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

[Aus_Snow]

Thanks pawsplay, you just saved me some bother. And besides, I weary of chapter-and-verse-ing this forum. Generally with AD&D and/or 3e core books, funnily enough. Wow, are they really that contentious and/or unlikely to've been read?!

Anyway, by way of contrast - and no, someone else can do the quoting this time, if they feel so inclined - the 3e books have rules for, basically, just about everything. The "loosest" you get by default is "assign a +2 or -2 to a difficulty class or a roll, if it seems appropriate". Paraphrasing, I do not doubt.

Behold, the 3e skill system. Behold the lack of one in (core) AD&D 1e. Likewise, proscriptive feats (i.e., without *this* feat, you cannot even attempt *that*). So it goes.

Worlds apart, really.

Fast and loose is WHY many people stick with, or turn to, older D&D. I am not making this up. It's in the actual books, the text itself. Not just "the way it tends/tended to be played" or whatever.

 

[IronWolf]

I really think one can play a fast and loose style in both 1st edition, 2nd edition, 3.x or 4e. It is more of DM'ing style and interpretation of the rules than system. If you tend to want things well-defined then you only allow things that are specifically stated in the rules. If it doesn't exist in a chart or table then it isn't possible. A DM can run that style in any edition.

Or a DM can take things as guidelines, which most of the rulebooks suggest and apply the guidelines to specific situations that come up in a game. I can easily use the 3.x skill system to apply the guidelines there to set a DC check for nearly anything a PC comes up with wanting to try. I certainly don't feel like my hands are tied with the 3.x skill system. Just determine the approximate difficulty of the task (very easy, easy, average, tough, challenging, etc.), determine if there are any extenuating circumstances that might make the check easier or more difficult and off we go.

I think several of the editions can easily accommodate a DMs style.

 

[lumin]

Pawsplay:

I completely understand the point you're trying to make. Yes, Gygax made suggestions, as you rightly quote, describing instances where the DM will have to referee situations not prescribed on an already-defined table, but you're missing my point.

Let me phrase it a different way.

If we could sum up 3rd Edition's D20 rule system in one sentence, what would it be? I think it would go something like this: "Roll a D20 and compare it to the DM's target DC for success or failure." Think about that for a moment. This is the essence of modern gaming. Sure, there are some tables that give you IDEAS of how to come up with a DC for an encounter, but most of the time, these are simply suggestions. They are completely variable and depend heavily on circumstances.

Now, how would we sum up 1st Edition's rule system in one sentence? "Roll a <whatever dice the table says to use at the moment> and compare it to <whatever target the table says to use at the moment> for success or failure."

I'm glad you quoted this text from the DMG, as it completely backs up my point. Now take careful note of what Gygax says here:

1. Naturally, everything possible cannot be included in the whole of this work.
What exactly is Gygax saying here? He's saying that the AD&D system is STRICT. In other words, he's saying that we should adhere to the rules stated in the book as much as possible. Only, when the tables do not include a rule for something, should we break from it.

2. There will be times in which the rules do not cover a specific action that a player will attempt. In such situations...

Now again, what is Gygax saying here? He's saying that we need to follow the rules as much as possible for every action that happens in the game. He's saying that in the "times" that there is no rule, the DM will have to make up his own.

Here's the crux at what I'm getting at: In AD&D "winging-it" is the EXCEPTION to the rule, NOT the rule itself. In 3rd Edition "winging-it" (see my sentence above) is the way the game is played, the tables for obtaining target DC's are -suggestions- and -help- when "winging-it" becomes difficult.

AD&D and 3rd Edition are diametrically opposite in their approaches to encounter targets. For AD&D, making things up is the exception (as Gygax so states above). For 3E, consulting "support" DC tables is the exception.

I think a lot of people have been fed a load of BS when it comes to understanding what old-school gaming really was about. I know I was. I was absolutely shocked when I first started reading the PHB and DMG. All these years I was fed the myth that AD&D was about throwing out all the rules and just making up your own - "just free-wheel it however you like". Instead, what I found were pages and pages of hard-nosed rules, where each situation had to be carefully adjudicated using a very specific table. There was no SIEGE engine, there was no "D20 + mod vs DC" system, there was no simple, overarching rule for inventing DCs. The rules were hard and very, very rigid.

For those people who simply "free-wheeled" AD&D back in the 80s-90s, I think perhaps they simply didn't understand the spirit and rules of the game, and took shortcuts instead.

