D&D 1E How about a little love for AD&D 1E

[ilgatto]

(...)
And, of course, the 1e DMG was such a labyrinthian and bizarre exercise of erudite incomprehensibility that it remains a go-to resource for creative DMs to this day.

Exactly!

Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth.

Exactly!

Desert of Desolation (PHAROAH!).

EXACTLY!

Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun.

Et cetera, et cetera.

 

[ilgatto]

Although I have moved on to 2E - well, as far as one can actually do so because there isn't such a thing as "editions" - I still consult DMG1 first whenever I need to look up anything - for it is the only trustworthy source of information about anything.

What I also like about it is how much it tells you about EGG and what he thought of all those pesky players who were only ruining "his game". Dave Arneson, anyone?

"in writing" (!):

"non game boredom":

"barracks room lawyers"

 

[ilgatto]

Every time I read people saying that they miss 1E/2E I always wonder why on earth they did move on.

When 3E came out, most DMs in our group had whole continents, archipelagos, or even larger parts of worlds worked out, with dungeons, villages, towns, cities, religions, nobles, Thieves' Guilds, armies, with everything mapped and statted out, binders and binders full of them.
So for us, the choice was easily made:

1) We gonna restat everything? No way.

2) Besides: The rules work, don't they? So what's the point of starting to use new ones? And what about all of the source books, modules, and magazines I'm using?

It's a choice none of us have ever regretted.

As to why we "moved on to 2E" I can only say that we didn't even realize we did at the time. We just saw the "new PHB" as the "new PHB", a clarification or reorganization of 1E that just said "2E" for marketing purposes rather than anything else. Indeed, the vast majority of the campaigns and adventures I've run have always had their roots in 1E or contemporary publications (modules, White Dwarf, Dragon Magazine, the incomparable Cities of Harn) and they still are. Whenever I need to look something up, I still consult DMG1 first. Whenever there's a siege, I use the 1E rules. I always use the DMG1 tables for gems, herbs, diseases, insanity, and how potions look. Whenever I notice something in some 2E source (e.g., spells), I check a relevant 1E source to find out how it was supposed to be and correct the wrong.

And then there's the whole feel of 1E, the art, the pulp fantasy origins, the incomprehensible aspects (unarmed combat anyone?). I love rummaging through that old stuff, discovering new things in it, implementing it. Heck, I've even come to respect Dave C. Sutherland III!

So for me, although I play 2E, 1E has never left.

 

[James Gasik]

Every time I read people saying that they miss 1E/2E I always wonder why on earth they did move on.

For me, it was that I'd gotten tired of AD&D; there were a lot of other games around, and while fantasy is still my first love, most people I knew were happy to try different things, and mid to late 90's had tons of games to look into.

Then one day, one of my AD&D gaming buddies showed up with the new PHB, and started telling me about all the changes. More than a few of them sounded very interesting; more options for PC's, better skills, spellcasters that felt more like a sleep spell/dart dispenser on legs at 1st level, and so on.

I got excited about playing D&D again, and pretty soon there were several games to choose from, including my own. And when 3.5 came out, fixing more things about the game, I was so hyped I didn't even realize I was basically paying full retail value for errata!

It wasn't until 4e came out that I was like "wait a second, why should I give up this version of the game again? I've bought scores of your damn books!", lol.

Though I did eventually try 4e and liked it.

On the other hand, I know people who have refused to leave AD&D to this day. It's not like I wouldn't play if the opportunity presented itself, but I've found it's hard to get people who are used to modern games into it. There's a lot of strange-bordering-on-esoteric rules and odd ways of doing things that you just sort of accepted back in the day without really questioning whether or not there was a better way to present the game to newcomers.

So I pretty much go where the players are. I'm not really a fan of 5e (it's ok, but I don't think it's anything special), but if that's what people are playing, then so be it.

My one friend who has consistently run his AD&D game for like 35 years, OTOH, has such dense lore and so much stuff going on that it's actually hard to get new people into his game, and he has made so many house rules and incorporated stuff from other systems (like Traveller, for example), that it barely resembles AD&D at all!

