AD&D 1E Edition Experience: Did/Do you Play 1E AD&D? How Was/Is It?

[TiQuinn]

So…actual AD&D 1e with the original rulebooks.

Never played it, wouldn’t ever try to. I had the rulebooks. I wouldn’t be able to figure out how to navigate those books enough to put together a coherent game - because the rules themselves are not laid out coherently.

 

[Mannahnin]

It also had enough inconsistencies that it was clear there was no "best play experience" from rules-as-written. We felt very free to tinker with the system and to play it in our own way, dispensing with things we didn't like.

This part makes sense to me.

I think - at least for the groups I've played in - one of the reasons it worked was that it wasn't very prescriptive about the kind of play it was trying to produce.

This bit surprises me; I read Gary as extremely prescriptive in many parts of the 1E PH and DMG. He definitely says you can and should customize the rules once you understand them, but he also spells out best practices and modifications to OD&D play procedures and expectations in a very opinionated way, like how he gets really negative about monster PCs in contrast to how he was encouraging of them in 1974 OD&D. He tells us over and over again what a "well planned" and "well judged campaign" looks like and how it should be run. Sometimes in all caps, like when he tells us that when you have an open world game with different PCs operating independently, that "YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT TIME RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT."

This is in strong contrast to, particularly, 2nd ed. Which goes out of its way over and over to say "you could run it this way, or that way, whichever the DM prefers".

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So…actual AD&D 1e with the original rulebooks.

Never played it, wouldn’t ever try to. I had the rulebooks. I wouldn’t be able to figure out how to navigate those books enough to put together a coherent game - because the rules themselves are not laid out coherently.

I've argued before that while 1e is not an example of, um, great design in terms of rules accessibility ...

...there is something to be said about function following form.

Hear me out - the books themselves were ... they were librams, grimoires, TOMES that forced the reader to think of D&D not just as a game with rules, but as a gateway to a different and magical place. The dense verbiage, the archaic language, the weird asides (perforce, the antithesis of weal!) ... the act of acquiring the rules almost forced the reader into the mindset of the game itself.


....I mean, like a lot of what I say, it makes more sense the less you think about, amirite?

 

[TiQuinn]

I've argued before that while 1e is not an example of, um, great design in terms of rules accessibility ...

...there is something to be said about function following form.

Hear me out - the books themselves were ... they were librams, grimoires, TOMES that forced the reader to think of D&D not just as a game with rules, but as a gateway to a different and magical place. The dense verbiage, the archaic language, the weird asides (perforce, the antithesis of weal!) ... the act of acquiring the rules almost forced the reader into the mindset of the game itself.


....I mean, like a lot of what I say, it makes more sense the less you think about, amirite?

And I can totally read the 1e PHB with that grimoire mindset! That’s fine! It accomplished that! It might even have given 10 year old me the false confidence to think I could’ve actually played it! But 50 year old me can read that book now, still appreciate what it says but have the wisdom to realize this isn’t a rule book for a game. It’s a manifesto in a way. Other people have done what had to be the hard, HARD work of making that book into an actual playable game.

 

[Celebrim]

This part makes sense to me.


This bit surprises me; I read Gary as extremely prescriptive in many parts of the 1E PH and DMG. He definitely says you can and should customize the rules once you understand them, but he also spells out best practices and modifications to OD&D play procedures and expectations in a very opinionated way, like how he gets really negative about monster PCs in contrast to how he was encouraging of them in 1974 OD&D. He tells us over and over again what a "well planned" and "well judged campaign" looks like and how it should be run. Sometimes in all caps, like when he tells us that when you have an open world game with different PCs operating independently, that "YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT TIME RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT."

This is in strong contrast to, particularly, 2nd ed. Which goes out of its way over and over to say "you could run it this way, or that way, whichever the DM prefers".

There are two things going on, particularly in the 1e AD&D DMG.

One, Gygax gives some of the strongest examples of play and descriptions of play in any rulebook ever written. That passage with the party investigating a dungeon that ends in one of them getting randomly eaten by a ghoul with little chance of survival is not only believable from the rules, but actually highlighting what might otherwise be considered (or would be considered today a problem) in the rules. Gygax is admitting very openly based on experience what the rules are designed to do and showing a GM how to apply them, and that experience includes your character being devoured by ghouls. It's almost a horror game, but that example of play is super intriguing and interesting, and honestly the sort of thing that a whole lot more games should be striving to include in their rulebooks. Games like Vampire: The Masquerade, Mouseguard, FATE Core, Dungeon World, Monsters and Other Childish Things, even Ironsworn have comparatively terrible examples of play because they feature things that are quite clearly cherry picked and involved no real application of the rules nor the dice nor the likely course of play in a social group. Every game designer should be studying the example of play in the DMG.

And two, Gygax describes standards of good GMing that prevail at his table, and they are very specific to his table without Gygax really making any indication or acknowledgement that his table is pretty abnormal and what is necessary for his game is probably not necessary and even counterproductive to four or five friends playing together. It becomes really clear to me in retrospect after getting a lot of experience as a GM that it's not that Gygax's advice about GMing is dysfunctional and overtly hostile to players, but rather it's advice from one experienced GM to another GM on the assumption that GM has 12 or more players weekly not all of whom can be expected to show up every night and not all of whom are close friends of the GM. Once you understand that, then Gygax's comments on how to be a good GM become quite reasonable and indeed very insightful and worth following.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Played it. Loved it. We did NOT use all the rules.

