old school hardcore exploration into my games. Any advice on how to make exploration more fun?
I’ve got a few videos where I talk about exploration, but in a nutshell, I think you need to make it challenging for the players, but not overly aggravating or they will get frustrated. I personally find not using skill checks to be the best option, and just talk through everything with the players, so they are engaged, let them find things when they look, etc.
I like the idea of trying to be a master of the basics. I think this is a good refesher. On magic items, I let the players mess with the item and once they have used it, they know if it has "unknown abilities", but not what they are. So if they had a "sword +1/ +4 vs giants" for example, they would figure out it was +1 pretty fast. At that point they would know they had a "sword +1, with another unknown ability". After that they will try to figure out what the extra ability is at almost every opportunity.
@@BanditsKeep In larger cities they may be able to have an item researched. When my kids were learning on 5e when it first came out, they had a warhammer +1 that had an unknown ability, so they had it researched and found its special ability was that it enabled its user to cast thunderwave 3 times per day. They also found out who used to own it. Much to my surprise they never used it and instead went on an overland journey to return the hammer to the Dwarves that lost it. I have identify as a spell in game, but I have them roll for it to do anything, and it won't tell you anything about the lore of the item, just what it is and does.
I'm not a fan of "there's always a chance" as stated in the book because it can encourage a party to attempt stupid things because each one of them has a low chance but if they all make an attempt there is a good chance one of them will succeed. It's okay if there is a consequence to failing, like the jumping into the chasm example. But if the only consequence is time passing then players will continue to make attempts because for the player the time passes instantly. For example: the player wants to hook the bars on a high window with a rope, and the DM rules that there is very little chance of it happening, let's say 1 in 20, then there is nothing to stop the player saying they will keep trying over and over until they succeed. Obviously there may be a chance of wandering monsters, but to the player getting to that window may have a reward that far exceeds 2-3 random encounters, such as bypassing a large section of the dungeon or getting a valuable prize. The thing to remember is that to a real person in that same situation, they are likely to conclude that there is no chance of succeeding, rather than 1 in 20, particularly after a few attempts. So if the probability is so low that a reasonable person would conclude it is near impossible, I tell the player it is impossible. Another way of thinking about this is that the 1 in 20 is the chance of success over infinite attempts, so the first time the player fails the roll they can never succeed. This can be made more realistic by saying that it is a 1 in 20 chance at it will take 1d20 hours. Obviously I am not a never say never DM. I just don't generally allow long shots unless there is a consequence to failing.
The way that you’re describing it at the end is more or less how I would do it. I would say this is extremely difficult do you have a 1 and 20 chance and that’s all you have one chance to make it and it’s going to take X amount of time. As long as you are upfront with them before they make the call which I believe is the point of that letting the players know what exactly the odds are. That being said I don’t necessarily agree with you, I like the idea of players avoiding areas of the dungeon and being creative like that, also in most of my games one or two wandering monster checks will almost certainly wipe out the party LOL so they are scared of them
I had a 5e campaign and the chaotic evil Dragonborn sorcerer was getting out of hand with an NPC and the NPC was of a level they did know and some of those levels were Druid, so I had the NPC polymorph the offender into something harmless so the adults could talk, and then a more veteran player in the group beat me to it, lecturing the player on why not to sabotage the party's efforts, murder every NPC, and you sure as heck better not try that crap on your fellow party members or we just won't play with you. Some in-character friction is one thing, but we don't do PvP. He won't play in a game with that person, he doubts the other player (her sister) would, and I won't DM for that. It really didn't have to get very far into it before she apologized and changed her alignment to CN, which we told her she didn't have to do, but she said she felt it was better so she wouldn't be tempted to backstab the party of she got really into character. There is a fine line with in-character grudges, and I generally always warn my players about this, and they will get a warning if crossing the line, but everyone needs to be on board if you intend this to be part of the game, otherwise no intra-party grudges. And no PvP. I've had an in-character grudge match go too far before when i was a player, and I've no desire for any of my players to go through that.
