What DO you like about 1E AD&D

[Ulrick]

I asked my group last weekend if the next campaign could be 1e.

they replied "no, youd be the only one who knew the rules"

sigh...

Yeah, I might be in that same boat, too. I even have 4 extra Player's Handbooks to share. And really, that's all the players need to play the game. The DM has everything else.

Here's what I'm going to propose to my players:

1. Part of the fun is not knowing everything, even the rules. 1st Edition has a lot of things that may seem familiar to 3.5 at first, but soon you'll find that its a different creature.

2. 1st Edition Player's Handbooks can be found for relatively cheap on ebay or a used book store.

3. 1st Edition is easier to learn than 3.5. More rules don't necessarily make a better system.
Neither do more options.

4. Try it for a few sessions. If you don't like it, we can convert your characters to 3.5.

 

[Humanaut]

It's a lot of the little things lots of others have touched on already, but it might be that i started Basic, then 1e, when i was 10 y.o. back in 1980... crazy childhood adventures! AND i'd still sit down with 1e core and read for fun, not so with 3.5

 

[an_idol_mind]

Something else I like, which I believe was in 1st edition: paladins who have to tithe to their church and who can't own more than 10 magical items.

A lot of the things I like about AD&D involve the restrictions built around specialist classes. I like the idea that paladins, druids, assassins, and the like are more powerful than a fighter, cleric, or thief, but also face some unique challenges that make advancing in that path very difficult. I totally understand why such conventions were considered bad game design later on, but they were balancing mechanics that worked well in the type of games I enjoy running.

 

[Mighty Veil]

Man, does that feel good to read that kind of post...

James, I can tell you that I agree with your post like I probably never agreed to an ENWorld post before. I totally get what you're talking about here. This is a critical point regarding tabletop RPGs.

I agree.

 

[Sanguinemetaldawn]

There is something UNDEFINEABLE that I like about. Maybe it's got a lot to do with nostalgia.

...
<snip>
...

Were some of the old rules complicated? Sure. Yet I find myself MISSING some of those needless complications and for a couple of years now having NO interest in the expanding complexity of 3rd Edition sourcebooks. I'd almost rather go back to a flawed, glorious mess of fun that is 1E and try to fix what's wrong with it than start with a crisp, cleanly designed system that is 3.5 and try to find for it the soul it seems to have eliminated.

What I like about 1E AD&D is that it is not a game of rules, but just rules for a game. Truly, my penchant for 1E boils down to that, and not some list of rules crunch or flavor text. It is the largely unwritten philosophy that lies behind the current game that makes the complete absence of philosophy behind the old game likeable.

This is something I have been thinking about for quite a while, and what I have concluded is this:

Generally, the rules used in AD&D were created individually as situations arose, and the ruleset is essentially just a compilation of a bunch of different rules. I don't think complicated is really the right word for the 1st Ed ruleset (not that some of them weren't). They really felt to me more like a disorganized jumble of quirky rules, each of which was different.

I think this had several effects. Each sub-rule-system has a different feel, and many times the feel has a lot of "flavor". Also, the unexpressed (an unconsious) design philosophy of 1 Ed. AD&D ends up being: Imagine something, then create the rules to make it work in the game.

That last is especially important. Its a lot easier to shut a new game design element down, when it is related to another part of the core rules, and then the argument is about how it messes up the core rules. Not having rules for everything basically requires and encourages creativity; having rules for everything discourages making new rules because it has to fit with the pre-existing rules or it causes problems.

Thus the real foundation of AD&D: describe what you do and use common sense to adjudicate it. Yes, because the action must be adjudicated by the DM, a bad DM will kill the game, but that is pretty much true regardless of edition.


The major innovation of d20 was: always roll a d20, always roll high. And despite having the advantage of this clear straighforward starting point, it still has plenty of complicated rules. Really they should have kept the philosophy of AD&D and changed the minimum necessary to make the d20 the unified mechanic. I suspect that is the fundamental design paradigm of C&C, True20, etc.

...

Another interesting point is the use of different die for various AD&D sub-systems means variable granularity. Using a d6 vs a d20 to detect sliding walls basically says modifiers are are unimportant, while using a d100 instead of a d20 for Pummelling says, there are a ton of different modifiers that can affect this action, so lets account for them.

