AD&D First Edition inferior?
- Thread starter Theuderic
- Start date
Victim
First Post
Re: Re: Re: AD&D First Edition inferior?
Yes, saving throws were fine, because a fireball that comes from a wand is substancially different from one that a wizard casts. A blast of fire coming from something's mouth is resisted differently from one coming from a spell, which is resisted differently from one coming from a wand - which is just the spell stored in a device.
Also, spells negated by saving throws became pretty pointless at higher levels because saving throws increased while spells remained fixed. People complain about low spells' weakness against high level enemies now, but in 1e, anything without a save modifier was worthless at high level, whether it be an 8th level spell or 1st.
Yes, a fighter from the upper class is completely different from a lower class one. The main thing a cavalier brought to the game was an overpowered class. "Yeah, I'm like a fighter, but I'm from the elite of society, so I increase my stats every level and get additional combat bonuses. But I have mostly trivial restrictions, so it's okay." And there is no authenticity in a fantasy game that draws from so many contradictory sources.
A completely different system for multiclassing was needed because the initial system was so messed up.
Considering that 1e material is availible for download for about 5 bucks a book, you can't say that the "legions of fans" don't have access to it. I doubt that WotC is losing much in sales, though. 1e fanatics wouldn't be being buying a new system anyway. You'd either complain about the differences or not want to buy the same material. Look at how many 1e players hate 2e, which is very much the same in most matters, and IMHO cleans up some mechanics. For example, I think that achieving unusual distinction via modifying a base ala kits is often better than creating a completely new base class for every change. And the change in the way ranges are calculated also seems to be an improvement.
However, it would be interesting if WotC opened up previous editions for 3rd party publishers. Simple disinterest on WotC's part might allow them to do so anyway. IIRC, some companies produced products for 1e (Judges Guild and Mayfair role aids or something), but TSR took legal action against them. WotC will probably be less likely to do so.
1e, a thinking man's game? The number of meaningful choices in 1e was far lower than in 3e. Pick race, pick class, and pick a few weapon proficiencies. Every 3 or so levels, you can pick another weapon prof. The mechanics didn't support any combat manuevers without supplement books, so even combat had little room for meaningful thought.
1e was such a thinking person's game that you had to look everything up in charts, rather than giving you formulas to work things out on your own. I often have free time that could be used productively, but I don't have my RPG books - like in boring classes.
I can create 3e characters and even even work on HERO characters without my books, because I can remeber the underlying formulae. However, since 1e uses arbitrary numbers placed in charts, I couldn't use that without a book. Gamers were thought to be too stupid to be trusted with the foundation of the game.
------------
I have to leave, I'll come back and add stuff in an edit.
I know what I'm getting into; I remember some of the old Greyhawk versus FR threads.
GENEWEIGEL said:
Yes, saving throws were fine, because a fireball that comes from a wand is substancially different from one that a wizard casts. A blast of fire coming from something's mouth is resisted differently from one coming from a spell, which is resisted differently from one coming from a wand - which is just the spell stored in a device.
Also, spells negated by saving throws became pretty pointless at higher levels because saving throws increased while spells remained fixed. People complain about low spells' weakness against high level enemies now, but in 1e, anything without a save modifier was worthless at high level, whether it be an 8th level spell or 1st.
Yes, a fighter from the upper class is completely different from a lower class one. The main thing a cavalier brought to the game was an overpowered class. "Yeah, I'm like a fighter, but I'm from the elite of society, so I increase my stats every level and get additional combat bonuses. But I have mostly trivial restrictions, so it's okay." And there is no authenticity in a fantasy game that draws from so many contradictory sources.
A completely different system for multiclassing was needed because the initial system was so messed up.
Considering that 1e material is availible for download for about 5 bucks a book, you can't say that the "legions of fans" don't have access to it. I doubt that WotC is losing much in sales, though. 1e fanatics wouldn't be being buying a new system anyway. You'd either complain about the differences or not want to buy the same material. Look at how many 1e players hate 2e, which is very much the same in most matters, and IMHO cleans up some mechanics. For example, I think that achieving unusual distinction via modifying a base ala kits is often better than creating a completely new base class for every change. And the change in the way ranges are calculated also seems to be an improvement.