To be clear, the polymorph wasn't punishment for the player. In game, the PC was trying to be sneaky and steal and actually I think she was trying to backstab, an NPC who would likely know of her presence and have the power to do something about it. If anything, I fudged so the party didn't suffer for their companions actions as would have been reasonable, because they needed information the NPC had, and only one player was acting up.
@Bandit's Keep yeah, these days mostly my main group is my two daughters (who are polar opposites) and an old gaming buddy of mine who despite being younger has actually played d&d longer (it was the Satanic Panic years, I got to read them and play solo, but it wasn't til I met this guy in college that I got to play with a group, although I played Star Wars, Warhammer FRP, Shadowrun, Rifts, and White Wolf stuff). My second group meets more rarely and is entirely old grognards.
What do you think about putting the word out on your channel about a reprint of Basic / Expert? I contacted WotC and asked for a reprint through DrivethruRPG but if a thousand people asked for it...
I believe the PDFs are already there, you could just print it through Lulu that’s what I did. I’m not sure they care that much about older systems. I think their focus of the modules
@@BanditsKeep I contacted drivethru they said I'd have to ask WotC which I did. I got the boiler plate response but I figure that if enough of us wanted prints they would take the money. Lots of people asking for a print copy in the comments section under the B/X book at drivethru...
Gold as XP put me off until it clicked that it was supposed to be used and managed as a resource. The Gold dragon referee, was trying to handle it "in game", not the best advice.
You don't need to drop the Immersion when telling them odds of survival though, they should just be told, it is a bottomless drop! Then they will figure it out. Though I am unsure fully about telling certain information for stats, numbers, and odds with dice rolls. You need to know what you can do as a Player, and we need feet and distance for shooting bows and magic, time and duration for torches, and many other factors players know already and anyway. But sometimes mayhaps we just need to say, 500-foot drop, and call that enough to explain to them if anything...or maybe they need to know more. Our system is particular about distances and measure, so I don't know fully where I stand there. I do think they should not know some factors on possibility though. Like pushing a trapdoor with a whole lot of force, and then discovering it is weak and breaks easily, or is an illusion and you push right through even though you let the player make a strength roll for it. Also, I have here my copy of Froissart, medieval chronicler of the 1300s, and at least one guy couched a sword like a lance and charged. But in system terms, I get your questioning and hesitation.
I firmly believe in letting the players know the odds - however you do that is fine, but a players should not think they have a good chance of jumping a chasim only to have the DM say " oh, you can't jump that far, roll a new PC". In the case of the trap door, it would depend on how much they took the time to investigate.
@@BanditsKeep Oh I am totally there for not cheating the Players on what they can do simply. And knowing your own capability and what the situation really looks like, is a lot of system design I have been doing lately myself because that is a part of the game, and my system needs and relies on a lot of knowns. But, though I cannot think of every situation where it may be a case, I am afraid there will be a point where the Player should not know the odds, just as they should not always know the results. In modern D&D, you roll to hit a DC or target number with Charisma score, based on DM and situation, for persuading the Town Master. Rulings over rules, and simply knowing what kind of character the Town Master is...he is secretly a Dungeon Master, but doesn't tell the PCs until they are trapped in the Dungeon...helps to even resolve without dice rolls like you said. Sometimes with hidden intentions you should not know the DC to hit with your roll and odds of persuading the manipulative Town Master in one thing or another if a roll is decided to be the best way of handling things...And yes, OD&D, roll under Charisma, if DM adjudicates and so forth. But just from a general way I am not sure if every occassion they should know the odds fully. Sometimes risk is a part of the game, even though every die roll is already a risk, and they know it. Letting them try when there is a possibility, but they should not let odds influence too heavily, as much as Roleplay and what is in front of them, is a thing that worries me. I see it your way...I debate between the two. I think I am going to stick to what I know, make the Players know the odds by what information they can glean as Characters before Players, but let the Players know the full truth so they are not ill-informed, and make a decision they otherwise wouldn't. My system will let them know if they can make a jump...if they can see the distance and percieve the edge. Otherwise, let them gamble with unknowns if their Character faces such. Thanks for these videos as always. I really do appreciate them. /\ /\/\/\ The primordial nature of OD&D and your thoughts and analysis gives me a moment to consider these things in our work. It is appreciated. And enjoy the pit trap you fell in. ( : = --\-----
@@mitchellslate1249 I think we are on similar if not the same page here. From my point of view the player is not really the character and thus it is sometimes hard to adjudicate what they would “know” 500 foot drop - sure they’ll die, you can explain it like that (500 foot drop). But what about rotted looking bridge? Fast moving water? Heavy (or light) foliage - for sneaking. We stay in game as much as possible but if the players say “can I swim across the rapids?” I’d let them know mechanical how to do it. Would I tell the chance to manipulate the barkeep - nope. Would I tell them more than “with only light cover sneaking will be difficult” maybe - probably depends on their level and if they’ve encountered similar situations
@@BanditsKeep Sorry I was unable to reply to this earlier, but I do agree there too. And I have seen the moment of confusion when the rapids are said, but we forgot DEADLY rapids, or need to explain more detail of many, rushing, and sharp rocked rapids with depth and uncertain flow...Yeah, there is an argument to be clear always...To be clear. Lol!
