Explaining AD&D1 to new D&D3 players

[Voneth]

"Okay let me get this straight ... Only humans can multiclass, but it is called dual classing becuase you can only have two classes. ... Which class is his favored class? And 'demihumans' basicly apprentice class through out their whole career, but they have limits to those classes and they are also banned from certain classes like cleric and Wizard. ... Are you sure this isn't just a house rule because you're too cheap to buy Decipher's LOTR game?"

I always thought demihumans should dual class and humans multiclass to show the difference between focused lifestyles vs versitility. You can almost smell that dual classing was thought up later and then the "logic" came up second. Classic old school

But hey, I'll live with 3e's multiclass rules

 

[Henry]

I have not yet introduced any gamers to 1st or 2nd edition after 3E has been released, but the hardest thing I would have to explain, in my estimation, would be the restrictions that did not have any solid plausible basis. (The ones mentioned about why monks don't get DEX, why rangers don't travel in more than 3's, why a fighter can't get followers before 9th level, etc. all come to mind first.)

However, were 1E the game we started out with, I doubt I would have any questions at all. Why?

First, because it's still FUN. 1E is still D&D (and some people argue still the best edition). And the flush we first feel when we play is more than enough to cover inconsistencies, problems and the like.

Second, because of inexperience with the game - most people assume that a game HAS a set of arbitrary rules that guide the game - it's called a GAME, after all. And, as some of the posters have argued over at the Dragonsfoot boards, People don't go around arguing how unrealistic and inconsistent Monopoly is. You don't have people crying for errata for Monopoly rules for downturning economies, home insurance premiums, and fluctuating property values due to street crime and nuclear waste disposal.

(Although it would make for one HECK of a set of house rules. )

However, once gamers understand the point that D&D is a different type of game, and more of a pseudo-world simulation, they start wanting more out of their games. They've played it many times, and they want to alter the rules sets. For gamers who want more out of their games, they must extend the base rules in some way. Some say do it through house rules, others say do it through editing and revising the rules set - Hence, the creation of the 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons game.

Hence, the HUGE body of house rules surrounding D&D, in ALL its editions. Even die-hard 1E and 2E fans, it's still rare to find someone who plays STRICTLY by the books, with no omissions or additions whatsoever.

But for me to explain 1E to someone who had been exposed to 3E? It's a lot of backtracking, rules wise. You start explaining the outright imposition of restrictions on character choice, versus the trade-off system of checks and balances under core 3E.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

Because you can't

An excellent summation of the entire 1E game design philosophy.

 

[Hawkeye]

"I can only carry 10 magic items as a Paladin?"

"Everyone has the potential for Psionics?"

"Bards are part druid and fighter?"

"So that is what those 2 d10s are for besides damage."

"I have to use a chart everytime I want to hit something and its a different chrat for every class?"

"Rangers have d8 hit dice, but get 2d8 at first level?

 

[Dagger75]

Remember fighters had to take a proficiency in long sword to swing a sword. He had to take a prof to use any weapon, but they did get a lot.

1 thing I never really under stood, 2 Weapon Profs to specialize for a melee weapon and 3 weapon prof to specialize for a bow.


I used to rely on those chances for the dragons to be asleep.

"Yeah we walked into the dragons lair. I was scared. There was this huge rumbling kinda like thunder. We walked further into the cave and there sleeping on 4 scrolls, 200 gold and a magic arrow was the Ancient Red Wyrm dragon asleep. We walked up and cut off his head." Regnor The Paladin
BADD would have a hissy fit if they saw this

Humans were still able to multicalss- it was called Dual class. I am fighter, now I am wizard.
What do you mean I can't use my sword, I have been using it for 10 level. I won't get xp if I use my sword. When I get to use my again? 11th LEVEL!!!!!!!

Wizard- I want to scribe a scroll. It will take 6 months 10000gp in special inks!! Better let the NPC wizards make the scrolls.

