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

[dagger]

Gotcha. I thought you were contrasting with later editions as well.
THAC0 did miss one thing from the tables - the repeated 20s. The rules did a weak job of explaining them too. Ultimately, I wasn't sad to see them go.

Yea I find myself using both methods at times, its strange.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

That's true. Climbing a sheer wall is something only a thief can do. But climbing an ordinary sort of wall? It's completely up to the DM who can try it, and how likely they are to succeed. Depending on style, whim, and the Dm's opinion of the challenge, you could be facing % under your Dex score, d20 under your Dex score, a flat %, or outright fiat based on how quickly you go.

Actually, non thieves have a 40% chance to climb walls, but only a thief can climb a sheer surface.

 

[pawsplay]

In my opinion, the current/modern "spirit of the game" (the "game" meaning any system that deals in DM generated DCs) is one where a player is free to attempt practically anything he wants.

Disagree. Everything from disarming weapons to climbing walls is defined by the rules.

AD&D's "spirit of the game" was one of much stricter limitations on what a player could and couldn't do. This is evidenced by Gygax's desire for universal rules for tournaments, strict class roles, and loads and loads of tables for nearly every situation imaginable.

Disagree. Everything from disarming weapons to climbing walls is not defined by the rules, but let up to the GM.

I think AD&d and 3e are pretty close in presentation in terms of rules v. freewheeling. Commonly used, adventure-centric tasks are defined, and the rest is left open.

4e and 2e both seem much more "tournament-defined," especially 4e, to me. BECMI is probably a little more freewheeling than AD&D, but not all that much. OD&D and early sets... it's hard to tell, because there just aren't a lot of rules in general. Arguably, OD&D thru Holmes is more freewheeling, but it's still pretty tight.

If I wanted rules that would clearly define roles, set DCs to hard, appropriate-challenge numbers, and the default playstyle was "you don't do that," when there's not a rule, I would say that sounds like 4e.

I consider 3e and Pathfinder to be more modular, and hence a little more freewheeling, closer to the "let's have an adventure" mode of OD&D. Less so than AD&D in some respects, but moreso in others.

 

[lumin]

Disagree. Everything from disarming weapons to climbing walls is defined by the rules.

Except that the rules state that a player can do anything else not defined in the tables using made-up target DCs. That's why there is an explicit "D20 vs DC" mechanic built into 3E - it's for everything NOT in the rule book

Disagree. Everything from disarming weapons to climbing walls is not defined by the rules, but let up to the GM.

In AD&D, if it wasn't defined by the rules it meant that it wasn't really meant to be possible. This is obvious by the fact that there is no unifying DC determination mechanic even hinted to in the 1st Edition game. Ability scores were not even used for general modification when adjudicating DC checks. If you're making up your own DC mechanic, you're not following the rules in 1E

I completely disagree with your assessment. 3E and it's subjective/GM designed DC is far more free-wheeling than the strict "go-by-the pre-set tables" method of 0E,1E and 2E.

That's okay though, we can disagree. I simply see it much differently.

 

[pawsplay]

In AD&D, if it wasn't defined by the rules it meant that it wasn't really meant to be possible.

So no peeing, right? And no using gestures to try to overcome language barriers. And if you tried to put armor on a sleeping magic-user, the universe simply exploded.

Anyway, when I get home tonight, I'm going to look at my DMG and find some quotes that disagree with you about how AD&D works.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Yeah, just because there are no rules for an action does not mean you can't attempt it. There's no need for a die roll for most actions. Wanna climb a tree? Just tell the dm you are climbing the tree. Swing on a chandelier? Go for it. These and similar actions don't have rules because no rule is needed. That's the r part of rpg.

 

[Fifth Element]

AD&D's "spirit of the game" was one of much stricter limitations on what a player could and couldn't do. This is evidenced by Gygax's desire for universal rules for tournaments, strict class roles, and loads and loads of tables for nearly every situation imaginable.

I can honestly say I have never seen this argument, ever. By far the biggest complaint about recent editions by fans of AD&D, IME, is that characters are much more strictly confined in their actions by the rules. Whereas in AD&D, the DM is free to rule thing however he liked. You say you want to try something, the DM improvises a mechanic (or simply makes a ruling), and off you go.

There are a lot of tables in AD&D, sure, but they do not come near to covering "every situation imaginable". They covered a few things, but the DM was left to wing everything else. Whereas many people see 3E's tightly-defined skills to mean "if it's not listed here, you can't do it". I don't agree with that myself, but there are so many more things defined in 3E than in AD&D that I find your assertions quite strange.

 

[David Howery]

Yeah, 1E was a hell of a game, and I remember it fondly. Of course, back then, RPGs in general were new and shiny, and nostalgia colors a lot of it. And even back then, some of the warts of the game were noticeable... the wildly varying surprise rules were one of the worst. 2E was okay, but not quite the same. And I found myself very unimpressed with the 3E rules. Except for one thing: the new AC, which reversed the old system and made AC get better as the numbers got higher. That really should have been done in the older editions.
If I may make a suggestion: be careful if you decide to get some of the other 1E books. One of the things that sent 1E spiraling into oblivion was the post-Gygax addition of a gazillion new hardcover rule books. If you can find the Fiend Folio and Monster Manual 2, that's fine, more monsters are always good. The original Unearthed Arcana is a bit iffy... new weapons/spells are nice, but the new classes, not so nice. I always like the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide and Wilderness Survival Guide, but you'll find plenty who disagree. Oriental Adventures is pretty good, although it's a radically different setting. As for the others... avoid them.

 

[FireLance]

In my opinion, the current/modern "spirit of the game" (the "game" meaning any system that deals in DM generated DCs) is one where a player is free to attempt practically anything he wants.

Actually, I'm fairly sure that the player being free to attempt anything he wants has pretty much been "the spririt of the game" from Day One.

What the more "modern" versions of the game have done is to present the DM with a more structured system for determining the player's chance of success and failure. This was previously left entirely to the DM's judgement (the relevant "old-school" mantra being, "Rulings, not rules!").

P.S. I like your user name. Where did you get it?

 

[pawsplay]

A selection of quotations.

Naturally, everything possible cannot be included in the whole of this work. As a participant in the game, I would not care to
have anyone telling me exactly what must go into a campaign and how it must be handled; if so, why not play some game
like chess? As the author I also realize that there are limits to my creativity and imagination. Others will think of things I
didn't, and devise things beyond my capability. As an active Dungeon Master I kept a careful watch for things which would
tend to complicate matters without improving them, systems devised seemingly to make the game drag for players, rules
which lessened the fantastic and unexpected in favor of the mundane and ordinary.

The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play...

Know the game systems, and you will know how and when to take upon
yourself the ultimate power. To become the final arbiter, rather than the
interpreter of the rules, can be a difficult and demanding task, and it cannot
be undertaken lightly, for your players expect to play this gome, not
one made up on the spot. By the same token, they are playing the game
the way you, their DM, imagines and creates it. Remembering that the
game is greater than its parts, and knowing all of the parts, you will have
overcome the greater part of the challenge of being a referee. Being a
true DM requires cleverness and imagination which no set of rules books
can bestow.

There will be times in which the rules do not cover a specific action that a
player will attempt. In such situations, instead of being forced to make a
decision, take the option to allow the dice to control the situation. This can
the player dice to see if he or she can make that percentage. You can
weigh the dice in any way so as to give the advantage to either the player
or the non-player character, whichever seems more correct and logical to
you while being fair to bath sides.

Observe the arbitrarily selected DC according to the DM's whim.