AD&D is not "rules light"

[an_idol_mind]

A system like AD&D, where you can just ignore a rule you don't want to deal with, is thus "lighter" than a system like 3E, where you have to replace unwanted rules with house-rules.

There are several situations in AD&D where merely ignoring the rules would cause trouble, though. Take out the punching/grappling/overbearing system, for example, and you need another way of figuring out what happens when someone fights unarmed. Take out instant death effects and you're tossing out huge chunks of the Monster Manual and the various spell lists. Decide that you don't want to keep track of what round a fighter gets his extra attack if he makes 3 attacks every 2 rounds and you take away one of that class's few unique abilities. Decide that you don't like level limits and you upset the human-centric balance that is assumed through all early editions of the game. Some of these things may seem like minor points. To certain groups, though, it would be the equivalent of tossing the rulebooks in the trash.

Every system has things that you can toss out with no consequence and things that you need to house rule around if you want to change. The only difference is in what a specific group finds acceptable.

 

[Ariosto]

Decide that you don't want to keep track of what round a fighter gets his extra attack if he makes 3 attacks every 2 rounds and you take away one of that class's few unique abilities.

Yes, if one dumps it altogether (which is the point, I see).

One could treat it probabilistically, but that would be a "house rule".

A lot of things are easier to drop because the concept of balance in 3E/4E terms is not among the expectations of AD&D. For that matter, the concept of "AD&D", as Gygax bruited it in contrast to "D&D", is not such a big deal to many players; "mere D&D" is just fine by them!

 

[Doug McCrae]

A system like AD&D, where you can just ignore a rule you don't want to deal with, is thus "lighter" than a system like 3E, where you have to replace unwanted rules with house-rules.

I'd say you only need to replace in a small minority of cases. Most of the time in 3e you can simply remove a rule, just like in 1e.

For example you can remove specific monsters, magic items, spells and classes (with the possible exception of the cleric, healing and some cleric spells that remove conditions) without problems arising. That's 80% of the game, right there. Removing grappling in 3e is the same as in 1e. Remove attacks of opportunity? Straight outta there, there really aren't any significant balance issues.

In a few areas already mentioned - iterative attacks, ability drain, feats - a small amount of houseruling is required to maintain the balance which never existed in the first place if, for some reason, you were concerned about that. And I'm not sure how you could remove skills without screwing the rogue, but then again it's much more of a screwjob if you take away the 1e thief's thieving skills.

 

[Doug McCrae]

That said, I think 3e is more rules-heavy than 1e in the area where it really matters - the amount of numbers that appear in the table's 'headspace' (whether they appear verbally or not isn't hugely important) during play. There are just so many damn little modifiers in 3e. It's like the whole world is a Pummeling Table.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

That said, I think 3e is more rules-heavy than 1e in the area where it really matters - the amount of numbers that appear in the table's 'headspace' (whether they appear verbally or not isn't hugely important) during play. There are just so many damn little modifiers in 3e. It's like the whole world is a Pummeling Table.

Also the core interface of the game, defined as:

1. Character creation and progression
2. The base combat rules
3. Monster statblocks

These taken by themselves result in what I would describe as a rules-light game overall. The same cannot be said for 3E.

 

[rounser]

Also the core interface of the game, defined as:

1. Character creation and progression
2. The base combat rules
3. Monster statblocks

These taken by themselves result in what I would describe as a rules-light game overall. The same cannot be said for 3E.

I'd argue you forgot:

4. Spells
5. Magic items

AD&D is nothing without it's three pillars of splat. And the spells and items do represent subsystems and exception clauses of their own.

Proof of AD&D's reliance on it's spells can be found in the number of class abilities, monster abilities and magic item abilities that reference a spell as their effect as a kind of shorthand.

 

[Silver Moon]

Ah, gotta love these threads!

I know a little about this system, as my weekly gaming group still uses 1st Edition rules. We've just completed our 149th module and 1094th game night in 27 years. I'd say it varies from rules light to rules heavy depending upon which member of the group is the DungeonMaster.

Haven't played 4E yet but I have read the PHB. I've played lots of 2E and 3E. My conclusion.....It's all D&D to me.

 

[Orius]

The difference might be that 3E was playable under the RAW. Good luck working out the 1E AD&D RAW in places, let alone playing it.

So I'd argue that there is some validity to this double standard, because no-one (even Gygax himself) played AD&D that way, whereas you can with core 3E. The AD&D DMG resembles a rambling letter from an eccentric uncle armed with a well-thumbed thesaurus in places, but that's part of the charm.

What's funny though is when the edition war threads crop up, someone grouses how bad 3e or even 4e is and points out some rule that was never in 1e as evidence, and how the addition of that rule RUINED D&D FOREVER. Then someone points out that indeed that rule was in 1e or at least a very similar rule, and then the reply is, "well we just ignored that rule when we played". It's getting to point were it's almost facepalm worthy.

More to the point, not only can you play 3E that way, but you pretty much have to. As stated earlier, it's very easy to take the silly obnoxious time-consuming rules from AD&D, whack them off with an axe, and proceed on your merry way. You can't do that in 3E; the rules are too integrated. Whacking off rules with an axe leaves giant gaps that require a bunch of house rules to fill.

I never found it to be a serious problem in 3e. Then again a lot of these things like say feats were modular and didn't need to be used all at once. Besides, the d20 mechanic always felt pretty smooth and in less need of houseruling than some stuff in 2e, so I never felt the need to hack anything off.

Do they?
Feats? Goodbye! Okay so the fighter now sucks even more than before, but if I cared about balance why am I removing feats? I *want* casters to pwn fighters because I'm a nerd who got bullied by jocks at school.

Casters already pwn fighters. Nothing needs to be done.

 

[rounser]

What's funny though is when the edition war threads crop up, someone grouses how bad 3e or even 4e is and points out some rule that was never in 1e as evidence, and how the addition of that rule RUINED D&D FOREVER. Then someone points out that indeed that rule was in 1e or at least a very similar rule, and then the reply is, "well we just ignored that rule when we played". It's getting to point were it's almost facepalm worthy.

The problem with the point you're making is that AD&D's systems aren't as tightly integrated as these games. You'd have to remove, say AD&D's cleric spells to get a similar effect on the game as removing 3e's feats. Ignoring weapons vs armour and grappling from AD&D just aren't in the same ballpark as removing AoOs from 3E. Even in 3E, the ripple effect from removing grapple is greater, because monsters use it, although that shouldn't stop you (who cares about Mr Ogre being annoyed).

So before you consider facepalming your opposition, maybe consider that you might need to slap your own forehead instead.

 

[Dausuul]

What's funny though is when the edition war threads crop up, someone grouses how bad 3e or even 4e is and points out some rule that was never in 1e as evidence, and how the addition of that rule RUINED D&D FOREVER. Then someone points out that indeed that rule was in 1e or at least a very similar rule, and then the reply is, "well we just ignored that rule when we played". It's getting to point were it's almost facepalm worthy.

...Okay, I'll bite. Example?