However, it would be interesting if WotC opened up previous editions for 3rd party publishers. Simple disinterest on WotC's part might allow them to do so anyway. IIRC, some companies produced products for 1e (Judges Guild and Mayfair role aids or something), but TSR took legal action against them. WotC will probably be less likely to do so.
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.
1e, a thinking man's game? The number of meaningful choices in 1e was far lower than in 3e. Pick race, pick class, and pick a few weapon proficiencies. Every 3 or so levels, you can pick another weapon prof. The mechanics didn't support any combat manuevers without supplement books, so even combat had little room for meaningful thought.
1e was such a thinking person's game that you had to look everything up in charts, rather than giving you formulas to work things out on your own. I often have free time that could be used productively, but I don't have my RPG books - like in boring classes.
I can create 3e characters and even even work on HERO characters without my books, because I can remeber the underlying formulae. However, since 1e uses arbitrary numbers placed in charts, I couldn't use that without a book. Gamers were thought to be too stupid to be trusted with the foundation of the game.------------
I have to leave, I'll come back and add stuff in an edit.
I know what I'm getting into; I remember some of the old Greyhawk versus FR threads.
Last edited:
Flexor the Mighty!
18/100 Strength!
Re: Re: Re: Re: AD&D First Edition inferior?
That was great too.
Victim said:
That was great too.
GENEWEIGEL said:
If the question is "Does the entire system need to be rewritten", then the answer is: no.
If the question is "Do elements of the system need to be rewritten", then the answer is: yes.
I think the prime candidate are some of the DCs - they're too low, esp. when you compare the abilities of high-level characters.
I'd also like to see an alternative XP chart for those that prefer 5+ years in a single campaign with the same characters.
####
As to "Is 1E inferior", the answer remains: in some areas, yes. In other areas, no.
I think 1E gives much more latitude for the DM to improvise without contradicting the rules; it also takes much less preparation time to get the NPC & monster stats right if you are customising them.
However, 3E gives the players & DM a much better opportunity to play the type of game in the type of world they want to, rather than being restricted to the assumptions of the Greyhawk of Gygax.
Not to say that Gygaxian Greyhawk isn't a great place to play - my own campaigns are inspired greatly by his vision! But I feel very strongly that given people the option to choose their own restrictions is better than saying "this is the way you have to play, and if you don't play it this way it's not D&D".
Cheers!
Thorvald Kviksverd
First Post
BTW--When I started hunting and pecking, Ridley's Cohort's was the last post 
I'll try to give an meaningful response--but to be perfectly honest, and since it is largely a matter of taste, I haven't spent much effort trying to figure out why I like one more than the other
I actually like the variety of mechanics, I think they lend a certain charm--maybe I'm just a bit quirky myself.
Seriously, I don't care for the universal mechanic/system trend that is sweeping the industry.
Situations are different, genres are different, and the mechanics that model them should therefore be different as well. I like the mechanics to actually add to the feel and flavor of the game--not merely be...well, mechanical.
Simplicity can be elegant; but, in a similar vein, variety can also be the spice.
Again, I like the "personality" that these values add to the individual weapons, and have always used them. Though they seem to have a bad reputation, I never had any trouble implementing them--as a matter of fact, there was a time when I knew most of the weapon vs armour type modifiers by heart!
I have to admit that there are parts of the initiative system that I wouldn't mind tweaking a bit though.
That's a bit harsh.
Sloppy?
Roll a d20 versus some number--mechanically, not much different from 3e.
Ambiguous?
At time yes (see example in earlier post), but I don't mind making a ruling on the fly.
As a matter of fact, this last point is another of the major attractions that the older versions offer me--I prefer the flexibility and freedom that the more "rules-light" systems encourage. Granted, you can DM this way in any system--some are just more conducive to it.
BTW, in general I prefer the 3e save categories--and even used them in my Basic D&D campaign for a while--but found that using them (along with my other rules changes) just sacrificed too much of the atmosphere I was attempting to maintain. As I said, I don't necessarily like mechanics to be unobtrusive--sometimes they actively lend to the feel of the game.