I guess it depends how common magic is in your setting but you could make those with the skills to reliably assess magic items to be rare and or extremely expensive. Those on the cheaper end of the scale should be much less reliable & prone to erroneous identification or to be outright charlatans.
You know the grudges part is terrible advice, but the funny thing is the perspective we all see is not what they are talking about. The text isn’t talking about tender feelings between people in real life, it’s talking about the characters, look at their example - it’s in game. They are talking about a chaotic and lawful character who can’t work together anymore and the book is giving advice on how to keep them playing. Think about it 🤔
I understand that, I just think that talking to somebody out of the game is just an easier way to deal with it. That being said this version of DND was really targeted at younger people and maybe it’s easier for you to have a dragon step and then have a “adult” conversation with your 12-year-old buddies.
![[UNCUT] ฝันรักห้วงนิทรา | EP.8 (4/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RDYJYiDwsj0/mqdefault.jpg)
As far as not telling players about magic items goes: I try to use flavor and description to give them a hint. Sure the sword feels lighter-than-normal (+1), but in the presence of specific creature it becomes not only weightless in your hands, but it feels almost as if it is fighting for you, like it has a vendetta against that creature.
Or you can go the ol Sting route and have it glow etc. I like to have a lot of fun with this and make the magic item really stick out in their minds without ever attaching a stat to it.
Nice!
Very early on I had lost several characters. My newest character was not doing well in combat. That's when we found the "named magic sword". I decided to use it and suddenly I was doing great in combat. I was rolling hits very often and killed several monsters. I thought, what a great sword. I didn't find out until much later that it was a -1 cursed sword, I was just rolling really good.
I later used the name of that cursed sword for what became my best character.
😂 nice!
I did not comment on this video until now. Just want to let you know I am already rewatching this video for the third time.
Awesome
B/X is the first RPG I’ve ever refereed. I love how simple the rules are relative to later iterations of DND. Some friends and I had a blast the other night just goofing around in an adventure module. Thanks for making these videos :)
Awesome
Bandit's Keep videos are always great.
Thank You!
I think you can judge the smoothness of a game and elegance of the rules simply by looking at character creation and the character sheet. So many of these modern games have 4 page character sheets and myriad abilities, skills,and feats to cover every situation. Half the game is spent looking through the sheet for the ability. I can roll up a basic character in under 10 minutes and have way more fun actually playing. And a good DM can create a mood or tone. You don't need a raft of meta-gaming mechanics like you have in say, "The One Ring," or "Conan."
I tend to agree, sometimes I do enjoy the “crunch” but generally I lean towards simpler games
I agree for most instances, but with The One Ring in particular, the flavor of the game is really all about the odd mechanics like councils and journeys and Yule and such. Now, if that’s not the kind of game you’re interested in, I definitely get that, but I think TOR is great at the experience it’s aiming for.
