Do you prefer D20 or To Hit and Save Tables

[Flexor the Mighty!]

To hit tables do nothing for me anymore. I played a lot of AD&D 1e for probably 15 years. Everyone had all the books, we argued about rules all the time, and combats sometimes drug on when there were a lot of participants. I love C&C since it combines a lot of 1e feel wth the d20 core mechanic. I don't tell the players the AC of the target and they figure out what they need to hit just like they did in 1e.

 

[MerricB]

I think some place in the DMG Gygax mentions not to let the player read the DMG (and MM?). But, I'm not positive about that.

It's there.

Page 8 of the DMG, in the Preface.
"As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less thanworthy of honorable death. Peeping players there will undoubtedly be, but they are simply lessening their own enjoyment of the game by taking aways some of the sense of wonder that otherwises arises from a game which has its rules hidden from participants..."

I think there's another note as well, but I can't find it at present.

Cheers!

 

[RFisher]

Once the role of DM job was passed around, players had to learn the rules (and be trained). That was the mid-80s for us (so maybe around the same time as you), though we rarely argued rules at the table (since the person who trained the DM was usually right there). Still, when we get a truely "new" player, everyone at the table (DMs at one point all) look with envy, remembering the first few games as the most "magical" and least game like.

As another poster mentioned, that "magic" of not knowing what the hell is going on only lasts a short while. After that its a matter of keeping as much as you can in the hands of the DM. After all, in 1E we could hand our players copies of the tables for their class to help the DM (I could print this out in seconds). Yet 1E gamers dont do this as it would change the feel of the game in a negative way.

(1) The tables didn't preserve any sense of mystery for my group.

(2) You admit that the tables didn't preserve any sense of mystery for your group either.

(3) Some 1e gamers do copy the relevant parts of the combat tables onto their characters record sheets.

Furthermore, your contention that rules arguments were rare in 1e & common in 3e may be your experience, but it isn't everyone else's.

I'll defend 1e & bash 3e all day long (given the appropriate forum to do so), but I have to disagree with you on these points.

AD&D1 combat seemed/s quicker to run than D&D3 because most people house ruled out most of the complications.

This is a very good point. But...

Weapon v. AC doesn't really slow things down as much as everyone who has never tried it thinks it does.

Weapon speed factors only come into play when there is a tie on the initiative dice, it which case they break the tie. This is not a huge complication.

If you're using the helmet rule, it simply means everyone has a helmet. So, this is not a huge complication either.

Splitting up multiple attacks I count as a valid point. My group found that onerous enough to intentionally ignore it.

Initiative & surprise...I don't think I've ever played close enough to the RAW to judge, so I concede those points as well.

I might point out that while few people played 1e very by-the-book, neither did it's author. I suspect, however, that Monte, Jonathan, & Skip do play 3e very close to by-the-book. But that's just an interesting side observation.