Topic: WOW--and I thought combat in Rolemaster was brutal!

[dutch206]

Just got done reading "Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG" by Goodman Games.  They seriously suggest that each player create four characters so that each player has a chance of one character surviving the first adventure.   

[yammahoper]

That's what we did when we went through ToEE.  I had one survive the entire campaign, one raised five times before he was gone, the other two stayed dead, and three replacement side kicks that didn't make it (my fave was Bimbo the Barbarian , Bimbo the Barbarian II, and Bimbo the Barbarian III).

The character that made it, Gwen, was originally the side kick for the main PC, Garn the five times raised paladin.  Gwen was saved from death by a wish spell and retired very, very old.

[TAK]

TBH the old D&D modules are meatgrinders, especially the ones made for "tournament" play (I still find that whole idea F'ing stupid BTW).
Check out some of the S-series of modules, starting with Tomb Of Horrors, insane stuff.

[RandalThor]

TBH the old D&D modules are meatgrinders, especially the ones made for "tournament" play (I still find that whole idea F'ing stupid BTW).
Check out some of the S-series of modules, starting with Tomb Of Horrors, insane stuff.

This was the thing about early-on gaming; it wasn't about the character learning, it was about the player learning. No character konwledge rolls, or anthing like that. If the player didn't know what it was they were dealing with, then they had better go 1/10th impulse with scanners on full. They were big on making it so that if you screwed up, it was going to cost you, very likely your character's life. In the ToH there is the one thing that killed you dead if you touched it. No save. No nothing. Dead. In a game about exploration, that is just evil!

I think that is one of the things about Old School gaving vs. New School that most don't realize: In OS it was more about the Players (i.e., if the player didn't know what was going on and didn't react to it well, then they were SOL), and in NS it is more about the characters (more about what the character "knows" and can do, with the player being more of an overall guide). Both have their plus and minuses.

[dutch206]

ITA, RandalThor.  However, the rationale DCC gave was that "If adventuring were easy, everybody would quit their jobs and do it".

It also makes me think about the amount of treasure supposedly contained in some adventures.  If it were all brought back to civilization at once, the economy would collapse.

[frnchqrtr]

It also makes me think about the amount of treasure supposedly contained in some adventures.  If it were all brought back to civilization at once, the economy would collapse.

Remember, you needed treasure to level.  The real XP was in loot, not in the killing.  The point was to see if players could grab the brass ring while minimizing risk.   Don't forget that there were exorbitant training costs, so it wasn't likely that characters held on to cash for very long.  Also, recall that the level of verisimilitude was minimal.  Storytelling was not the point, but it was playing a game.  Sure, a game of make believe, and immersion (to a point) was fine, but first and foremost, it was a game, not story time.  So, the amount of gold flowing around wasn't important.

RandalThor is spot-on about OS being about player skill rather than character skill.  That's player skill during play, not during character creation or during leveling.  Some of us still enjoy this form of gaming.   

[RandalThor]

ITA, RandalThor.  However, the rationale DCC gave was that "If adventuring were easy, everybody would quit their jobs and do it".

Funny thing about this is it is like being a criminal today, it is social constraints that keep people from taking the "easy" route and just stealing what they want/need, not the perception that it is easy. (Which is the perception, even if it may not be the truth.) So, peasants sitting around their village talking are likely to say stuff like, "I should go out and do an adventure, I could get rich real quick." But never do it because, their father didn't, and his father didn't, and all of the people they know aren't, etc... The social pressure to "fit in" keeps individuals from doing a lot of things, some good, some not good. (So, the rationale that DCC gave might be all cute and funny, but it is not accurate. If something is easier, and also socially acceptable, then everyone does do it - at least a majority, because there are always those people....)

RandalThor is spot-on about OS being about player skill rather than character skill.  That's player skill during play, not during character creation or during leveling.  Some of us still enjoy this form of gaming.   

I sort of like a combination, which is why I prefer to play games with higher level characters; it seems like the only way I can "get a way with" using my knowledge and experience.

[Guillaume]

You know early ICE modules for MERP were as deadly... ( Umbar, Ardor, Angmar, ... )

A friend of mine referenced them as : a trap, a door, a trap, a monster, a trap, loot, a trap...

In some of the buildings described ( say Carn Dûm Castle, and any of the Citadel of the Court ) if you managed to survive through the guards you were bound to die from a trap ( Difficulties in the Sheer Folly, Absurd, Insane range ).

[Fnord]

You know early ICE modules for MERP were as deadly... ( Umbar, Ardor, Angmar, ... )

A friend of mine referenced them as : a trap, a door, a trap, a monster, a trap, loot, a trap...

Even the "Herubar Gular" castle, from the introductory adventure of the MERP rulebook was like that.

Good old times.

[markc]

  Remember "Death is only the beginning".


Also if possible have the dead bodies animate so the party has to fight them at some point during the adventure.


MDC   

[intothatdarkness]

TBH the old D&D modules are meatgrinders, especially the ones made for "tournament" play (I still find that whole idea F'ing stupid BTW).
Check out some of the S-series of modules, starting with Tomb Of Horrors, insane stuff.

Old Gary G kept doing that, too. If you look at some of the Mythus stuff he was still doing the "instant death" dungeon.

I suspect that tournament play came from the wargaming conventions that spawned RPGs, where you had scenarios designed specially for the convention (Squad Leader did this, as did many other Avalon Hill products). Some of the worst Top Secret adventures came from tournament stuff (mostly commando-type missions...something original TS just isn't really suited for, IMO).

[providence13]

Old Gary G kept doing that, too. If you look at some of the Mythus stuff he was still doing the "instant death" dungeon.


I have players that still speak in reverence of Mythus. Take some of the best, most beautiful ideas in gaming; simple systems that handle great complexity..
and edit them with a rusty chainsaw. Now feed it all into a wood chipper- and you can still see hints of what could have been.

Combat was fairly quick and brutal. The Necropolis adventure was extremely hard for seasoned players.
I still think that I could drop Ess/Cha/Men Realms and convert to a Physical, Mental, Spiritual system of magic..
(Sigh)

[intothatdarkness]

Mythus was very interesting, but in many ways it groaned under its own weight. Necropolis was indeed nasty...Tomb of Horrors on steroids. Character creation was clunky in some ways, and if you weren't into a magic-heavy game I could see where "everyone has castings" would get old after a while. It's a shame it never matured fully...I would have loved to see some of the stuff outside Aegypt.

[Arioch]

I'm seriously thinking of incorporating some DCC elements into my new RM campaign. Really, it's full of very cool and flavourful ideas, like spell casters' Patrons or the fact that every magic item is unique (and every magic sword is sentient).
Anyway, yes it's brutal 

[dutch206]

ITA-lots of neat flavor ideas in there.