Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[Let's Read] Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules, by Tom Moldvay
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 6630039" data-attributes="member: 6680772"><p>Sorry for the late reply, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]! </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not unsympathetic to your point of view here. All that you describe above strikes me as being good DMing making use of the tools Moldvay provides. The last example strikes me as, if not <em>bad</em>, certainly less-than-optimal DMing. That said, though, as near as I can see there is nothing in the game that prevents or explicitly advises against that. The closest being the DM advice at the end about being fair, impartial, making adventure fun and interesting, not a contest, etc, etc.</p><p></p><p>My purpose with this thread is in part to examine what the game looks like when you follow all the rules by the book. Which in this case would mean either rolling reactions for the ogre or deciding ahead of time what the ogre will do and adjusting according to what the players do. But in the end, the ruleset is not a system that must be followed to play the game -- it is, as Moldvay notes in the introduction, a set of guidelines. A rule toolset to help DMs conduct their own games. As such, Moldvay appears to assume the good faith and intentions of the DM. If, say, the DM rolls the ogre's reaction, scores enthusiastic friendship, but feels that the players are getting bored, or has no idea how to interpret the result, or any other reason, and so has the ogre attack the PCs, he's not doing it <em>wrong</em>, as long as the players find that fun and interesting. And by "not wrong", I'm not talking about badwrongfun or anything like that, I'm saying he's not playing B/X in a manner other than that in which it was meant to be played. The game explicitly puts monster actions in the hands of the DM -- reactions are but an optional tool. An extremely useful tool that I, personally, value highly, but ultimately no more than that.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yup. Straight +2 swords are also hard to get. You need to hit the 20% chance to find a sword, and then the 12.5% to get the +2 sword. If my math is correct (and it probably isn't), that's a 2.5% chance for every magic item found. Most of the time, you'll find a +1 sword with a specialized +2 or +3. The chance goes down even further in Expert. The expanded tables give you a 20% chance to find a magic sword, and then a 6% chance to get a straight +2 or +3 bonus.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Indeed. No treasure finding magic items (other than treasure maps), but the wand of metal detection and intelligent swords all make their appearance there.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not sure I entirely agree as far as the example goes. To me it comes off as quite perfunctory -- described in highly abstract terms. So-and-so attacks, the spell effects X HD of creatures, so and so takes HP of damage. Contrast it with the example of play on pp. B59-B60. There the entire example is given as dialogue (the players interacting with the game through the fiction). When a combat comes up, it's dealt with with a paranthetical "Combat is now resolved, morale checks taken, etc." Despite the example of combat starting and ending with character dialogue and interaction, that all stops once the battle is joined -- no one even cries "No, Fredrik!" when he goes down. It's all just, "The DM rolls..." "Morgan misses..." "The hobgoblin rolls a 17..." Distance is tracked, but notice that while the goblins move forward and engage, the PCs don't move at all. Sure, combat is interesting...as one part of the game. As I said, it's not interesting <em>in and of itself</em>. I mean, that's a pretty common complaint. IMO, I don't believe this was a case of Moldvay attempting to design interesting combat and failing, but that he meant combat to be quickly and straightforwardly resolved.</p><p></p><p>As far as blind declarations of intent, in B/X (unlike Mentzer), there are two: Defensive movement (p. B24), and later in Expert, Spellcasting (p. X11). Mentzer adds a "declarations" phase to the order of events in combat in the Basic DM's Rulebook, but I suspect a late revision to add that, since it's no where in the Player's Book.</p><p></p><p>Rather than B/X, I think the narrative pressures on individual combat are much more evident in the new melee options in the Mentzer Companion Set and brought to full fruition in the Weapon Mastery rules of the Master Set. AD&D wouldn't see combat that granular and detailed until late 2e.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Iosue, post: 6630039, member: 6680772"] Sorry for the late reply, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]! I'm not unsympathetic to your point of view here. All that you describe above strikes me as being good DMing making use of the tools Moldvay provides. The last example strikes me as, if not [i]bad[/i], certainly less-than-optimal DMing. That said, though, as near as I can see there is nothing in the game that prevents or explicitly advises against that. The closest being the DM advice at the end about being fair, impartial, making adventure fun and interesting, not a contest, etc, etc. My purpose with this thread is in part to examine what the game looks like when you follow all the rules by the book. Which in this case would mean either rolling reactions for the ogre or deciding ahead of time what the ogre will do and adjusting according to what the players do. But in the end, the ruleset is not a system that must be followed to play the game -- it is, as Moldvay notes in the introduction, a set of guidelines. A rule toolset to help DMs conduct their own games. As such, Moldvay appears to assume the good faith and intentions of the DM. If, say, the DM rolls the ogre's reaction, scores enthusiastic friendship, but feels that the players are getting bored, or has no idea how to interpret the result, or any other reason, and so has the ogre attack the PCs, he's not doing it [i]wrong[/i], as long as the players find that fun and interesting. And by "not wrong", I'm not talking about badwrongfun or anything like that, I'm saying he's not playing B/X in a manner other than that in which it was meant to be played. The game explicitly puts monster actions in the hands of the DM -- reactions are but an optional tool. An extremely useful tool that I, personally, value highly, but ultimately no more than that. Yup. Straight +2 swords are also hard to get. You need to hit the 20% chance to find a sword, and then the 12.5% to get the +2 sword. If my math is correct (and it probably isn't), that's a 2.5% chance for every magic item found. Most of the time, you'll find a +1 sword with a specialized +2 or +3. The chance goes down even further in Expert. The expanded tables give you a 20% chance to find a magic sword, and then a 6% chance to get a straight +2 or +3 bonus. Indeed. No treasure finding magic items (other than treasure maps), but the wand of metal detection and intelligent swords all make their appearance there. I'm not sure I entirely agree as far as the example goes. To me it comes off as quite perfunctory -- described in highly abstract terms. So-and-so attacks, the spell effects X HD of creatures, so and so takes HP of damage. Contrast it with the example of play on pp. B59-B60. There the entire example is given as dialogue (the players interacting with the game through the fiction). When a combat comes up, it's dealt with with a paranthetical "Combat is now resolved, morale checks taken, etc." Despite the example of combat starting and ending with character dialogue and interaction, that all stops once the battle is joined -- no one even cries "No, Fredrik!" when he goes down. It's all just, "The DM rolls..." "Morgan misses..." "The hobgoblin rolls a 17..." Distance is tracked, but notice that while the goblins move forward and engage, the PCs don't move at all. Sure, combat is interesting...as one part of the game. As I said, it's not interesting [i]in and of itself[/i]. I mean, that's a pretty common complaint. IMO, I don't believe this was a case of Moldvay attempting to design interesting combat and failing, but that he meant combat to be quickly and straightforwardly resolved. As far as blind declarations of intent, in B/X (unlike Mentzer), there are two: Defensive movement (p. B24), and later in Expert, Spellcasting (p. X11). Mentzer adds a "declarations" phase to the order of events in combat in the Basic DM's Rulebook, but I suspect a late revision to add that, since it's no where in the Player's Book. Rather than B/X, I think the narrative pressures on individual combat are much more evident in the new melee options in the Mentzer Companion Set and brought to full fruition in the Weapon Mastery rules of the Master Set. AD&D wouldn't see combat that granular and detailed until late 2e. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[Let's Read] Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules, by Tom Moldvay
Top