Going Back in Time...AD&D

[Mallus]

I wouldn't really want to go back to close-to-RAW, fantasy effing Vietnam AD&D, but I'd love to play a heavily house-ruled, DIY, high fantasy campaign like the kind my buddy in college ran. Those were epic!

 

[Raven Crowking]

And I think it's funny how properly quoting a rule being used in the game system being played keeps being referred to as "obscure."

Well, again, I agree with you. The rule you quoted is no more obscure than any other within the 1e DMG. And I very much doubt that Mr. Gygax, were he alive today, would claim that AD&D 1e was not a complex system.

I think that you will find, however, that when people talk about system complexity, two factors are of great importance:

(1) Does the complexity exist where it should for someone's playstyle? I.e., if you want fast combats, complexities should not slow combat down. If you want to get through a lot of exploration, complexity should exist in terms of longer time periods, so as to allow a great deal of exploration to get done.

Morale rules, for example, are the most complex in 1e of all D&D editions, because Mr. Gygax apparently felt that they were important enough to sustain that complexity. I happen to agree, but if you do not, it will certainly seem like needless complexity.

(2) Is the complexity modular? I.e., can you include or disinclude it without damaging the system as a whole? For example, again, with the 1e Morale rules, if you didn't think they were important, you could easily not use them without otherwise upsetting the game.

The recovery rules you cited is another good example of the modularity of 1e's design. If you liked it (as I did and do) you used it; if not, you could easily choose not to use it.

The easier this is to do, the more "simple" the game system will seem in actual play, if only because its complexity in play naturally falls to those areas where the participants desire complexity.

One therefore needs to look at more than just each individual rule to determine how complex a game is, or how complex a game feels in play. It is, for example, a statement of fact that I can play 1e with or without a grid with equal ease; likewise that I cannot do the same with 4e. In a way, this ramps up the complexity of 1e -- I must decide whether or not to use a grid. In actual play, though, the choice of not using a grid with 1e increases speed of play, if not ease of play. It feels like a net gain.

Effectively, IMHO, when people talk about the complexity of a game, they are not referring to the sum complexity of the game with all its possible subsystems, but rather the complexity of what they have to actually worry about in order to have a fun game.

I know I am, anyway. YMMV.


RC

 

[Scribble]

In my own opinion the complexity level of the pre-d20 editions had a kind of wavering complexity level.

It wasn't always less complex, and it wasn't always more complex, and it wasn't always just as complex...

It kind of depended on what was happening on a given game night.

Some nights it was business as usual and the complexity was pretty low.

Some nights weird situations came up, and everyone knew there was some rule for that that we had somewhere, but remembering it or finding it, and then digesting it, and using it made things seem a lot more complex.

So confusing I guess is a better word. (But still fun!)

 

[Dausuul]

Says the one who included subtle edition slights in his opening post?

You could have posted without the little digs at D&D4:

Um...

What little digs? Commenting that they didn't use a grid or minis? That seemed more like description of how they played - after all, somebody would certainly have asked if he hadn't stated it up front.

 

[Scribble]

Um...

What little digs? Commenting that they didn't use a grid or minis? That seemed more like description of how they played - after all, somebody would certainly have asked if he hadn't stated it up front.

The "quote" Bullgrit had in his post is not the original, it's a rehash he posted that takes out the digs.

 

[Pbartender]

So confusing I guess is a better word. (But still fun!)

Not even really confusing... Just poorly indexed.

 

[ExploderWizard]

(2) Is the complexity modular? I.e., can you include or disinclude it without damaging the system as a whole? For example, again, with the 1e Morale rules, if you didn't think they were important, you could easily not use them without otherwise upsetting the game.

RC

Did the word "exclude" pee in your Cheerios today?

I agree with the post BTW.

 

[Scribble]

Not even really confusing... Just poorly indexed.

Well... in my opinion there was more to it then that, how it was laid out, and how the rules related to one another for instance.

 

[Dausuul]

The "quote" Bullgrit had in his post is not the original, it's a rehash he posted that takes out the digs.

Oh. Missed the "edited by Bullgrit" tag. My mistake.

*reviews original post*

...okay, yeah, I see your point.

 

[billd91]

Says the one who included subtle edition slights in his opening post?

What?!? People can't say negative things about an edition they clearly like anymore? Minor little things like they have more table talk during combat with 4e?