The multi-classing rules really help to set demi-humans apart--they're not just funny looking Humans.
Not crazy about the dual-classing rules myself--so I never uased them (and never missed them).
This raises a somewhat related point...
If you don't like a given rule in AD&D, you can generally omit it without upsetting the whole applecart. I really don't think the same can be said for 3e. Most of the parts seem to me to be too integral to the whole--it may be a very elegant system, but it is much more of an all or nothing affair.
I'm afraid you'll have to explain this a bit more.
Again, I find the races to be well balanced with respect to one another, with each presenting both a unique feel an different opportunities for play.
Which raises yet another point...
A major characteristic of D&D has always been the "archetype"--and the races were as much archetypes as the classes. Each race/class would fill a different niche in the game, and require a different style of play and decision making. While this definitely isn't the best way to model reality, it certainly makes for an entertaining, challenging, and easily visualized game.
What do you consider non-core?
I'm no fan of 2e, but if by some chance you are alluding to the players' options books I'll say this much in their defence--at least they're clearly presented as being optional.
While we're on the topic of other versions besides AD&D(1e)...
Even though I didn't play 2e, I could still use material in my AD&D or Basic campaigns with very little modification. The effort a "3e to earlier" conversion requires is better spent writing my own adventures and gaming. As a matter of fact, the only 3e adventures that would be worth this effort to me would be those written by EGG.
Actually, as Stormcrow has pointed out over at Dragonsfoot, while AD&D probably has a higher learning curve than 3e, once learned, it is relatively simple in execution. I think 3e requires more in the way of continual learning as FEATS and new abilities continue to amass.
In any event, as I already mentioned, it is a trivial exercise to modify AD&D to almost any level of desired simplicity. Whereas in 3e, if you have a few screws left over after assembly, you might find the whole construction crumbling about you the first time you play--or worse, after the campaign has been going a while, and the aforementioned FEATS and abilities finally provide the proverbial straw, highlighting the previously unconsidered flaws in your tinkering. Again, very much an all or nothing affair--which is fine if you are comfortable with the "all".
I agree, and would love to see such a game--I might even play it!
I think many of the aspects in AD&D that you have issues with could have been addressed in 3e without diverging so drastically from what had come before.
Anyway, I'm not looking to convert anyone--though I'd love to see enough of a resurgence of interest in the older versions to justify a bit of commercial support for them...
Game On
Ridley's Cohort said:
I'll try to give an meaningful response--but to be perfectly honest, and since it is largely a matter of taste, I haven't spent much effort trying to figure out why I like one more than the other
I actually like the variety of mechanics, I think they lend a certain charm--maybe I'm just a bit quirky myself.
Seriously, I don't care for the universal mechanic/system trend that is sweeping the industry.
Situations are different, genres are different, and the mechanics that model them should therefore be different as well. I like the mechanics to actually add to the feel and flavor of the game--not merely be...well, mechanical.
Simplicity can be elegant; but, in a similar vein, variety can also be the spice.
Again, I like the "personality" that these values add to the individual weapons, and have always used them. Though they seem to have a bad reputation, I never had any trouble implementing them--as a matter of fact, there was a time when I knew most of the weapon vs armour type modifiers by heart!
I have to admit that there are parts of the initiative system that I wouldn't mind tweaking a bit though.
That's a bit harsh.
Sloppy?
Roll a d20 versus some number--mechanically, not much different from 3e.
Ambiguous?
At time yes (see example in earlier post), but I don't mind making a ruling on the fly.
As a matter of fact, this last point is another of the major attractions that the older versions offer me--I prefer the flexibility and freedom that the more "rules-light" systems encourage. Granted, you can DM this way in any system--some are just more conducive to it.
BTW, in general I prefer the 3e save categories--and even used them in my Basic D&D campaign for a while--but found that using them (along with my other rules changes) just sacrificed too much of the atmosphere I was attempting to maintain. As I said, I don't necessarily like mechanics to be unobtrusive--sometimes they actively lend to the feel of the game.
The multi-classing rules really help to set demi-humans apart--they're not just funny looking Humans.
Not crazy about the dual-classing rules myself--so I never uased them (and never missed them).