 

[IronWolf]

If we could sum up 3rd Edition's D20 rule system in one sentence, what would it be? I think it would go something like this: "Roll a D20 and compare it to the DM's target DC for success or failure." Think about that for a moment. This is the essence of modern gaming.

Now, how would we sum up 1st Edition's rule system in one sentence? "Roll a <whatever dice the table says to use at the moment> and compare it to <whatever target the table says to use at the moment> for success or failure."

I think trying to sum multi-rulebook systems in one sentence is less than helpful and is apt to steer this conversation off track as one tries to get agreement on a one line summary of these systems.

1. Naturally, everything possible cannot be included in the whole of this work.
What exactly is Gygax saying here? He's saying that the AD&D system is STRICT. In other words, he's saying that we should adhere to the rules stated in the book as much as possible. Only, when the tables do not include a rule for something, should we break from it.

I don't read that at all. He is simply admitting that a rule system cannot possibly cover every situation. Even climbing two different walls is apt to have different difficulty depending on a myriad of circumstances. Because of this he is telling the DM that he must be ready to makes rulings on they fly.

In fact he is comparing it to the game of chess which is a game most would say does have a strict set of rules with no free form to it. He says he doesn't want this game to be as confining as chess.

2. There will be times in which the rules do not cover a specific action that a player will attempt. In such situations...

How is this any different in any edition? If a rule exists for a given situation, use it. If a rule does not exist the DM needs to adjudicate as necessary.

AD&D and 3rd Edition are diametrically opposite in their approaches to encounter targets. For AD&D, making things up is the exception (as Gygax so states above). For 3E, consulting "support" DC tables is the exception.

Your take on the quotes pawsplay mentions is entirely different than mine. What pawsplay quotes sounds like the advice that has been given to DMs throughout the editions. If a rule doesn't exist for a given circumstance then the DM needs to handle it on the fly because it is impossible to present rules for every situation regardless of system.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Lumin...in 3.0/3.5--besides the various DC tables, there are volumes and volumes of hundreds, if not thousands of *FEATS*.

These feats are *proscriptive*. Meaning that, if a character does not have such feat, then the action, ability, etc cannot be known, performed, or accomplished.

For example, a character wants to bash an opponent with his shield. If he doesn't have the Shield Bash feat, forget about it. There are a wide range of combat actions, weapon manuevers, etc that a character cannot do without such feats.

A mage character cannot change the color of his spells, or fork a lightning bolt, or turn his lightning bolt into a "lightning Ball" without a particular feat. There are a huge range of magical options, special effects, and signature abilities that mages and clerics, etc, cannot do with a truck load of special skills and feats.

A character cannot build a house in 3.0/3.5 without numerous skills--let alone engineer a stone bridge, or a great fortress.

A character cannot effectively train troops or be a leader without numerous feats and skills in 3.0/3.5.

Etc, etc, etc.

Take all the skills, all the DC tables, and all the hundreds of feats, and throw them out the window in AD&D.

AD&D doesn't use any of it. In AD&D, all of the above mentioned detail--some would argue vastly time-consuming, soul-crushing details----are dealt with quickly by DM decision, assumed character knowledge, and a few dice rolls. Done.

Really, when it comes to "free-wheeling"--1ED is far more so than 3E ever was. I've also played Rolemaster. Monte Cook cut his chops as a game designer working for many years as lead designer on Rolemaster while at Iron Crown Enterprises. 3rd Edition embraced many elements from Rolemaster, and became a D&D version of Rolemaster. More complex, more rules, more time-consuming detail to accomplish anything, from rolling up player characters, to NPC monsters, NPC's, spell lists, skills and feats, and on and on. A great system, by the way--but it eventually bloats and explodes in a grinding, time-consuming torture that even for great fans--like myself--becomes problematic. All of that stuff makes 3rd edition far less "Free Wheeling" than AD&D.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[IronWolf]

This is what AD&D says, "Look, you're a fighter, you were trained with Swords and Axes and getting beat up. You spent your whole life training in combat. If you really wanted to play a Thief, then you should have rolled one up, or brought one along with you. Solve the situation in a way that a Fighter, not a Thief, would solve the situation. If you don't have 'climbing' skill on your character sheet, then you shouldn't be trying to do it in the first place."

Continuing from pawsplay's quotes from the DMG, it looks like in this situation the DM should have allowed the fighter to make this climb check, perhaps covered by a percentage dice check. That's fine if the DM didn't, but the rules certainly wouldn't have prohibited letting the fighter try to climb the wall.

