Curious about something: would you play in an AD&D campaign?

[jensun]

Not if you payed me.

We played 1e to death as kids, I have no desire to ressurect its corpse.

Now Basic, then you might have my interest.

 

[Serendipity]

Sure - with the proviso that it wouldn't be delving through a "classic" dungeon (that I've likely played through so many times already....) or somesuch thing as that. I want to game, not indulge in a nostalgia trip.

 

[Derulbaskul]

The problem for me is that I would remember all the things I hated about it that were addressed in subsequent editions (such as specialty priests instead of generic clerics in 2E and 3E's repair of [inter alia] illogical saving throws [why do thieves have the worst save vs Dragon Breath again?], removal weapon damage based on opponent size and the existence of a functional and functioning initiative system) and decide to play 3.5E again.

Heavily house-ruled? Maybe. But that would look a lot like 3.5E.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I voted maybe. It would depend on the actual campaign. I would play in any campaign with my current group. As Triskaidekafile stated, I would not just want to re-hash old published adventures.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

A one-shot? Abso-friggin-lutely. A campaign? Nah.

Simon - Why not look at C&C? Close to 1E without all the clunkiness. Certainly a better option than 3.0/3.5, IMO.

WP

 

[Henry]

If it were a "stock standard" 1E game, maybe not -- part of the fun of that game and similar is the fun stuff a DM comes up with, like abnormal magic items, on-the-fly stuff that the DM would let you do in the middle of a combat round, stuff like that. For that, a DM running a stock campaign might frustrate me in the long run, but I'd still play a few games of it if nothing else.

Another part is gaming the system, with things like lightning bolts bounced just so to catch a bunch of enemies around a corner, or cleaning out a warren of kobolds with a fireball in a series of 3' x 3' corridors, or beating the odds that you can get use out of your haste spell without it killing you, beating the odds on the potion miscibility tables, etc. That part you can do in even a stock AD&D game, but if the DM is a bad one, she or he runs the risk of screwing you over and negating as much of it as possible, and killing the fun of such a thing.

So, a few games of it? Of course! I'll take the 10' pole, the iron spikes and mallet, the hard tack, waterskin, backpack, 50' rope, 4 empty sacks, the chalk, silver cross, holy water, and off I'll go! For a campaign, the DM would have to have the skill to make it a good one, though.

 

[Schmoe]

3.0/3.5 (and now Pathfinder) really hit the sweet spot for me, so that's definitely my first choice. Having said that, there's no way I'd turn down a good 1e game. I've had a lot of fun with it in the past, and I'm sure I could have a lot of fun with it again.

 

[Henrix]

It would not be my first choice, but with the right DM, the right players and the right pitch - sure, why not.

I'd probably have to control myself to keep from grumbling about the rules, though.

 

[Nikosandros]

Of course! AD&D is one my favorite RPG. As a matter of fact, I'm playing it currently.

When I run AD&D I use my own tweaks, like a revised ability modifier table and a sixth save category, but when I'm playing I've got no problem with the "standard" game.

 

[GQuail]

Let's say all things being equal (the DM is a great guy, it's a good group of people, you have enough free time, etc.) . . . would you be willing to play in an AD&D 1e campaign?

I put myself down as a "maybe" for this one.

I only really started playing D&D proper with 3.0, although I had a basic box set from when I was younger. I have since picked up about a dozen AD&D books (including the core rules) and do have a hankering to run a one-off for my 3.5 group sometime. (I'm actually looking to include it within the same campaign world and semi-surprise them with it... but that's a story for another time!)

I'd certainly be up for playing a one-off, and might consider something longer under the circumstances. But to be honest, there's enough oddities to old D&D that I dunno if I could really being myself to play a full campaign of it. For a change of pace I could ignore stuff like level limits, XP progressions, multi-vs-dual classing and needing ADDICT to decipher the combat rules: some of those don't come up in one-offs anyway. But for a full campaign, it would need to be bringing something very funky to the table we couldn't do in another system in. Adding in some non-core books are only going to exacerbate things: I see more than one person has brought up Unearthed Arcana, and I'm sure some veterans will give us stories of how that book affected their game.

A classic adventure (either as one-off or part of a campaign) might be able to tempt me - playing through Barrier Peaks, the Giants adventures or original Ravenloft in their classic form, for example, sounds cool. There are 3.5 conversions, yeah, but dying in the real Tomb of Horrors is quite a different accolade. ;-)

Perhaps a factor would be who was asking me. A GM who is keen on AD&D has the advantage of knowing the system and, well, being a keen GM - these do tend towards more fun games than when everyone agrees to a second best choice for everyone and the GM is only phoning it in. However, again, the big question would have to be why we're using AD&D rather than anything else: and if I got a edition wars spiel, I'd be pretty likely to say "Thanks, but no thanks". There's enough RPG tension in my life as it is, what with the internet and one or two friends around whom you can't bring up certain systems - I would be very wary of subjecting myself to more.