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

[Psion]

get out your 1edADnD DMG Revised 1979. read the definition of monster by EGG.

more importantly look for the shaman and witch doctor entries.

also backed up by the 1980 DDG.

Who do you think you are kidding? You speak to me as if I didn't know those books like the back of my hand. Shaman and witch doctor entries were a nice first step to the much more flexible later rules, but as they existed they were a far, far cry from the current flexibility and just another ad hoc ruling in a system rife with ad hoc rulings.

 

[EricNoah]

I dunno - other than tidbits of FR fluff, most of the 3.x D&D products seem soul-less.

Ah, crunch vs. fluff rears it's fluffy and/or crunchy head. I agree to an extent -- 3E (and D20 in general) has been very "rules-and-tools" focussed. You got the "flavor" of D&D in the old day by way of the adventure modules, which WotC doesn't really publish any more. But on the other hand, there are tons of 3rd party publishers doing lots of flavorful stuff with those very rules-and-tools.

 

[francisca]

Hey now, did I not also explain this in terms of what was mechanically supported.. That's bigger than just me baby.

Here's something interesting to think about. Here's what Gygax had to say (Page 21 of the 1st Edition Dungeon Master's Guide, TSR, 1979):


So you are virtually on your own with regard to monsters as player
characters. You have advice as to why they are not featured, why no
details of monster character classes are given herein. The rest is up to you,
for when all is said and done, it is your world, and your players must live in
it with their characters. Be good to yourself as well as them, and everyone
concerned will benefit from a well-conceived, well-ordered, fairly-judged
campaign built upon the best of imaginative and creative thinking.



So, many of us took and ran with it. While you are quite correct, there are no mechanics provided by the core 1E rules, there certainly was no prohibition against the notion of character monster classes, or in my opinion, layering character classes on top of monsters. Of course, the trick is the "well-ordered, fairly-judged" part. 3E goes along way by making this fair by providing mechanics. 1E, on the other hand, left it in the hands of the DM, for better or for worse.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Some people are going to disagree with me and I respect that, but what I will say to you is this, try and find somebody who has been playing as long as me who prefers the atmosphere generated by the new game, it is not going to happen.

1979. All versions from booklets to basic set to AD&D to 2nd edition to Player's Option on up to 3rd Edition.

Count me in as another who prefers 3E/3.5.

I can see how some might like the way they could just roll six stats and some hit points and have a complete NPC. There's an interesting mindset that pops up in gamers from time to time that involves being a completist - as if every NPC needs that full detailing, as if every product has to be bought.

I'm more than thrilled to just use the "standard" MM stats for my orcs. I may roll up some stats for a leader, but the grunts can get by with that standard 15 strength or whatever it is. Stats for monsters and support for putting monsters on equal terms with player characters was a big part of me switching to 3E. When it first came out I had no intention of switching, but after a few sessions of testing out the rules I started converting over my campaign world, which had been going on for 12 years with 2nd edition rules. I've never looked back. I've never wanted to look back. I had fun all those years, but I'm having as much fun now, if not more.

 

[3catcircus]

Without being facetious, 3CatCircus, then why play? Wouldn't you be better off with a group that played a different game?

Well - Diaglo beat me to the punch...

(1) Fact is - I play in one D&D game and DM another, and GC a Spycraft game. The game I play in, they are D&D snobs - only 3.x, only Forgotten Realms... We've tried OA 3.0 (Rokugan) and it lasted 2 games. We've discussed d20 Call of Cthulhu, Twilight:2000 and Star Wars d20 - those never got past the discussion stage. We play this game at a private home - but no one else is willing to play anything else. The play schedule is arbitrary and not consistent.

(2) The guys that play in the D&D and Spycraft Games I GM are less D&D snobbish - we've played Twilight:2000 one-shots, and they generally play in multiple games besides mine (various RPGs, Warhammer, card games, etc.) The problem with those two games is that I GM them at my FLGS - and they prefer that current games are played - obviously - since that means sales, which means we have a place to play - I definitely do not begrudge them that. So - no OOP games are played there. Additionally, because it is a FLGS - the "quality control" of the players is not as good as at a private gathering (i.e. people with less than perfect hygiene and/or budding serial killers may express an interest in playing - and you gotta shoo them away...) Also, due to the FLGS environment, you do not know the players as well - in the games I GM, we don't communicate every day like I do with the guys from the D&D game I am a player in.