But I think a lot of AD&D games are like that; it's very rare to encounter people who played the game as presented; rather than learn all the obscure rules, they got the basics down and just made stuff up as they went along. Nothing wrong with that, but it does make it hard to sit down and talk to other AD&D players, typically they'll start talking about stuff from their game and I'll be like "wait...what?".

And they respond in kind with my stories, lol.

 

[MWLewis]

I wrote a fun little adventure for 1e low level magic users/illusionists. They usually are pretty worthless early on--really until level 5. So I wrote this to give them some XP and tailored to their skills. A link to it is on the thread where you can promote kickstarters: Kickstarter - Ten Days Left to Back Nicomeiden's Tower! An AD&D, Old School Adventure

 

[ValamirCleaver]

"non game boredom"

If one has read the 1e training for levels description it is extremely obvious that that (training for levels) was supposed to address this issue.

Indeed, the vast majority of the campaigns and adventures I've run have always had their roots in 1E or contemporary publications (modules, White Dwarf, Dragon Magazine, the incomparable Cities of Harn) and they still are. Whenever I need to look something up, I still consult DMG1 first. Whenever there's a siege, I use the 1E rules. I always use the DMG1 tables for gems, herbs, diseases, insanity, and how potions look. Whenever I notice something in some 2E source (e.g., spells), I check a relevant 1E source to find out how it was supposed to be and correct the wrong.

And then there's the whole feel of 1E, the art, the pulp fantasy origins, the incomprehensible aspects (unarmed combat anyone?). I love rummaging through that old stuff, discovering new things in it, implementing it. Heck, I've even come to respect Dave C. Sutherland III!

So for me, although I play 2E, 1E has never left.

The above description was exactly the situation for the groups I was involved with during the '90s; we may have used 2e (in addition to B/X, BECMI, other Basic, etc...) materials, but we ran them under the 1e system.

 

[fuindordm]

2. Regardless of what dice are used, the mechanic here IMO often wants to be one of gradated results rather than a binary fail-succeed - fail the roll by a bit, no big deal; fail by a lot, you've got a problem. Example: finding and disarming traps - fail by just a bit and nothing untoward happens, fail by a lot and you've set it off. Fail to move silently by a bit, you're still at normal surprise chance; fail by a lot and you've made a racket somehow. Bard charm isn't even a "skill" in my view, it's more like an at-will spell effect and thus probably wants to use spell-like saving throws. Bard lore is another one where gradating the results really makes a difference: if you barely succeed on the roll you know a bit but not much, if you mightily succeed you know far more; if you fail by a bit you don't know anything but if you fail by a lot you think you know all kinds of stuff but the legends have been twisted into untruths over time.

That's a good point that I haven't started thinking about yet. There is definitely room for levels of success/failure and some of the trained skills already have these conditions defined (disguise, pick pockets). Depending on the skill, some of these gradations can be set up as incentives. If your chance of removing traps is 20% would you roll knowing that a result of 96+ sets off the trap? Would you roll knowing that only a 00 sets it off? I tend to think that if your chance of succeeding is already low, then it doesn't make sense to punish a player for using the skill, but there are a lot of grey areas here--a PC can decide to remove traps in hopes of getting some extra treasure, or decide that it is not worth the risk and simply avoid the trapped chest entirely.

 

[fuindordm]

AD&D nonweapon proficiencies used roll under and it is an easy to implement and apply system in a D&D game.

...

I came to want targets closer to a specific task modified a bit by stats rather than targets of straight stat. So I favor the core of the 5e system a bit, particularly with advantage for teaming up on a skill leading to more teamwork and less soloing.

I feel the same way, the typical 8-18 range for ability scores is too wide for the d20-roll-under, for my taste. d20+bonus > fixed DC works better in that regard.

I was thrilled with the customization options when 3e came out, but now as a DM I ask myself "Do I really want to make PCs pay a skill tax just to be able to swim/climb/light fires?" So I have the tendency to be more permissive about untrained skills, assuming that PCs are competent if they have a logical reason to be.

 

[ilgatto]

At this point, I'd go to the local Temple of Poseidon; surely some private collector owning a holy relic of their God can't be something they're ok with!

You may well want to reconsider that!

