AD&D First Edition inferior?

[Grazzt]

Funny, I seem to be able to run 3e without minis if I feel the need (and frequently do.) All it takes is the DM saying "it'll take you a move equivalent action to flank them" instead of measuring things.

Yeppers- me too. We have played both with and without minis. No problems with either.

The only statblocks of a half page that I have seen are for high level spellcasting characters; 1e would have required you to write out all those stats as well. The only way to condense it further would be to take out skills and feats. Is that what you want?

Yeppers again. You can get away with something like WotC (and d20 publishers) uses in their modules: "Lizardfolk: CR 1; hp 11; see the MM, page XX." Then just reference the MM (or whatever) if the encounter needs to be run. Now, obviously that doesnt work for NPCs, but unless it is gonna be a major encounter, you can get away with using the canned NPC stats in the DMG and just making notes in the text. Also, you can use E-tools, or Jamis Buck's generator for generating on the fly NPCs.

That sounds like the current edition more than any prior. I don't have to stress over speed factors and other minutia, and most rolls are handled consistently vice having its own separate subsystem that you have to look up. 3e bogs down much less in play than prior version for this reason IME.

I tend to agree here as well. I still play my 1e campaign on the side. We also run a 3e campaign. Third Edition doesnt require all the charts, tables, etc. that 1e does. Everything is streamlined around a core mechanic.

If you dont like something (attacks of opportunity for example), dont use it. It doesnt break the game if you dont use it.

The biggest complaint about 3e I have is the rapid level advancement and the proliferation of magic and magic items (moreso than in previous editions). But- my players and I have solved that for our group. We slowed advancement, make magic items rare, etc.....and use several things from 1e to bring the 1e Feel to 3e....and so far it has worked well. Nothing is out of balance, nobody is powergaming, etc. Basically we are playing 1e with 3e rules.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Interesting. In my opinion you just described 3e D&D, since you can easily do all of those things you want D&D to do with that rule set.

I wonder sometimes if I have the same rulebooks as the rest of you. Maybe mine were misprinted with the playtest rules or something?

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Funny, I seem to be able to run 3e without minis if I feel the need (and frequently do.) All it takes is the DM saying "it'll take you a move equivalent action to flank them" instead of measuring things.



The only statblocks of a half page that I have seen are for high level spellcasting characters; 1e would have required you to write out all those stats as well. The only way to condense it further would be to take out skills and feats. Is that what you want?

I'm not comparing this to 1e, and yes I would like to take out skills and feats. I would like to remove the whole, "I'll flank them for a +2 bonus then do a +5 power attack while I use my expertise for a +3 AC bonus, etc." I don't really want the combat that detailed, IME combat is a chore if you have several PC's battling several NPC's with classes. Too many mods to keep track of. The lack of skills is no problem, we just roleplay it and I'll take the PC's relevent stat into account to decide the result. There are plenty of good things I like about 3e, but the feat and combat system isn't one of them.

 

[Storm Raven]

I wonder sometimes if I have the same rulebooks as the rest of you. Maybe mine were misprinted with the playtest rules or something?

Maybe you just aren't as good at gaming as you think? Maybe the rules aren't as complicated as you keep claiming they are? One or both might be true, but something has to account for the fact that you think a patchwork game with a dozen separate subsystems is simpler than one with a unified mechanic. Keeping track of modifiers (your big complaint, apparently) is not hard. Neither is having a system that recognizes that not all equally dextrous people are all equally as good at agility based skills.

 

[D'karr]

These threads are a lot more interesting to read when people don't feel the need to be rude to each other.

My question is why do we 'need' a simpler ruleset?

If you find that AoO's are too complicated, eliminate them. BTW eliminate any feats that rely on AoO's

If you don't want to worry about a dozen skills, eliminate them except for the rogue and then limit his to 5-6.

If you don't want to have 300 feats, then eliminate them all. Give the fighter a feat every two levels as a class skill and just keep the description of those feats.

I really don't see a need to publish a system that does exactly the same thing that the current system does but is much more limited. If a DM wants to do that he has complete flexibility to do so with the current ruleset.

You can simplify everything if you really want to.

 

[GENEWEIGEL]

These threads are a lot more interesting to read when people don't feel the need to be rude to each other.

Well, we've heard just enough of that kind of talk, my "friend"!

Moderator! Get rid of this... this... "gentle" creature!

Just kidding!

Seriously, I keep hearing that there are aspects of the game that can easily be removed but then why not remove any of these aspects for a published light version?

Alright lets look at it again.

Big blocks for stats? Too busy! Resolution?

A one page chart of skills with DCs based on abilities. But only suggested for a DM's reference.

Feats should be just shelved and if someone later on picks up a core book and wants to use some feats they can just have an ability check to use any feat. This could be included as an option and will be an introduction to the 3rd edition. With consecutive checks to use something with prerequisite feats.

Why shouldn't someone randomly be able to cleave into another opponent anyway?

Hey, I should write that option up for OGC!




