Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Toric_Arthendain" data-source="post: 5846368" data-attributes="member: 9833">Interesting thread.  I am completely opposite the OP regarding 1e.  I love it (along with most of the other pre-3e D&D rulesets)!  A few years ago I started to realize that I really wasn't enjoying playing 3.5 and Pathfinder and I had no interest in 4e.  I began looking at older D&D material again and was reminded why I fell in love with the game over 30 years ago.  I still had some of my old materials and in the last few years have managed to build quite a large collection of 1e AD&D books, modules and other supplements.This seems sort of contradictory to me, Celebrim.  On the one hand you say the rules themselves aren't the problem.  But then you immediately say that their extreme silence on how to handle routine actions forces you to resort to DM fiat.  Isn't that by definition a problem with the rules as you see it?  I mean, if you want rules to cover routine tasks and actions and the rules don't cover that or the rules expect you to come up with something on your own, or vaguely touch on it at best, isn't that a problem with the rules at least as far as your personal expectations for a ruleset go?  I understand that you aren't criticizing how the 1e rules handle routine actions, you are saying they don't handle them at all.  That would still seem to me to be a problem with the rules, at least in your personal estimation.  They don't live up to your expectations of what a set of rpg rules should cover.The 1e rules are notorious for offering guidelines and suggestions on how to handle things in the game.   They are presented with the assumption that you will add your own rules that are suitable for your own game.  They are more of a framework for individual DMs and players to build upon.  They are often vague and expect you to interpret the meaning.  You are advised in many places in the PHB and DMG that the game is your own and that the rules in the books are merely guidelines.  And yes, the rules do not cover every routine situation that might come up in the course of a game.  If you are looking for that, 1e is definitely not your game.  3.5 certainly would fill that need a lot better.I personally love the wide open nature of 1e.  I love being able to make rulings without being bound by rules that I often forget and have to constantly refer back to 300+ page rulebooks to find.  I like that a player can tell me what they want their PC to do and if it isn't covered by the rules in the book, I can come up with something appropriate.  Often no dice rolling is even needed because what the player wants to do is something that their PC could easily accomplish or can be handled by roleplaying.  I find this makes games run quickly and allows you to get to the good stuff without having to pause frequently to look up what a specific rule is or how a specific skill pertains to the situation at hand.  One of the things I was really annoyed with while running 3.5 was the tendency of players to be presented with a situation and then for them to look to the skill system to find the appropriate one to resolve the situation.  Too often I found players expecting that they could make a simple skill check to resolve something in the game without any further input.  Common situations that arose regarding this were Search checks to discover the contents of a room or Diplomacy checks to improve the City Guard's reaction or Bluff checks to talk their way out of a tough spot.  With 1e I don't have to worry about that.  When my players enter a room in a dungeon, I describe it to them.  I then expect them to tell me specifically what they are doing in the room, what they are searching.  Look under the bed and see what's there.  Don't just make a roll and I reveal all that is there.  I expect them to tell me what they say to the City Guard, or what they say to the member of the thieves guild, not just a simple skill roll.I like being able to fall back on "player skill" as opposed to PC skills.  Sure it takes some getting used to for those not familiar with that style of play or for those who have come into the hobby late and started with 3rd edition.  Player skill takes time to develop in many cases.  I like DM fiat.  Like Water Bob, I don't care if I make a ruling on how to do something and end up making a different ruling on something similar in the future.  To me, 1e runs smooth.  Prep time is reduced.  We get a ton accomplished each session.  Players and the DM don't spend half the session with their noses buried in thick rulebooks.  I like the grittier feel of the settings and the fragility of the characters compared to more recent editions.Crothian said it best.  1e isn't for everyone.  But from that same perspective, neither is 2e, or 3e or 4e.  Everyone has their favorites based on personal preference.  You obviously don't like 1e, Celebrim.  I'm not trying to change your mind by what I have posted.  You posted what you didn't like about the game you recently ran.  I respect that.  My post is simply meant as an alternative viewpoint, from someone who loves 1e AD&D.</blockquote>

Verification