Next year, I'm back to running AD&D

[MerricB]

We used henchmen extensively during my 3e campaigns, so it isn't unfamiliar to my players, indeed they loved having them! However, 1e has a different take on the henchmen relationship - a little less stable, a little more necessary - so it should be interesting to see how it goes.

I'm leaning towards using the Moldvay Basic D&D morale & loyalty rules, if only because I don't have to do a lot of percentage calculations.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Hahaha! I'll have to tell him that; it will probably either amuse or mystify him. Maybe both.

(I think Axe is still suspicious of me because my main game is OD&D instead of AD&D. Although at this point there's an awful lot of AD&D in my OD&D, and quite a bit of OD&D in my AD&D...)

Don't. We clashed massively at dragonsfoot. He's the reason I stopped going there (and shortly thereafter he was banned, I think).

Cheers!

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

The only AD&D hardcover I don't have is the Wilderness Survival Guide, which I've never quite managed to buy.

You're not missing anything.

 

[MerricB]

my main game is OD&D instead of AD&D. Although at this point there's an awful lot of AD&D in my OD&D, and quite a bit of OD&D in my AD&D...

I think that's a very good way of doing it. As I get more and more familiar with oD&D, AD&D, Basic D&D and the relationship between them, the more I become convinced that the staff at TSR didn't have a clue what they were doing.

Heh. That's actually too harsh - they had a clue, but they didn't really have enough of an understanding of what was going on.

Look at the Monk, for instance. What's going on with that class? AC 10 and no Dex adjustment??? TSR might have a Rules Editor, but certainly not much of a developer.

There's a lot of clutter in the AD&D rules (and the oD&D supplements). There's great material there - and the core of the game is amazingly solid - but you've got all this stuff which seems to be there because someone thought it a good idea at the time.

So, if you go through the AD&D + oD&D rules and just take the best bits -which I think you've done - you get a really good game. I hope my game will end up something like that.

There's one edition of early D&D that I thought was properly developed: Tom Moldvay's Basic D&D. (The matching Expert book I don't know well enough). It does a superb job of cutting through all the stuff that isn't needed and concentrating on the core of what makes D&D the best game in the world. The only thing that really stops me from making it the core of my new game is that I prefer the races and class combinations you can get in AD&D. I rather expect a few mechanics will change to Moldvay's take on them.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

You're not missing anything.

I have read it - somewhere about is the PDF version, I think - and that's why I've never picked it up. We got the DSG back when it was released, or shortly thereafter. I found it a greatly inspiring book - great stuff about what might exist under the earth, plus the wonderful mapping techniques it discussed.

The closest I ever got to buying the WSG was when I had a new copy of Dragonlance Adventures in my hand, looking at the list of all the non-weapon proficiencies, and thinking "I only have half of those!"

However, memories of reading my friend's copy (and my lack of money at the time) precluded the purchase. And it's something I lack to this day.

Cheers!

 

[Toric_Arthendain]

* "Exploring" actions take place on the turn scale (1 turn=10 minutes). When you search a room, it takes a turn. When you engage in combat, it takes 1 turn. (Admittedly AD&D has 1 minute rounds compared to the shorter rounds of Basic, but I hope most combats don't go above 10 rounds...)

I just recently started a monthly 1e AD&D game after having run 3.x D&D, Pathfinder and before that 2e for about 10 years dating back to 1989. I haven't played or run 1e since approximately late 1988 or early 1989. I started the 1e game for a variety of reasons, the most important of which are that I wasn't enjoying the complexity of the newer editions of D&D anymore and with the game only being monthly, I felt like we'd get more accomplished with an old school set of rules.

So far in two 6 hour sessions, I believe we have accomplished more than we did in four of my old bi-weekly 5 hour sessions of Pathfinder or 3.5.

In those two sessions of 12 hours of actual play time, we have managed to have 11 combats and plenty of role-play, character development and exploration. In fact, none of the combats has lasted longer than 20 minutes with most falling into the 10-15 minute range. The characters all started at 1st level and are running through the Temple of Elemental Evil. They have run around in Hommlet for awhile, and have cleared out the entire upper level of the Moathouse and are working on the lower level now. In approximately half of the combats, I haven't even bothered to set up miniatures. I've only used miniatures to display what the situation looks like in the more complex battle set-ups. Otherwise, any use of miniatures has really only been to illustrate general location of the PCs and the enemies and not for precise and tactical chess-like movement. I've generally done initiative as per the rules in OSRIC, which I find far clearer than AD&D, using 1d6 for each side in the battle. I've found that combat runs extremely quickly, far faster than in 3.x D&D, and this allows us to get back to the good stuff...adventuring, role-playing and character development...that much quicker.

