AD&D is not "rules light"

[Philotomy Jurament]

Sometimes, we'd start big fights in taverns just to use the DMG unarmed combat stuff. We looked at it more like a "mini-game" within the game, though.

The unarmed combat system from Unearthed Arcana was one of the few rules additions/changes that I ended up adopting from that book (although I did use some of the spells and magic items).

As far as the "light/heavy" question goes, I agree it depends on what you're comparing it to. I also agree that AD&D has a modular subsystem based design, which lets you replace or ignore stuff you don't want without major effects on the rest of the system. That contributes to its ability to be played in a "rules light" manner.

The same is true of Original D&D. It's just as "heavy" as AD&D, if you consider the OD&D Supplements and Chainmail. The "lightest" D&D edition is probably B/X (maybe Holmes, if you consider that its own thing, but I tend to lump it in with OD&D). Even BECMI adds a lot of heavier optional subsystems (weapons mastery, general skills, etc).

 

[AllisterH]

I think I judge "rules light" game on how often during a game session does one need to refer to the rulebook.

Thus, I find 1e/2e to be more rules/heavy than either 3e/4e. For 3e for example, other than turning, grappling and spells, one shouldn't be referring to the rulebook.

1e/2e has all of that plus things like NWP/WP penalties, the weird interaction between skills and thief skills etc.

Sure, if you ignore many of the subrules in 2e, it is way more rules light than 3e or 4e but one could do the same with 3e/4e and come out ahead as well.

Bullgrit, like your "people in 1e levelled as fast as 3e pre name level" thread proved, nobody who played 1e/2e actually seemed to follow the actual rules in the book

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

…nobody who played 1e/2e actually seemed to follow the actual rules in the book…

I ran AD&D (1e) by-the-book (as close as possible, anyway) for a while in the late 80s. It was cool, but had a different feel than the way I had been playing D&D up to that point (which was more like Holmes + B/X + AD&D as supplemental rules).

"By the book" is not my preferred approach to D&D, though. I prefer making the game my own.

 

[rounser]

I'd just add that arguably BECMI makes a bit of a mess of the rules for punching and wrestling too. So that's four editions in a row (BECMI, 1E, 2E, 3E) that make a bit of a dog's breakfast of the topic. Must be something about it. But they're clearly marked as optional.

And BECMI becomes arguably as rules heavy as core 2E if you add in the optional rules for weapon mastery, two-weapon fighting, skills, war machine, dominion rules, death's door, non-lethal combat, and the optional classes. But you don't have to, of course.

 

[Bumbles]

Unfortunately, its a meaningless definition in the end. There is no "basis" for comparison; I mean Craps is a rules-heavy game compared to paper-rock-scissors.

Unless...you add new gestures! Paper-rock-scissors-lizard-Spock anyone?

Of course, the real important thing is to be very clear on the rules, as anybody playing Fire, Water, Sand would be well advised to remember. Especially if your opponent is a dragon.

 

[TheHeretic]

D&D is and was never a rules light saystem, if you want to see a rules light system, go check Savage Worlds.
*Savage Worlds fanboyism FTW*

 

[Glyfair]

Last I checked, there was no accepted objective measure of "rules weight". All measurement of heft of rules is relative, and most times we don't state the point of reference..

Plus, as it is coming out in this game, there are different flavor of "rules weight."

Is a game GM rules light?
Is a game player rules light?
Is it functionally rules light? (Because everyone avoids significant portion of the rules).
Is it chart light? (AD&D is not chart light, unless you compare it to Rolemaster)


AD&D had far more rules systems than the recent variations (3.5 and 4E). 3.5 and 4E are more cohesive in a rules sense. Most "rules" people count are part of one system. In AD&D you had all these rules that were completely different systems.

Look at unarmed combat for non-monks. It's nothing like armed combat (even the variations in The Dragon were usually completely different from armed combat). The surprise and initiative system seemed to be different systems mashed together in places. Psionic combat? Different from everything else.

Even at a basic level AD&D treated similar things differently. You had to completely change scales if you went outdoors (unless you were using spells).

Plus, there were all the rules that most left on the cutting room floor. How many times did you actually use weapon speeds, weapon lengths and modifiers based on armor class?

Detecting an invisible person had completely different rules for finding something hidden in a room. In fact, thieves had certain skills that non-thieves could use, but with completely different mechanics.

Now, some of this can be traced to the shifting of rules burden away from the DM. Remember, in AD&D players didn't even know what they needed to hit. The combat charts were all in the DMG (remember we had to wait almost 2 years from the release of the PHB to get them...unless you subscribed to The Dragon, when you got it a bit earlier).

 

[jamorea]

Now, the way I played it, I ignored a lot of the rules (weapon vs. AC, helmet, psionics, pummeling/overbearing, potions and segments, training, etc.). But that doesn't make the game as written rules light.

Someone explain to me how this concept of "AD&D is rules light" has seemingly become an accepted fact.

I had to look up most of those rules you're referencing. Honestly, I didn't play with most of them. I tried using Weapon vs AC but it wasn't worth it IMO. We dabbled in Psionics, but most of our characters weren't psionic. I can recall reading the helmet rules but ignored them since they'd result in more character deaths. The others I won't comment on since you get the idea.

My path to AD&D was from the Moldvay Basic Set and I naturally played with the basic rules, advanced classes, and added advanced rules here or there as I learned them. I wouldn't use the rules that didn't make sense or were too cumbersome. BTW, the introduction of the 1E DMG pretty much tells you not to use all the rules as you see fit. It specifically says "Read how and why the system is as it is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement." The example in the book is of wandering monsters.

As to why I think AD&D is rules lite, character creation. I can remember spending most of my time buying equipment. It was pretty much roll stats (method I), choose a race and class, maybe spells (which wasn't hard at 1st level) and then it was off to the equipment section. Looking back at the 1st Ed PHB, Basic must have taught me how to make a character because I couldn't really find clearly defined instructions for how to create a character in the 1st edition PHB (I see it in paragraph form on page 8 but it was explained more clearly in 3rd and later editions).

Brandon

 

[thecasualoblivion]

When I played AD&D, we used the character creation rules, the combat rules, and the magic item rules. Pretty much everything else was DM fiat.

 

[Remathilis]

Unless...you add new gestures! Paper-rock-scissors-lizard-Spock anyone?.

I KNEW someone would bring up P-R-S-L-Sp if I mentioned P-R-S...