Any of you pine for AD&D 1/2?

[rogueattorney]

Shaman and witch doctor entries were a nice first step to the much more flexible later rules, but as they existed they were a far, far cry from the current flexibility and just another ad hoc ruling in a system rife with ad hoc rulings.

And what's wrong with ad hoc rulings? If you can't trust your DM to make judgment calls, why are you playing with the DM in the first place? Do players REALLY want a DM that is nothing more than a mechanical rules processor?

The point is, I don't want or need a "system" to customize my villains. Why can't I just write in my notes:

"These kobolds breath fire 3t./day, 2d4 dam., range 6'"
"The orc seargant is particularly strong and does +2 damage"
"The gnoll leader fights as a 6HD monster and has 35 hp"
"This wraith casts spells as MU5 - spells: Charm Person, Magic Missiles, etc."
"Harlech (Ill lvl3, hp8) hides in shadows as 5th level thief, and gets +2 save against all poisons - spells: Alter Self, etc."

Why should I have to jump through the hoops of statting out, levelling, assigning skills and feets, and templating my monsters and villains? The Rules Cyclopedia has about 4 pages on customizing monsters. The various 1e books have about the same number in total. 3e has reams and reams. Like Diaglo said, more rules, not better rules.

R.A.

 

[Desdichado]

The point is, I don't want or need a "system" to customize my villains. Why can't I just write in my notes:

"These kobolds breath fire 3t./day, 2d4 dam., range 6'"
"The orc seargant is particularly strong and does +2 damage"
"The gnoll leader fights as a 6HD monster and has 35 hp"
"This wraith casts spells as MU5 - spells: Charm Person, Magic Missiles, etc."
"Harlech (Ill lvl3, hp8) hides in shadows as 5th level thief, and gets +2 save against all poisons - spells: Alter Self, etc."

Why should I have to jump through the hoops of statting out, levelling, assigning skills and feets, and templating my monsters and villains? The Rules Cyclopedia has about 4 pages on customizing monsters. The various 1e books have about the same number in total. 3e has reams and reams. Like Diaglo said, more rules, not better rules.

I actually agree with this, although I certainly prefer 3e to 1 or 2e. Templates are a great theory, but since I'm neither an accountant nor a programmer, I don't feel the need to go through all the paperwork of processing templates on monsters; I merely handwave some effects I want, much like your notes above. To use one example. I rarely stat NPCs as well -- I've had large combats with NPCs who's "stats" consisted of an attack bonus, a damage roll, and AC and hit points, all generated literally on the fly. To use another.

The nice thing about 3e opposed to older editions, is that this is actually much easier to do, in my opinion, because the underlaying mechanical basis for all of that handwaving is consistent rather than all over the map.

 

[Psion]

And what's wrong with ad hoc rulings? If you can't trust your DM to make judgment calls, why are you playing with the DM in the first place?

This is pure hyperbole. Wanting consistency and ease of use is not tantamount to not trusting the DM.

You seem to miss that I am almost always the DM, so it's not about me not trusting the DM. As such it is much easier for me to make rulings and get acceptable results when I have a consistent baseline to build from, instead of when I have a constellation of ad hoc rulings to keep track of.

The point is, I don't want or need a "system" to customize my villains.

And that's fine. However, I do want such a system. Speaking as someone who has house ruled older editions extensively, I find that consistent implementation makes my life much easier than when I was running earlier editions.

 

[HellHound]

Nope.

I *do* miss the simplicity of OD&D however. Shortly before 2e was released I dropped 1e and switched back to OD&D, and ran an OD&D campaign until almost a year after the release of 3e.

I LOVE d20, but for pure D&D action, I also love the simplicity of the OD&D system.

 

[HellHound]

Calico Jack - I am SUCH a twilight 2000 fan... but again, not of the later editions. I'm a 1e T2K kind of guy. That game and Top Secret (again, not the later editions), are two of my all-time fave RPGs.

 

[Desdichado]

That game and Top Secret (again, not the later editions), are two of my all-time fave RPGs.

Holy crap! I have much fonder memories of Top Secret than I do of older editions of D&D, as it turns out.

But d20 Modern works well enough for me in that genre now.

 

[National Acrobat]

Nope

I run a 1E ADnD game every wednesday night, have for the last year. My group ditched 3E and went back to 1E. We've had a blast ever since.

 

[Piratecat]

I run a 1E ADnD game every wednesday night, have for the last year. My group ditched 3E and went back to 1E. We've had a blast ever since.

That's so cool. Most folks who prefer earlier editions have a lot of trouble finding a group who agrees; it's wonderful to hear that problem isn't universal.

 

[rogueattorney]

Nice for you. I do want such a system. Speaking as someone who has house ruled older editions extensively, I find that it makes my life much easier than when running earlier editions.

Which has nothing to do with the "flexibility" you were touting in your post that I was responding to. You like guidelines. Fine. Those guidelines aren't in 1e to the extent that they are in 3e. Fine. What does that have to do with flexibility and the ability to create a complex villain?

Where you see ease with 3e, I see bloated and cumbersome rules. Where I see freedom in 1e, you see lack of consistency. That's all fine and dandy. I see no reason to run a 3e game, when I'm going to ignore or change better than half of the content of the rules. Which, I'd imagine, is the same reason you don't run 1e campaigns...

R.A.

 

[Henry]

And what's wrong with ad hoc rulings?...Why can't I just write in my notes:

"These kobolds breath fire 3t./day, 2d4 dam., range 6'"
"The orc seargant is particularly strong and does +2 damage"
"The gnoll leader fights as a 6HD monster and has 35 hp"
"This wraith casts spells as MU5 - spells: Charm Person, Magic Missiles, etc."
"Harlech (Ill lvl3, hp8) hides in shadows as 5th level thief, and gets +2 save against all poisons - spells: Alter Self, etc."

I STILL do this, and I play 3E.

I feel like so many people are stuck on the point of "reams and reams of rules" with D&D (3E) and not acknowledging it is far harder to create than destroy. I STILL run my grunt Monsters and NPC's very lightly - I will frequently make up saving throws, to hit numbers, etc. on the spot - what player is going to tell me I "did it wrong?" Never had a player tell me that at home, at a gameday, at a convention, ever.

Diaglo has told me before that he used to with earlier groups make up tons of info on Clerical dogma, holy symbols for Clerics, etc. We still can; just like the people who now want "tons o' rules" can have what they want, too.

To me, though, the point is irrelevant, when comparing it to the NARROW range of options needed for the new player, though. Sure, a "newbie" in someone's group can be spoon-fed a half-orc barbarian and told when to rage (the half-orc Brb is the new version of the "human fighter") but A product that introduces the basics in an attractive way is a MUST if a young player wants to get in without an existing group. Had I met the 1st edition DMG before I saw the Moldvay book, I may have never played it (or at least I would have started years later than I did).