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

[lumin]

It's fine if you have your own interpretation of things. But don't tell us that your interpretation is the only possible one. That's quite insulting and condescending, especially since plenty of evidence has been provided against your position. That you have not addressed much of this evidence does not lend credence to your conclusion.

Sorry, but it is the only interpretation of it. And Gary Gygax and Harold Johnson agree with me. Fanboy interpretation is irrelevant.

 

[Fifth Element]

In other words, AD&D was less unconditional, unlimited, unqualified, unrestricted than 3E. Get it?

That's just repeating your argument over and over. A quote from Wikipedia does not prove your argument, regardless of how often you quote it.

Find me something from the AD&D DMG that supports your assertions, and we'll go from there.

 

[pawsplay]

Again, those are SOFT, suggestion tables for DC. They are in no way HARD DC numbers as the ones in 1E.

And those are very arbitrary suggestions, at that. ANY door in AD&D 1e was ALWAYS a 1d6 vs 2 (if that was your strength roll). These are far more free-form and grants a ton of leeway to the DM for how he defines "Simple, Average, Good, Amazing, etc".

...and? AD&D give the DM a lot of leeway to define what he considered a "door."

 

[Fifth Element]

The rules themselves are less restrictive than previous editions. The antonym of Restrictive is "unconditional, unlimited, unqualified, unrestricted".

You'll find that Wikipedia now specifies that this "less restrictive" aspect of the rules is in reference to character creation.

I happen to have a copy of 30 Years of Adventure right here, and I can say that for the page references on Wikipedia, they talk about restrictiveness only with respect to character creation: multiclassing, and which races can play which classes. Pages 255 to 263 do not discuss rules specifics like skill checks and such things. So it helps to go to original sources, such as this book or the AD&D DMG, rather than relying on someone else's one-line summary of it.

The Wikipedia quote is now a more accurate summary of its source material, and it now does not support your position.

 

[Fifth Element]

You're a Wizard and want to trip the Orc? give me a roll + Str Mod. This all sounds well and good, but the problem arises when GMs start assigning weakened Difficult Classes either deliberately, or subconsciously, to make a situation more exciting.

To go way back to the OP, this illustrates the issue.

In AD&D, if you want your wizard to trip an orc, the DM has to improvise a mechanic: probably something based on the wizard's Str or Dex with the difficult set arbitrarily.

In 3E, the rules set it out for you. First you make a melee touch attack, which draws an opportunity attack from the orc unless your wizard has the Improved Trip feat (which he doesn't, because he's a wizard). If you succeed, you then make opposed Strength checks (the defender can use Dexterity if it's higher), modified by size, with another modifier if the defender has more than two legs.

If you fail this check, the defender can initiate another such check to try to trip you back.

Which system has the stricter rules here?

 

[Guest 85555]

I recently started a 2E AD&D campaign, after years of running 3E games. While I loved the 3E system, it was interesting to go back to the edition I cut my teeth on. Been having a blast with 2E so far.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You'd love that, wouldn't you?

Just come over here and stand still for a minute........

Sorry, but it is the only interpretation of it. And Gary Gygax and Harold Johnson agree with me. Fanboy interpretation is irrelevant.

Aaaannnnndddddd I'm done.

Sorry, Fifth & co., I would argue on your side of this all day and all night if I thought the lumin was listening, but I don't, and this is just going around in circles, like a bird up in the sky.


RC

 

[pawsplay]

Re: the OP

I think it's great, lumin, that you found a game you love. I think, to remain a gamer, we all have to periodically discover, or rediscover, the game we think solves all our problems. It's an illusion, of course, but it's a beautiful illusion. But eventually infatuation gives way to intimacy, then to comfort... sometimes the fire of loves persists, and sometimes it fades.

In this case, though, you've picked an argument I don't think you can win. You have decided to rationalize your infatution based on an understanding of the game, and you insist we all agree with your rationalization. But your understanding is flawed. AD&D does not say what you think it does. AD&D is not the game you think it is.

But if you love it, stay with it, and I am sure you will find reasons enough to keep loving it.

 

[Umbran]

Fanboy interpretation is irrelevant.

lumin, you've got a low postcount, but you aren't new here, either....

Let me make this clear - declaring everyone who disagrees with you to be a fanboy is insulting and dismissive. You don't tear down people to build up your point - that's weak rhetoric and a lousy way to treat people.

Rule #1 of EN World is "Keep it civil." We expect all our users to abide by that rule while posting here. That includes showing a certain basic level of respect for the persons behind the post, no matter how much you may disagree.

 

[Ariosto]

DM: There is a small army of Kobolds coming this way, they don't yet notice you, but are closing fast.
Player Fighter: Okay, I want to throw my rope over the top of the building next to me, climb it, and then prepare to ambush them....

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."

No, it does not.

Where do you see "climbing rope" specified as an exclusive thief function? If you have reduced the thief's "climbing walls" to that, then I think you have handicapped the thief as well as all others. Wherefore "toe and hand holds", then?

That your interpretation is thoroughly anachronistic may be because it was, after all, formed in total isolation from the actual game scene of the time and only decades later (under the influence of very different games).

Absent some special reason, climbing a rope is something an adventurer "just does". The presumption is competence, not incompetence! It's not that 3e calls for a riding roll and AD&D automatically has everyone falling out of the saddle. It's that AD&D by default does not require a roll at all -- and maybe neither does 3e, what with difficulty benchmarks and "take 20". You can lay on Non Weapon Proficiencies if you like, but that's a variant, not the foundation of the AD&D game.

Yes, a 3e DM can set the actual chance anywhere from 0% to 100%. So can an AD&D DM, and so can a GM in any game that lets him or her gauge the situation and modify odds however seems appropriate.

Let me reiterate, I am referring to the "intended" rules, not the way many players played them back then.

When did Gary tell you this? He had a lot of conversations with people before he died, including some recorded here.

Just what do you think the 'intent' was for having rope in the equipment list? How do you regard the dungeon modules that indicate rope is to be used for climbing by non-thieves? How this from the example of play in the DMG?

OC: (The gnome: ) "I'll pull myself up into the passage revealed, and then I'll see if I can drive in a spike and secure my rope to it, so I can throw the free end down to the others."