Going Back in Time...AD&D

[Lanefan]

It's obscure insofar as I'm pretty sure most groups ignored it: either the DM made a conscious decision to ignore the rule, or the DM learnt the rules from another group and never bothered checking the dying rules in the DMG because dead at -10 is easy to remember. Then, when we look back on those days when we played AD&D regularly, we don't remember that the rule existed.

We've never used the week-of-rest-after-negative rule, though if you go negative there's a period of time (based on how negative you went) where you can't be healed much above zero - and are thus at much more risk of getting clobbered again. And if you go negative again while still incurable from the first time, your curable maximum gets lower...and if said maximum ever reaches zero you die because your body just can't take any more.

Lan-"and you still die at -10, regardless"-efan

 

[Bullgrit]

Yup, if someone posts their opinion that they enjoyed 1e because they felt that it is simpler than 3e or 4e, you can count on a whole bunch of people to show up, point out some really obscure 1e rules, tell them they played 1e wrong, and that if they played 1e correctly, they would have realized how much it sucks. This is referred to as "mythbusting".

Hardly what transpired here.

First off, the OP said he was using the negative hit point rule –- so it’s at least not obscure to him. He just house ruled out (even if unintentionally) the inconvenient part of the rule.

And that house ruling out parts of the system is what makes comparisons to other editions unfair. You can’t honestly compare one edition of the game with the inconvenient parts taken out with another edition of the game played as RAW. At least you shouldn’t expect everyone else in the forum to just let such a comparison stand without correction, (the mythbusting). Either compare both editions as RAW, or compare both editions with similar house rules.

The negative hit points rule, in this case, was just the obvious example for pointing out the comparison problem. It just adds irony to the whole thing when it’s apparent that the OP was using a later-edition version of the rule in his older-edition game play -- and then he says the older-edition played better than a later-edition.

And then there’re the nonsense jabs at the other edition:
“Even the 4E power gamer, who I was really worried about, came out with 2 different voices and RP'd his characters like never before.”
So this guy is a power gamer in D&D4, but AD&D1 turned him into more of a role player?

“Very few side conversations like happens in 4E.”
So D&D4 causes players to have more side conversations?

It’s amazing how switching to a different D&D edition can change players’ whole personalities. “My Players are jackholes when playing Edition A, but they turn into wonderful friends when playing Edition B.”

From zero-to-1e-bashing in five posts.

If you are calling post #5 “bashing,” then surely you must say that this thread starting bashing D&D4 in post #1.

[I don’t play or even like D&D4, so I’m not defending the edition. I don’t dislike AD&D1 –- I’ve had some of the most fun in my life playing it. I just pointed out that the OP based his stance on a false premise.]

Bullgrit

 

[Dausuul]

Funny thing: My group in college played with the rule more or less as written. We didn't do rigorous time tracking, so "a week" translated to "some inconveniently long period of time," but it was understood that going to zero hit points meant you were seriously F-ed up and you weren't going to be back on your feet any time soon, no matter how much healing mojo the cleric pumped into you.

It always felt entirely natural to me, and ever since then it has bothered me deeply when I see PCs dropped into the negatives pop up and jump back into combat next round. It invariably breaks my suspension of disbelief.

 

[Pbartender]

Pardn me for the digression, but...

“Even the 4E power gamer, who I was really worried about, came out with 2 different voices and RP'd his characters like never before.”
So this guy is a power gamer in D&D4, but AD&D1 turned him into more of a role player?

“Very few side conversations like happens in 4E.”
So D&D4 causes players to have more side conversations?

It’s amazing how switching to a different D&D edition can change players’ whole personalities. “My Players are jackholes when playing Edition A, but they turn into wonderful friends when playing Edition B.”

Now, the OP didn't say it very well, but don't scoff at this phenomenon too much... I've recently seen almost the same thing happen in my group.

I have a player who's really keen on power gaming, and when he's playing D&D (3e or 4e, doesn't really matter), he's always eager to get to the next fight, and rarely participates in role playing encounters in a meaningful way. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that. It's what he enjoys about the game, he helps to make sure the other players have effective characters, and in his way he keeps the pace of the game moving along.

For a few weeks, we switched to Spirit of the Century for a gaming "vacation" of sorts, and he completely surprised me... He made a character that was completely focused on social skills, and had almost no combat skills. Furthermore, he dove straight into role playing. He spent half the game in quality conversation with NPCs. The chance in game system literally switched him from a hack-n-slasher to a role player.

Afterward I asked him about it. He said that it's not specifically combat that he likes in the game, it's conflict and competition with the NPCs to win a contest... He said that combat is usually the easiest way to experience that conflict, but that Spirit of the Century provides way to treat social encounters as a combat-like conflict in a way that D&D doesn't.

In other words, modern editions of D&D are very focused on combat in the game. While it doesn't guarantee it, that can make it easier for players to fall into the power-gamer role, when they might not otherwise be, if playing another game less focused on tactical combat.

 

[TerraDave]

jcayer, sounds good.

On the AD&D rules, lets just say its a strength that you can use 99% of material for the game using "common law" D&D, and then add in the more fiddly bits as desired.

 

[Mark]

[No message]

 

[Dausuul]

In other words, modern editions of D&D are very focused on combat in the game. While it doesn't guarantee it, that can make it easier for players to fall into the power-gamer role, when they might not otherwise be playing another game less focused on tactical combat.

Sadly, this is very true. I've seen it happening to players--heck, I've seen it happen to me. Without wading into edition war territory, combat-crunchy games encourage a combat-crunchy attitude in players and DMs alike.

From what I have been reading, and even in my own group, keeping up with every official rule in the current system is near impossible and not always favored, and if a group is not using the more recent official rules adjustments, they are in essence house-ruling their game to previous version that is essentially no longer official.

Speaking of disingenuous, this argument is an excellent example. Not keeping up with the latest errata is very different from instituting your own house rules. If you play by the rules in the book in front of you, you're playing "rules as written."

 

[Scribble]

Coule also be player dependant as well... Back in the day my group was heavily combat focused... They roleplayed as well, but always looked for a good combat.

When Vampire came out, they didn't switch into Angsty self exploration mode... They dominated the gun store owner into selling them advanced weapondry then went around town blowing up cop cars... That campaign didn't last so long.

 

[robconley]

If you want to get the full dose of what Gygax wrote for the 1st edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons look at A.D.D.I.C.T.

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/files/other/ADDICT.zip

It explains the AD&D combat system in full. It is 20 pages, the first 10 pages goes rule by rule through the entire system and the rest is a detailed combat example. David M. Prata put this together and went the extra mile by footnoting everything so you can go back to the rulebook and see if he got it right in your opinion.

 

[Dausuul]

Coule also be player dependant as well... Back in the day my group was heavily combat focused... They roleplayed as well, but always looked for a good combat.

When Vampire came out, they didn't switch into Angsty self exploration mode... They dominated the gun store owner into selling them advanced weapondry then went around town blowing up cop cars... That campaign didn't last so long.

Setting notwithstanding, the mechanics of Vampire: The Masquerade didn't actually encourage angsty self-exploration mode. They encouraged... well, pretty much exactly what you describe. The system was a munchkin's wet dream.