Next year, I'm back to running AD&D

[MerricB]

At present, I'm running two 4E campaigns and playing in one more. The levels of the campaigns are 26th, 16th and 6th, with the last being the one I play in. I'm expecting that our epic-level campaign (which we started when 4E was released and has played through most of the HPE series) will end up around Christmas.

My players have said to me that they'd like the new campaign to return to my version of the World of Greyhawk (which most of my campaigns have been set in over the past 15 years), and to be set in the land of the Frost Barbarians.

This is fine by me, as I've unfinished business up there - my brother's PC became King of the Frost Barbarians once, long ago, but it was all part of the Five Shall Be One storyline and he was duped by Iuz. What's happened since then? (My campaign has advanced to 20 years after those events). It'll be good to find out.

However, I've indicated to the players that we'll be using the AD&D 1st Edition rules for this campaign. They seem to be ok with it so far. (It might be that it all falls apart before we start, but for now I'm progressing with the assumption that I will be running AD&D).

Why AD&D? Why not 4E or 3E?

A large part of it is due to the length of time it has been since I ran AD&D. I'm fascinated by the development of the D&D system, but I feel I'm losing touch with how AD&D actually plays. There are bits and pieces that I think I know about it (combat runs quicker than 4E!) that I'm not actually sure are true.

I expect that when the players realise they need a cleric, their experience will change a bit. I'm actually quite interested in seeing how much the cleric ends up being "after encounter" healing and not "in encounter" healing - which is where the 3E and 4E cleric tended to live.

Then too, there are certain parts of AD&D that have de-emphasised in later editions, and I'd like to play them up in this game. In particular:

* Henchmen
* Wandering Monsters
* Reactive Dungeons

Henchmen, in particular, have had a rocky ride. They were tremendously important in AD&D. In 2E, the system for henchmen disappeared, and became "DM makes things up". In 3E, the system became a feat - which we used. And in 4E, henchmen exist as part of the optional rules from Dragon magazine.

However, for a smaller group such as I have (4 players) where not everyone can make each session, they allow the filling of holes, and they also provide good world-building and roleplaying possibilities.

Wandering Monsters exist - to a certain extent - in 3E and 4E, but there are problems with their usage, in particular with how long a combat can take. (I'm rather pleased with the brevity of our 26th level 4E combats, but even so...)

Likewise with Reactive Dungeons. Actually, it's less of a system-specific thing than a DM thing. Gary writes about them in the AD&D DMG, where he discusses the different approaches of a lair to being attacked, then being attacked a week later after resupply. (I've a feeling that running a reactive lair is much, much easier when you've designed it yourself than when you're running from a published adventure).

I bring up Wandering Monsters and Reactive Dungeons precisely because I think they're the two biggest elements for stopping the 15 Minute Adventuring Day. We'll see how that goes...

Another thing that I expect will be greatly different between AD&D and 4E is the role of magic items. In 4E, magic items are (mostly) dull. They pretty much have to be - the design space they would have occupied has been taken by class powers. When a fighter gets a magic item, it isn't really granting him something that he couldn't do before. I think this is different in AD&D, but it will be interesting to see how it goes.

(I've already placed a wand of fear with 7 charges into the first dungeon... as I plan ahead by four months or so).

The other part of AD&D magic items as opposed to 4E is that 4E expects the characters have the "big three" items. It's part of the maths. It's less so in AD&D... with both damage and AC not really scaling that much. I'm going to be very interested to see how it actually plays, as opposed to my theorising about it.

Oh, and as for the campaign itself: A small village on the edge of the Frost Barbarian lands is in trouble: their last raiding party to the lands of the south was destroyed and their dragon ship with it. Now the village is being plagued by goblin bandits. The goblins have come into possession of a map to a mystical dungeon - a shrine to the old gods of the barbarians, now forgotten but holding old magic - but the goblins don't know what they have...

(As for the other campaign I run, it will continue in Greyhawk 4E).

Cheers!

 

[grodog]

Sounds like a blast, Merric: you going to write up some of the campaign materials for CF!?

 

[MerricB]

We'll see how it goes. One of the problems is just the glacial (hah!) speed of these games - once every two weeks which then gets interrupted.

Even my 16th level City of Greyhawk game hasn't really added that much new lore that seems to be worth sharing; not like the Ulek game.

Cheers!

 

[ThunhusDM]

Are you planning to use miniatures and battlemats? Those could make play experience very different.

Thunhus

 

[Lanefan]

Depending on how you and-or your players approach it, I wonder if the biggest difference you'll notice will be the pace of exploration: instead of taking 20 on a search check they'll now have to tell you where they're searching and how, etc.

Are you going 1e RAW or with some tweaks?

Lanefan

 

[MerricB]

There will be tweaks. I don't believe it is possible to run AD&D RAW... just the initiative system requires house rules. That said...

...no monks or paladins (out of character for a Viking-type campaign)
...no Unearthed Arcana. The basics will be just from the PHB.
...no psionics
...possibly no training

I'll let you know more about the rules as I get closer to running it.

Cheers!

 

[IronWolf]

Sounds like a fun time! Look forward to hearing how things go once you get underway!

 

[Is_907]

Also interested in how things go once running... I've never had a chance to play AD&D in any form (started playing with 3e) but have a fascination with seeing how different rulesets can hinder or help gameplay.

 

[howandwhy99]

AD&D out of the box needs work in my opinion. There are a number of sketchy rules and some elements not nearly enough fleshed out. As you point out the initiative rules really need pairing down. Other elements I would ditch or rewrite include Sages and the MM's monster treasure table. Elements I find nods to, but are not within the rulebook include racial and alignment relationship maps. NPC knowledge maps and more NPC classes to cover all item creation and services are needed too.

I'll also say clerics are not essential to a party. Heck, any class isn't essential for a PC party. Try playing with only magic-users in the party. I think you'll find the focus on combat declines sharply as it is more prudent to avoid them and deal with magics in the world instead. Combat is really for the fighting-man class and its sub-classes. Clerics are where NPC maps, including relationships with henchmen, followers, and hirelings really shine. They are all about the intelligent monster.

Also, for lots of NPCs in a party I suggest rolling their dice in a pool depending upon initiative grouping. For wandering monsters I typically pre-roll for the scenario timeline by region, but that's your call. I find the prep helps cut down on rolls at the table. Plus, WMs and a reactive environment both cut down on the 15 minute adventuring day as delving hundreds of feet into a dungeon means potentially fighting one's way back out again must always be accounted for. Plus, slower healing keeps players cautious and planning their next moves before making them - something that falls under the WIS stat for NPCs.

Other points on what you wrote: magic item usage is by class typically. Yeah, IME AD&D MIs enable PCs with wildly different abilities than what their class abilities offer. But watch out for wands and permanent items, they are vastly more powerful in AD&D. Also AC and damage are not tied to class, so they aren't balanced in that manner in the game. They are item-based or, IOW, part of treasure accumulation. Lastly, stuff like training is primarily for NPC leveling. [edit: They level slower] and are why I don't include crits and the like as the odds lean towards a more deadly game for the players who actually go out adventuring.

Good call though on trying to get back to your roots to rediscover what you liked about the game. Even if you leave it afterwards you can always take some of those forgotten elements with you to new games.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I ran a short 2e campaign recently (hope to run a 1e campaign followed by an od&d campaign if possible). Have to say noticed huge differences going back to 2e (mostly played 3e since it came out). The mechanics in 2e were less unified than 3e and i though this would be a negative but it really had advantages (the numbers were more contained for example). Curious what i will see going back to 1e.