This raises a somewhat related point...
If you don't like a given rule in AD&D, you can generally omit it without upsetting the whole applecart. I really don't think the same can be said for 3e. Most of the parts seem to me to be too integral to the whole--it may be a very elegant system, but it is much more of an all or nothing affair.
I'm afraid you'll have to explain this a bit more.
Again, I find the races to be well balanced with respect to one another, with each presenting both a unique feel an different opportunities for play.
Which raises yet another point...
A major characteristic of D&D has always been the "archetype"--and the races were as much archetypes as the classes. Each race/class would fill a different niche in the game, and require a different style of play and decision making. While this definitely isn't the best way to model reality, it certainly makes for an entertaining, challenging, and easily visualized game.
What do you consider non-core?
I'm no fan of 2e, but if by some chance you are alluding to the players' options books I'll say this much in their defence--at least they're clearly presented as being optional.
While we're on the topic of other versions besides AD&D(1e)...
Even though I didn't play 2e, I could still use material in my AD&D or Basic campaigns with very little modification. The effort a "3e to earlier" conversion requires is better spent writing my own adventures and gaming. As a matter of fact, the only 3e adventures that would be worth this effort to me would be those written by EGG.
Actually, as Stormcrow has pointed out over at Dragonsfoot, while AD&D probably has a higher learning curve than 3e, once learned, it is relatively simple in execution. I think 3e requires more in the way of continual learning as FEATS and new abilities continue to amass.
In any event, as I already mentioned, it is a trivial exercise to modify AD&D to almost any level of desired simplicity. Whereas in 3e, if you have a few screws left over after assembly, you might find the whole construction crumbling about you the first time you play--or worse, after the campaign has been going a while, and the aforementioned FEATS and abilities finally provide the proverbial straw, highlighting the previously unconsidered flaws in your tinkering. Again, very much an all or nothing affair--which is fine if you are comfortable with the "all".
I agree, and would love to see such a game--I might even play it!
I think many of the aspects in AD&D that you have issues with could have been addressed in 3e without diverging so drastically from what had come before.
Anyway, I'm not looking to convert anyone--though I'd love to see enough of a resurgence of interest in the older versions to justify a bit of commercial support for them...
Game On
Last edited:
When I think about 3E diverging drastically from what has come before, only two areas really come to mind:
* Feats
* Multi-classing
Everything else is remarkably similar.
I think it's a big myth about the modularity of 1E - if you used different aspects of it, the relative power of the classes changed dramatically in respect to each other.
Consider that the 1st level magic-user was... weak. (Strong in one combat, then near useless afterwards). The 1st level fighter was okay - not great, but not useless. Then along comes UA with weapon specialisation, and the Fighter has gone to being STRONG whilst the MU remains the same (sort of weak).
You can run 3E without feats. The result is that you've changed the power of the Fighter in relation to the other classes.
Cheers!
* Feats
* Multi-classing
Everything else is remarkably similar.
I think it's a big myth about the modularity of 1E - if you used different aspects of it, the relative power of the classes changed dramatically in respect to each other.
Consider that the 1st level magic-user was... weak. (Strong in one combat, then near useless afterwards). The 1st level fighter was okay - not great, but not useless. Then along comes UA with weapon specialisation, and the Fighter has gone to being STRONG whilst the MU remains the same (sort of weak).
You can run 3E without feats. The result is that you've changed the power of the Fighter in relation to the other classes.
Cheers!
Thorvald Kviksverd
First Post
Hey Merric--
Not exactly the sort of help I was hoping for from Dragonsfoot!
Two mighty big areas those!
The one adds far too much detail for this tired old brain to adjudicate in play.
The other sounds the death-knell for the traditional D&D archetypes. Granted, you can simply disallow it--but doing so really puts your campaign outside the pale wrt the rest of the D&D community and most supplements (as does eliminating FEATS).
You also have larger stat blocks for monsters, monsters with classes, faster advancement, no upper limit on hit dice, altered saving throws, multiple attacks for non-fighters, greatly expanded skills, a cyclic initiative/partial/full action thingy, and a number of other changes as well.
That's why I don't use UA.
