D&D 1E Edition Experience: Did/Do you Play 1E AD&D? How Was/Is It?

[clearstream]

Saying you need to be a certain strength, or combination of strength and bulk, in order to effectively wear plate armour is perfectly realistic. It makes sense.

But telling players that their PCs aren't allowed to rest (or that DMs are instructed to disturb that rest until some peg-point is reached) when logic and self-preservation would say that they should isn't realistic at all, and makes no sense other than from a perspective of pure small-g gamism.

I think it is hard to advance an argument along these lines, because it seems to me highly subjective. To give an idea of what I mean (without commitment to this position) I might feel that because all sentient creatures sleep in the real world, and they find it restorative, it makes exactly as much sense to include a mechanic for that in the game as for tying plate armour wearing to above average strength.

Other way around. My objection is that mechanical management of rests forces undue and unwarranted constraints on to the players and-or the DM; where narrative management - with the players in this case controlling the narrative and making the decisions - has no such problems.

Are you drawing a distinction here between what comprises a character and how they may act? The latter being taken to impinge on their narrative contributions.

If so, say I can cast some spells, but only a limited number before somehow restoring them. The intent would seem to be that I have some control over how many I can cast in a given encounter, but across a number of such encounters I'm not free to cast all my spells in each one or if I do, then I have none for the next encounter. A resource management mechanic is put in force. We can probably agree that it is common for games to challenge players with how they will expend their resources across multiple options for doing so.

I agree that constraints make games, but those restraints have to make sense in the context of what the game is trying to achieve.

Exactly. One might not be trying to achieve any kind of resource-management challenge. But then, one might not be trying to achieve an ability score challenge (roll or assign X to your strength, or don't use plate armour).

But D&D isn't just trying to achieve this, it's also trying to achieve a state where players and the DM between them control what happens in the fiction. Mechanical resting constraints fight this control

Another example of the same thing would be the game forcing a particular method of in-party treasury division, instead of leaving it up to each individual party/table to determine its method for itself.

I actually think it is valid for individual games to do all those things. What I think wouldn't be valid is supposing that every individual game had to do all of those things. In Dragon Quest (1st edition) the Adventurer's Guild contract IIRC includes how to divide the spoils. Some world design that I have quite enjoyed in the past is where you take intangible principles and make them world physics: effectively mechanics. It is an easy way to make a really distinctive environment, once you work through the consequences. I'm not advocating this approach for you, necessarily, but saying that it is valid.

That is, I do not draw a crisp distinction between what comprises a character, and how they may act, because I think 1) the two are entangled and 2) there will be an unlimited number of worthwhile exceptions.

 

[CleverNickName]

On April 24th, I compiled the survey results and posted them in this thread. Not just the survey results; I also collected and analyzed (to the best of my ability) the comments and "nuance" I requested in the comment section as well. I have linked that survey to the OP in this thread, and in all of the other edition surveys as well.

But discussion continues, and votes are still coming in. I'm continue to collect and update the survey info, and I will be updating the summary soon. Thanks everyone for your (continued) participation! This has been a fun and enlightening exercise in the history of our hobby.

 

[nevin]

I think it is hard to advance an argument along these lines, because it seems to me highly subjective. To give an idea of what I mean (without commitment to this position) I might feel that because all sentient creatures sleep in the real world, and they find it restorative, it makes exactly as much sense to include a mechanic for that in the game as for tying plate armour wearing to above average strength.


Are you drawing a distinction here between what comprises a character and how they may act? The latter being taken to impinge on their narrative contributions.

If so, say I can cast some spells, but only a limited number before somehow restoring them. The intent would seem to be that I have some control over how many I can cast in a given encounter, but across a number of such encounters I'm not free to cast all my spells in each one or if I do, then I have none for the next encounter. A resource management mechanic is put in force. We can probably agree that it is common for games to challenge players with how they will expend their resources across multiple options for doing so.


Exactly. One might not be trying to achieve any kind of resource-management challenge. But then, one might not be trying to achieve an ability score challenge (roll or assign X to your strength, or don't use plate armour).


I actually think it is valid for individual games to do all those things. What I think wouldn't be valid is supposing that every individual game had to do all of those things. In Dragon Quest (1st edition) the Adventurer's Guild contract IIRC includes how to divide the spoils. Some world design that I have quite enjoyed in the past is where you take intangible principles and make them world physics: effectively mechanics. It is an easy way to make a really distinctive environment,
once you work through the consequences. I'm not advocating this approach for you, necessarily, but saying that it is valid.