As for level advancement, I haven't found it to be terribly slow. Handing out experience awards pretty much btb, including xp for treasure, has seen the PCs all hit level 2 after two sessions (and the thief has made it to level 3). This of course might change as we move forward but that remains to be seen.

I am greatly enjoying running 1e AD&D again and the players are all loving it.

 

[MerricB]

I am greatly enjoying running 1e AD&D again and the players are all loving it.

That's really good to know!

Just a counterpoint, which may amuse some people: my last session of 4E D&D had 26th level characters and managed to race through 4 combat encounters and 2 non-combat encounters in 3 hours. We didn't use miniatures. What helped was we only had three players (and one NPC). 4E combat length tends to scale linearly with the number of PCs.

I'm not sure yet (in answer to a previous post) how much I'll use minis in this AD&D game, which I'm still not 100% certain will go ahead, though I certainly hope it will!

Cheers!

 

[Toric_Arthendain]

That's really good to know!
Just a counterpoint, which may amuse some people: my last session of 4E D&D had 26th level characters and managed to race through 4 combat encounters and 2 non-combat encounters in 3 hours. We didn't use miniatures. What helped was we only had three players (and one NPC). 4E combat length tends to scale linearly with the number of PCs.

I can't speak to how 1e AD&D combat compares to 4e D&D as I have never played or run 4e. That said, I find 1e combat FAR faster than 3.x and Pathfinder. Perhaps that will change as we get to higher levels but at this point, I'm loving the speed and flexibility of the rules aspects of 1e, especially combat.

As for miniatures use in a 1e game, that really comes down to personal choice. In my game, I have used them in 5 out of 11 combats over two 6 hour sessions. Each of the 5 combats where they were used were either complex with many enemies scattered about or had interesting battlefield configurations. In one of the battles, I had a player request that I set up miniatures so he could get a better feel visually for what I was describing. In the battles with a single opponent (giant lizard, giant spider, giant tick, giant snake, giant frogs) I didn't bother with miniatures. In at least one bigger battle (PCs vs. 5 gnolls I think) I didn't use them either. I used them for a couple of bigger battles (bigger meaning more combatants) and for a battle against a lone ogre because of the way the room was configured. Honestly, if it were up to me I would probably not bother with miniatures at all but the players like them in at least some situations and so I have incorporated them as needed. I have just made sure that they understand that the miniatures are simply out there to give them a general visual not to provide for square by square tactical movement. After all, in AD&D you are either engaged in melee or not. And being within 10' of an opponent is considered being engaged in melee. The miniatures are useful at times to see who is where and for spell effects but otherwise I don't feel like they are necessary. Either way, combat has run unbelievably fast.

 

[Lanefan]

If weapon specialization is used, my suggestion would be to only allow it at certain levels. My pick would be 4th level (i.e., Hero) for standard specialization and 8th level (i.e. Superhero) for double specialization. I'd also probably assign a penalty to non-specialized weapons. So you can choose to be *really* good with your specialized weapon at the price of being not so good with other weapons, or you can be a "master-at-arms" kind of guy who can fight with just about anything.

We tweaked it such that if you specialize the benefits accrue bit by bit with level until 4th:
- 1st level +1/+0
- 2nd level +1/+1
- 3rd level +1/+2 (total, not cumulative!)
- 4th level 3/2 attacks with that weapon
then you just get an extra attack per two rounds with it every 3rd level after that (so at 7th, 10th, etc.). We ditched double-spec.

And if you spec. in a weapon it costs you a proficiency slot; two slots if you spec. in a bow.

I can see dropping proficiencies for Fighter-types (but then how to counterbalance specialization benefits?) but for non-Fighters the non-proficiency penalty is significant enough to be worth keeping.

Lan-"specialized in longsword, particularly if it recently belonged to someone else"-efan

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

[Spam]

Reported.