AD&D1 style & AD&D2 style

[Quasqueton]

I have a theory.

I'll start the basis for this theory with AD&D1. AD&D1 had its roots deeply in war gaming. The core rule books of the time (PHB, DMG, MM) had no substantial mention of playing a role or character in the game. No guidance or hints or examples of playing as a character. The rule books were all game mechanics. The adventure modules of the time were often full of mix-and-match creatures with only stat blocks and no real characterizations for the DM.

Now, there were sometimes a note or two on some creature's behavior pattern or likely motivations, but these were the exception, not the rule. And most of these referred to how the creature may engage the PCs in battle or try to escape a fight.

Many of the AD&D1 adventures were meant as challenges to players rather than the characters. There were tons of examples of riddles, traps, encounter set-ups, etc. that the writer expected the players to solve without regard to their characters' mental abilities.

With these rules, players were basically left to play themselves with warrior or wizard game stats.

To put out just a few examples:

The "slavelord" leader in the adventure Slave Pits of the Undercity had only game stats listed. The written material gave no hint as to his motivations, personality, or even a name.

The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth was a big dungeon complex of random monsters, with no rhyme or reason for genies and myrads being in rooms "next door" to a behir or piercers.

White Plume Mountain was full of tricks and riddles meant for the players personally. The numbered golem riddle, the suspended glass balls trick, etc. No info or hints were given as to how the characters might solve the problems; it was up to the players thinking and figuring.


AD&D2 went into some detail on role playing. Actually, AD&D2 went so far as to make most all the rules "optional" and subserviant to the role playing aspect. I personally don't have nearly as many AD&D2 adventure modules as I do AD&D1 modules, but from what I've seen, these had more than plenty information on the individual creatures encountered. I've seen multiple paragraphs giving the name, motivations, and personality for creatures that really won't last more than a few rounds of combat anyway.

Contrast the old (BD&D) Keep on the Borderlands with the AD&D2 Return to the Keep on the Borderlands.


In all my conversations with other players and DMs, I seem to have found a pattern. Those who started playing with AD&D1 more often see this hobby as a war game in which you play a character. Those who started with AD&D2 more often see this hobby as a role-playing forum in which action is resolved as a game.

Note that in both versions of the game, most of the time, physical action was resolved with dice rolling and game rules, and mental and social action was resolved with the player's words and ideas bounced off the DM. [Charisma truly was a dump stat in both editions, but for different reasons.]

Players from AD&D1 are more likely to enjoy the mechanics and tactics of the game. They *want* to roll dice as part of their hobby.

Players from AD&D2 are more likely to enjoy the deep role playing aspects of the game. They consider a session without a single die rolled as perfection.

Have you noticed this as a pattern?

Quasqueton

And for the record, I'm not holding either method as "better" than the other. I personally cut my teeth with AD&D1 (actually BD&D first) and played little of AD&D2. Now, I want a strong mix of game and role play. I don't want to be a thespian, but neither do I want to play a simple board game. But I admit I am more comfortable with the war game aspect than the acting aspect. I hope I managed to write the above impartially and without offending anyone.

 

[MerricB]

Players from AD&D1 are more likely to enjoy the mechanics and tactics of the game. They *want* to roll dice as part of their hobby.

Players from AD&D2 are more likely to enjoy the deep role playing aspects of the game. They consider a session without a single die rolled as perfection.

I don't think it's quite accurate. I know lots of 2E players who really love the combat mechanics.

Certainly, at the same time that 2E was around, there was a lot of movement towards the story-telling and diceless systems, but to a Vampire or Amber player, a 2E player was still a dice-rolling maniac. So, what you may perceive as a 2e trait is actually something derived from other games at that time.

I agree with most of your other points, though.

Cheers!

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Actually, I started with 1E, but with the advent of 2E, I found the game finally attracting people that played in a manner more compatible to myself.

I wouldn't consider a game without any dice rolls to be "perfection", although I couldn't play with a group that insists that combat must occur every session, since this leads to combat simply for the sake of combat.

Other than that, I'd say you're about right. Some of the later 1E Modules began to put weight into RP (Oasis of the White Palm, for instance), but 2E was when the Role-Play became more intergrated into the rules and prevelant in (professional) adventure design.

Consequently, I still handle rules in 3E as subserviant to story, plot, flavor and Role-Play (the term coined to describe such is In-Depth Role-Play, btw, as per the IDRP Board at WotC).

 

[Nathal]

I started out with original D&D in the 1980s and didn't really get heavily into 1st Edition. I started DMing in 1989 when 2nd Edition came out and never used miniatures or other props, mainly because I didn't have the patience to paint them or the space to use battlemats. When 3rd Edition came out I found that I loved the extra emphasis on miniature skirmish rules and bought a chessex battle mat. I am looking forward to Wizards making some "monster counters" according to their official scale, and hope the pre-painted plastic minis do the trick. Regardless of how much emphasis was placed on combat I always loved the role-assumption aspect of gaming.

