AD&D First Edition inferior?

[Grazzt]

-- or is the 'jack of all trades' with a juicy skill list basically meant to have 3 skill points per level?),

The "jack-of-all-trades (master of none)" is supposed to be good at lots of things but great at none. One of my players plays a bard and we have had no problems or seen any problems (nor has the player complained about the bard at all; and he's played a bard since 1e when it was really, really difficult to become a bard ).

or pathetic skill lists for classes like the sorcerer, which make absolutely no use of that classes prime attribute

I wouldn't call it pathetic per se, but it is strange that the sorcerer's "prime requisite" is Charisma, yet it has no Charisma-based class skills. We simply juggled the list in one or two places to balance it out.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Re: My two coppers...

Isn't the success of HackMaster proof of that demand? And that's success in spite of it's comedy approach and additional complicated rules.

That fact would tend to support your argument, yes. Along with the number of actoive OAD&D websites and the demand for 1E books, I'd say there is considerable interest.

I remember you mentioning this before. It is indeed very interesting, and gratifying for the grognards It also makes quite a case for the missing hordes of 1E gamers 'out there'. A very large portion of the 3E crowd is new gamers, I assume we can all agree on this. So a large portion of the 1E crowd has not been lured back. Naturally all those gamers are not still playing now, but with the right version of AD&D/D&D couldn't a lot of them be brought back into the fold? At any case, certainly more of them than 3E has brought back so far.

Also, this may show a significant flaw in WotC's original plan. Since the number of 1E gamers was so large, wouldn't it have been better to target 3E to them instead of new players? After all, 1E was the game that attracted all these gamers in the first place so a 3E based on 1E could still theoretically do the same thing - attract a huge number of new fans, while also bringing back all the old fans. Now that would certainly result in larger numbers than 3E has seen so far, and hopefully not cause the slowdown the d20 market is currently seeing.

And on a different note: It's strange to me how everyone keeps saying the OGL is a masterwork and that 3E is selling like crazy. If these things were true why all the layoffs? Why has almost everyone who had anything to do with these two things been laid off now? Ryan Dancey is gone, Monte Cook, Skip Williams and lots of others. Of course you'll say it's just stupid Hasbro, they only care about the bottom line. But isn't that exactly the point? Hasbro keeps cutting WotC because they are not happy with their bottom line. And not just the card people, but RPG people too. If 3E is selling so well why is Hasbro laying it's designers off? Surely they should be kept around to design more masterworks in the future. And surely they should be full-time Hasbro employees instead of free-lancers because Hasbro wouldn't want anyone else to employ their genius. And if the OGL is such a success why did Hasbro let Dancey go? Surely they should be chasing him down begging him to come work for them full-time with all kinds of benefits. Surely they would be pleading with him to design more masterful business plans for their other products.

Ah well, I'm no business person so I probably just don't understand these things.

From inside information I have in regards to the release of 2E, TSR lost about 50% of its AD&D audience then. some fair percentage of that audience remains devoted to the original AD&D game, just as there are devoted original D&D gamers, albeit fewer than those fans of OAD&D.

The error I believe T$R made was like that of the Coca Cola producers with New Coke. When they saw the consumer reaction, they quickly rectified the problem. The D&D game matter is well past that stage. The market is in four segments now. and likely to be fragmented further--the HACKMASTER fllowing is indeed a fifth fragment. Only one segment supporst WotC.

The concept of bringing in lots of new young gamers was and is a great one. The real trick is going to be to retain a fair proportion of those new fans while continuing to pick up more newcomers.

Cheerio,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Col_Pladoh, please note that I am speaking on behalf of elves everywhere, and that Legolas, Galadriel, and Lauranathalasa among others have voiced similar concerns. We find the word demi-human offensive...

Oh yah?! Well, how about: "Humans rule, elves drool!"

Betcha that really makes those curly-toed shoes flatten out in rage, huh! Buncha tree-hugging, pointy-eared flower children. No half-elf/half-orcs around because orcs are too discriminating. The only humans duped into cross-breeding were undoubtedly drugged and/or charmed.

Now where are those hirsute dwarven fems? I need to say a word or to to them as well...

BTW, this sort of post makes as much sense to me as arguing over which edition is "better"--nothing but subjectivity and personal taste. As for making mechanical analogies, specious in the extreme. People reading words and all that. Even the mechanical systems do not have any technological component that can be rated as more or less advanced. Only preference in question here.



