Any of you pine for AD&D 1/2?

[Galethorn]

Some day, I'd like to play a session or two of 1st edition, or maybe even the basic, original version, but I've never had a chance, you know, having been born in '87. I've read through the old books, though. It's really interesting to look back at a time when rangers were like fighters, but better, rather than like rogues, but worse.

 

[robberbaron]

Wrapped up a 15-year modified-A&D1 campaign only 3 weeks ago.

I really enjoy 3.5 but 1E was always fun. We changed a lot of the rules over the years, though the game still retained its core Gygaxness (not sure if that's a good thing or not).

 

[Minicol]

I don't know what's wrong with me lately, but I find myself overwhelmed with nostalgia and pining for the Good Old Days (TM) of AD&D 1 and 2. Contrary to many, I really liked 2e (hated Player's Option stuff, though). And 1e, well, everytime I think of that ultra-tacky DM's Guide cover with the giant demon on front, and the lengths I went to to hide that book from my mom (I was in Grade 6 at the time, so hiding things from mom wasn't that unusual ) I get all misty-eyed.

Out of curiosity, do any of you boys still play 1e and 2e? I've browsed on mortality.net from time to time, and I know they have a 1e/2e forum, but it seems populated by only 3-4 people.

Are there "lost tribes" of 1/2e gamers out there? Should I forget my daydream of playing the older editions again? Should I stick to 3/3.5?

No. I do not miss ADD1 or ADD2.
There are a few exceptions, but not much :the rules work so much better now.
I DO however miss the facts that there were much more adventures being published, since I do not have the time to write my own.

 

[MonsterMash]

I miss the days of playing OD&D(1974) with the additional stuff from the Strategic Review, Greyhawk, Blackmoor, and Gods, Demigods and Heroes. (Never liked Eldritch Wizardy all that much). Though I did like some of the 1e stuff.

Never played 2e by then it was RQ2 or CoC.

And I've beaten Diaglo to the punch on this!

 

[Belegbeth]

What I miss the most about 1E is the FEEL of that version of the game. And especially the aesthetics. IMO the writing of 1E was far more flavourful than the dry "computer manual" text found in most of the 3E stuff (and far lighter on tedious stats etc. as well). Gygax had a distinctive and evocative writing style ("gentle readers..."), and the modules written for 1E (whether by Gygax or other early great ones) had a lot of punch to them. Len Lakofka's "Secret of Bone Hill" and Douglas Nile's "Cult" module (N1) especially stand out as great stuff. And the "Giants" (G1-3) and Descent (D1-3) series are legendary.

As for art, despite its occasional technical weakness, I will take 1E art (especially Trampier, Dee, and Otus) over the "spike/goth/punk" art of 3rd edition anytime. There is NOTHING in any 3E manual to compare to the image of "Emirikol the Chaotic" by Trampier in 1E DMG, or the image of the dwarves (and halfling) talking to the magic mouth deep in a dungeon in 1E PH. The original cover for the PH by Trampier (with the thieves in the background prying out the gem eyes from the demon statue) is the Platonic Form of DnD. And Erol Otus' covers for the Moldvay/Cook B/X rules really capture the spirit of DnD better than anything I have seen in 3rd edition books to date.

Hence, as should be obvious in my remarks above, I agree with:

Epochrpg: "...what I miss most about 1e is the writing quality. The modules written in those days actually lived up to some set of standards. 3E mods seem like they were written by videogame designers. Modules like slave lords, lost caverns, and isle of dread are what I would like to see."

Yes, that is right on. Slave Lords and Isle of Dread are CLASSICS. They have a flavour that is vastly superior to most of the current crop of adventures. And 3.x does have a certain "video-game" quality.

And I concur with Teitan's following sentiment.

Teitan: "Actually, yes and no. I am wanting a more rules lite game, after 3-4 years of 3e I am started to get bogged down by skills this and feats that and tweakage of this and tweakage of that and 4 page character sheets and supplement A and Prestige Class Z,X and Y and you get the picture..."

One good thing about 1E DnD is that the variables that the DM had to keep in mind when designing an adventure were relatively limited. 3rd edition can become a strategy game involving feats, etc., instead of operating like a role-playing game.

Criticisms aside, I am running a 3$ Campaign right now, and having a blast. Of course, most of my players played 1E, and so they at least have the proper "aesthetic taste" for my world!