While I'm sure that there were tables that did use all the rules of 1e out there, I've never met one. My table certainly didn't.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

While I'm sure that there were tables that did use all the rules of 1e out there, I've never met one. My table certainly didn't.

I've learned never to make absolute statements about particular rules in AD&D. Whatever the specific rule is, you will always find some person, somewhere, who used it.

That said, I am confident that no one has ever played with all the rules, simply because it's ... impossible. I don't just mean ... like, really hard in the "turn every single combat into Campaign for North Africa" way. I mean ... impossible in the sense that there are actual conflicts in the RAW that preclude playing with every single rule turned "on."

At a minimum, house rules need to be effectuated in order to allow certain rules to interact with each other.

Anyway, whenever I've met someone who says that they played with "all the rules," I've quickly learned that they didn't actually mean "all the rules." In fairness, most people haven't played for forty years, and memory is a helluva thing.*


*A lot of people, for example, conflate 1e and 2e, or don't remember how insane some of the RAW in the DMG were.

 

[kermit4karate]

There are two things going on, particularly in the 1e AD&D DMG.

One, Gygax gives some of the strongest examples of play and descriptions of play in any rulebook ever written. That passage with the party investigating a dungeon that ends in one of them getting randomly eaten by a ghoul with little chance of survival is not only believable from the rules, but actually highlighting what might otherwise be considered (or would be considered a problem in the rules). Gygax is admitting very openly based on experience what the rules are designed to do and showing a GM how to apply them, and that experience includes your character being devoured by ghouls. It's almost a horror game, but that example of play is super intriguing and interesting, and honestly the sort of thing that a whole lot more games should be striving to include in their rulebooks. Games like Vampire: The Masquerade, Mouseguard, FATE Corp, Dungeon World, Monsters and Other Childish Things, even Ironsworn have comparatively terrible examples of play because they feature things that are quite clearly cherry picked and evolved no real application of the rules or the dice or the likely course of play in a social group. Every game designer should be studying the example of play in the DMG.

And two, Gygax describes standards of good GMing that prevail at his table, and they are very specific to his table without Gygax really making any indication or acknowledgement that his table is pretty abnormal and what is necessary for his game is probably not necessary and even counterproductive to four or five friends playing together. It becomes really clear to me in retrospect after getting a lot of experience as a GM that it's not that Gygax's advice about GMing is dysfunctional and overtly hostile to players, but rather it's advice from one experienced GM to another GM on the assumption that GM has 12 or more players weekly not all of whom can be expected to show up every night and not all of whom are close friends of the GM. Once you understand that, then Gygax's comments on how to be a good GM become quite reasonable and indeed very insightful and worth following.

OK, that might be how a modern adult with the benefit of hindsight views Gygax, but I don't think the 15-year-olds I was playing 1e with were that profound. We definitely were not peeling back layers of the onion that is Gary. I wish, but we were just picking and choosing from among his many contradictory gems to find the ones we would base our worldview of the game on.

Gems like...

"It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule books upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players."

And...

"Cooperate with the Dungeon Master and respect his decisions… Be prepared to accept his decision as final."

Or...

"THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN."

I do believe that Gygax said enough things along the same lines with regard to his hopes for how people would play it (freely; rulings over rules) and the spirit of the game for people to discern his true feelings on it.

Obviously, that in no way implies that anyone today needs to view D&D the way Gygax did, but I think there's more than enough corroborative material for historians (like us) to understand how Gary really felt about it.

 

[The Soloist]

As wargamers who played hex & chits games before AD&D 1e, we did play a few sessions with weapon speed, weapon vs armor and segments, etc. It was decided by the group to drop speed and armor modifiers becaused it slowed the game too much and killed the immersion but we kept round segments and spell components. Playing BX before AD&D did influence our decision.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

OK, that might be how a modern adult with the benefit of hindsight views Gygax, but I don't think the 15-year-olds I was playing 1e with were that profound.

Of course, when you're 15 years old, you are both incredibly shallow while also believing that you're deeper than the Marinas Trench. NO ONE CAN FEEL AS DEEPLY AS ME!

We definitely were not peeling back layers of the onion that is Gary. I wish, but we were just picking and choosing from among his many contradictory gems to find the ones we would base our worldview of the game on.

I translated High Gygaxian into, "RESPEKT MAH AUTHORITAH!"

Or, as Gygax might put it, "As ultimate arbiter of the world, the rules, and, perforce, all that is wholesome and benefitting the weal of society, you might on occasion encounter players who will find more enjoyment in spoiling a game than playing it, thus ruining the fun for the rest of the participants. Such a consummation of foolish desire is to be prevented. The more intelligent players who are prone to pout or to use use the books as a defense when you rule against them should be excluded from the campaign with extreme prejudice. The less intelligent players who disrupt the campaign regardless of the obvious consequences you inflict upon them will soon remove themselves from play in any event, for their own ineptness will serve to have players or monsters or traps finish them off."