Gary

 

[Theuderic]

Originally posted by Col_Pladoh [/i

BTW, this sort of post makes as much sense to me as arguing over which edition is "better"--nothing but subjectivity and personal taste. As for making mechanical analogies, specious in the extreme. People reading words and all that. Even the mechanical systems do not have any technological component that can be rated as more or less advanced. Only preference in question here.



Gary [/B]

Mr. Gygax, what you just posted makes more sense to me than anything else I've read here. I think you just cleared up a great many things in my mind. You are right, it is a matter of taste. Thank you for your comments on this matter. I understand now. You're right, it is highly subjective. By the way I love 1st Edition! I geuss that just my personal taste though! Thank you for creating such a wonderful game Mr. Gygax. I will always fall back on it no matter if I run 3rd E or not ( I f I do run 3rd E I will keep the original class and race restricitions-that's one thing I can't bear to change!)

 

[Piratecat]

Betcha that really makes those curly-toed shoes flatten out in rage, huh! Buncha tree-hugging, pointy-eared flower children. No half-elf/half-orcs around because orcs are too discriminating. The only humans duped into cross-breeding were undoubtedly drugged and/or charmed.

I... I think I love you. *sniff*

 

[Geoffrey]

I prefer 1st edition AD&D over 3rd edition D&D because I like to play games rather than work at them. Case in point:

As a DM in 1E, I can write the following in an adventure: Glend is a CE 13th level thief (AC 1, hp 39) with +3 leather armor and a +3 short sword.

As a DM in 3E, I must write something like this: Glend is a CE 13th level rogue (AC 19, hp 49) with +3 leather armor and a +3 short sword.
Skills:
Appraise +12
Balance +13
Bluff +12
Climb +8
Disguise +10
Forgery +13
Gather Information +10
Hide +15
Intuit Direction +8
Listen +10
Move Silently +15
Open Lock +11
Pick Pocket +11
Ride +11
Search +12
Sense Motive +9
Spot +10
Tumble +13
Feats:
Blind-Fight
Combat Reflexes
Improved Critical (short sword)
Improved Unarmed Strike
Martial Weapon Proficiency (short sword)
Weapon Focus (short sword)

I'm sorry, but I don't have the time or the patience for that sort of thing. Anybody who wants to put that much time, effort, and paper into a single NPC, God bless 'em. But that just isn't fun for me, nor does it exercise my creativity. It's merely work.

 

[Tuerny]

Actually, you really don't need to take the time to stat out an entire NPC if you don't want to.
For NPCs that do not need highly specialized descriptions and details you can just use one of the generic NPCs from the DMG.

So that really isn't that valid of a complaint...

 

[Theuderic]

Actually, you really don't need to take the time to stat out an entire NPC if you don't want to.
For NPCs that do not need highly specialized descriptions and details you can just use one of the generic NPCs from the DMG.

So that really isn't that valid of a complaint...

Actually it is because if he DID want to have highly specialized descriptions and details he would HAVE more work to do in 3rd E than !st E. ( rules wise )

 

[jasamcarl]

Yes, but you have to consider the returns you get on the work you do do in 1st as oppossed to 3rd in creating detailed characters. 3e is more flexible so fluff details are more likely to have a real mechanical benefit than in 1st. Consequently, you could probably use a generic 3e npc and just relegate the detail to fluff and still make that detail as relevant as in 1e, whose only seaming advantage is in the surperfluous.

 

[Piratecat]

As a DM in 3E, I must write something like this:
(snip)

No you don't! Good lord, man, are you always doing that sort of work? I'm way too lazy, myself.

Ideally, you shoot over to EN World's glorious electronic aids page, and use Jamis Buck's NPC generator.

Alternatively, I've found that most NPCs never use most of their feats and skills. In most fights, a NPC will die long before they've gotten a chance to use all of their cool abilities. So for the example you gave, I'd assume max ranks in the most important thing (is this a sneaky rogue? A fast-talking one?), the obvious feats, and I'm good to go. My players never know the difference, I always err on the side of caution, and it dramatically minimizes my prep. I also never stat up anyone who I don't expect to be in combat.

So it takes a little longer than a 1e NPC, not (for me) nowhere as long as you indicate. I think the added flexibility over the 1e thief's set skill percentages more than compensates for the difference.