Not having a unified d20 mechanic basically sets a range of types of tasks: from simple fast you-succeed-or-you-don't, to long, drawn out complicated tasks. This is one of my fundamental conclusions about d20:

d20 is frequently simpler, but simpler isn't automatically better.

And, at worst, d20 is sometimes more complicated, more rigid, and flavorless, which is just plain worse.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

All the non-mechanical differences between playing 1e and playing 3.5e.

Oh. Also, no real attraction to being 9 again.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

...the rules used in AD&D were created individually as situations arose, and the ruleset is essentially just a compilation of a bunch of different rules.

I agree; I see AD&D as Gary's OD&D house-rules, made canon. (If you play OD&D[1974] with many of the optional rules from the supplements -- especially Greyhawk, it's so close to AD&D that you might as well just play AD&D.)

Not having a unifiied d20 mechanic basically sets a range of types of tasks...

This is something I like about older editions of D&D, actually. At one time, I believed unified mechanics were inherently superior in RPGs; I no longer think so. I like "quirky" and flavorful subsystems that are tailored to the concept they're modeling. I don't think they add a significant amount of complexity, in most cases.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Also, no real attraction to being 9 again.

Have no fear on that score; playing AD&D won't make you nine, again.

 

[Ulrick]

Something else I like, which I believe was in 1st edition: paladins who have to tithe to their church and who can't own more than 10 magical items.

A lot of the things I like about AD&D involve the restrictions built around specialist classes. I like the idea that paladins, druids, assassins, and the like are more powerful than a fighter, cleric, or thief, but also face some unique challenges that make advancing in that path very difficult. I totally understand why such conventions were considered bad game design later on, but they were balancing mechanics that worked well in the type of games I enjoy running.

I also like that in order to be in one of these specialized classes, you had to have great abilities scores. To be a paladin, you needed a 17 in charisma. Using the standard 4d6 drop the lowest method, this made characters like this rare...as they should be.

In Unearthed Arcana, the paladin became the subclass of the Cavalier, which had some potent special abilities, but was balanced with more restrictions--like refusing to wear certain types of armor and bypassing +3 chainmail for a suit of platemail. Or my favorite, in battle, the Cavalier HAS to charge the strongest looking opponent. If he can't directly get to the opponent, he HAS to cut his way through. Oh, and the Cavalier doesn't get a 10% XP bonus for having high abilities.

And then you have the Barbarian in UA, who has all kinds of cool abilities. However, going up in levels will take a long time...starting at 6,000 XP to reach 2nd level!

This is part of what I like about 1st Edition, you may play specialized character, but it comes with cost. Yet it add flavor to the game.

 

[sunrisekid]

This is part of what I like about 1st Edition, you may play specialized character, but it comes with cost. Yet it add flavor to the game.

You're totally right about this! All those whacky exceptions DID add flavour, and in some strange ways created it's own subtext and sometimes unspoken backstory. Think about it, why would a barbarian require soooo much experience just to level up? Maybe the inherent savagery and lack of civilization makes it difficulty to acquire new skills and talents (I'm just making this up on the fly, don't want to offend any savages in the crowd There is a mechanics balancing act involved here of course but it's something that also contributes to the implied story behind character creation and progression.

Dirk the Daring: "Hey guys, I just learned how to spin around really fast and lop the heads off of everyone nearby! Oh man, and Merlin is casting spells to summon demons and shoot lightening and fly around and junk. Hey Grog, you learn anything new lately?"

Grog the Drooler: "Um, me bash stuff good. Goblins are tuff but, you know, me try hard."

Dirk: "Oh, uh, well yeah, those goblins can get tricky... look, Merlin and I are going to go and slay that big red dragon; how about you stay here and make sure no goblins come and steal the livestock."

Grog: "um, ok.. :-( "


3E never grew on me the way earlier versions did; I thought it was just me getting or something, but maybe 3E is just kind of bland and sterile with regard to game mechanics. After all, if we consider the unspoken backstory what sort of divine order would let someone with CHA 10 become a paladin?