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

[Psion]

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

Hey now, did I not also explain this in terms of what was mechanically supported.. That's bigger than just me baby.

I could tell you all about how my house rules foretold the shape of the ranger, for example. But that's hardly a statement about the state of the game back then.

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.

Never did it, nor did I know anyone who did. If you did, you are ahead of your time. Whatever the case, now this method is much more accessible. So everyone wins. Yay!

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

I've addressed your addressing.

 

[diaglo]

Hey now, did I not also explain this in terms of what was mechanically supported.. That's bigger than just me baby.

get out your 1edADnD DMG Revised 1979. read the definition of monster by EGG.

more importantly look for the shaman and witch doctor entries.

also backed up by the 1980 DDG.

 

[T. Foster]

Out of curiosity, do any of you boys still play 1e and 2e? I've browsed on mortality.net from time to time, and I know they have a 1e/2e forum, but it seems populated by only 3-4 people.

Are there "lost tribes" of 1/2e gamers out there? Should I forget my daydream of playing the older editions again? Should I stick to 3/3.5?

I play 1st edition AD&D exclusively (though I also have a soft spot for dialglo's favorite OD&D (1974)). A big part of the appeal is obviously nostalgic -- I played this game A LOT in the 80s and there are memories of many good times tied up in those old books and modules -- part of it is laziness and cheapness -- I don't want to pay money for a bunch of new books when I've already got all the old ones, and don't want to learn a new system when I already know the old one -- part of it is even snobbish elitism -- I don't really want to be associated with the same game as all those cretinous pimply-faced 14-year-olds I see in comic and game stores -- but just as big or bigger than all of those is the fact that I just like the way the old game works better: I like the fact that a few areas (combat, mostly) are excruciatingly detailed but pretty much everything else is left for the individual DM to make something up on the spot, that the same rules don't apply equally to PCs and NPCs and that the DM can do whatever he wants and doesn't have to answer to anybody (I know, I know, rule zero, the DM doesn't have to answer to anybody in 3E either, yadda yadda yadda), and lots and lots of other things (which I could ennumerate at great length, but won't here). This has all been discussed before at great length and with much passion and I know I'm not going to convince the 3E boosters here that my viewpoint is legitimate anymore than they're going to convince me that mine isn't, so I'll just leave it at saying that yes, there is a vocal minority of us out there still playing the earlier editions of the game, we just don't tend to congregate here at 3E central. If you want to talk with some of us about the old games -- pretend you've taken a time machine back to 1999 (2E) or 1986 (1E) and that the later editions never existed -- stop by dragonsfoot.org or The Grognard's Tavern and say hi; we're always happy to hear from fellow oop-D&D fans (as long as they leave their later-edition proseletyzing at home).

 

[Arnwyn]

Yeah, but in 1e/2e you could have a HUECUVA good time!

Ba-dum *ching*

 

[WizarDru]

For the most part I agree with you; I've had great fun with every version of D&D. There are a few areas where the newer editions have demonstrably better game design, though. Let's face it, have you ever tried to use 1e's punching/grappling/overbearing tables? I did, once, and my DM refused to have anything to do with them.

True 'dat. I may have found some parts of AD&D less than intuitive, but I still had lots of fun, and cherish those memories and those stories.

One might argue that since there was no rules for certain situations under AD&D, I wasn't constrained from jumping onto a frost worm moving full-bore through a glacier and riding it like a cowboy, hoping to steer it away from the village or slay it. One might also argue that if we had access to such rules, my DM might not have felt the need to invent rules on the spot to deal with it, and then try to remember his earlier ruling from then on for the sake of consistency.

Of course, one could also aruge that I'd have had a template that actually defined my abilities when I was unwillingly turned into a half-demon, as opposed to the DM clearly fudging most of it. Ah....Good Times. Good Times.

Either way, there's still only one wrong way to play D&D, and that's to not have fun. Everything else is irrelavant, to me.