That is, I do not draw a crisp distinction between what comprises a character, and how they may act, because I think 1) the two are entangled and 2) there will be an unlimited number of worthwhile exceptions.

I've seen a lot of discussions like this lately. I think what people miss the most is that 1st edition didn't have everything defined. Therefore the DM adjudicated most of the things that modern games define. Therefore every session was an unknown. That was fun. But really frustrating if you had a bad DM.

If you like games where the rules define everything like in a video game then you'll like things like arbitrary rest rules. But comparing them to things that have a logical reason like ST requirements for Armor is just silly. One is an attempt to control player actions and one is just an attempt to make a logical framework that the player's will accept and enjoy.

I think modern games are turning into the "shrew" they try to nag and control and shut down every argument to make everyone happy. What they'll eventually discover is that in an RPG the DM makes or breaks the game by adjusting everything to the story, the players and his or her style. The more you try to prevent DM fiat, or player Min-maxing, abuse etc, the more you limit the DM's options to actually run a good game. The biggest problem that I think modern D&D has is they are training new DM;s to run WOW clones in rule systems that are designed to let players know everything so they think it's fair. Fair is desirable but it can't be achieved by rules. (mainly because one person's fair is another person's stupid or unfair) Just like the magic, the story, and dedicating the time to the story only the DM can create fairness, and sometimes a good story needs to be unfair, or one-sided, or over the top. But the DM is the part of any such system that can toss the rules when they get in the way. Make new rules when needed or just wing it so the game doesn't stop for two hours while everyone looks through books. You can't create rules to make better DM's but you can create so many rules to follow that most people get too shackled to ever become good DM's.

 

[clearstream]

If you like games where the rules define everything like in a video game then you'll like things like arbitrary rest rules. But comparing them to things that have a logical reason like ST requirements for Armor is just silly. One is an attempt to control player actions and one is just an attempt to make a logical framework that the player's will accept and enjoy.

How do you sustain your claim is that rest rules are arbitrary and controlling and strength-restrictions on armour use are not arbitrary and controlling, beyond assertion? Both restrict characters in certain ways. Both translate ideas about the world into game mechanics. In an important sense, games are about constraints!

I think modern games are turning into the "shrew" they try to nag and control and shut down every argument to make everyone happy. What they'll eventually discover is that in an RPG the DM makes or breaks the game by adjusting everything to the story, the players and his or her style. The more you try to prevent DM fiat, or player Min-maxing, abuse etc, the more you limit the DM's options to actually run a good game. The biggest problem that I think modern D&D has is they are training new DM;s to run WOW clones in rule systems that are designed to let players know everything so they think it's fair. Fair is desirable but it can't be achieved by rules. (mainly because one person's fair is another person's stupid or unfair) Just like the magic, the story, and dedicating the time to the story only the DM can create fairness, and sometimes a good story needs to be unfair, or one-sided, or over the top. But the DM is the part of any such system that can toss the rules when they get in the way. Make new rules when needed or just wing it so the game doesn't stop for two hours while everyone looks through books. You can't create rules to make better DM's but you can create so many rules to follow that most people get too shackled to ever become good DM's.

What this seems to amount to is a denial of the possibility that game designers over years of experimentation have been able to improve RPG mechanics. For me that is neither plausible nor borne out by the evidence. Consider THACO versus the present D20 to hit mechanic, as just one example. Neo-vancian magic for another. These mechanics streamline the game, making it easier for most DMs and players. Or think about Apocalypse and Dungeon World, these experiments help advance the genre. The experiments of 4e D&D for that matter, building upon the experiments of Book of Nine Swords, also advanced the genre: leading to mechanics that made martial characters more interesting. To say that modern games are turning into the shrew, seems to fly in the face of the liberation many DMs on these very forums have claimed to feel in their relationship to 5e rules!

If your argument is essentially that the DM will make or break the game, regardless of rules. I think better rules make it more likely the DM will do well, but cannot guarantee it. So in that narrowed sense I would agree.

 

[nevin]

Nice strawman there. I never said modern systems had worse rulesets.

