AD&D First Edition inferior?

[MeepoTheMighty]

Re: Re: Re: AD&D First Edition inferior?

Let's face it the saving throws were fine, well tuned and we didn't need to see the "see-through engine mounted on the roof".

On the surface, they were fine, but things got to be a little wonky. What happens when you get hit with a flesh to stone spell? Is that a save vs. spell, or a save vs. petrification? What about if the spell was cast from a wand?

You may not realize it but the loss of the cavalier as read killed the retrofitted authenticity garnered when the Unearthed Arcana came out. 2e failed to acknowledge the historical and functional value this class had brought to the table. And 3e repeated history with the stale "just another fighter" cavalier prestige class.

If anything, 3E made it unneccesary to have seperate classes in order to replicate historical ideas. You want a cavalier? Put some skill points into ride and diplomacy, take mounted combat feats, and roleplay him like a cavalier. No need for a seperate mechanic.

The OGL needs a universal overhaul right now because 3e is not pleasing me as read and I'm sure it's not pleasing a lot of cash customers as read either.

Meh? They need to overhaul this RIGHT NOW because it doesn't please you? Err, okay. And from what I've seen, more cash customers are pleased than displeased. My FLGS owner's only complaints about 3rd edition is that he can't keep it on the shelves.

Seriously why shun the legions of fans and give them no options for game style?

Nobody's been shunned. The RPG police haven't taken away your books.

This is an avenue that the SRD has to take. The ignorance and hype associated with D&D was at an all time high when 3e came out.

What do you mean by this? Ignorance and hype? You lost me.

I think we need to turn this game around into a "thinking man's game" again with a new SRD loaded with options that have been features of the various editions of the game.

It's as much of a thinking man's game as you want it to be.

What does anyone have to lose?

Well, money, for one. Putting out a second SRD would be time-consuming and expensive, and could lead to confusion among the customer base. Besides, it's been 2 years and they're still not done releasing the SRD - do you really want to wait another 3 years for a second one?

Even the new blood can agree with that.

Right, youngins?

No, but then again I like being argumentative.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

Besides on messageboards the "fake women" always get all the guys riled up when they exclaim that "all women are dainty flowers" making an outpour of "I told you so"s flood the board til the testosterone level gets so heavy the thread gets closed.

Now, now... just because hong *occasionally* dresses up in women's underwear, that's no need to assume that all the women here are fake. And he really is a dainty flower.

 

[barsoomcore]

Re: Re: Re: AD&D First Edition inferior?

The OGL needs a universal overhaul right now because 3e is not pleasing me as read and I'm sure it's not pleasing a lot of cash customers as read either.

Seriously why shun the legions of fans and give them no options for game style?

Huh? As far as I know 3E is selling like mad. WotC is making good money off the product decisions they made. Why should they care about these legions of fans if they're making all the money they want to? There will always be some gamers who don't want to buy their product. So what, as long as WotC/Hasbro is making the kind of money their projections suggest they should?

What does anyone have to lose?

Well, WotC/Hasbro has its sales figures to lose. Show some evidence to suggest that your proposed changes will bring in more money and you can bet they'll jump to your strategy. But till you do, expect that they're going to continue executing the game plan they're currently on -- because it's working.

EDIT: *high-fives Meepo as they switch places*

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

Heh...it's all about the tag-team action.

 

[JeffB]

OK folks...

Let me give you some solid and simple advice...

You cannot debate with Gene..

it's pointless...

he lives for this stuff..

he WANTS you to debate him....

he draws you in....

he thrives on driving people nuts and he'll do whatever it takes to make it so.

You have been warned.

P.S. Gene, take it easy on the "youngins"

 

[barsoomcore]

P.S. Gene, take it easy on the "youngins"

People who call me "youngin" make me chuckle. It's sweet.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Actually, though I'm currently running a Basic D&D campaign, if I were to run a campaign using an unmodified ruleset...it would most likely be AD&D (1st Edition).

Just a matter of taste really--so, if nothing else, in a purely subjective sense AD&D would be superior for my needs.

I do recognize this is a matter of taste, but what is it about 1e that seems better to you? This is an honest question.

To me, 1e is already an ugly hodgepodge of mechanics. The modifiers for weapon type vs. AC are cumbersome, as are the weapon speed factors. The savings throws are sloppy and ambiguous. Multiclassing and dualclassing rules are horrible. Races are poorly designed. Once you venture from the core books, things get dicier still.

I will readily concede there is something to be said for running with a much lighter ruleset than 3e. But unmodified 1e ain't that, not even close. It would be quite easy to reduce the 3e rules to be of the style of Basic D&D. I think it could fit on a page and a half. One noticeable difference is that a '3e Lite' game will be so clean you would never need to look at charts.

 

[Piratecat]

I cut my teeth on 1e, and I loved it. Or... rather, I love the fun I had while playing it. No game system that has come afterwards can reduce or discount the amount of sheer joy I experienced late at night, every summer night, out on my friend Ken's porch until at midnight his Dad would roar at us to shut the hell up and go home, didn't we have parents anyways? But we were busy slaying Tiamat, and it was hard to get our attention.

To me, 3e is fundamentally a better rules set. I have an equal amount of fun playing it, and I'd argue that the rules get in the way a lot less. I'm okay with that. But no matter how good 3e is, it doesn't make the time I spent playing 1e any less fun.

That make any sense?

 

[Grazzt]

OK folks...

Let me give you some solid and simple advice...


it's pointless...

Relating to all the stuff posted previously by the aforementioned poster (not you Jeff), I must agree with this statement.

 

[JeffB]

People who call me "youngin" make me chuckle. It's sweet.

Well, that was Genes terminology...but I'm glad ya got a laugh out of it