Going Back in Time...AD&D

[Mistwell]

I suspect some of the "AD&D 1e was less complex" comes from age and experience with the game, rather than actual complexity of the game as written.

If you play a game for 30 years, it will seem a heck of a lot easier than if you play a game for 2 years, no matter how complex the two games are.

And if you try and learn a new game at age 13, it's probably easier than trying to learn a new game at 38. Your brain is just built to absorb information, and roll with punches, better at age 15. And as you age, things become more fixed, and learning is a bit more difficult.

So it may well be that if AD&D 1e came out for the first time today, and instead 3e had come out in 1972 (for example), that people would think 3e was a much more simple game than 1e. Just because they learned it at a younger age, and lived and played with it for 30 years.

 

[coyote6]

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?

Only if they do it in a way that amuses me. Wasn't there a memo about that?

(Myself, I've noticed that sessions that are different from the norm tend to produce more focus from the players. After we wrapped up my D&D game, in the first few sessions of my M&M game, the players seemed more focused and into the game. Everyone had played M&M quite a bit, so there wasn't as much "how does this work" starts-and-stops as there would be with a totally new game. But it was still different enough from high-level 3e that it seemed to draw more focus from everyone. So it managed to be smooth and focused. After a few sessions, everyone was [re-]familiarized with the game, and we went back to the normal amount of side conversations & such.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

I thought it had......But now that you know so much about it, I am no longer sure. Where were you around breakfast time anyway?





RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

@ Mistwell: AD&D 1e is less complex in play because of the reasons I posted above.

I will certainly agree, though, that coming at the game "cold" could cause real problems, because if AD&D 1e is not too complex in play, it is certainly quite complex on paper.

AD&D 1e assumed familiarity with a previous incarnation of D&D, or the Basic D&D that came out at the same time.

RCFG is being playtested with people who came into it cold, and has some of the same types of complexity as AD&D 1e (as well as some from 3e, and some of my own devising). The people I am running the game for seem able to grasp it easily enough. Of course, I imagine that they would grasp 4e just as easily. 4e is not, IMHO, overly complex. It's complexity just falls in areas I am not that interested in, while it lacks complexity in areas where I want it.

(Shrug) I'm just not the target market.

That said, though, I occasionally used minis with 1e, and sometimes not with 3e, and the thing I noticed was that, no matter what edition you are using, if the game plays well without minis, combat is always significantly slower with them than without. YMMV.


RC

 

[Piratecat]

I'm annoyed enough about the edition war dniping that I'm just going to close the thread. No more, folks.

 

[Rel]

I'm annoyed enough about the edition war dniping that I'm just going to close the thread. No more, folks.

You heard the man! No more dniping!






(Was there a moderator memo putting a ban on dniping?)

 

[Piratecat]

Dni Ping, beautiful river. River full of... fish.

Stupid typo! Be less wrong!

 

[Rel]

Dni Ping, beautiful river. River full of... fish.

It's full of something alright.