Explaining AD&D1 to new D&D3 players

[MeepoTheMighty]

Yet ironically enough (as far as this thread is concerned anyway), there is no D&D verison of Monopoly. I don't suppose Hasbro owns Parker Brothers...?

Hasbro does own Parker Brothers, and there's a D&D version of Clue.

Heh heh. Just like your average game of monopoly, this discussion is won when everyone else gets sick of playing.

Monopoly is such a boring game if you have more than one person who knows how to play. Just buy everything you can get your hands on, and refuse to trade away ANY property. Wow, strategy.

That said, the wheelbarrow is by far the coolest piece. That way you have something to tote around your phat lewt in

 

[drakhe]

When I got introduced to the older books (2e and 1e) there were two things I found rather strange.

I generaly found the older material to be more verbal, the latter more abstract. I guess that's WOTC applying the "rules creating skills" they developed with stuff like M:TG and Pokemon. (btw: I like both aproaches, I like my rules clean and abstract, but I also like lotsa prose surrounding my abstract rules to explain how these rules aply to the gaming world)

Secondly, I personaly found that the difference in rules and also the difference in how the rules are presented make for a different game (or at least the way the game is played). This actualy made me look at other rules systems.

take for instance DnD3E, WFRP and L5R. Three totaly different systems:

DnD3E: D20+modifier >= target
WFRP: D% all the way
L5R: improved skills give you more dice to roll

I've played in games based on these three mechanics and I found each system gives a certain flavor, it's hard to discribe.

Maybe this will make it clear: it's as subtle as using regular salt or sea salt.

 

[jasamcarl]

Oops. I feel like such a doap! I'm just glad that I haven't resorted to ad homonym remarks heh heh



Well, I do wonder why one would dismiss other archaic 1e mechanics as arbitrary or crude, yet stand fast by the contention that these labels do not apply to the all-or-nothing "fine or dead" mechanics of hit points. Certainly there are more robust alternative systems that allow for a more compelling, cinematic representation of damage (e.g. characters getting momentarily stunned, knocked out but not dying, dying slowly over a long period of time, given a severe limp that hinders movement, etc.). To each their own, of course. Merely curious.

Your reference to other systems is funny in the context of my 'slippery sloap' comment. The problem with other damage mechanics that do not have a unified measure of how sustainable a character is is that they favor those who make the first hit. By differentiating between body parts, when a character takes damage, it does not simply remove the ability of that character to sustain future hits, but also the number of alternative strategies that character has to pursue. One side sees their number of viable strategies multiply while the other enters the 'slippery sloap' to defeat.

The hitpoint mechanic allows for a more balanced battle in which both sides sustain choices to the very end. And your first three examples are funny, give that 3e has allowances for most either in the inherent combat mechanics or through feats.

Oh well.