Which, come to think of it, helps illustrate the aforementioned ease of customization--don't like it, don't use it.
Bought a module that uses customization? Forget it; or, if it's used for a main antagonist, give him a +2 Sword and a potion of speed.
Would that it were so easy--but I really think there's a bit more involved...
I spent a year trying to make 3e play more like the older versions--until I ended up with something neither fish nor fowl, and realized I should just go ahead and play the older versions.
So, to answer the question asked by the original post (be it troll or not)...
Yes, it does offend me when something that is merely different, is instead refered to as inferior.
To be honest, the question could be asked, "Inferior for what purpose?"
If you mean for playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons as I came to understand it over years of exposure, then I would say that it is actually superior to anything else out there--afterall, it is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons!
If you mean for recreating some of the more anime-like action that seems to be the current taste with many, then yes, I would say that AD&D is inferior for this purpose. Similarly, 3e is probably better for simulating various literary and historical milieus.
That's the rub I guess, the philosophies of the two systems are different. AD&D wasn't really attempting to model anything, it was simply a vehicle for adventure that existed within its own framework--in other words, a game. While, 3e aims to be much more. I don't want more though, I'm happy with just having my quirky-seperate D&D universe where Rangers cast spells, Magic-Users can't wear armour, and where Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling are sometimes classes as well as races.
Speaking of Rangers, and not to sidetrack the discussion, this is probably why there is so much disagreement surrounding the new class with regards to the definition of "ranger". People forget that in AD&D, the Ranger simply is what the game says it is--it's not really attempting to model anything (though there were no doubt inspirations).
Ah well, that's enough rambling for one night.
Take it easy all
Not exactly the sort of help I was hoping for from Dragonsfoot!
MerricB said:When I think about 3E diverging drastically from what has come before, only two areas really come to mind:
* Feats
* Multi-classing
Everything else is remarkably similar.
Two mighty big areas those!
The one adds far too much detail for this tired old brain to adjudicate in play.
The other sounds the death-knell for the traditional D&D archetypes. Granted, you can simply disallow it--but doing so really puts your campaign outside the pale wrt the rest of the D&D community and most supplements (as does eliminating FEATS).
You also have larger stat blocks for monsters, monsters with classes, faster advancement, no upper limit on hit dice, altered saving throws, multiple attacks for non-fighters, greatly expanded skills, a cyclic initiative/partial/full action thingy, and a number of other changes as well.
That's why I don't use UA.
Which, come to think of it, helps illustrate the aforementioned ease of customization--don't like it, don't use it.
Bought a module that uses customization? Forget it; or, if it's used for a main antagonist, give him a +2 Sword and a potion of speed.
Would that it were so easy--but I really think there's a bit more involved...
I spent a year trying to make 3e play more like the older versions--until I ended up with something neither fish nor fowl, and realized I should just go ahead and play the older versions.
So, to answer the question asked by the original post (be it troll or not)...
Yes, it does offend me when something that is merely different, is instead refered to as inferior.
To be honest, the question could be asked, "Inferior for what purpose?"
If you mean for playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons as I came to understand it over years of exposure, then I would say that it is actually superior to anything else out there--afterall, it is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons!
If you mean for recreating some of the more anime-like action that seems to be the current taste with many, then yes, I would say that AD&D is inferior for this purpose. Similarly, 3e is probably better for simulating various literary and historical milieus.
That's the rub I guess, the philosophies of the two systems are different. AD&D wasn't really attempting to model anything, it was simply a vehicle for adventure that existed within its own framework--in other words, a game. While, 3e aims to be much more. I don't want more though, I'm happy with just having my quirky-seperate D&D universe where Rangers cast spells, Magic-Users can't wear armour, and where Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling are sometimes classes as well as races.
Speaking of Rangers, and not to sidetrack the discussion, this is probably why there is so much disagreement surrounding the new class with regards to the definition of "ranger". People forget that in AD&D, the Ranger simply is what the game says it is--it's not really attempting to model anything (though there were no doubt inspirations).
Ah well, that's enough rambling for one night.
