AD&D First Edition inferior?

[jasamcarl]

Bryan...

Your point is well taken, and i largly agree. Preference does not equate with essential quality because the latter does not exist. But lets please be clear that preference is on the side of 3rd ed. And i hope you are willing to be consistent with this line of thought; if i ever see a negative judgement on a product, behavor (game or not game related), expect to be called out....

 

[Desdichado]

Although I'd certainly agree that quality and popularity are not necessarily equal, it seems just a tad pedantic to insist on the separation. Since we have no real way of measuring quality of an RPG -- with the exception of the printing and binding, etc. of the books itself -- it's the only thing we can measure.

Oh, and for the tangent developing, I certainly would not want a more "Gygaxian" D&D. Gygax had very specific ideas about what he thought made the game good, including lots of "puzzle solving" and other tactical weirdness that I don't find interesting. Modules like the Tomb of Horrors which I find absolutely dismal, were the pinnacle of his style of playing. His anecdotal stories in Dragon Magazine certainly don't make me interested in his style of gaming.

 

[Bryan Vining]

jasamcarl wrote...

But lets please be clear that preference is on the side of 3rd ed. And i hope you are willing to be consistent with this line of thought

No problem there. The number of 3E vs. 1E vs some of both players is probably unmeasureable and almost certainly not worth the effort. I think we can all pretty much agree that more people seem to prefer 3E than are driven off by it. Interestingly, I recently read a comment to the effect that about 50% of D&D players didn't make the transition from 1E to 2E. I also remember the (seemingly large) number of posts after the announcement of 3E from people who swore they'd die before they changed editions. Funny, that.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

Re: Re: Umm... pardon me, but..

Let's say there's a game out there called "Sod". The game is a fairly standard RPG, except that it prominently features the following rule:

"Whenever a player speaks, the gamemaster should secretly roll one six-sided die, and if it comes up 1, kick the player hard, under the table. If he cries out in pain, strikes back, or otherwise expresses discontent with the attack, then whatever action his character was taking should fail."

That would be an incredibly fun game, for the GM. In fact, I think I have a new house rule.

 

[Geoffrey]

I mentioned earlier that I prefer OAD&D to 3E because of the skills and feats that make for huge NPC stat blocks. A number of posters responded by saying that the huge stat blocks are largely unnecessary. If that is so, let me pose a question:

Why does every single d20 module I've looked through have gargantuan stat blocks for NPCs who would have had merely a couple lines of stats in OAD&D? The stat blocks in d20 modules would choke a horse!

It seems that if it is accurate to say that gargantuan stat blocks are often unnecessary, then it would seem to be accurate to say that the d20 publishers are simply trying to increase their modules' page counts by filling them full of unnecessary stats.

So which is it:
Are the monstrously huge stat blocks necessary?
Or are the d20 modules full of worthless filler?

 

[maddman75]

There is a world of difference between notes for your own game and a professionally produced module. When preparing your OD&D adventures do you make grayed out boxes of text for you to read, illustrations, and a full color cover? I think not.

Here's a little trick for those that aren't trolling. When you have to stat up an important NPC, keep it simple on his skills. I do it like this.

Figure out how many skill points he gets a level. This is simple enough - amount from class + Int modifier + 1 if human. Figure that he has that many skills maxed out. 10th level human fighter with Int of 13? Easy. I'll give him Climb, Ride, Swim, and Tumble(cross). Each score will be 13 (6 for tumble) modified by stats. You don't even have to figure that part out ahead of time if you don't plan on using the skill.

 

[Geoffrey]

But maddman75, I wasn't comparing d20 modules with my home-made OAD&D dungeons. I was comparing d20 modules with the 1st edition modules published by TSR. Whereas the 1st ed modules had perhaps a couple lines of stats for NPCs (the exception being, of course, for spell lists), d20 modules will often devote 25% (or more) of a page to an NPC's stat block.

Now, is this necessary for playing the module or not?

If it is necessary, then 3E is truly too stat-heavy for me to enjoy.

If it is not necessary, then the d20 publishers are padding their modules with a lot of fluff.

 

[Tiefling]

I doubt it's necessary. Probably just the current fashion for doing things. Or maybe it is, as you said, for filler. Or both.

 

[Theuderic]

LOL! You are all my children now.....

 

[MerricB]

We're still in the early days of trying to find out a good format for d20 modules. Compare how the format changed in the early days of 1E.

Actually, we should be past the early days by now, and you can see in some modules shorter statblocks - often just the Hit Points. Check Monte Cook's Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil - it uses hp & MM reference; hp, MM reference & small modification notes; and full stat-blocks.

As Wizards have now explicitely allowed publishers to refer to the "PHB", "DMG" & "MM", hopefully that will also cut down space.

Cheers!