I'm enjoying the BX videos. I especially liked the one where you created an adventure. Anything I can find about a GM's creative process I like to watch because everyone has different styles and procedures. Since I'm looking to get that old school feel in my games these are really helpful.
Also, 100% agree on that last rule.
Awesome, I’m glad you are enjoying these.
A way I tried for keeping track of a magic weapon is this: make up a description and let the player give it a name; now the dm in his little diary has a name for that particular weapon. Next time the character uses it, it will not just be an attack, it will be a slit with harjelt, the sword with the rune of death on it. The dm will check his diary and know that the player needs to add the bonus to his attack, revealing the weapon.
Good idea!
One of the best campaigns I was ever in, my character and another got into a duel.
His died, and the group exiled mine and we both brought in new characters (on level with the party, as was this GMs style) and the table dynamic was better than ever from that moment forward
Cool
Keep making videos about the B/X era.
That’s my plan 😊
And you have absolutely stuck to that plan! Congrats on the channel's success!
Great video as always. Regarding the bad advise, I find fascinating the way real life and game life were entangled in those days. Almost as if the game was capable of bringing the magic in the real world. A gold dragon that can fix an argument between two rela people. That's some good shit ahhhaahha!
Indeed
I'm really enjoying your exploration of BX/OSR mechanics, houserules, and gamemastering.
Back in early 1981 a buddy gave me a copy of Moldvay basic and I figured it out on my own and ran it for a while and then transitioned, as many did at the time, to a hybrid game between BX and AD&D.
I've played BX, AD&D(1e), AD&D(2e)(briefly), D&D 3e, 4e ((briefly) and now 5e. I've run a little S&W, a bit of OSRIC, and a fair bit of LL.
I'm playing 5e in a game run by one of the guys I learned to play BX/AD&D with years ago and he's playing in my LL campaign. The style of play found in old-school games still holds appeal for me now: simplicity, flexibility, and adaptability. I think that, like a box, OSR rules merits are as much defined by their rules as by what they don't have rules for. The negative space is filled by the players.
I agree
I would love to have a DM like you.
That is a very nice complement, thank you.
The thing I like the most about old school, at least as far as my recollections and experiences, is that the rules were much less involved and explicitly did not even attempt to cover everything. The best times were when players would discover the game as they developed their characters, there was real creative vibe and a true sense of adventure and mystery. I LOVE level 1 campaigns with new players in a new system. The "better" games gave rise to metagaming and rules lawyering and sucked the life out of running games for me.
I agree, the simpler games give you more room for creativity IMO
Agreed. I like rules that get out of the way. Nothing takes me out of a game like stopping to look up how a fiddly rule works then having a debate about it.
Was first exposed to D&D in 1978 at age 7. Watched an older brother of a friend playing with his friends in the basement of their house. I later started playing in 1981 after having made a cross country relocation due to my father's promotion. Lost my friends group and picked up the basic set at Walden Books with some allowance money. Read the books and started playing with a couple of buddies at the new school. We were all self taught D&D basic players that went on to play Expert set then AD&D. Played every week each summer break and scattered throughout the school year from age 10 until 15 or so. Tried playing once in college but the DM was stingy with treasure and adversarial. Saw where it was headed after 3 sessions and said nope. Watched that group play an entire year and fighters only got to level 3. Yeah... NO.
Don't know why some DMs are like that, but they're out there.
Yeah, I don’t understand that style myself - unless everyone at the table says they want to stay low level
I find there is much valuable information in this video series - both from Moldvay and your commentary!
Thank you!
Thanks, I appreciate the kind words.
The Gold Dragon example is a good example of how we see these (awesome, admittedly) old rules sets through rose tinted glasses sometimes. I love b/x D&D and Original/0e D&D, warts and all, but there are definitely multiple warts, and one good thing to be said about modern OSR games that emulate this style is they're written and edited by folks who benefit from the fifty years that trpgs have existed. Moldvay was doing his best and hitting it out of the park for the most part, but he truly was a pioneer in the field of trying to present a basic game, following in Dr. Holmes' footsteps as best he could, but not truly refining the concept yet.
