General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I would disagree that Non-Weapon Proficiencies were optional under 2e in the way I normally understand "optional" rule systems. Yep, they're labeled as such, and if all you're using are the core books and writing your own adventures they're absolutely unnecessary... but pretty much every supplement and setting assumed that, yes, you were using the Non-Weapon Proficiency system. Kits - which were just outside of core rules - were particularly dependent on them.
Some people found weapon proficiencies, as outlined in UNEARTHED ARCANA to be particularly onerous. I have found a use for them: solo or two person campaigns. When you've got a player, or two players, who don't want to run multiple characters, weapon proficiencies can be a good method for helping them to not have to roll up a new character every five minutes!
Parenthetically, photostat copies of the manuscript rules were made, and when the commercial game was published, fans not willing or financially unable to expend the princely sum of $10 for the product did likewise, copying the material on school (mainly college/university) machines. We were well aware of this, and many gamers who had spent their hard-earned money to buy the game were more irate than we were. In all, though, the 'pirate' material was more helpful that not. Many new fans were made by DMs who were using such copies to run their games. - Gary Gygax
In fact, AD&D almost geared itself for newbies to play. Each character class at first level had a small amount of skills to keep track of (yeah, the wizard only got one spell...). This made the game fairly simple to learn. The players didn't have to spend time mulling over their character sheets during play deciding what powers to use. Their attention was on the DM and what was going on in the game.
The whole post was great but this part deserves special attention. I think Ulrick just nailed the most important thing that makes AD&D awesome. Having the leveling process be a mere moment of bookeeping which allowed attention to return to the actual game is golden. No time wasted on wondering what you will choose from column A or B, or what items you would like to get for slot X when a level is gained.
When playtime is limited it sure is nice to devote more of that time to the actual game.
The whole post was great but this part deserves special attention. I think Ulrick just nailed the most important thing that makes AD&D awesome. Having the leveling process be a mere moment of bookeeping which allowed attention to return to the actual game is golden. No time wasted on wondering what you will choose from column A or B, or what items you would like to get for slot X when a level is gained.
When playtime is limited it sure is nice to devote more of that time to the actual game.
I'd just like to point out that Ulrick is incorrect - a wizard has anywhere from twenty-one to fifty-eight spells, ranging from 1st to 9th level. However a 1st level magic-user has the one spell per day they can cast.
This message brought to you by the Society for 1e AD&D Pedantry.
And yes, back on the serious side, the "mere moment of book-keeping" is one more point of AD&D Awesome. There's a tad bit more when you consider how to get the money to train to level. When the party is spending upwards of a month or more doing the training, the DM must of course have suitable surprises waiting for them in the wings should they return to the Caves, the Steading, the Temple, the Caverns, etc.
Parenthetically, photostat copies of the manuscript rules were made, and when the commercial game was published, fans not willing or financially unable to expend the princely sum of $10 for the product did likewise, copying the material on school (mainly college/university) machines. We were well aware of this, and many gamers who had spent their hard-earned money to buy the game were more irate than we were. In all, though, the 'pirate' material was more helpful that not. Many new fans were made by DMs who were using such copies to run their games. - Gary Gygax
Ulrick! Are you my lost brother? I have listed these reasons (while saying AC going up was the bomb) to my wayward son when he tries to dis 1E.
Don.
Ha!
Na, just a guy who's observed a thing or two about his favorite hobby. But thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedungeondelver
I'd just like to point out that Ulrick is incorrect - a wizard has anywhere from twenty-one to fifty-eight spells, ranging from 1st to 9th level. However a 1st level magic-user has the one spell per day they can cast.
This message brought to you by the Society for 1e AD&D Pedantry.
LOL! That's what I get for playing 3e/3.5e for about nine years!
In AD&D they're called magic-users. A wizard is a name level. It is all coming back to me now!
Man, this thread makes me want to run an AD&D campaign--probably a mixture of 1st and 2nd Editions.
About a year ago I managed to get a short-lived AD&D 1st Edition campaign going. I had a blast! My players enjoyed themselves but they didn't like having "limited options." Two players ran rangers and complained about being "pidgeon holed" into basically playing "Aragorn." I found this interesting: the ranger is arguably one of most powerful classes in AD&D (2d8 HD at 1st level!), but they weren't happy.
They also, of course, complained about Thac0! So I had them roll the dice and I consulted the tables in the DMG. Then they complained about the tables. I was going to flip the ACs so they'd be like in 3e (AC 5 = AC 15) but the campaign ended.
Maybe I'll give it another shot here soon.
__________________ "Farewell, Friend. I was a thousand times more evil than thou!"
--Stormbringer
Na, just a guy who's observed a thing or two about his favorite hobby. But thanks!
LOL! That's what I get for playing 3e/3.5e for about nine years!
In AD&D they're called magic-users. A wizard is a name level. It is all coming back to me now!