Ideally - I'd chose to play with the guys from (1), with the attitude towards other games that the guys in (2) have, in a private home, rotating amongst 2 different kinds of games every other week. Ideally, the games would be Rules Cyclopedia D&D and something from the following list: Harn, Rolemaster, Mythus, TORG, CoC, TW2K, Traveller.

 

[Beale Knight]

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...

Harder, no - but certainly not as much fun. Crafting leveled villains is part of the fun for me these days.

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...

I wouldn't. I LIKE Feats. I think Feats are one of the best new bits about 3e. And I still don't use rules I don't care to.

2. No need for prestige classes that gave insipid and silly reasons for existing

What - like a 1e bard?

- if you wanted a swashbuckler, you made a fighter/thief with high dex and no/light armor...

You just couldn't be human, per the rules. Now you can.

If you wanted a Warpriest, you gave your cleric plate mail and cast combat-oriented spells...

Every single 1 e Cleric I ever saw or ran ended up with platemail and combat oriented spells. Which had to be balanced with the heals in advance, since you couldn't spontaniously drop preped spells for heals.

I'm not even going to argue the fact that most prestige classes are simply a way to make overpowered characters even more overpowered.

This I don't know about since I don't use any of them that aren't in the core books.

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...

Minis were always a given when I played the earlier editions, and they still are. I like them, the folks I've played with have generally liked them.

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.

Monsters have levels to make them more interesting, and to make the orc shaman different from the orc war chief different from the orc grunt.

I'm not going to slam your reference for the earlier editions, but I just don't pine for those rules.

 

[Ogrebear]

D&D Lite

So if OD&D and 1st/2nd Ed has things people like in terms of speed, simplicity etc and 3rd Ed has things people like in terms of armour that makes sence etc then has anyone tried combining the two?

Is there a 3rd Ed lite out there? Is there a version of the rules without Prestiage Classes, Feats, and masses of skills? etc etc. I know Wizards are making one but has anyone beaten them to it?

 

[diaglo]

Who do you think you are kidding? You speak to me as if I didn't know those books like the back of my hand. Shaman and witch doctor entries were a nice first step to the much more flexible later rules, but as they existed they were a far, far cry from the current flexibility and just another ad hoc ruling in a system rife with ad hoc rulings.

the point was again where you looked... just like francisca is saying. the DMG.. the Dungeon Masters Guide. for the Dungeon Master.

it isn't for the players to worry about if the goblin they face is a 3rd lvl shaman/ 5th lvl witchdoctor. and how to build him. the point was for them just to believe the DM knew what he was doing. [and don't say that witchdoctors and shamans don't exist in the rules. (ad hoc my behind... the MM, DMG, and DDG all had them) heck you can find some of them in the modules. just like you mentioned about adding more HD... basically for fighter types]

in the PHB there were lvl restrictions for PCs and in the DMG for Monster classes.

and don't tell me about handwaving and such. that still goes on. or about arbitrary rulings. or about ignoring rules in the older editions. or about including what you like and taking out what you don't. this board and others are full of the same old arguments.

the big difference btw older and newer editions... more rules in print. not newer rules. not better rules. not easy of play. not anything else.

just more rules in print.

 

[Piratecat]

Folks, what did Eric just say up-thread about not engaging in Edition Wars?

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Ideally, the games would be Rules Cyclopedia D&D and something from the following list: Harn, Rolemaster, Mythus, TORG, CoC, TW2K, Traveller.

Too bad you don't live in my neck of the woods. Soon I'm going to be springing a Basic D&D (Red Box) game on my group for a "Retro Night" and I'm still trying to find people to play Twilight:2000 with. You'd think that in the DC area I'd find a ton of military nuts to play T2K with but so far no luck.