AD&D is not "rules light"

[LostSoul]

Here's another comparison. A 4E character starts with (besides class features and racial traits) 17 skills

A Skill isn't a rule. "Skills" are a rule. And the rule is generally the same as everything else: roll higher than a DC to satisfy your intent.

 

[billd91]

The problem with the point you're making is that AD&D's systems aren't as tightly integrated as these games. You'd have to remove, say AD&D's cleric spells to get a similar effect on the game as removing 3e's feats. Ignoring weapons vs armour and grappling from AD&D just aren't in the same ballpark as removing AoOs from 3E. Even in 3E, the ripple effect from removing grapple is greater, because monsters use it, although that shouldn't stop you (who cares about Mr Ogre being annoyed).

So before you consider facepalming your opposition, maybe consider that you might need to slap your own forehead instead.

You're right that removing weapons vs armor from 1e isn't the same as removing feats from 3e. They are of quite a different scale and that makes the comparison a very suspicious one. You're pointing at a small element of 1e and proposing tossing it out while looking at a large element of 3e that doesn't even compare in function. If I were the suspicious type, I'd call shenanigans at such a loaded comparison. It's like looking at a hand-held electric mixer on one hand and a refrigerator with freezer, adjustable shelves, and an ice maker with in-door dispenser on the other and saying the refrigerator is more complex. Of course it is. And they don't compare in function or utility either.

Does 3e have more large systems? I suppose it does, but there are plenty of segments of those large systems that can be ignored as freely as disparate subsystems within 1e without causing 3e to crash down. Those are the more directly equivalent comparisons to be made. People dispense with using social skills in 3e quite frequently and use DM fiat just like people ignored the reaction tables in 1e. People may disallow two-handed fighting in 1e - so they can toss out a few feats from the list and the ranger style in 3e. Multiple attacks in 1e getting you down so you got rid of them? Toss out iterative attacks and feats that provide multiple attacks in 3e. Throwing out grapple and those monsters that use improved grab still have other attacks they can use to make them formidable in combat.

 

[rounser]

You're right that removing weapons vs armor from 1e isn't the same as removing feats from 3e. They are of quite a different scale and that makes the comparison a very suspicious one. You're pointing at a small element of 1e and proposing tossing it out while looking at a large element of 3e that doesn't even compare in function. If I were the suspicious type, I'd call shenanigans at such a loaded comparison. It's like looking at a hand-held electric mixer on one hand and a refrigerator with freezer, adjustable shelves, and an ice maker with in-door dispenser on the other and saying the refrigerator is more complex. Of course it is. And they don't compare in function or utility either.

It's not shenanigans because when people look at 3E in hopes of simplifying it/adding DM fiat/speeding it up/"oldschoolifying" it, then systems which represent large chunks of 3E such as AoOs, skills and feats head the wishlist of what should be first on the chopping block.

And this is based on threads still on the front page. Yes, you can hack away 3E grapple with limited effect, but I'd pause to hack away feats (if for no reason than you'd better give the fighter something else if you're going to take away so much of his mojo, or be prepared for a horde of barbarians. Oh and what happens to the ranger? Magic item creation? The thief's weapon finesse? etc).

AD&D lacks such problems for the most part because it's pretty lean already, and where it does have some fat (e.g. weapons vs armour) those rules are either explicitly marked as optional or not tightly integrated. To take a similar pound of flesh from AD&D you'd have to start hacking away spells, thief abilities, or the like, and there's not much desire from even house rulers to do that IME.

What people are saying is that they ignored AD&D's inconsistent initiative and surprise rules and the more arcane esoterica like psionics or weapons vs armour and played it like BECMI. This is not commensurate with ripping out 3E's highly integrated subsystems, no matter how you spin it, and that's what people talking about houseruling 3E say they are intending to do next when they're through with tossing out the grappling rules.

 

[billd91]

...Okay, I'll bite. Example?

I can think of a couple:

1) Wizard spell acquisition. I've heard people say that one of the reason the wizard dominates so in 3e is because they have so much free choice in the spells they get - 2 free ones (minus spellbook costs) per level. In 1e, according to the DMG, the wizard got 1 free spell per level with no indication that the player can't choose it as far as I can find. Not that huge a difference.

2) Fighter mobility with multiple attacks. A lot of people say right out that 3e's full attack action cuts down the fighter's mobility compared to 1e/2e. But it's not true in 2e at all and in 1e, in the dungeon scale, it cuts mobility from 10' to 5' while still getting multiple attacks (limited to 2 in 1e, quite a few more in 3e). Outdoor scale is the oddity because you always multiplied distances by 3 in 1e - but that was removed in 2e (and good riddance).

 

[Ariosto]

A Skill isn't a rule. "Skills" are a rule. And the rule is generally the same as everything else: roll higher than a DC to satisfy your intent.