 

[ilgatto]

For me, it was that I'd gotten tired of AD&D; there were a lot of other games around, and while fantasy is still my first love, most people I knew were happy to try different things, and mid to late 90's had tons of games to look into.

Once we got into the whole gaming scene, all kinds of people started appearing who were advocating using other rule systems, so I did play most of the games available at the time. Gamma World, Runequest, Traveller, Pendragon, STURPS GURPS, heck, even that game of which I always forget the name but which was obviously the inspiration for Magic: The Gathering.

I soon concluded that all of that wasn't for me for many reasons. For example, I didn't much like playing barbarians who lost their arms the very second they ran into a flaming duck (Runequest); I've lost count of how many time I'e had to roll up new characters for the handful of Gamma World sessions we did because the others had been vaporized by laser fire; and I've always disliked RPGs that more or less "force" one into a role or culture (Bushido, Call of Cthulhu) - I like to be as free as possible when role-playing but that's me, I guess. Traveller did sort of stick, so we used that for some memorable SF adventures, but that was it.

Then one day, one of my AD&D gaming buddies showed up with the new PHB, and started telling me about all the changes. More than a few of them sounded very interesting; more options for PC's, better skills, spellcasters that felt more like a sleep spell/dart dispenser on legs at 1st level, and so on.

I got excited about playing D&D again, and pretty soon there were several games to choose from, including my own. And when 3.5 came out, fixing more things about the game, I was so hyped I didn't even realize I was basically paying full retail value for errata!

It wasn't until 4e came out that I was like "wait a second, why should I give up this version of the game again? I've bought scores of your damn books!", lol.

Though I did eventually try 4e and liked it.

At risk of turning this into another edition war thread, I will say the following on the later "editions" of the game. First, IMHO, they aren't so much "editions" as different games. Second, I've always rather liked that each class has its own, unique abilities and flavor in 1E/2E. Third, I can't even begin to fathom what "balanced character classes" mean. Why should everybody be able to do the same? I love the fact that you really have to work for your money in 1E/2E before you get out of the danger zone, although I admit that there is probably something wrong with the MU being able to use so few spells at lower levels, which can be especially frustrating in dungeon-based adventures. However, once you do get to, say, level 6, things really start picking up and then the MU is one of the most interesting classes to play IMO. And I think that 1E/2E is the best system for that for many reasons.

On the other hand, I know people who have refused to leave AD&D to this day. It's not like I wouldn't play if the opportunity presented itself, but I've found it's hard to get people who are used to modern games into it. There's a lot of strange-bordering-on-esoteric rules and odd ways of doing things that you just sort of accepted back in the day without really questioning whether or not there was a better way to present the game to newcomers.

That is a bit of a problem. It can be a bit of a challenge to convince folks used to computer games and D&D editions trying to emulate them that playing a 1st-level MU in 1E who can do single thing and then nothing for 24 hrs can be fun (well, sort of). However, I have found that those of them who did end up at my table were universally taken by the possibilities of 1E/2E ("You mean I can do anything I want?") and the sense of danger it can impart ("Hold on..., you mean I can actually die?").
Unfortunately, such folks are far and between.

So I pretty much go where the players are. I'm not really a fan of 5e (it's ok, but I don't think it's anything special), but if that's what people are playing, then so be it.

My one friend who has consistently run his AD&D game for like 35 years, OTOH, has such dense lore and so much stuff going on that it's actually hard to get new people into his game, and he has made so many house rules and incorporated stuff from other systems (like Traveller, for example), that it barely resembles AD&D at all!

But I think a lot of AD&D games are like that; it's very rare to encounter people who played the game as presented; rather than learn all the obscure rules, they got the basics down and just made stuff up as they went along. Nothing wrong with that, but it does make it hard to sit down and talk to other AD&D players, typically they'll start talking about stuff from their game and I'll be like "wait...what?".

True that. I even have some of these people at my table today, who still believe that some things should work as they decided back then (10-second combat rounds, crossbows should do 300d10 hp damage, that sort of thing). Like you say, many of these folk often haven't got a clue as to what's actually in the rules and, most importantly, why. No disrespect intended, of course. It's just that I'm rather a lot like EGG in that respect.

And they respond in kind with my stories, lol.

It's probably an age thing.