AD&D: There and Back Again - a Role-Player's Tale

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Damn. Yeah, Lumin, I guess you just aren't getting it my man. Us "Old Schoolers" have been there, and seen it all grow and develop from the beginning. Somehow, we don't know what we're talking about? *shrugs*

There is so much in 3.5 that, yes, while much of it provides more *options* than old school AD&D, as you embrace book after book of optional rules, dozens and dozens of skills, hundreds of feats, dozens of races, special race abilities, a ginormous selection of half-dragon/retarded vampire/blessed templates, and dozens of classes--it all becomes a soul-crushing, exhausting headache when compared to:

In AD&D: Yeah, man, your human 15th level Fighter has his magic armor, his magic sword, and he's ready to lead the armies against Sauron. Huh? Yeah, he is a badass in hand-to-hand combat. And he's studied strategy and history, and military knowledge. Go.

AD&D, like was mentioned, on so many tasks and such it was just assumed that your character knew "X, Y, and Z. and maybe something of A, B, and C, too." You just knew it, and did it. A simple roll against your stat, maybe a few modifiers, and that was it. No feats required. No skills required. No tables to consult. No skill ranks to worry about. None of that. You just figured, hey, he would know this easy; or he would have some knowledge of this; or he might have a little knowledge of this. Ok. Roll. Go for it. Done.

3.5 is outstanding, and fun. It has many strengths. I'm a fan. I got the t-shirt. I played for years, and have just about every damned book ever put out for 3.5 in my library. However, after years of playing, it does have it's failures and weaknesses, some of which are not readily apparent. At first blush, some of the edition's strengths--actually appear that way, but down the road, what you thought was a strength actually becomes a weakness or problem area. Add several salient problem areas of 3.5 up, and it becomes far less free-wheeling than AD&D. Much more book-keeping. Much more number-crunching. Much more table-surfing. Much, much more work.

With AD&D--the game I started with back in the day around 1978--is refreshingly simple, easy, and quick. Much more free-wheeling than 3.5. Much less book-keeping. Far, far less of a chore to make stuff up for. I played AD&D for over 12 years. I never did get too much into 2E. Then I played 3/3.5 E for 10 years or more. It's been a long time, but I must say, AD&D--OLD SCHOOL GAMING!--is just a blast, and totally awesome! It's great to be back in the game that started it all, so long ago for many of us.

I like rolling a character up in 5 minutes. I like writing up a room of orcs ready to go in 10 minutes. I like having fights between a dozen party members, and three dozen enemies--and it being done and over with in 20 minutes flat. I like it when a player levels, or I level and NPC--and it's done in 15 minutes.

I like being able to DM the game making most decisions backed up by simple, well-written rules--and making judgement calls and decisions on the fly, that have no or very little basis in the RAW, and doing so with absolute confidence that I'm not mistaken, or haven't quoted some obscure rule properly, or not applied the correct formula or sequence of steps, and on and on. AD&D is just so much fun, and I encourage everyone to try it--or get back into it if you're an old schooler like myself and others here.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Obryn]

I must congratulate lumin on probably the most successful troll in recent ENWorld history. "I know more than you, even though you actually played the games and asked Gary questions about it and read the books, and I'm relying on wikipedia and guesswork." Brilliant! And extra points for tenacity.

As for myself, I must say that I loved returning to AD&D after years away. It's a great game, and there's nothing else quite like it. Except OSRIC, which is basically almost exactly like it.

-O

 

[Raven Crowking]

Dang. That was supposed to be "grue" not "gure"!

 

[Keldryn]

I can't agree with lumin's conclusions about the strictness of AD&D's rules, but I discovered an interesting thread from several years back that is quite relevant to this discussion:

[Where I read] AD&D First Edition

He never even gets all the way through the DMG, but it's a very cool read.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Now that's not to say that 1E eventually became more free-wheeled because DM House Rulings made it that way. But there was not a standardized "rule" for how you would manage DM rulings, if that makes sense (other than Gygax's disclaimer about making things up). In 3E we got the Core D20 system which standardized things that the books did not actually make clear. In other words, "free-wheeling" actually became a part of the rule system in 3E.

The lack of a rule describing an action does not prohibit an action. For example, there's no rule in baseball describing how a bat must be swing. So if I want to bat left handed I can. Or cross handed or one handed. The same applies to AD&D. I can climb a tree or swim a river or take a piss or play Pinocle without needing a rule.

 

[jlac]

Gary Gygax wrote the AD&D 1E Player's Handbook, too. Here is part of what he wrote from page 8:

"This game is unlike chess in that the rules are not cut and dried. In many places they are guidelines and suggested methods only. This is part of the attraction of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, and it is integral to the game. Rules not understood should have approprate questions directed to the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter entirely. THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN. Participants in a campaign have no recourse to the publisher, but they do have ultimate recourse -- since the most effective protest is withdrawal from the offending campaign. Each campaign is a specially tailored affair. While it is drawn by the referee upon the outlines of the three books which comprise ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, the players add the color and details..."
​

And here is the very cool Afterword on page 230 of the AD&D 1E DMG, also written by Gary Gygax:

"IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME. AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL, ALSO BE CERTAIN THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS. WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS VOLUMES, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER. BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE. MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN DOING SO AS THE REST OF US DO!"
​

I typed those passages in verbatim (I think), including all of the capitalization and bold lettering. I think that these passages help to dispel the notions that the players are bound by their character sheets, that DMs are bound by the rulebooks, or that the rules are supposed to be a rigid, defined boundary. They aren't. The rules are just outlines, guidelines, and suggested methods. It's expected that the DM will change the parameters (the rules as given in the books) to suit his game, his campaign, and his players. That is because the DM is the final arbiter, and the game is more important than the rules. At least that's what I'm reading in the above passages. I cannot wait to see the alternative interpretations that are surely forthcoming.