It is funny though how on so many RPG forums people will give very similar advice to that even today. I’m not sure why the “talk to your friends out of the game” method seems so odd people. And these are people who have never played these old games so they’re not getting it from there, maybe it’s human nature.
Thanks, really enjoying your channel.
Thank you 🙏🏻
This is such a great series love the videos mate
Thank You!
Charging with a sword makes sense, but charging with a spear should be better if the same warrior ever has an opportunity to compare the two side by side. I like the idea of being a little flexible on this.
I'm reminded of how my little brother used to play a jester-warrior who would hold swords by the blade and pummel people with the hilt, just trying to be silly as a kid. Much later I found out this was a legitimate sword technique used to defeat heavily armored opponents when a mace, maul, or warhammer wasn't handy, turning the hilt into an improvised mace (and not only is this usually done while wearing gauntlets to mitigate self-harm, proper holding technique will also mitigate getting cuts on your hands while doing this).
Indeed
"You can't charge with a sword" Top kek, swords could be blunted in low down of the edge to give you a handhold relatively similar to a spear, that is unless the handleitself is long enough to give a decent grip!
Indeed
Characters not knowing things. Yes I agree that they shouldn't know many things going on in the campaign.
I did however ask my DM one time if I had heard any rumors about an event that happened some time in the past. He had to think about that. It was a prominent figure. He was prone to bragging. So the next session he did give us some information which clued us in on some events that happened. That wasn't enough for us to know everything but it was enough for us to "suspect" what may have happened. We never were able to act on it but it did give the DM some ideas I'm sure.
Awesome
My favorite part of the old school play has to be how spontaneous and living the dungeon and exploration aspects are I’ve been wanting to try incorporating more old school hardcore exploration into my games. Any advice on how to make exploration more fun?
I’ve got a few videos where I talk about exploration, but in a nutshell, I think you need to make it challenging for the players, but not overly aggravating or they will get frustrated. I personally find not using skill checks to be the best option, and just talk through everything with the players, so they are engaged, let them find things when they look, etc.
I like the idea of trying to be a master of the basics. I think this is a good refesher. On magic items, I let the players mess with the item and once they have used it, they know if it has "unknown abilities", but not what they are. So if they had a "sword +1/ +4 vs giants" for example, they would figure out it was +1 pretty fast. At that point they would know they had a "sword +1, with another unknown ability". After that they will try to figure out what the extra ability is at almost every opportunity.
Nice! Do you have Sages or bards they can seek out to find the lore of the items?
@@BanditsKeep In larger cities they may be able to have an item researched. When my kids were learning on 5e when it first came out, they had a warhammer +1 that had an unknown ability, so they had it researched and found its special ability was that it enabled its user to cast thunderwave 3 times per day. They also found out who used to own it. Much to my surprise they never used it and instead went on an overland journey to return the hammer to the Dwarves that lost it.
I have identify as a spell in game, but I have them roll for it to do anything, and it won't tell you anything about the lore of the item, just what it is and does.
That’s awesome! I love that they returned the hammer.
I'm not a fan of "there's always a chance" as stated in the book because it can encourage a party to attempt stupid things because each one of them has a low chance but if they all make an attempt there is a good chance one of them will succeed. It's okay if there is a consequence to failing, like the jumping into the chasm example. But if the only consequence is time passing then players will continue to make attempts because for the player the time passes instantly. For example: the player wants to hook the bars on a high window with a rope, and the DM rules that there is very little chance of it happening, let's say 1 in 20, then there is nothing to stop the player saying they will keep trying over and over until they succeed. Obviously there may be a chance of wandering monsters, but to the player getting to that window may have a reward that far exceeds 2-3 random encounters, such as bypassing a large section of the dungeon or getting a valuable prize. The thing to remember is that to a real person in that same situation, they are likely to conclude that there is no chance of succeeding, rather than 1 in 20, particularly after a few attempts. So if the probability is so low that a reasonable person would conclude it is near impossible, I tell the player it is impossible. Another way of thinking about this is that the 1 in 20 is the chance of success over infinite attempts, so the first time the player fails the roll they can never succeed. This can be made more realistic by saying that it is a 1 in 20 chance at it will take 1d20 hours.
