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

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

I miss 1E ( Skipped most of 2E except for the luvly Planescape setting ), but not for mechanics reasons; Just nostalgia: The childhood friends, the playing all weekend with no other responsibilities. Even the inevitable pre-teen munchkin aspects of my gaming back then are fond memories. Ah, remember when PC's were Uberheroes, and Demon Princes and Arch Devils were scared?

 

[EricNoah]

[mod hat on] In case it's not clear, folks, we are not going to be having "edition wars" here -- in this thread or anywhere at EN World. Feel free to state how you feel about stuff, but a) don't confuse opinion with fact, and b) there's no need to beat up folks about their preference one way or the other. There is no way to "win" this conversation. [mod hat off]

We've had many polls here at EN World asking about members' ages, when they started playing, what editions they've played, etc. A big hunk of EN World (maybe a third of those responding?) started playing quite early on (late 70s to early 80s) and so have seen D&D transform over the years and decades. They've had a chance to play many if not all D&D versions. You really can't ascribe these players' preferences to ignorance. They like what they like. Folks shouldn't feel the need to defend their particular tastes.

As the game changed over the years, it was inevitable that the changes would leave some behind even as it attracted new players. What rubs me the wrong way is when a player of any edition nastily suggests that something is wrong with players of another edition.

 

[Psion]

That's not really very fair. Go to General Motors and take a poll on what the employees drive and see how many answer "Ford."

Once again, see my answer to Diaglo. I'm not making any sorts of assertions about a majority of old time gamers, or any thing like that. I am saying that there are PLENTY of us who have been playing since 1e who have happily upgraded to 3e and have no desire to go back. So given the assertion that I actually made, there is nothing unfair about it. And it shows that Ogrebear's friend is wrong: not only will you find one such gamer that he speaks of, but many.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I'm just saying you can't take a poll in which 90% of the pollsters prefer 3e to prove that older people prefer 3e. This is a (THE) 3e site. Of course your poll will show people preferring 3e, no matter what the age group. Go to Yankee Stadium and take a poll on how many are Red Sox fans while you're at it.

 

[francisca]

Othar than that you were "breaking the rules" -- which for some people is a big discouragement -- I was always annoyed that the monsters had no stats.

I can understand that argument. I went through that for a bit, but in the end, I want the game to be fun, and if adding levels to enhance a humanoid makes the game more fun, well there you go.

I had no idea what a normal Dexterity might be for that kobold. I could always fake it, as many people did, but it certainly made the task more challenging.

Nobody ever notices when I roll and extra 3d6 to determine a stat on the spot. Of course, if I think it will matter, I'll craft the villian before I get to the table.

That's true for all the ability scores. Nowadays it seems obvious to me that big strong monsters should add strength damage to their blows; at the time we just hand-waved it away. In retrospect I prefer the current method.

I have a split personality on this topic. The engineer side of me wants to know every stat, skill, etc.. for everything in the game, and 3E certainly fits the bill. The other half of my brain says, "Shaddup and play! It doesn't matter what the Orc's strength is."

So, let me ask you this: Do all Orcs in your 3E game have 17 STR, per the MM? Or do you roll for each? I mean, on one level, isn't just taking the stats as given in MM handwaving?

I'm not trying to be snotty, just trying to point out that a person *could* take this to extremes. Some prefer to do so, others don't. It all comes down to where you draw the line and declare what is "small stuff", for which you don't sweat the details. Like you said, play what you like, the way you like it. I'm fortunate to have my cake and eat it, too, as I'm involved in 3.5, 1e, and basic/expert right now.

 

[Psion]

And what kept you from doing so in 1E? (Besides the fact they were thieves? )

Answer 1) 3catcircus tells me I didn't need to.

Answer 2) Hindsight is 20/20, isn't it?

The fact is that there were no rules to do so, and we didn't have enough rules experience then. Now that we have played in a game where you just chuck out the HD and take class levels, we can see that's the thing to do. But should we neglect the fact that is where we learned to do things that way?

But even if I did that, what are a kobold's stats? Now, we know. We have them ready-to-roll for every creature in the book. Before, we needed to make them up.

FWIW, we did have a fellow who put together some scrawled in a notebook rules. But then, it was for PCs. You just didn't assign those sorts of things to NPC monsters back then. It wasn't part of the paradigm and mindset of the day.

The first official support for anything like this was in 2e -- hated 2e -- in the Complete Humanoid book. And some of that was pretty rough around the edges.

3e is built in part upon the innovations of other games. Systems like HERO and GURPS built all creatures from the same baseline, a lesson that we did well to internalize. It gave everyone the tools to craft creatures, and I find it bizarre that people RESENT that the DM has more tools to create things with.

 

[francisca]

You just didn't assign those sorts of things to NPC monsters back then. It wasn't part of the paradigm and mindset of the day.

Maybe it wasn't part of **your** paradigm or mindset at the time, you shouldn't be making blanket assumptions, speaking for all gamers.

I simply cannot believe that I was the only one who slapped char levels on top of humanoids back in the 1E days. Rule 0, baby.

I've addressed the stat issue in a response to P-Cat.

 

[EricNoah]

Having monster stats spelled out as they are makes it easier to "build" advanced/modified/templated creatures or creatures with classes. And that goes a long way toward making D&D fun in the upper levels (which, for me, it wasn't until 3E).

 

[diaglo]

I simply cannot believe that I was the only one who slapped char levels on top of humanoids back in the 1E days. Rule 0, baby...

you weren't. heck it is in the DMG.

 

[Psion]

So, let me ask you this: Do all Orcs in your 3E game have 17 STR, per the MM? Or do you roll for each? I mean, on one level, isn't just taking the stats as given in MM handwaving?

Assuming an Orc warrior has an average strength of 17 will get you about the same results on average as if you generated them randomly and assigned the best results to strength (remember, stats in the MM are semi-elite array.) If some orcs have 15 and some 19 strength, on the average, the results are about the same.

If you assume an orc has the average strength the same as a human, then you will be 4 points off ON THE AVERAGE. Assuming that (like 3e) you want orcs stronger than humans of course. And I would definitely assume kobolds are more dextrous than the average human.