Also I was afraid to walk around towns at night, all those liches and rakasta. Those prostitutes must be tough cookies to stand out there.

Thats what I remeber of 1st AD&D

 

[Allanon]

I think the difference between 3e and 1e is just the feel of the books, the way they smell (sit down! no fart jokes till i'm done), the art (especially the full page stuff and the covers - loved that in 2e).

I've heard it said that the 1e DMG is probably the most usefull and chock full of info of the 3 (4?) editions of D&D DMGs. From what I've seen I think I agree. One of the things about 1e is that it seems to have so much content derived from our own world's histories and myths. 3e seems bland and generic in a comparison of that kind of content. Just the cover of the DMG alone makes me want to boil my current campaign down to the gleefull dungeon crawl evoked there.

That's one thing I think most people will agree one, If they do ever make a kinda "special extended version" 3rd edition re-release of the core books, they should look to the 1e edition books for inspiration. The full page artwork and the fact that they're were mini-comics which explained stuff is just brilliant and would definitely be worth buying.

 

[Henry]

BADD would have a hissy fit if they saw this

DAG-NABBIT! THAT DM SHOULD BE SHOT!!!!

Humans were still able to multicalss- it was called Dual class. I am fighter, now I am wizard.
What do you mean I can't use my sword, I have been using it for 10 level. I won't get xp if I use my sword. When I get to use my again? 11th LEVEL!!!!!!!

To be fair, there WAS a choice involved - you COULD fall back on your old skills - but you got no experience for the current advanture, and only HALF until you made next level. It wasn't a GOOD choice - but it was a choice.

Also I was afraid to walk around towns at night, all those liches and rakasta. Those prostitutes must be tough cookies to stand out there.

That was rakshasa, not rakasta. But, all I can say is, if your character ever called on the services of the "world's oldest profession," then you'd better PAY THE BILL!

 

[Felon]

Second, because of inexperience with the game - most people assume that a game HAS a set of arbitrary rules that guide the game - it's called a GAME, after all. And, as some of the posters have argued over at the Dragonsfoot boards, People don't go around arguing how unrealistic and inconsistent Monopoly is. You don't have people crying for errata for Monopoly rules for downturning economies, home insurance premiums, and fluctuating property values due to street crime and nuclear waste disposal.

I don't want beleaguer the obvious here, but there are some unflattering connotations to comparing AD&D to Monopoly. Certainly most people had outgrown the latter game by the time they turned 13.

(Although it would make for one HECK of a set of house rules. )

Speaking of Monopoly and house rules, I've always thought it mildly interesting that wherever Monopoly is a well-known game, you will likely find a house rule about collecting money from landing on Free Parking. That particular meme predates the existence of the Internet by a good many years.

 

[WSmith]

Speaking of Monopoly and house rules, I've always thought it fairly interesting that wherever Monopoly is a well-known game, you will likely find a house rule about collecting money from landing on Free Parking. That particular meme predates the existence of the Internet by a good many years.

In my house rules, landing on Free Parking provokes an Attack of Opportunity.

 

[Felon]

To what, ignorance? To not really being able to justify arbitrary rules that give no mechanical feedback for many fluff related questions and more importantly, gameplay? A 'system' that really doesn't deserve the name? I can't count the number of fallacies. As oppossed to justifying apparently inane rules, he basically questioned a gamer's intelligence because he doesn't wish to put up with mechanics which are simply crude my modern standards. Tell me if I'm missing something.

Well, I largely agree with your response. I have to say that I don't find much insight in Lylanthwol's remarks, just an affirmation that many of AD&D's core rules were rather obtuse.

Having said, your reply surprises me. In a past thread, you staunchly defended the anachronistic hit point system, which you once described as "pretty much perfect" despite the fact that it has undergone negligible revisions throughout the years, and thus could be deemed to be just as "arbitrary", "inane", and "crude" as it was back in 1e. Please clarify. Do you feel that it is exempt from your aforementioned assessment of AD&D?