Man, this thread makes me want to run an AD&D campaign--probably a mixture of 1st and 2nd Editions.
About a year ago I managed to get a short-lived AD&D 1st Edition campaign going. I had a blast! My players enjoyed themselves but they didn't like having "limited options." Two players ran rangers and complained about being "pidgeon holed" into basically playing "Aragorn." I found this interesting: the ranger is arguably one of most powerful classes in AD&D (2d8 HD at 1st level!), but they weren't happy.
They also, of course, complained about Thac0! So I had them roll the dice and I consulted the tables in the DMG. Then they complained about the tables. I was going to flip the ACs so they'd be like in 3e (AC 5 = AC 15) but the campaign ended.
Maybe I'll give it another shot here soon.
Remember, the charts are there for you, not for them - tell 'em not to sweat it!
As to being shoehorned into a role by the rules, I say fie! Fie on 't!
Playing AD&D (and this is part of its awesomeness) is about putting into the role what you want out of it. So you wanted to play a thief rather than a fighter, but for whatever reason the stats weren't there - whose to say you can't reflect that in your character's concept and your vision of his or her background? Hey, yeah, you wanted to be a cutpurse but those jerks at the thieves' guild and their stupid "move quietly across the room for the instructor" tests...! So now you're out there in the big wide open world, making your living by a sword. You still think of yourself as a thief - except your lockpick is three feet of sharpened steel!
...and et cetera.
If players like lots of fiddly options, some suggestions (not just to you, but to folks in general) are:
Make sure to use "secondary skills", and let the players exploit these (but not lean on them!) Case in point, I had a shipwreck scenario happen that started with the sinking of the ship - one player had "net fisherman" as his secondary skill so I ascertained that he could cast a rope pretty well, and as the ship was going down he was able to lasso a nearby timber and use it and other jetsam as a makeshift raft until the party was able to get to a convenient (not so) deserted isle. Needless to say his abilities became priceless when the matter of food came up...!
Multiclassed demi-humans often help newcomers (or latecomers if they played before) get into AD&D. Show them what a fighter/magic-user or fighter/thief can do and watch their feelings of "limited options" disappear!
Parenthetically, photostat copies of the manuscript rules were made, and when the commercial game was published, fans not willing or financially unable to expend the princely sum of $10 for the product did likewise, copying the material on school (mainly college/university) machines. We were well aware of this, and many gamers who had spent their hard-earned money to buy the game were more irate than we were. In all, though, the 'pirate' material was more helpful that not. Many new fans were made by DMs who were using such copies to run their games. - Gary Gygax
I'd just like to point out that Ulrick is incorrect - a wizard has anywhere from twenty-one to fifty-eight spells, ranging from 1st to 9th level. However a 1st level magic-user has the one spell per day they can cast.
This message brought to you by the Society for 1e AD&D Pedantry.
And I'd like to point out that a 1st level magic user can actually cast up to FOUR spells per day - as long as they are cantrips.
Some people found weapon proficiencies, as outlined in UNEARTHED ARCANA to be particularly onerous. I have found a use for them: solo or two person campaigns. When you've got a player, or two players, who don't want to run multiple characters, weapon proficiencies can be a good method for helping them to not have to roll up a new character every five minutes!
They're a good force multiplier.
How so? WP are already present in the PHB and I'm unaware of any advantage they confer to a character.
__________________ 'Can a magician kill a man by magic?' Lord Wellington asked Strange. Strange frowned. He seemed to dislike the question. 'I suppose a magician might,' he admitted, 'but a gentleman never could.'
About a year ago I managed to get a short-lived AD&D 1st Edition campaign going. I had a blast! My players enjoyed themselves but they didn't like having "limited options." Two players ran rangers and complained about being "pidgeon holed" into basically playing "Aragorn." I found this interesting: the ranger is arguably one of most powerful classes in AD&D (2d8 HD at 1st level!), but they weren't happy.
That's a laugh. The AD&D 1E ranger is the least pigeon-holed version of the class ever. As a 1E ranger you can wear heavy, medium, or light armor depending on the mobility you desire. A 1E ranger isn't forced into using a bow or two weapons all the time-talk about a lack of options.
Parenthetically, photostat copies of the manuscript rules were made, and when the commercial game was published, fans not willing or financially unable to expend the princely sum of $10 for the product did likewise, copying the material on school (mainly college/university) machines. We were well aware of this, and many gamers who had spent their hard-earned money to buy the game were more irate than we were. In all, though, the 'pirate' material was more helpful that not. Many new fans were made by DMs who were using such copies to run their games. - Gary Gygax
3. Lack of Ripple-Effect from altering the rules...
I came up with the "Ripple-Effect" term when 3e came out and I tried running it with a low-magic campaign world. Basically, if I altered one part of the system, it would cause "ripples" throughout the system. For example, cutting down on magic items would alter the CR of various monsters and NPCs. It would be difficult, for another example, to alter the skill system without effecting the rogue and the bard. Tinkering with feats might hose the fighter.
