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

[Storm Raven]

IMO, it is indeed the 'fault' of the system (i.e., the difference in experience is due to the system's design). Not a matter of better or worse, except where, well, it subjectively is.

No, it isn't. It is the fault of the player. You can agonize over decisions that you might make months from now or not. It is entirely your choice no matter the system. A system might make it "better" mechinically if you do make "good" choices, but worrying about that is entirely up to the player.

 

[Aus_Snow]

No, it isn't. It is the fault of the player. You can agonize over decisions that you might make months from now or not. It is entirely your choice no matter the system. A system might make it "better" mechinically if you do make "good" choices, but worrying about that is entirely up to the player.

When build choices you make at a given level might well greatly impact your character's survivability at higher levels (let alone straight away, obviously) there is, for many people anyway, some call for 'agonising' (or something in less extreme language, even) over such choices. Also, some who don't 'agonise' at least a little bit are quite likely to be stung later on. Discovering this for the first time could be a revelatory experience, and not - for some - in a good way.

Besides which anyway, this:

I also miss character generation as opposed to building. Roll some stats, pick a class. buy equipment and play.

. . . seems more to me about relative complexity and time investment of chargen, when comparing systems. Your bringing up the whole system mastery issue, if unintentionally and, ironically, via denial, was probably not even quite pertinent to the precise point.

But maybe it was. I'll let EW respond there, if he or she so wishes.

 

[Storm Raven]

When build choices you make at a given level might well greatly impact your character's survivability at higher levels (let alone straight away, obviously) there is, for many people anyway, some call for 'agonising' (or something in less extreme language, even) over such choices. Also, some who don't 'agonise' at least a little bit are quite likely to be stung later on. Discovering this for the first time could be a revelatory experience, and not - for some - in a good way.

How you play the game is on you. Not the system. If you are annoyed that character creation takes a long time in more recent editions, it is because you are making things more difficult than they have to be. You can create a character in 3e/3.5e (or 4e) D&D in ten minutes, or many hours. If you are taking many hours to make a character you can't blame the system.

Besides which anyway, this: . . . seems more to me about relative complexity and time investment of chargen, when comparing systems. Your bringing up the whole system mastery issue, if unintentionally and, ironically, via denial, was probably not even quite pertinent to the precise point.

The complaint seemed to be aimed at a previous comment that making characters took forever because people had to plan out their character many levels in advance. The chargen in more recent editions of D&D can take scant minutes: I know because I have put together several characters in just a handful of minutes each. If chargen is taking a long time for more recent editions, that is a function of the player, not the system.

 

[haakon1]

You can agonize over decisions that you might make months from now or not. It is entirely your choice no matter the system. A system might make it "better" mechinically if you do make "good" choices, but worrying about that is entirely up to the player.

Agreed. It largely comes down to whether you care about getting the "best" rules to maximize your power, making the character who's story you want to tell regardless of mechanics, or about getting on with the fight. I prefer the latter two styles of play, as do most folks I've encountered in real life, but internet mileage seems to vary.

 

[Aus_Snow]

*sigh*

I somehow knew it would go that way. . .

Look, I wasn't meaning the difference between 'a handful of minutes' and 'several hours'. Yeesh. YOu can engage in hyperbole all you like, and it still doesn't alter tha fact that rules light systems (or at least, many of them anyway) require significantly less time and other investment at the chargen stage. Now, of course, you could go and assume 'significantly' to mean in this case the quoted difference. . . however, that's not quite the reality, so it serves no point other than to, perhaps, win the interwebs or, um, I dunno. Whatever.

There's a fundamental difference, like it or not, whatever your system preferences. I like both, personally (including the actual extremes, and in between too). But ymmv, and so on.


Ah yes, AD&D. In my experience, it conforms to what I believe ExploderWizard was referring to. So: agreed! Just, y'know, to get back to the thread proper. . .

 

[Ariosto]

It's not a matter of "agonizing over" decisions. I think it's pretty normal to want a working knowledge of what's being generated. Having to read more pages to get that is a significant factor. Having to read more just to get the instructions to follow is very significant at first.

Moreover, even if one randomizes the selections, more steps are still more steps!

 

[catsclaw227]

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.

You could take this and replace "3.x" with "4e(and maybe pathfinder)" and it would be me.