____________________________________________
Originally posted by: GENEWEIGEL

Hey, I should write that option up for OGC
____________________________________________

What GENEWEIGEL thinks will be posted RobNJ:

And no one will be able to figure out what it means either. Except someone in special ed.

I mean, you're in special ed.

No. I mean, those in special ed will be the only ones who appreciate it because they are going on what you tell them.

Not that they think you're cool or anything but because the teacher is going to tell them to get into it for a class project.

That is, the teacher told them to because her son is being held hostage by your equally unappealing twin sister.

No wait! Someone as inept as you could "only" be an only child. With the way you write messageboard posts, it seems you never had initial peer review from any of your siblings.

Yeah.
____________________________________________________


Just kidding!

 

[D'karr]

Well, we've heard just enough of that kind of talk, my "friend"!

Moderator! Get rid of this... this... "gentle" creature!

Just kidding!

Seriously, I keep hearing that there are aspects of the game that can easily be removed but then why not remove any of these aspects for a published light version?

The lack of rudeness police has been notified and are on their way...

Gene, I believe that the problem with that approach is that it is not financially viable.

Particularly if everything you are suggesting can be accomplished with the current ruleset.

Business is business and unless there is a financial incentive for WotC there will not be a 'lite' system ever produced by them. Maybe somebody else (not WotC) might do something like this.

I would like to see an introductory game that addresses many of the concerns that many have stated here. But I'm not the target market for a system like this since I've already spent my money on the full "advanced" system (3E).

For example, I started playing D&D with the original D&D rules in late 1978. When I purchased the AD&D ruleset in mid 1980 I stopped purchasing anything for the original D&D rules, even though they came out with the companion and master sets. The only thing that I continued to buy was some select adventures which I converted to AD&D.

I believe that is true of many people. I imagine that WotC has detailed data that might corroborate this.

So why would they fragment their current and future customer base (a mistake TSR made)? There doesn't seem to be any real good reason to do so.

If WotC developed a lite system that had all the trappings of 3E but in a smaller (condensed) setting (4 basic classes, limited spells, limited advancement, limited skills and feats) and then they marketed it to a different market than its current customer base it might work. However, that is a huge gamble. Specially if they have data that shows that it won't be as profitable as we think.

I doubt a substantial amount of current customers would switch to the lite system or even purchase it, since it is essentially the same thing as 3e.

If they would have done this (develop 3e Lite) before and now they were publishing the full 3E version, then it might have worked.

I guess the genie is out of the bottle and nothing is going to change that. They can't undo the fact that they have sold a large amount of 3e and unless they market to completely new people a lite system won't sell.

That is neither here nor there. This thread was about 3E and 1E and I have no idea why the lite system keeps cropping up.

 

[D'karr]

When I started playing 1E, I was nominated to be the Dungeon Master because I was the DM for the original game. I didn't have any of the books except for the DMG. One of the players bought the players handbook and another one got the monster manual.

We played 2 weekly sessions from 1980-1987. To this day the only two rulebooks I bought for 1E were the DMG and Unearthed Arcana, which I didn't get to use at all.

The fact that you only need the PHB is a good one. My budget is much greater for gaming purposes nowadays so I've definitely bought a lot more for 3e than I ever bought for 1e.

One thing that I'm interested in is the following. What things did you like about 1e that you can't do with 3e.

Personally, the only thing I miss about 1e is the sense of awe I had when I first read the books and started building my first campaign. I could never ever get that again from any other game. The sense of wonderment is gone, not because of rules but because of nostalgia.

However, I've found that almost everything I used for my 1e games I'm now rediscovering for my 3e games.

Well, gotta go. Have to prepare my adventure for tomorrow's game. Aerie of the Slavelords, here I come.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Maybe you just aren't as good at gaming as you think? Maybe the rules aren't as complicated as you keep claiming they are? One or both might be true, but something has to account for the fact that you think a patchwork game with a dozen separate subsystems is simpler than one with a unified mechanic. Keeping track of modifiers (your big complaint, apparently) is not hard. Neither is having a system that recognizes that not all equally dextrous people are all equally as good at agility based skills.

As good at gaming? I didn't know there was a scale to measure it by. Is there a gaming MVP to award the best gamer in the community? Do they give that out at GenCon? Are gamers who love Hero better than those who love GURPS lite? Where do I look this scale up at? I want to know what I'm batting.

Maybe I'd like to run a simpler game? Maybe I don't want to put the level of effort into running a more rules heavy game? I like the unified mechanic, I think I've said that several times. Maybe you like to keep track of a lot of variable mods? I know I don't. Sure you can have a system where people of the same level of dexterity have different skill levels, is it that hard? No. Is it necessary to have a good time playing a game? Maybe for you but it's not for my group.

Good way to insult me though. Bravo!

 

[Piratecat]

That would be "bravo" in the sense that "condescending insults are neither cool nor permitted."

In case it came off as ruder than it was meant, SR, please read your posts before you hit submit. Tastes can differ without making someone a "poor gamer."