Any AD&D 1st Edition players here?

[mooby]

I started off with 1e, but I haven't played in years.

I still love it, but I think I like the rules in 3e better.

Anyway, of course I could be convinced into playing 1e. It's not the system that's important, it's having fun.

 

[Ermanaric]

451 veiws and only 40 replies? come on people your input is greatly appreciated

 

[mooby]

What else do you expect people to say?

 

[Dr. Zoom]

I began playing 1e AD&D around 1981. Our group switched to 2e and then to 3e. Like Eric, I would play a one shot 1e for "old times sake," but we are sold on 3e so far.

 

[JeffB]

I hate to say it.. I've "argued" both ways regarding the original games and 3E (depending on the specific subject at hand), but the more I become familiar with 3E the more trouble I have with wanting to run those older games...I still think the original games are easier to run as there are less underlying rules and rule systems, but there are many things in 3E that are starting to "win me over" from a DM's perspective (though I'd still house-rule some things I don't care for or would like to change like Item creation, AoO's, etc......)

That being said, I like all versions of the game...I'd play any one of them really....But If was going to RUN a game..it would either be the Brown books, BAsic/Expert, or 3E. I think 1E and 2E would drive me batty nowadays.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

Barring a new edition that really catches my fancy, the only D&D games I have any interest in playing or DMing are...

Basic D&D

and

AD&D

Tried 3e for about a year, but its just not my cup of tea--I'm glad that others enjoy it though (of course, I'd be even happier if they preferred one of the older editions ).

 

[Melan]

You know me from DF, I believe.

I wouldn't DM 1e (maybe OD&D), but I would definitely play it under a good DM!

 

[diaglo]

An example to clarify what I mean: everyone really, really likes the removal of racial class limitations and multiclassing restrictions, but there's some psychological barrier to just removing them without switching to a whole new set of rules.

i never liked removing racial class limits. i never allowed elven PC clerics. but i didn't revise my game for the introduction of the UA.

elven clerics were NPCs in my campaign. always were. always will be.

 

[buzzard]

I'd play a game of 1st Ed. if it were the only game in town. I'd rather play 3rd Ed. though since I simply prefer the mechanics. I'd rather play 1st Ed. than 2nd.

buzzard

 

[Aeolius]

My second message-based game, “Beneath the Pinnacles of Azor’alq” (BPAA) began as a 1e AD&D Pre-Wars World of Greyhawk campaign, set in 579 CY (Common Year). As a dedicated First Edition “old timer” and eschewer of the 2e core rules, The last thing anyone expected me to do was look at the 3e rules when they were released. Which is exactly what I did. No one expected me to like the newer rule set. Which I did. I polled my players, then began converting my undersea adventure to a 3e D&D game.

3e D&D World of Greyhawk advances the timeline to 591 CY, a difference of 12 years. Obviously, I could simply rule that the campaign was set in 591 CY the whole time. This is not the case. In Chapter 49, the presiding roster of characters was turned to stone. They remained inanimate for the missing 12 years.

My hydrimera; part dire shark, part dire squid, and part feline sea lion, emits ink clouds which turn victims to stone. I devised the critter well before the arrival of MM2 and the chimeric template. Besides, of what use would an aquatic creature have for a goat’s head?

Since message-based games are run in a less rules-oriented environment, I still allow players to use the 1e rules, so long as they peruse the Conversion Manual and familiarize themselves with d20 and the System Reference Document . Though generated using 1e AD&D rules, the PCs will advance and be treated as 3e D&D characters.