I didn't read past this early post, like 5th or something, but based upon the OP and because I haven't read past my quoted post, my unadulterated opinion is that I miss....

I also miss the nostalgic feeling. It was born on a trust between player and DM, that even though DM made sh*t up most of the time and the RAW was a loose breeze, at most, our gamemaster wanted us to win as much as we did. But a great DM in an AD&D game can make the (wonkiest) ruleset seem seamless, and make the vast mystical set of houserules -- sometimes introduced on a whim (and it made sense!) -- feel unfettered and simple.

But it all depended upon a good DM. My friend Eric Welling. He was a wondrous and mind-blowing DM.

I loved the rules-heavy, RAW strict, PCs = NPCs, CR/ECL = balance, nature of 3.x. I really did, until I started running the APs put out by Paizo, Shackled City, Savage tide, Age of Worms (we played in that order, not the release order). These campaigns were awesomely written, but a BEAST to run as a DM in to the mid-high levels. The stories, wild and interesting. But... they were all meat-grinders in the early levels and massive DM homework in the latter levels.

I grew weary of DMing 3.x... Maybe it's the 100 proof peppermint schnapps talking, but who knows.

I now run 4e. And I do it like I did back in 1981.

I try to DM 4e like I did back in those AD&D Days. So I miss very little, as I like the ruleset but I still get to revel in the ol' skool feel I get when I DM my current group. It feels like AD&D again.

 

[Aloïsius]

How you play the game is on you. Not the system. If you are annoyed that character creation takes a long time in more recent editions, it is because you are making things more difficult than they have to be. You can create a character in 3e/3.5e (or 4e) D&D in ten minutes, or many hours. If you are taking many hours to make a character you can't blame the system.

And then, just three level later, the DM says "now, you can't take that cool feat, because your charisma is not high enough". Another bunch of level and that's "yes, you can chose this attack power, but frankly, you will rarely be able to connect to your target, it's not on your build list*". And then "You can't take that parangon path. Nor this one : You should multiclass to take it, and you can't take the multiclass feat because bla-bla-bla".
It's roughly the same problem in 3e : feat and PRC pre-requisite are sometime so hard to reach that it's impossible to have them without planing from level 1. The retraining rules of 4e help a little, but not so much because of all the stat pre-requisites.

As I said elsewhere, I would rather have a few restriction based upon fluff than a lot of restrictions based upon crunch. A DM saying me "no, halfling can't be juggernaut berserkers, that's silly" is less irritating than "sorry, the rules says that you need 12 ranks in knowledge arcana to take that Prc, you won't be able to take it before level 21..."


Needless to say, after such an experience, the player will take hours to create a new character... And that's entirely because of the system.

*Note that disincentive like this are better than hard coded restrictions based upon char stats.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Except they aren't functioning as a team. They are functioning as people forced to act as a team. Individual initiative allows the players to work as a team if they can do so, which makes it a question of skill rather than a side effect of a game mechanic.

They can do either as they wish or playing skill and familiarity with each other permits. I enjoy a level of cooperative skill that is less involved with system mastery.

Besides which anyway, this: . . . seems more to me about relative complexity and time investment of chargen, when comparing systems. Your bringing up the whole system mastery issue, if unintentionally and, ironically, via denial, was probably not even quite pertinent to the precise point.

But maybe it was. I'll let EW respond there, if he or she so wishes.

He. My chargen comment was really more about time investment than anything else. I don't see system mastery issues as really separate though since such motivations can be the prime source of the time investment.

 

[Mercule]

Never played with the GP -> XP, but I wish I had.

What I miss is the balance (or lack thereof). It's not that I want anyone to sit at the sidelines or feel inferior. But in 1e, I didn't feel bad if I tossed a 1st level character an artifact (not that I made a habit of it, mind you). In 3e and 4e, that's pretty well declared as Wrong. Ditto for letting one player play a character 10 levels above the rest of the group and act as mentor. I don't want unbalanced. I want flexible balance.

The other things I know I miss are the idea that PCs generally end up with a hold of some sort, not just extraplanar dungeons. And the followers/henchmen. I've never had a campaign without copious followers, pets, and even full NPC party members, without any problems; so the 4e focus on economy of actions seems incredibly heavy-handed and stifling to me.