Again - it seems like the DM is making a strict interpretation from the rules, but the system certainly allows for these DM adjudicated checks.

 

[Fifth Element]

Now, how would we sum up 1st Edition's rule system in one sentence? "Roll a <whatever dice the table says to use at the moment> and compare it to <whatever target the table says to use at the moment> for success or failure."

I think the main point of contention might be your claim that AD&D had a table for every imaginable situation. I submit that this is flatly untrue.

If you did have a table for it, then you roll on the table. But there's all kinds of things not covered by tables, and in those cases the DM has to improvise both the mechanic and the target number, and doesn't have any real guidelines for either. In 3E, the DM has guidelines to set the DC, and the DC is the only thing that needs setting, since the mechanic is already in place.

 

[amerigoV]

But there's all kinds of things not covered by tables, and in those cases the DM has to improvise both the mechanic and the target number, and doesn't have any real guidelines for either.

Heh, led to an all-time quote for our group:

Player: "I want to do this" something not in the rules.
DM: Pondering a moment, says "Roll a d12..."
Group: In unison, perplexed: "A d12!??!?"

Overall, this thread has evolved into an odd conversation.

 

[lumin]

I think the main point of contention might be your claim that AD&D had a table for every imaginable situation. I submit that this is flatly untrue.

If you did have a table for it, then you roll on the table. But there's all kinds of things not covered by tables, and in those cases the DM has to improvise both the mechanic and the target number, and doesn't have any real guidelines for either. In 3E, the DM has guidelines to set the DC, and the DC is the only thing that needs setting, since the mechanic is already in place.

Let me show you some examples of the differences between 1st and 3rd Editions. Regardless of how people "played" the game, these are stated in the rulebook.

AD&D (An example of a Character at level 1):

Opening a Door: 1d6 vs 2
Bend Bars: 1d100 vs 10
Picking a Pocket*: 1d100 vs 30
Open Lock*: 1d100 vs 25
Find/Remove Trap*: 1d100 vs 20
Move Silently*: 1d100 vs 15
Hide in Shadows*: 1d100 vs 10
Hear Noise*: 1d100 vs 10
Climb Walls*: 1d100 vs 85
Read Languages*: 1d100 vs NEVER (at lvl 1)
Surprised: 1d6 vs 2

* These skills can never be attempted by any other class that is not a Thief or Assassin. Again, there is NO place in the PHB or DMG that describes how another class can attempt Thief skills if he is not a Thief or Assassin. Anyone that says otherwise is making it up.


3rd Edition (an example of a character at any level):

Opening a Door: D20 vs free-wheeled DC
Bend Bars: D20 vs free-wheeled DC
Picking a Pocket**: D20 vs free-wheeled DC
Open Lock**: D20 vs free-wheeled DC
Find/Remove Trap**: D20 vs free-wheeled DC
Move Silently**: D20 vs free-wheeled DC
Hide in Shadows**: D20 vs free-wheeled DC
Hear Noise**: D20 vs free-wheeled DC
Climb Walls**: D20 vs free-wheeled DC
Read Languages: D20 vs free-wheeled DC
Surprises enemy: D20 vs free-wheeled DC
...
ANY CHALLENGE: D20 vs free-wheeled DC

** Any class under the sun can attempt these.

Notice how each AD&D DC number is a HARD number, not a SOFT number like 3rd Edition. In AD&D They have to be met exactly as stated under the rules of the book for a character to succeed.

You can explain until you're blue in the face that 3rd edition has a metric ton more of tacked-on rules for skills, feats, and combat, but when we're talking explicitly about the "Dice vs Difficulty Class" (and the driving engine of any RPG), AD&D was far stricter.

This is just a small example. I could paste up many more tables showing how AD&D was strict and 3rd Edition is far more free-wheeled. A DM house-ruling things is all well and good and perfectly acceptable, but I'm talking about what is written in the books.

 

[ExploderWizard]

This is just a small example. I could paste up many more tables showing how AD&D was strict and 3rd Edition is far more free-wheeled. A DM house-ruling things is all well and good and perfectly acceptable, but I'm talking about what is written in the books.

What you are missing is the fundamental idea behind earlier editions which was this:

The rules as written are a skeletal framework upon which an individual DM builds his/her game.

You are applying the "if it doesn't come from the rulebook it ain't so" mentality from WOTC D&D to earlier editions which simply doesn't fit.

If you see the rulebook as the final arbiter of anything then you have failed classic D&D 101.