So, chapter 5, and some of the entries in the combat chapter, in the PHB (and however many pages in the DMG devoted to "skill challenges" and so on) are full of ... non-rules. Maybe that's something to keep in mind when judging the "rules heaviness" of AD&D.

 

[AllisterH]

If you're counting skills individually, wouldn't the various NWP and WP have to be counted as well Ariosto?

re: 4e as a rules-light D&D.

Here's an interesting tact. I think 4e is even more rules light than even BD&D in that AT the table, the players don't need to crack open the PHB and a DM only needs the DMGscreen.

This not only applies to experienced players BUT also to relatively new players as most of the rules for the game is right on your sheet/cardDMscreen

 

[Ariosto]

To take a similar pound of flesh from AD&D you'd have to start hacking away spells, thief abilities, or the like, and there's not much desire from even house rulers to do that IME.

If there were, then all (at most) they would have to do is drop the "A" and bill the game as "D&D". AD&D is really just a collection of house rules for D&D -- a game that works just fine without the thief and other classes, variable damage by weapon, weapon proficiencies, 7th-9th level mu (and 6th-7th cleric) spells, obviating spell books for clerics, Good and Evil alignments, and other things added along the way.

With 3E, expectations seem to be a lot more set. It's a small sample, but once when I was considering DMing a 3E campaign, I asked prospective players whether cutting out some things (such as the easy manufacture of magic items) would be acceptable, and the answer was resoundingly, "No!" I've watched 3E/4E veterans struggle to learn (or relearn) how to roleplay without skills, feats and complex combat rules. The ones who describe their characters and strategies in terms of "builds" and "powers" are as a rule not interested in trying that.

 

[Ariosto]

If you're counting skills individually, wouldn't the various NWP and WP have to be counted as well Ariosto?

re: 4e as a rules-light D&D.

Here's an interesting tact. I think 4e is even more rules light than even BD&D in that AT the table, the players don't need to crack open the PHB and a DM only needs the DMGscreen.

This not only applies to experienced players BUT also to relatively new players as most of the rules for the game is right on your sheet/cardDMscreen

If you add NWP, then you're beyond baseline AD&D -- embarked already on the course to the excesses of 2E/ 3E/ 4E/ Rolemaster/ etc. (although there's no reason you can't stop short). NWP are absolutely, explicitly OPTIONAL even in 2E.

All of a character's WP have exactly the same effect (no need for paragraphs of "non-rules" defining DCs and results); it takes a 40th level fighter to get 17; they're much simpler than BECM Weapon Mastery; and they are not so integral as skills (or the feats that correspond more directly) in 4E.

There's no reason to need to refer to books at the table more in AD&D than in 4E. There's nothing system-specific about printing things in non-book form -- and the medium does not magically polymorph rules into non-rules. It would be foolhardy, in my experience, to leave the 4E PHB at home, and wise to have the DMG and MM on hand as well.

As to where "most of the rules for the game" actually are, note that the 4E PHB alone has nearly as many pages as the 1E PHB and DMG combined (317 numbered pages versus 366 in later printings of the latter, including reference sheets and advertising). By the time one reaches the first of the character classes in 4E, one would have read all a non-spellcaster needs to know about how to play 1E AD&D. Even 126 pages into the 4E PHB (the full length of the 1E volume!), one is only nearing the end of the chapter on rogues -- which by itself is about as many pages as devoted to all classes (apart from bard) in 1E.

On one hand, 4E's (better, in my opinion) layout "pads" the page count a bit. On the other hand, the 1E books offer a lot more "stuff" (more classes, spells, and magic items for a start). Even adding the 4E DMG (by itself about as many pages as the 1E volume) does not come close to matching the scope of the old game.

 

[Remathilis]

If there were, then all (at most) they would have to do is drop the "A" and bill the game as "D&D". AD&D is really just a collection of house rules for D&D -- a game that works just fine without the thief and other classes, variable damage by weapon, weapon proficiencies, 7th-9th level mu (and 6th-7th cleric) spells, obviating spell books for clerics, Good and Evil alignments, and other things added along the way.

You can also run a fairly modern-era PC using Windows 95, as long as you're not a fan USB, DVD drives, 3D accelerated graphics, 512+ RAM, 10+ Gig HDs, Any software made past 2000, etc...

 

[Remathilis]

If you add NWP, then you're beyond baseline AD&D -- embarked already on the course to the excesses of 2E/ 3E/ 4E/ Rolemaster/ etc..

Oh Noes! My thief learned to read/write and can juggle. Tomorrow, he'll be a half-dragon/displacer beast warblade/ninja/weretiger wtih +6 holy axiomatic flaming nunchucku!

Where is my rolleyes smilie?

There's no reason to need to refer to books at the table more in AD&D than in 4E. There's nothing system-specific about about printing things in non-book form -- and the medium does not magically polymorph rules into non-rules. It would be foolhardy, in my experience, to leave the 4E PHB at home, and wise to have the DMG and MM on hand as well.

You memorized ALL the spells in AD&D so well you could DM without a PHB!?!