AD&D First Edition inferior?

[MeepoTheMighty]

Why, then, does 3E/d20 have lots of stats and OAD&D has few?

Because OAD&D has very narrowly defined roles. There's no difference between Joe Fighter and Bob Fighter.

I think the biggest culprits are skills and feats. IMO, the essential genius of D&D is the fact it is based on classes. This was watered down in several versions:

If you ask me, the essential failing of D&D is that the classes, until now, were too narrowly focused. In addition, there was no easy mechanic to resolve many of the non-combat things that creeped up. Yes, there were ability checks, but there was no way to really improve your chances at succeeding in something. What if you wanted to play, say, a fighter who could pick a lock? Or a wizard who knew how to use a sword?

Skills/proficiencies/feats/whatever necessitate more stats. More stats means more factors to consider when running combat.

You only have to consider those factors which directly relate to combat, if all you're worried about is running combat. What do you do if you want your NPC to do something non-combat related?

It's all too complicated for my taste. I prefer straight character classes with no skills and such muddying the waters.

But don't you see how that could get repetitive?

"But what if the character tries to do something not addressed in the rules?" That's what good DMing is for. D&D was played for over a decade before skills started creeping in. We had a great time. Those who wanted skills played GURPS. (To me, skills in D&D make as much sense as character classes in Call of Cthulhu.)

I've played under a number of different DM's, but I've never once been in awe of somebody's ability to fudge. Storytelling, adventure preperation, pacing, yes. If I wanted someone who was good at pretending, I'd still be playing with the DM who showed up to one session on acid and took us through a rousing trip through the mushroom kingdom.

If WotC ever publishes a 3E Lite (no feats and skills, just a handful of classes with pre-selected abilities), then I'll carefully consider it. There are several things about 3E that I find attractive (the more rapid level-gain being one of the foremost), but the complexities of 3E as it stands turn me off.

Is 3E really COMPLICATED? I mean, half the people who hate 3E say it's for drooling 12 year olds who want to play Pokemon with swords, and the other half of you think it's too complicated. It can't be both. I didn't have any trouble learning the rules, and I've taught them to quite a few others. People who had never played before had no trouble understanding the basics, and 1E/2E veterans said "wow, they made the rules make sense!"

 

[Geoffrey]

Is 3E really COMPLICATED? I mean, half the people who hate 3E say it's for drooling 12 year olds who want to play Pokemon with swords, and the other half of you think it's too complicated. It can't be both. I didn't have any trouble learning the rules, and I've taught them to quite a few others. People who had never played before had no trouble understanding the basics, and 1E/2E veterans said "wow, they made the rules make sense!"

I guess it depends on what you mean by "complicated". I don't doubt that Rolemaster and several other RPGs are more complicated than 3E. I do think that 3E is more complicated than OAD&D. Consider:

OAD&D Players Handbook: 128 pages
3E Players Handbook: 304 pages

OAD&D Dungeon Masters Guide: 240 pages
3E Dungeon Masters Guide: 224 pages

That's a total of 368 pages for the two OAD&D books versus 528 pages for the 3E books. That's an extra 160 pages! That's like a whole extra OAD&D Players Handbook! Certainly all those extra pages weren't merely devoted to additional art (which, BTW, I think is deplorable in the 3E books).

At this point I must admit that even OAD&D is too complicated for my tastes. I run an OD&D (the 1974-1976 rules) campaign with several house rules (including, BTW, a few things from 3E). But, for my money, the single best version (overall) of the D&D rules are the 1981 Basic and Expert books by Tom Moldvay.* While I have my problems with them, these two 64-page books give you all you ever need to buy for a lifetime's enjoyment of D&D. Why the hell should I wade through scores of pages of combat when these books explain it in a fraction of the space? Each character class has, IIRC, only a page or two devoted to describing it. You read that, and now you know everything the rules say about your character. The rest is up to the imagination.

If anybody wants truckloads of rules for every conceivable contingency, God bless him. Dive in and have fun. But to me that's not fun. It's more like work. Give me slim rulebooks any day.






*Here's a great review of these books: http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_6402.html
Unlike the author of this review, I never played the 1981 version of D&D, so I don't have any nostalgic attachment to it. Quite the opposite, in fact. I started with the 1977 blue book by Holmes and quickly advanced to OAD&D. When the 1981 version came out I was frankly contemptuous of it. I thought AD&D was for serious gamers and Moldvay's version for sissies. (Give me a break, I was only in middle-school!) So when I say this is the single best published set of D&D rules, it is most definitely not nostalgia talking!

 

[novyet]

Fourth, come to the understanding that most 3e super fans aren't as scholarly and perhaps never wanted to be. And there's nothing wrong with "just playing a game".

Gene, could you explain your meaning on this point? I'm just wondering what exactly you mean by it. No offense intended.

 

[hong]

IMO, the essential genius of D&D is the fact it is based on classes.

No. The essential genius of D&D is the fact that it is based on violence.

That's what "going into dungeons, killing the monsters, and taking their treasure" is all about.

 

[Bryan Vining]

From Joshua

Although I'd certainly agree that quality and popularity are not necessarily equal, it seems just a tad pedantic to insist on the separation.

