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

[IronWolf]

Wikipedia:


I assume that the "rules" include Encounter Resolutions, don't you?

Why did you trim your own quote? No - if what you quoted is what was stated:

The 3rd Edition rules were designed to be internally consistent and less restrictive than previous editions of the game, allowing players more flexibility to create the characters they wanted to play.

That seems to indicate more flexibility in character creation. I certainly don't assume encounter resolution from the quote you posted.

 

[lumin]

Why did you trim your own quote? No - if what you quoted is what was stated:



That seems to indicate more flexibility in character creation. I certainly don't assume encounter resolution from the quote you posted.

It doesn't need to be trimmed, the statement is there, plain as day. So you're saying that Encounter Resolution is NOT part of 3E rules?

 

[IronWolf]

From the master himself. AD&D was designed to be played anything but free-form.

Of course what was written in the DMG that was published indicates that he realized every conceivable situation could not be accounted for (nor would he as indicated by the chess reference in one of the earlier DMG quotes) and they would need adjudicated by the DM.

 

[billd91]

Hello??? How many times do I have to quote this?

Wikipedia


Earlier versions means 2nd and 1st and 0E doesn't it? Or do we not know how to subtract here?

It's certainly true that the character building options are a lot less restrictive (though no less defined). That's not the same as generally adjudicating the game, though, with defined skill DCs and other checks in 3e that are no less or more defined than in 1e. In that sense, 1e is more free wheeling in many ways.

 

[lumin]

Now you guys are just being silly here. I came to the conclusion on my own that 1st Edition was more strict and less freeform than 3rd Edition by objectively reviewing them.

I backed this up using comparative evidence from both editions.

I then have backed up my claim with quotes from Wikipedia which have verifiable sources. I have used Gary Gygax himself where his intention was a far more strict rule system. I have quoted where 3rd Edition's rules were designed to be much more "flexible" than it's previous editions.

I think there is a lot of bias coming from some of you because you don't want to be proven wrong here. You've spent years of your life being told that 1E is a free-for-all game and 3E is the UBER tight, strict system. This has been proven to be false from examples, from wikipedia, and from Gygax himself.

The facts are the facts, and I think I have presented them pretty well. There really can be no other conclusion.

I'm with you guys. I was just as shocked as the rest of you, when I started reading the 1E rules. I was fed a load of BS my whole gaming career about 1E (and AD&D in general). Can't we just accept that maybe our conclusions have been wrong and get along?

 

[IronWolf]

It doesn't need to be trimmed, the statement is there, plain as day. So you're saying that Encounter Resolution is NOT part of 3E rules?

Nope - I am not saying that. I *am* saying the quote you quoted before trimming it noted flexibility in character creation between system not encounter resolution. The part after the comma was important.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The point is that there was a very specific rule for that. In 3E there wasn't. It was D20 vs DC modifier that the DM caters for the situation.

Erm....not really.

Imagine that, in 1e, I have a 15% chance to pick a lock. That translates to rolling 18 or above on 1d20. The method that the roll takes has nothing to do with whether or not there is a specific rule. The d20 system could be expressed in percentiles; the percentile system could be expressed with 1d20 (so long as it is in units of 5%!).

Now, you could certainly argue that there are some knock-on problems caused by the d20 system that have nothing to do with whether or not there is a "specific rule".

For instance, esp. as expressed in 4e, the idea that there is an optimum chance to open the locks you encounter, regardless of how much your skills have grown, by simply claiming that higher level characters always run into more difficult locks.

Or the knock-on problem of "Take 20" that potentially means either (1) a character has no chance of failure or (2) no chance of success, sometimes turning skill use into an on/of switch. These are, IMHO, legitimate complaints. That 3e lacks rules? Not so much so. In fact, 3e is the edition that tried to include specific rules for every type of floor, stairway, or wall that you might encounter!

1e assumes that a locked door might not get opened. 3e tends to assume that, if a door is locked, the PCs can bypass that lock. 1e also has more niche protection, and a focus on "adventurers are what they do" (as opposed to "adventurers are how they are built").

Personally, I agree that 1e is a better game.

But it is not a more rulesy game. It just places the emphasis of the rules on different areas, and to different effect.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

Try Wikipedia:

So, an out-of-context quote written by an anonymous internetter is your support for your assumption about designer intent?

 

[IronWolf]

Now you guys are just being silly here. I came to the conclusion on my own that 1st Edition was more strict and less freeform than 3rd Edition by objectively reviewing them.

Yep - none of us have played 1st Edition....

I backed this up using comparative evidence from both editions.

You tried to make your case with comparative evidence. In which nearly every case I saw a counterpoint to.

I then have backed up my claim with quotes from Wikipedia which have verifiable sources. I have used Gary Gygax himself where his intention was a far more strict rule system. I have quoted where 3rd Edition's rules were designed to be much more "flexible" than it's previous editions.

And people here have shown you quotes from the DMG itself that indicates the need for freeform and the very fact the rules cannot cover every situation. There have also been quotes from the same DMG that show Gary did not want the game to be as regimented as the game of chess.

I think there is a lot of bias coming from some of you because you don't want to be proven wrong here. You've spent years of your life being told that 1E is a free-for-all game and 3E is the UBER tight, strict system. This has been proven to be false from examples, from wikipedia, and from Gygax himself.

Well - we've spent years of our life *playing* 1E, not being told how it is. It has hardly been proven false when you continue to not address the quotes from the DMG that have been posted previously in this thread.

The facts are the facts, and I think I have presented them pretty well. There really can be no other conclusion.

You've presented quotes and tables and your interpretation. Other people have posted counterpoints from the DMG and such. I am not sure how closely you have read those counterpoints as your case does not seem to make a clear conclusion.

 

[Fifth Element]

Look. Every time you roll a D20 for a Hide check in 3E you are weighing it against a plethora of different factors such as time of day, who's watching, what the character is wearing because there is no RULE in the book telling you how to define these.

Actually, there is.

Favourable circumstances not specifically listed in the skill description = -2 to the DC.

Unfavourable circumstances not specifically listed in the skill description = +2 to the DC.