I agree with the Gygax list of elements that constitute an RPG (as published in Dragon), and try to incorporate some of each over the course of a campaign (not, I must add, in each and every session):

THE ELEMENTS THAT CONSTITUTE A ROLE-PLAYING GAME:
1. Building (construction, land acquisition, etc.)
2. Business (an occupation aside from "adventuring")
3. Character Development (detailing game persona s history )
4. Combat
5. Economics
6. Exploration (dungeons and for larger discovery)
7. Intrigue 8. Politics
9. Problem Solving
10. Questing
11. Random Chance (encounters, resolution of combat, etc.)
12. Role Assumption (staying "in character" in actions/thinking)
13. Role Playing (ditto, and speaking thus when playing)
14. Story (backstory and in play)
15. Strategy
16. Theatrics (occasional histrionics and sound effects)

 

[Darius101]

Wow I feel odd......
Ever since we bagan playing in 1978 we roleplayed. We looked at D&D and AD&D as pretend. Rolling the dice was part of the game but talking your way out of a fight was half the challenge for us.
We also always used minis in one form or another. We used Grenidier and Ral partha mixed with plastic monsters from toy sets when a monster was not painted yet.
Second Edition came out and we looked at it...most of us decided to move on to other things. I remember one of the players remarking that how could the players handbook contain more rules than the Dm's guide...hence an argument arose (it was funny at the time).
Anyway, once third edition came out I decided it was another messing around of the rules. To my surprise, i was talked in to playing in a campaign with a friends group and It hooked me bigtime. Battlemats are a great invention..we used to use giant paper that our friends father would make for us (he was a printer).
I like the new rules alot just miss some of the things from the old edition (1e) but the games I have DM'd and played in have been a great release for me.
Cheerio,
Darius

 

[mirzabah]

I have a theory.

... snip ...

Damn, I thought you were going to tell us that roleplaying is thin at one end, much, much, much thicker in the middle and thin again at the other end. *ahem*.

 

[MerricB]

I thought we'd get a reprise of the Buffy musical thread.

Cheers!

 

[Ycore Rixle]

The core rule books of the time (PHB, DMG, MM) had no substantial mention of playing a role or character in the game. No guidance or hints or examples of playing as a character.

This is not true.

p. 12 of the 1e DMG: "As a general rule, having a skill will give the character the ability to determine the general worth and soundness of an item, the ability to find food, make small repairs, or actually construct (crude) items. For example, an individual with armorer skill could tell the quality of normal armor, repair chain links, or perhaps fashion certain weapons. To determine the extent of knowledge in question, simply assume the role of one of these skills, one that you know a little something about, and determine what could be done with this knowledge. Use this as a scale to weigh the relative ability of characters with secondary skills."

p. 23 of the 1e DMG: "To the chaotic good individual, freedom and independence are as important to life and happiness. The ethos views this freedom as the only means by which each creature con achieve true satisfaction and happiness. Law, order, social forms, and anything else which tends to restrict or abridge individual freedom is wrong, and each individual is capable of achieving self-realization and prosperity through himself, herself, or itself."

p. 92 of the 1e DMG: "These campaigns are a travesty of the role-playing adventure game, for there is no development and identification with carefully nurtured player personae."

The rule books were all game mechanics.

Again, this is wildly false. Here is one of my favorite parts of the 1e DMG:

p. 224 of the 1e DMG:

"Inspirational Reading:
Anderson, Poul. THREE HEARTS AND THREE LIONS; THE HIGH CRUSADE
Bellairs, John. THE FACE IN THE FROST
Brackett, Leigh.
Brown, Fredric.
Burroughs, Edgar Rice. "Pellucidar" Series; Mars Series; Venus Series
Carter, Lin. "World's End'' Series
de Camp, L. Sprague. LEST DARKNESS FALL; FALLIBLE FIEND; et al.
de Camp & Pratt. "Harold Shea" Series; CARNELIAN CUBE
Derleth, August.
Dunsany, Lord.
Farmer, P. J. "The World of the Tiers" Series; et al.
Fox, Gardner. "Kothar" Series; "Kyrik" Series; et al.
Howard, R. E. "Conan" Series
Lanier, Sterling. HIEROS JOURNEY
Leiber, Fritz. "Fafhrd & Gray Mouser" Series; et al.
Lovecraft, H. P.
Merritt, A. CREEP, SHADOW, CREEP; MOON POOL; DWELLERS IN THE MIRAGE, et al.
Moorcock, Michael. STORMBRINGER; STEALER OF SOULS; "Hawkmoon"
Norton, Andre.
Offutt, Andrew J., editor SWORDS AGAINST DARKNESS Ill.
Pratt, Fletcher, BLUE STAR; etaf.
Saberhagen, Fred. CHANGELING EARTH; etal.
St. Clair, Margaret. THE SHADOW PEOPLE; SIGN OF THE LABRYS
Tolkien, J. R. R. THE HOBBIT; "Ring Trilogy"
Vance, Jack. THE EYES OF THE OVERWORLD; THE DYING EARTH; et al.
Weinbaum, Stanley.
Wellman, Manly Wade.
Williamson, Jack.
Zelazny, Roger. JACK OF SHADOWS; "Amber" Series.

The most immediate influences upon ADBD were probably de Camp & Pratt, REH, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, HPL, and A. Merritt; but all of the above authors, as well as many not listed, certainly helped to shape the form of the game. For this reason, and for the hours of reading enjoyment, I heartily recommend the works of these fine authors to you."