Yes; however, it is not a pointless pedanticism. To take a couple of examples, the Harn roleplaying system is widely considered by those who have played it to be a very high quality game. However, it does not enjoy the popularity of D&D. My guess as to that would be that the flavor of Harn is very quasi-historical. It is fantasy, to be sure, but it is more grounded fantasy than what you find in D&D or GURPS or even FUDGE fantasy. It doesn't appeal to a lot of gamers, but it's still high quality. Second example: Every year the Academy Awards nominates 5 or 6 films as Film of the Year. Almost without exception, you'll find 1-3 blockbuster films amongst the nominees and 2-3 films that are not terribly popular at all. (I used to joke that if a critic liked it, I wouldn't go see it). Oftentimes these less popular films are either slow or depressing or both. However, they are very good films, at least as movie makers judge them. Personally, I just saw the Four Feathers, and I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be a nominee next year. This film won't make tons of money, though. It's slow paced and a lot of the interesting stuff in it is rather subtle, which is easily missed. I happened to be in a mood that made that work for me, but I oftentimes would pass on it given a choice of other films.

Since we have no real way of measuring quality of an RPG

Hey, thanks for making my point for me

Well, yes, as I said, popularity and quality often correlate. While we can't prove that the quality is part of the cause of a game's popularity, it is reasonable to infer that the quality of a game must meet some minimum standard to be popular and that the popularity of a game will be proportional to its quality to some degree. That said, I do not think that one can then say that the tremendous popularity of 3E is due solely or even largely to its quality as a rules system. I would include the quality of the rules system as part of the cause of its success. However, I would put forth the notion that 3E is largely successful for a couple of different reasons, to wit: It's flavor has been updated from the 70s-era feel of 1e and 2e to something more modern. Good examples of this are the artwork (which we were told was picked specifically to appeal to younger, new gamers), the faster level progression, and the inclusion of skills and feats, which weaken the concepts of characters archetypes. The other major reason I think it has been so successful is marketing, pure and simple. The game was heavily pumped in all of the relevant media. A special simplified version is in toy stores and in book stores. A movie came out with the brand name as its title. Don't underestimate the power of marketing. An amusing example of that power is grocery shopping with my 2 1/2 year old daughter. We'll walk by the cold cuts section wherein the Lunchables and the like are stocked. This child does not watch much commercial TV and yet she sees those products (which are aimed at kids) and she wants them. It's amazing (and a little disconcerting) to see how easily she is drawn into a product of which she has no real knowledge other than its appearance! That's marketing, folks.

 

[Voneth]

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?

Well, I always thought it was for the simplist reason of all, convience. A DM could open a 3e module and run it without opening the MM. In fact, I knew DMs who ran adventures for months without even buying a MM for a while -- I was one of them.

I only really got the MM when I decided to that I wanted to invest time and money into really knowing the rules, especialy the rules for turning MM humanoids into PC races.

"Making it up as a I go along" trust me that "1st ed" philosophy works just fine with 3 ed, it just takes some confidence and the strength to say no, just like it was in 1st ed.

As far as a lack of story or fantasy feel in 3e? The vaunted G.G. said he only wanted to play a game and that the most popular adventures he and his buddies ran where dungeon crawls.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

It's too bad that projects like Gene's suggestion about a book of generic NPC stats doesn't garner as much interest as threads like these. We'd have the book done by now if as much effort was expended in doing it as is being expended on an argument/discussion which ultimately has no quantifiable resolution. I'm not saying to not discuss the matter, but consider: this thread probably has a higher word count than the earliest versions of D&D itself.

 

[Tiefling]

RPGs can, to a certain degree, be compared by popularity if they are both of the same genre and of the same style of play. High fantasy power-gaming, for instance, or low fantasy role-playing. But you can't compare between those two. Neither can you compare high fantasy power-gaming with high fantasy role-playing based on popularity. The reason is that the size of the audience that they're targeted to will vary.

Geoffrey: So you want 3E to be exactly like OD&D?

Incidentally, what is OAD&D? Is that 1E? 2E? Both?

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

It's too bad that projects like Gene's suggestion about a book of generic NPC stats doesn't garner as much interest as threads like these. We'd have the book done by now if as much effort was expended in doing it as is being expended on an argument/discussion which ultimately has no quantifiable resolution. I'm not saying to not discuss the matter, but consider: this thread probably has a higher word count than the earliest versions of D&D itself.

Wow, you were able to find a suggestion amid his incoherent stream-of-conciousness ramblings? I guess we nominate you as editor!

Seriously, I already have 3 books of generic NPC stats, and Jamis Buck to come up with the rest. How many more books of generic NPC stats do you want?

 

[Geoffrey]

Geoffrey: So you want 3E to be exactly like OD&D?

Incidentally, what is OAD&D? Is that 1E? 2E? Both?

By OAD&D I mean 1st edition. Original AD&D.

I don't expect 3E to be exactly like OD&D. I want it to be as simple and as easy to learn and as slender as the 1981 Moldvay version of D&D. There are several things about 3E that I'm open to:

faster level advancement
faster healing
greater balance amongst the classes
the new saving throw method
armor class going up rather than down
no "to hit" tables
and perhaps some others I can't think of off the top of my head

It's just ridiculous when, to simply play a game, you have to drop ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS just to play. Imagine:

Naive Joe Blow goes to his friendly game store to pick up this "Dungeons & Dragons thing" he keeps hearing about. "Holy sh&#! Look at all this stuff! What am I supposed to buy?"

The manager explains that the PH, DMG, and the MM are the essentials, and that everything else is optional.

"Let's see, that's $90.00 for the books (before tax), oh, and you'll need some dice."

Add those in plus tax and you just dropped $100.00 for only the core rules of D&D.

That's simply outrageous. A person should be able to buy the core rules for $20, and they shouldn't be more than 128 pages long.