Rules altered in AD&D usually don't "ripple" out and effect other systems. For example, altering the proficiency system will not effect thieves skills. Another example, letting the poor 1st level wizard get bonus spells for high intelligence (like a cleric with high system) will not make him overshadow other classes (he still needs to conserve his spells and stay out of combat).
Or removing demi-human level limits won't effect the rules (thought it might affect player choices for races).
This lack of "ripple effect" enabled a DM to tailor AD&D to suit his desires and tastes without much difficultly.
I agree with your general view. There is more "rules space" in the system to allow you to change things without having too many unintended consequences for other parts of the system. However, I disagree with what I bolded: a low-level magic-user able to use several Sleep spells could seriously unbalance a typical low-level game.
__________________ Words of wisdom from Gary Gygax:
From my perspective wanting less in the way of rules constraints comes from being a veteran Game Master who feels confident that more good material comes from imagination and player interaction with the environment than from textbook rules material.
more words of wisdom:
Rashness and foolhardiness are harbingers of death, as is timidity, in such adventure setting.
Those that complain about real challenges might be better off playing Candyland with their little sister
First and foremost, munchkinism arose as a contemporary of the OD&D game. Nothing in the rules of that or any other version of the game was needed to make it flourish.
There is no relationship between 3E and original D&D, or OAD&D for that matter. Different games, style, and spirit.
[E]xperience has taught me that everyone has their own gaming preferences, and it is not a matter of "good" or "bad" in all, save in light of one's own preferences.
I agree with your general view. There is more "rules space" in the system to allow you to change things without having too many unintended consequences for other parts of the system. However, I disagree with what I bolded: a low-level magic-user able to use several Sleep spells could seriously unbalance a typical low-level game.
Balance? Balance? We don't need no stinking balance! Blah!
A couple sleep spells could knock out a bunch of kobolds or goblins, but they're not worth a whole lot of XP anyway. And, eventually, the magic-user will run out of spells...
But then again, I've gamed with a guy who miscast sleep. He targeted it so that half of the bad guys and half of the PCs got hit. And he did this TWICE! Fortunately, I had played an elf both times who stayed awake to yell at him!
__________________ "Farewell, Friend. I was a thousand times more evil than thou!"
--Stormbringer
The whole post was great but this part deserves special attention. I think Ulrick just nailed the most important thing that makes AD&D awesome. Having the leveling process be a mere moment of bookeeping which allowed attention to return to the actual game is golden. No time wasted on wondering what you will choose from column A or B, or what items you would like to get for slot X when a level is gained.
When playtime is limited it sure is nice to devote more of that time to the actual game.
Yes. I've been known to house-rule my AD&D campaign occassionally, but I always keep a sharp eye on making sure I don't violate this "During game time, keep it simple" philosophy or the strong class archetypes easily leveled "with the least of bookkeeping." These design philosophies (along with the modules!) are what makes AD&D so great to play.
__________________ I don't "tell stories" when I play D&D. I adventure. Afterward, when the gold is counted and the bodies piled high, we may tell stories about how it all went down. Or not.
I've gamed with a guy who miscast sleep. He targeted it so that half of the bad guys and half of the PCs got hit. And he did this TWICE! Fortunately, I had played an elf both times who stayed awake to yell at him!
I gamed with a guy who miscast Holy Word and knocked the entire party except himself unconscious just as we were about to face off against a Lich. Not good.
__________________ I don't "tell stories" when I play D&D. I adventure. Afterward, when the gold is counted and the bodies piled high, we may tell stories about how it all went down. Or not.
Hah, I have a similar sleep story from my recent AD&D game, in the Moathouse.
The party's wizard cast Sleep. The party was all first level, and the snake had 3 HD... He rolled a 7 for the amount of HDs affected... And you can guess how that went.
Fortunately, given that it was a giant snake, it just ate the guy it had already killed and crawled off.
The current TEMPLE OF ELEMENTAL EVIL game I'm running has the same "cast sleep, damn the torpedoes" thing going on with regard to the party magic-user...that, and he throws darts into close quarters melee.
There are some funny, funny stories about how the party has dealt with this.
Parenthetically, photostat copies of the manuscript rules were made, and when the commercial game was published, fans not willing or financially unable to expend the princely sum of $10 for the product did likewise, copying the material on school (mainly college/university) machines. We were well aware of this, and many gamers who had spent their hard-earned money to buy the game were more irate than we were. In all, though, the 'pirate' material was more helpful that not. Many new fans were made by DMs who were using such copies to run their games. - Gary Gygax
The AD&D 1E ranger is the least pigeon-holed version of the class ever. As a 1E ranger you can wear heavy, medium, or light armor depending on the mobility you desire. A 1E ranger isn't forced into using a bow or two weapons all the time-talk about a lack of options.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
