What do you dislike about 1E?

[Psion]

I wish it were so simple. As DM I have had HOURS long arguements with players who learned on 3E and just will not accept Rule 0, the Dm is always right.

And have you seen this to be vastly different between editions?

I haven't. But perhaps it's because I am generous to a point, but when I say no, I pretty much mean it.

I see rules lawyering as a personal malady.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

So, you don't want RPG books you want VCR manuals. RPGs books are more then just rules.

In light of the fact that the poster to whom you addressed this remark complained in this thread about the decline in the quality of D&D prose, I think it is safe to say that he does not want a VCR manual.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

The idea that Str and Con worked differently for Warrior based classes also makes a lot of sense to me. Think about it like so, A fighter has a better idea of how to best use his strength and body to maximum effect while a Wizard or Priest are more focused on spiritual or magickal pursuits.

A fighter's "better idea of how to best use his strength and body to maximum effect" was already accounted for in his superior THAC0. The different strength and constitution rules for warriors vs non-warriors was lame, IMO.

 

[Gentlegamer]

A fighter's "better idea of how to best use his strength and body to maximum effect" was already accounted for in his superior THAC0. The different strength and constitution rules for warriors vs non-warriors was lame, IMO.

First and second level Fighting Men have the same "to hit" chance as first through third level Clerics. Exceptional Strength helps set them apart, particularly in respect to damage. Also, exceptional Strength added to weight allowance and so on.

The combat issue became a bit muddled with the advent of Weapon Specialization, though.

 

[Meadred]

What did you really need to look up in first ewdtion? THe pain in the butt stuff was level limits for non humans really.

1e was a DM's game, it had few options for the players and gave them little power. 3e is a players game giving the players all the rules and options. They are different and not all the chqanges have been good.

Bravo! I couldn't have said it better myself.

Actually, I've tried to express the same thought for some time (since the first 1st/2nd Ed. vs. 3.x thread), but haven't gotten it that short and to the point.

Cheers,
Meadred

 

[green slime]

What I disliked about 1e?

Nothing.

 

[mmadsen]

Hors de Combat

The basics of the D&D combat system: roll d20, compare attack modifiers & level with AC, and deal damage in hit points, are inspired. They work really, really well - and are the biggest change from Chainmail (where one hit would kill).

I wouldn't say they work really, really well, but I would say that they -- like a lot of D&D mechanics and genre conventions -- have a kernel of something that works really, really well, despite a number of obvious flaws.

After all, you don't have to study the D&D combat system to realize it's pretty wacky: hitting doesn't mean hitting, damage doesn't mean damage, healing doesn't mean healing, etc. What isn't obvious is that it works better than other systems that seem to make sense (when you're reading them in a rulebook).

I think D&D might have worked better with a single attack roll vs. AC to put a unit hors de combat (disabled or otherwise out of action) -- as long as PCs and major NPCs had Fate Points to soak up the first few near-deaths.

 

[teitan]

And have you seen this to be vastly different between editions?

I haven't. But perhaps it's because I am generous to a point, but when I say no, I pretty much mean it.

I see rules lawyering as a personal malady.

Actually, it has been a larger phenomenon in my 3e games than in previous editions. I never had to gripe at a player for disagreeing with me, it was simply a "that's the way it is" and the arguement was settled. In 3e, which has a rule for ALMOST everything that can be looked up, I find that players like to look up the rules, DM be damned. They don't have the respect for the amount of time a DM puts into the adventures etc. like they did in 2e and we even put more time into them NOW than we did 6 or 7 years ago! Lets put it this way, now that I have left that group and 3 of them have begun DMing their own campaigns they have all walked up to me, apologized for being a--holes and shook my hand. One of the problem players came to me for advice because he had started an evil, anything goes game and they had totally ruined EVERYTHING he had planned and couldn't figure out how to bring the game back under control.

I didn't have that with my 1e and 2e players because there wasn't a proliferation of rules, it was a case of let the DM handle it.

Jason

 

[ssampier]

two coppers from youngin'

I'm a young, twenty-something year old. As such, I didn't play AD&D when it first came out. I have, however, played a 1st edition game (I have not, however, played any of the modules). I'd be fair and list the things I both like and dislike:

Like:

The artwork, the simple b&w line art captures my imagination a bit more than the static art in the 3.x books.

Magic items, they were rare and difficult to make*

Grandmaster of Flowers, need I say more?

Sample dungeon and example play

Random tables

When you ignored E.G.G. overuse of the word, milieu, the writing had a certain "feel". I liked the certain phrase (can't remember exact wording) that talked about possibilities, such as the stars, sun, and beyond (DMG). The exact phrase made me want to go explore those realms of possibility.

Dislike:

Hit tables
Initiative
Level Limits
Racial class limits
The Bard class

*I understand the modules had quite a bit of magic items in them

 

[Pants]

You mean dragons can't breathe every round now?

Once every 1d4 rounds I believe.