Obviously I am not a never say never DM. I just don't generally allow long shots unless there is a consequence to failing.
The way that you’re describing it at the end is more or less how I would do it. I would say this is extremely difficult do you have a 1 and 20 chance and that’s all you have one chance to make it and it’s going to take X amount of time. As long as you are upfront with them before they make the call which I believe is the point of that letting the players know what exactly the odds are. That being said I don’t necessarily agree with you, I like the idea of players avoiding areas of the dungeon and being creative like that, also in most of my games one or two wandering monster checks will almost certainly wipe out the party LOL so they are scared of them
I had a 5e campaign and the chaotic evil Dragonborn sorcerer was getting out of hand with an NPC and the NPC was of a level they did know and some of those levels were Druid, so I had the NPC polymorph the offender into something harmless so the adults could talk, and then a more veteran player in the group beat me to it, lecturing the player on why not to sabotage the party's efforts, murder every NPC, and you sure as heck better not try that crap on your fellow party members or we just won't play with you. Some in-character friction is one thing, but we don't do PvP. He won't play in a game with that person, he doubts the other player (her sister) would, and I won't DM for that. It really didn't have to get very far into it before she apologized and changed her alignment to CN, which we told her she didn't have to do, but she said she felt it was better so she wouldn't be tempted to backstab the party of she got really into character. There is a fine line with in-character grudges, and I generally always warn my players about this, and they will get a warning if crossing the line, but everyone needs to be on board if you intend this to be part of the game, otherwise no intra-party grudges. And no PvP. I've had an in-character grudge match go too far before when i was a player, and I've no desire for any of my players to go through that.
Seems it was handled very well, great group!
To be clear, the polymorph wasn't punishment for the player. In game, the PC was trying to be sneaky and steal and actually I think she was trying to backstab, an NPC who would likely know of her presence and have the power to do something about it. If anything, I fudged so the party didn't suffer for their companions actions as would have been reasonable, because they needed information the NPC had, and only one player was acting up.
@Bandit's Keep yeah, these days mostly my main group is my two daughters (who are polar opposites) and an old gaming buddy of mine who despite being younger has actually played d&d longer (it was the Satanic Panic years, I got to read them and play solo, but it wasn't til I met this guy in college that I got to play with a group, although I played Star Wars, Warhammer FRP, Shadowrun, Rifts, and White Wolf stuff). My second group meets more rarely and is entirely old grognards.
What do you think about putting the word out on your channel about a reprint of Basic / Expert? I contacted WotC and asked for a reprint through DrivethruRPG but if a thousand people asked for it...
I believe the PDFs are already there, you could just print it through Lulu that’s what I did. I’m not sure they care that much about older systems. I think their focus of the modules
@@BanditsKeep I contacted drivethru they said I'd have to ask WotC which I did. I got the boiler plate response but I figure that if enough of us wanted prints they would take the money. Lots of people asking for a print copy in the comments section under the B/X book at drivethru...
Gold as XP put me off until it clicked that it was supposed to be used and managed as a resource.
The Gold dragon referee, was trying to handle it "in game", not the best advice.
For sure
You don't need to drop the Immersion when telling them odds of survival though, they should just be told, it is a bottomless drop! Then they will figure it out. Though I am unsure fully about telling certain information for stats, numbers, and odds with dice rolls. You need to know what you can do as a Player, and we need feet and distance for shooting bows and magic, time and duration for torches, and many other factors players know already and anyway. But sometimes mayhaps we just need to say, 500-foot drop, and call that enough to explain to them if anything...or maybe they need to know more. Our system is particular about distances and measure, so I don't know fully where I stand there. I do think they should not know some factors on possibility though. Like pushing a trapdoor with a whole lot of force, and then discovering it is weak and breaks easily, or is an illusion and you push right through even though you let the player make a strength roll for it.
