The thing I miss most from AD&D is...

[MerricB]

...experience points for treasure gained.

I understand where the XP systems of 3e and 4e are coming from and, mostly, I think they achieve their goal. However, I feel that there is a unifying feature for XP=GP that is sometime sorely missed. When the primary motivation in an adventure is Treasure(!), then you know what everyone wants and the glee of finding a dragon's hoard is more than merely "what can I buy with this stuff?" (Which, a lot of the time in AD&D, was "a follower" or "a castle" - not some bit of magical power).

Sure, not giving XP for treasure opens up a wide set of other motivations. Not all PCs need to be mercenaries. It makes the monk fit in a bit more. However, occasionally the nostalgia overtakes me and I mourn the loss of finding 1000 gold... and gaining 1000 XP!

Cheers!

 

[Korgoth]

I like it too and always use it.

My idea is that the players will try to do whatever it is that they get the most XP for. So if it's for treasure, they will take risks and go to great lengths to get treasure. Which fits my conception of what adventuring is about.

On the other hand, if all or most XP comes from killing monsters, the PCs become more like Green Berets on a Search and Destroy mission: they seek to kill every dang monster and clear every level of OpFor.

This is why I also like Classic Traveller: in the virtual absence of any character advancement whatsoever, they have to make up their own goals.

 

[Orius]

I don't really miss it. I got in to the game pretty much in the 2e era, where the rule was being more or less phased out. I did play a bit with the black box Basic rules, and I came to dislike the rule there because i thought it was advancing the game far too quickly. The fact that the black box went up to only level 5 and the RC had become unavailable might have colored my view somewhat.

I think the biggest problem was 2e's attempt to drop it. As I mentioned in the discussion going on over in Quasqueston's analysis topic, I think the designers tried to compensate, but making the rule optional slowed down level advancement slow down. I remember a few modules and adventure from Dungeon that I read were hading out story awards, and I think this was to compensate for what had become a gimped advancement.

Some people may not like the treasure and experience systems of 3e and 4e, but they do at least address the fact that XP for treasure had been removed from the game. And 3e at least tried to make a system where DMs were giving out a balanced amount of treasure, not too much or too few. In 2e, the old alphabet tables were used, and they were starting to get clunky.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There are a couple of spells...but really, not that much.

Don't get me wrong, I love AD&D. I just don't miss it. If a game of AD&D popped up on my radar, I'd play, no question. But currently, 3.X is my D&D of choice.

 

[Sagawork_Studios]

...blue maps depicting crafty dungeon design.

@Merricb
And I have just spent a bit of time googling Waubra, which appears to be a stone's throw from Ballarat/Ballaraat.

Heh, I grew up in Stawell.

The other thing I miss is my school AD&D buddies and our first run into the Temple of Elemental Evil.

 

[Rechan]

I miss the "You get a Keep and dudes to run it at 9th level". I like nation building and management of that style, and I haven't seen that thing in 3e or 4e at all yet.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I miss the "You get a Keep and dudes to run it at 9th level". I like nation building and management of that style, and I haven't seen that thing in 3e or 4e at all yet.

Strongholders Guide or what it was called proved useful in our Wacky-Super-Powergaming-Munchkin-Dream Forgotten Realms campaign. Leadership + tons of money way beyond our "suggested wealth by level" made us invest into our own fortress.

But it would be nice if some 4E supplement would add this as an option. But maybe it's too niche, too "simulationist"?

 

[Rechan]

But it would be nice if some 4E supplement would add this as an option. But maybe it's too niche, too "simulationist"?

Depends on the approach.

If you have details about the privy system and how much digging a well is going to cost, yes.

I think tieing the whole thing to the wealth rules is a BAD IDEA. The wealth rules for 4e are purely a magical item economy issue. So it'd need its own system to address it. I could easily see it done in terms of Points. Your Building Points is determined by level, and each "point" represents purchasing an add on.

Such an endeaver, I think, would be less useful if there aren't some rules for mass combat. Because, having a keep and soldiers and stuff is kinda pointless if every DM who uses it has to come up with rules for handling the siege, or using the followers as an army.

But then, I think part of the fun of this is to say, become a wizard, build a lab, and get your followers to do research for you. "YOU, Grad stu- APPRENTICES! Make some magical items, make me money! Get to work! I've got a world to save." "APPRENTICES! I need you to crawl through this pile of books to find me a single line of information about the Dreaded Soul Filetter. I need it by lunch. Get to work."

 

[EroGaki]

I miss magic that was unpredictable and/or dangerous to the caster, as well as his companions. It added some zest to the game. For instance, Haste aged the mage one year every time he cast it, and fly had a somewhat random duration; the last few turns were rolled in secret by the DM, so you never quite knew when it would end. Not to mention the old Fly spell didn't have that feather fall clause in it...

I also miss cursed items. You never really see them in D&D these days.

 

[Rechan]

...blue maps depicting crafty dungeon design.

There's a way to make your own.