tom@uwai.UUCP (10/15/84)
> Nobody plays the game exactly by "the book" unless they're Gary Gygax, > and can simply say "This is what the rules mean no matter what they say." > (Watch him ref at GenCon sometime, if you get the chance). Not true -- Gary doesn't follow all those labyrinthine convolutions any more than any other right-minded GM should. While he may try hard to hold to some rules-frame at a tournament, this just IS NOT HIS STYLE when he's comfortable and dm'ing a normal game amongst friends. Now there *are* certain parties at TSR who have tried to convince the buying public that there exists an OFFICIAL AD&D(tm) which *must* be followed to the letter with no deviations, alterations, or similar expressions of free thought and creativity. These are money-mongerring accountants who really don't know much about gaming anyway. Pay them no heed. Not even Gary does, so why should you???? -- Tom Christiansen University of Wisconsin Computer Science Systems Lab ...!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,uwm-evax}!uwvax!tom tom@wisc-crys.arpa an *official* ex-TSR employee of four+ years.
robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (10/25/84)
Let's not forget the "falling damage" controversy that occurred, I think, early 1984 in the Dragon Magazine. We read in greatest hysteria that it had just been discovered that: Gary Gygax calulated falling damage not as <n>d6, where "n" is the number of tens of feet, but as <m>d6, where "m" is the triangular number of tens of feet, thus: 1d6 for 10' 3d6 for 20' 6d6 for 30' etc. (I hope I remembered this right.) We learned that Gary had always done this, so it should be "official", and also, it was more realistic. Actually it is not realistic, and you can find modules authored by Gygax which state the good old <n>d6 rule (I think S4 is one of them). For awhile it looked as though Dragon Mag would persuade all of our characters to stay away froms all walls, pits and traps, but sanity seems to have set in, adn newer adventure modules are still using <n>d6. I think I'm going to get some flames for this note, so let me state a position -- I really don't care what the penatly for falling is, or how realistic it is, as long as it is planned and tested with the rest of the system, and the adventure modules that use it. Suddenly changing the falling damage in AD+D would have seriously unbalanced a lot of the existing game. It is one of the more charming aspects of AD+D that serious falls can easily happen, and do remarkably little damage. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison or: decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison or (emergency): princeton!eosp1!robison
mr-frog@sdamos.UUCP (Dave Pare) (11/04/84)
: The falling damage has always struck me as a bit silly. I mean, I've fallen ten feet, and wasn't even hurt, much less taking 1d6 of damage. I find it very hard to believe that someone could die from falling ten feet. While I'm sure that it's possible, I suspect that it's not a 50% chance. This rule strikes me as more of a "well, if you aren't good enough to make a ruling on the spot, use this silly rule instead" case. Consider this; average people have 1d6 hit points. This means that, if you fall off the roof of your house, then (statistically speaking) you will die one out of every two falls you have. Doesn't this strike anyone as even slightly rediculous? I've heard stories of people whose parachutes didn't open, and the people have still survived. That would be impossible if the AD&D system is used. Oh, by the way, I'll certainly agree that the exponential "drop-damage" system is a very bad one to use! On the other hand, if you inject some poor slob with enough curare to kill an elephant, the dude still gets a save. I like that. Where in the real world people die horribly and without a doubt, the D&D character gets a save. But because it's "just damage", the character doesn't even have any roll he can make to avoid falling damage. The idea of a saving throw is to give the poor player a chance to "survive the unsurviveable". Like Rasputin with his multiple gunshot and knife wounds. However, this idea is violated in the extreme by this rule of falling. I believe that there should be a chance based on the level of the person of being able to survive a fall (no matter how far you fall). Monks (of course) would have an increased chance of doing this. I further believe that a first level character should have a chance (however small) of surviving a fall of 200 feet and such, just as a first level character can survive a normally lethal injection of poison if he makes his savings throw. The bottom line? I think that a character should have a "save vs. poison" to survive any fall he takes, no matter the damage rolled on the dice. The damage could perhaps be accrued as "stun points", broken bones, and such, but the person would *still be alive*! I further propose that the damage be cut by a third, with 1d6 damage being taken for every thirty feet (which would probably do somebody in fairly easily). Dave "I've fallen ten feet and survived" Pare