Also, I have here my copy of Froissart, medieval chronicler of the 1300s, and at least one guy couched a sword like a lance and charged. But in system terms, I get your questioning and hesitation.
I firmly believe in letting the players know the odds - however you do that is fine, but a players should not think they have a good chance of jumping a chasim only to have the DM say " oh, you can't jump that far, roll a new PC". In the case of the trap door, it would depend on how much they took the time to investigate.
@@BanditsKeep Oh I am totally there for not cheating the Players on what they can do simply. And knowing your own capability and what the situation really looks like, is a lot of system design I have been doing lately myself because that is a part of the game, and my system needs and relies on a lot of knowns.
But, though I cannot think of every situation where it may be a case, I am afraid there will be a point where the Player should not know the odds, just as they should not always know the results.
In modern D&D, you roll to hit a DC or target number with Charisma score, based on DM and situation, for persuading the Town Master. Rulings over rules, and simply knowing what kind of character the Town Master is...he is secretly a Dungeon Master, but doesn't tell the PCs until they are trapped in the Dungeon...helps to even resolve without dice rolls like you said. Sometimes with hidden intentions you should not know the DC to hit with your roll and odds of persuading the manipulative Town Master in one thing or another if a roll is decided to be the best way of handling things...And yes, OD&D, roll under Charisma, if DM adjudicates and so forth. But just from a general way I am not sure if every occassion they should know the odds fully. Sometimes risk is a part of the game, even though every die roll is already a risk, and they know it. Letting them try when there is a possibility, but they should not let odds influence too heavily, as much as Roleplay and what is in front of them, is a thing that worries me.
I see it your way...I debate between the two. I think I am going to stick to what I know, make the Players know the odds by what information they can glean as Characters before Players, but let the Players know the full truth so they are not ill-informed, and make a decision they otherwise wouldn't. My system will let them know if they can make a jump...if they can see the distance and percieve the edge. Otherwise, let them gamble with unknowns if their Character faces such.
Thanks for these videos as always. I really do appreciate them. /\ /\/\/\ The primordial nature of OD&D and your thoughts and analysis gives me a moment to consider these things in our work. It is appreciated. And enjoy the pit trap you fell in. ( : = --\-----
And damn my level 9 walls of text...
@@mitchellslate1249 I think we are on similar if not the same page here. From my point of view the player is not really the character and thus it is sometimes hard to adjudicate what they would “know” 500 foot drop - sure they’ll die, you can explain it like that (500 foot drop). But what about rotted looking bridge? Fast moving water? Heavy (or light) foliage - for sneaking. We stay in game as much as possible but if the players say “can I swim across the rapids?” I’d let them know mechanical how to do it. Would I tell the chance to manipulate the barkeep - nope. Would I tell them more than “with only light cover sneaking will be difficult” maybe - probably depends on their level and if they’ve encountered similar situations
@@BanditsKeep Sorry I was unable to reply to this earlier, but I do agree there too. And I have seen the moment of confusion when the rapids are said, but we forgot DEADLY rapids, or need to explain more detail of many, rushing, and sharp rocked rapids with depth and uncertain flow...Yeah, there is an argument to be clear always...To be clear. Lol!
I guess it depends how common magic is in your setting but you could make those with the skills to reliably assess magic items to be rare and or extremely expensive. Those on the cheaper end of the scale should be much less reliable & prone to erroneous identification or to be outright charlatans.
Indeed
You know the grudges part is terrible advice, but the funny thing is the perspective we all see is not what they are talking about. The text isn’t talking about tender feelings between people in real life, it’s talking about the characters, look at their example - it’s in game. They are talking about a chaotic and lawful character who can’t work together anymore and the book is giving advice on how to keep them playing. Think about it 🤔
I understand that, I just think that talking to somebody out of the game is just an easier way to deal with it. That being said this version of DND was really targeted at younger people and maybe it’s easier for you to have a dragon step and then have a “adult” conversation with your 12-year-old buddies.
@@BanditsKeep I agree completely, that paragraph blew my mind too!