 

[Desdichado]

I guess I am a 1e/2e "hatah". I played around in Basic for a while which was fun, and doodled with 1e, but it really turned me off because it didn't work well for the kinds of games I really wanted to play, it seemed. I peregrinated through various other games, especially Werewolf, because at heart I'm a combat junkie who wants to think he's a method actor of a player, I think.

2e completely did not incite me to take another serious look at D&D. 3e, however, finally broke through my anti-D&D fog and brought me back in like a bull in a china shop.

Now, however, I'm turning away from D&D slightly, but ironically, I don't really want to play anything that's not d20 anymore. Go figger. I really like the CoC game, Star Wars, d20 Modern, the Conan RPG, and other, pulpy yet not D&D-ish fantasy type games. My own homebrew is an almost ridiculous hodge-podge of rules Midnight, Unearthed Arcana, Arcana Unearthed, Rokugan, and Call of Cthulhu, but I think it's tons of fun to run, and my players seem to be digging the dark swashbuckler feel, as near as I can tell. That's what I'd really like to see D&D move too, although since we have alternate d20 games that already do that admirably, I guess it's hardly necessary for D&D to move in that direction just so I can have a game that matches my taste.

Short answer -- no, I don't miss them.

 

[Piratecat]

Well said, Wizardru. If you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong.

 

[3catcircus]

I guess I am a 1e/2e "hatah". I played around in Basic for a while which was fun, and doodled with 1e, but it really turned me off because it didn't work well for the kinds of games I really wanted to play, it seemed. I peregrinated through various other games, especially Werewolf, because at heart I'm a combat junkie who wants to think he's a method actor of a player, I think.

2e completely did not incite me to take another serious look at D&D. 3e, however, finally broke through my anti-D&D fog and brought me back in like a bull in a china shop.

Now, however, I'm turning away from D&D slightly, but ironically, I don't really want to play anything that's not d20 anymore. Go figger. I really like the CoC game, Star Wars, d20 Modern, the Conan RPG, and other, pulpy yet not D&D-ish fantasy type games. My own homebrew is an almost ridiculous hodge-podge of rules Midnight, Unearthed Arcana, Arcana Unearthed, Rokugan, and Call of Cthulhu, but I think it's tons of fun to run, and my players seem to be digging the dark swashbuckler feel, as near as I can tell. That's what I'd really like to see D&D move too, although since we have alternate d20 games that already do that admirably, I guess it's hardly necessary for D&D to move in that direction just so I can have a game that matches my taste.

Short answer -- no, I don't miss them.

Hmm - I'm almost exactly the opposite. I played D&D magenta box (the red box edition in a previous printing) followed by 1st edition. I played 2nd edition only a few times before going into other games - Rolemaster, RQ, Paranoia, BRP CoC, Twilight:2000, Star Wars, TORG, etc. I tended to stay away from Rifts (too uber-powerful) and Vampire (too many real-life wannabe vampires using the game to foster their unhealthy mental condition).

Then along came 3rd edition and I thought "cool - New! Improved! Faster! Stronger!" And then I began to play it. For me, 3rd edition is the equivalent of eating a rice cake - while it may digest easily, it tastes worse than the cardboard it came in... Not only that, but then 3.5 began the trend of rehashing the same stuff in multiple books, requiring multiple errata, and inconsistency between products (the CW Purple Dragon Knight vs PGtF Purple Dragon Knight, for instance.) I dunno - other than tidbits of FR fluff, most of the 3.x D&D products seem soul-less.

 

[Piratecat]

Without being facetious, 3CatCircus, then why play? Wouldn't you be better off with a group that played a different game?

 

[diaglo]

Without being facetious, 3CatCircus, then why play? Wouldn't you be better off with a group that played a different game?

i can answer that one.

i'd rather be playing than not.


edit: it took me a lot of tries to find a campaign i could stomach.