Take it easy all
I'm not defined by Dragonsfoot. I am merely someone who appreciates both 1E and 3E. Oh, and 2E and 2.5E. And the BECM line of D&D. And a few other roleplaying games as well.
My bottom line is this: If you don't like 3E, don't play it, but be respectful of the fact that there are a large number of people who do like it, and prefer it to other editions of the game.
The same applies in reverse, of course.
Cheers!
My bottom line is this: If you don't like 3E, don't play it, but be respectful of the fact that there are a large number of people who do like it, and prefer it to other editions of the game.
The same applies in reverse, of course.
Cheers!
Henry
Autoexreginated
Gene Weigel -
Troll;
Patriot;
Mensch.
Gotta love 'im.
I won't re-tread PCat's statement - I'll simply state "ditto." After all, my first REAL gaming group (the guys I spent summers with playing D&D every darned DAY) played 1st edition AD&D. I cut my teeth on Basic D&D; I learned to roleplay with 1e AD&D.
Troll;
Patriot;
Mensch.
Gotta love 'im.
I won't re-tread PCat's statement - I'll simply state "ditto." After all, my first REAL gaming group (the guys I spent summers with playing D&D every darned DAY) played 1st edition AD&D. I cut my teeth on Basic D&D; I learned to roleplay with 1e AD&D.
William Ronald
Explorer
Like Piratecat, I had a great deal of fun with 1st Edition. There were a lot of things I enjoyed, and remember fondly. However, I think 3E offers much more flexibility.
Some have raised the issues of low level wizards versus fighters with weapon specialization in 1st edition. I thought it was a bit unfair that clerics could receive bonus spells for wisdom and fighters can gain a benefit while thieves, monks, and wizards would just have to chug along and wait to get their benefits. (In the case of monks and wizards, the key was having a character survive until he had enough power to contribute as much as the other characters.)
There are certain things I do not miss; the complex grappling-pummeling-wrestling rules and the completely screwed up psionics system. (Indeed, Gygax has admitted on these boards that he only added psionics because a few people were using them and would have not added them or modified them.) Or how about the complex psionic combat rules.
I think that the 1st edition games that I played in were fun. However, I do not see the need to abandon a more modern game engine.
Of course, we can play whatever we wish at home.
As for the gender issue, I consider it ultimately meaningless. So,
humans in a world of magic and active divinities should be EXACTLY the same as in our world. The game is meant to simulate heroic fantasy. Heroic fantasy is an environment where fire breathign dragons can exhale flame on heroes and heroines who do not suffer charred lungs and carbon monoxide asphyxiation (or worse). As for demi-humans, I always considered the level limits illogical and not all that great for game balance. Also, as I have never meet a sentient non-human, I can't comment on realistic portrayals of said beings.
So, my advice is: play whatever you want. As long as you and your fellow players are having fun, that is the what is truly important.
Some have raised the issues of low level wizards versus fighters with weapon specialization in 1st edition. I thought it was a bit unfair that clerics could receive bonus spells for wisdom and fighters can gain a benefit while thieves, monks, and wizards would just have to chug along and wait to get their benefits. (In the case of monks and wizards, the key was having a character survive until he had enough power to contribute as much as the other characters.)
There are certain things I do not miss; the complex grappling-pummeling-wrestling rules and the completely screwed up psionics system. (Indeed, Gygax has admitted on these boards that he only added psionics because a few people were using them and would have not added them or modified them.) Or how about the complex psionic combat rules.
I think that the 1st edition games that I played in were fun. However, I do not see the need to abandon a more modern game engine.
Of course, we can play whatever we wish at home.
As for the gender issue, I consider it ultimately meaningless. So,
humans in a world of magic and active divinities should be EXACTLY the same as in our world. The game is meant to simulate heroic fantasy. Heroic fantasy is an environment where fire breathign dragons can exhale flame on heroes and heroines who do not suffer charred lungs and carbon monoxide asphyxiation (or worse). As for demi-humans, I always considered the level limits illogical and not all that great for game balance. Also, as I have never meet a sentient non-human, I can't comment on realistic portrayals of said beings.
So, my advice is: play whatever you want. As long as you and your fellow players are having fun, that is the what is truly important.
Similar Threads
- Poll