Modern gaming developers seem to be trying to come up with rules that cover every possible thing that could ever happen to make DMs lives easier. The problem is the more rules you add the more you reinforce that the DM is more of a referee than the guy in charge of the world. Anybody that falls into that trap will never be a good DM. And good DMs have always been the rarest resource.
I'd argue it's the same failure of vision that modern lawmakers have. Keep making things illegal till life gets better.

No matter good your rules are at some point you hit optimization and every thing after begins to drag it down. It's happened with every edition. Players whine developers write rules and eventually the rules teach DMs to quit thinking and wait for the developers to tell them what to think. At that point you might as well play an MMO. Maybe 5th isn't there yet. But if not it's only a matter of time because new books make money.

 

[CleverNickName]

No matter good your rules are at some point you hit optimization and every thing after begins to drag it down. It's happened with every edition. Players whine developers write rules and eventually the rules teach DMs to quit thinking and wait for the developers to tell them what to think.

That's a good point. Take a look at all of the comments in this forum where someone cites a Crawford tweet, and presents it as if it were official rules errata. (And maybe it is, I don't really know. All I know is that we don't needed a developer, or even another DM, to weigh in on the judgement calls we make in our games.)

 

[S'mon]

That's a good point. Take a look at all of the comments in this forum where someone cites a Crawford tweet, and presents it as if it were official rules errata. (And maybe it is, I don't really know. All I know is that we don't needed a developer, or even another DM, to weigh in on the judgement calls we make in our games.)

You dare question the Holy Crawford?! Seize the Blasphemer!!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Modern gaming developers seem to be trying to come up with rules that cover every possible thing that could ever happen to make DMs lives easier.

Are we strictly speaking about D&D with "modern gaming developers?" Because outside of D&D, that's almost completely opposite of the way game design has been trending.

 

[Lanefan]

How do you sustain your claim is that rest rules are arbitrary and controlling and strength-restrictions on armour use are not arbitrary and controlling, beyond assertion? Both restrict characters in certain ways. Both translate ideas about the world into game mechanics. In an important sense, games are about constraints!

I agree, but those constraints should where possible also make logical sense.

Needing a certain Strength in order to use heavy armour makes sense from both in-fiction and meta-game perspectives.

Tying variable lengths of rest to recovery of various different abilities by various different classes is sometimes fine from the meta-game perspective but doesn't always make much sense in-fiction.

What this seems to amount to is a denial of the possibility that game designers over years of experimentation have been able to improve RPG mechanics. For me that is neither plausible nor borne out by the evidence. Consider THACO versus the present D20 to hit mechanic, as just one example.

Er...the present d20 to-hit mechanic, or an extremely close variant, predates THAC0 by quite a bit.

Neo-vancian magic for another. These mechanics streamline the game, making it easier for most DMs and players.

Streamlining and realism/simulation tend to work at cross purposes, and for each table there's a tipping point where streamlining comes at too great a cost of realism.

Or think about Apocalypse and Dungeon World, these experiments help advance the genre. The experiments of 4e D&D for that matter, building upon the experiments of Book of Nine Swords, also advanced the genre: leading to mechanics that made martial characters more interesting.

And, in contrast to your earlier point about making things easier for players, adding all those mechanics also made (most) martials much more difficult to play than they were in the 1e-2e era. In this instance I see this as a step backwards.

 

[clearstream]

Nice strawman there. I never said modern systems had worse rulesets.

Hmm. Your words read as criticism, but okay, if you think they are better rulesets we are aligned.

Modern gaming developers seem to be trying to come up with rules that cover every possible thing that could ever happen to make DMs lives easier. The problem is the more rules you add the more you reinforce that the DM is more of a referee than the guy in charge of the world. Anybody that falls into that trap will never be a good DM. And good DMs have always been the rarest resource.

5e consciously tries to cover less than 3e did.

No matter good your rules are at some point you hit optimization and every thing after begins to drag it down. It's happened with every edition. Players whine developers write rules and eventually the rules teach DMs to quit thinking and wait for the developers to tell them what to think.

I'd recommend reading the excellent book Rules of Play by Salen and Zimmerman, and some of the papers in the accompanying Reader. For games, rules are constitutive: accepted just so that the desired activity can occur. For sure there are surplus or over-architectured rules in many games - not really needed - yet that is a criticism tangential to the fundamental role rules play in provisioning games.

Do you, as a DM, stop thinking just because new rules are published or designer explanations made available? That just doesn't seem plausible to me. It doesn't apply to me. It doesn't apply to anyone I know. It doesn't apply to the posters to these forums.