 

[Beale Knight]

I've got to say no, I'm quite fond of 3/3.5 e. Sure it has a whole lot of complications, but those stem from the options and wide open potentials that the characters have. It makes crafting a high level villain a monumental task (just finished an elder cloud giant fighter 5/ expert 5 king after a few hours off and on work), but it's nice to be able to have the options. The complications of the earlier eds were in a large part due to trying to keep all the various differences straight. High numbers are good except for armor class, various classes needing different XP to advance, save catagories that just seemed arbitrary, etc. At the time that was all well and good and I don't remember complaining, but these days it seems like a whole lot more trouble than 3/3.5e.

What I really miss from older editions is having the time, energy, and accessible players to game two or three times a week, instead of my twice-a-month-if-I'm-lucky I do now.

THIS is the big thing that I miss too. I fondly remember all nighters just about every weekend and more players than I could slip into a game.

 

[Ogrebear]

Old rules

I must say that hainvg played some AD&D that 3rd Ed is much more consistant internally, the rules 'hang together' better.

However I do miss orginal D&D, it was fast, simple and easy to play. 3rd Ed almost has too many options, and thats before your throw in OGL material.

To my mind 3rd Ed is NOT AD&D or even OD&D, 3rd Ed was a new game with some names and backgrouns cariied over. It was such a re-start, such a reboot of the whole thing as to be a new game.

I would like a 'stripped down' 3rd Ed lite - a game that can capture that OD&D feel and I can explain to prospective players quickly and simply.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Vindicator... I feel your pain.

I too miss those old days. Not so much for AD&D 1e but for my old red boxed basic set. I'm planning on springing a "Retro-Night" on my group in the near future where I'll show up with notebook paper, dice, and my old books. Creating characters will take all of 15 minutes and I'll run them through a dungeon/maze that I'll draw up on graph paper just like I used to when I was 8 years old.

I'm hoping to find some like minded folks at the DC/MD/VA Gameday that would like to start a 1e AD&D group.

 

[3catcircus]

I've got to say no, I'm quite fond of 3/3.5 e. Sure it has a whole lot of complications, but those stem from the options and wide open potentials that the characters have. It makes crafting a high level villain a monumental task (just finished an elder cloud giant fighter 5/ expert 5 king after a few hours off and on work), but it's nice to be able to have the options. The complications of the earlier eds were in a large part due to trying to keep all the various differences straight. High numbers are good except for armor class, various classes needing different XP to advance, save catagories that just seemed arbitrary, etc. At the time that was all well and good and I don't remember complaining, but these days it seems like a whole lot more trouble than 3/3.5e.

THIS is the big thing that I miss too. I fondly remember all nighters just about every weekend and more players than I could slip into a game.

So - looking up a THAC0 on a table is a lot harder than spending hours creating a villain? I just don't buy the argument that looking up numbers in a table was too much work...

Almost all of the 3rd edition adventure modules pretty much suck. Necromancer Games and Goodman Games have been putting out some good stuff, but they specifically go out of their way to make them have a 1st-edition feel. The WoTC stuff pretty much sucked - both because of the video game feel and because of the "We're gonna squeeze these out and never have to produce modules again because the 3rd-party shlubs will do it for us" attitude.

Additionally, 1st Edition was a heck of a lot easier both in pre-game work and in-game.

1. If you didn't like a rule - you didn't use it - weapon speed factors and bonuses/penalties for specific weapons and armor types went right out the window. You really can't do the same in 3.x - just try suggesting that you aren't using feats...

2. No need for prestige classes that gave insipid and silly reasons for existing - if you wanted a swashbuckler, you made a fighter/thief with high dex and no/light armor... If you wanted a Warpriest, you gave your cleric plate mail and cast combat-oriented spells... I'm not even going to argue the fact that most prestige classes are simply a way to make overpowered characters even more overpowered.

3. No need to have battlemats and tokens/miniatures/whatever in order to figure out combat (AoO, flanking, charging, etc.) Previous editions were an RPG, not a tabletop tactical wargame...

4. Just *why* does a monster need character levels, again? Monsters have pre-existing hit dice and abilities for a reason. Additionally, because PCs weren't overpowered, we didn't *need* to make the monsters overpowered in order for them to be a challenge.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

What you said 3cat...

Folks that have a problem with charts obviously never played Rolemaster or MERP. I loved MERP... the combat charts made sense. If you are wearing light armor you are less likely to be hit but if you are hit you are more likely to take serious damage. Likewise, someone in plate armor was almost as easy to hit as the broad side of a barn but it was extremely difficult to deal a significant amount of damage to them. I also loved the critical charts... so much more descriptive than just doing double or triple damage. You could end up with fractured skulls, broken arms, and all other sorts of nastiness. Yes it was chart heavy to the point that it became to be called "Chartmaster" but once you got the hang of it the game flowed quickly.