D&D 1E Giving an AD&D feel to 5e

[Snarf Zagyg]

Everybody brings up UA and no one mentions the Thief-Acrobat...

The thief-acrobat was one of those concepts that sounded great, and you wanted to be great, but was terrible.

Weirdly, everything else in UA was total power creep, but the T-A was actually underpowered, and considering it was based on the Thief ...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'd push back and say those are two different types of restriction. Codification of rules will restrict the options open to the character, but the overall balance of authority still swings towards the player.

Yeah I was trying very hard to think of a counter-example to this, but even 3E, which massively felt like a nerf for most martials, imho, because it added countless rules which made them weaker, not stronger, still overall shifted power from the DM to the players.

 

[TwoSix]

HOWEVER, the player who relies on mashing B will only mash B. Will they try to do the damage of a disarm? Will they aim a blow for the head to know the enemy unconscious? Will they try and bash the target over the cliff?

You quickly lose the ... Arneson-ian freedom of play (even if it is negotiated) in favor of a constrained certainty. "I do d6 damage, and nothing else. I can't open that lock, because I'm not a thief. I cannot create a new spell because there isn't a rule for it. Etc."

I'm not ignoring that there's an important distinction here; I've played and enjoyed both types of games. But I think you're skipping over the freedom of not being able to be told "No" when you declare what you do. When you cast a spell, the DM can counterspell, or possibly enforce some narrative limitation on it, but they can't say "that spell doesn't work right now", and that's very liberating. (There's a reason I always play spellcasters in D&D.)

There's a reason that every edition after OD&D moved in the direction of more player choices and more codification, and it was because the market wanted games that provided players more tools to realize their character vision and to have more say as to what happens at the table.

 

[Greg K]

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that this is a classic Gygax/Arneson issue- wherein one side might want more and more codification (thereby making it more war-gamey and more ascertainable), and the other wanting it more free and improvisational.

Except that, according to Skip Williams, he (Skip) was largely influential in the move toward codification. In interviews, Skip stated that Gygax, originally, did not want more rules codification- it was many players that wanted them. D&D players would call both Gary's house and TSR asking for rules clarifications and how to handle situations not covered. Gary and many others at TSR employees did not understand why players were calling. To Gary and many TSR employees, the players calling missed the point that individual DMs should be deciding those answers themselves. Furthermore, Skip as a player, had a strong preference for games with codified rules, wanted more rules codification for D&D, and talked Gary into the benefits of rules codification (including for organized play and tournaments which Gary was already interested in pursuing).

We also know from Gary's post 3e release interviews on this site and elsewhere, that his preferred edition to run (at least in later years) was OD&D with the three orignal booklets and a few house rules on character generation. Even when running AD&D, he states that he ignored several of the rules which were, originally, included at the behest of his players (I am not clear if this was always the case or something that happened with time).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm not ignoring that there's an important distinction here; I've played and enjoyed both types of games. But I think you're skipping over the freedom of not being able to be told "No" when you declare what you do. When you cast a spell, the DM can counterspell, or possibly enforce some narrative limitation on it, but they can't say "that spell doesn't work right now", and that's very liberating. (There's a reason I always play spellcasters in D&D.)

There's a reason that every edition after OD&D moved in the direction of more player choices and more codification, and it was because the market wanted games that provided players more tools to realize their character vision and to have more say as to what happens at the table.

Oh. No. I don't agree with what you stated in the last bit. Far from it.

Instead, I would say that the following things can be true:

A. The evolution of different TTRPGs has occurred, such that there are various alternatives for more narrative and unstructured play. These games can exist with various levels of determining "authority" between the participants at the table.

B. The concentration of authority in the DM (GM, referee) tends to be pronounced in D&D for multiple historical reasons; it is entirely possible to play D&D in a rules-lite manner without that specific devolution of authority.

C. The primary direction of codification of rules, ESPECIALLY player-facing rules, has to do (in 3e on, although you could argue starting with the 2e kits) with selling more books, to more players, because that's where the money is. It's a larger consumer base than just DMs. And if you make chargen its own mini-game, you can make more money.

So I would strongly disagree with the last part of your statement.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Except that, according to Skip Williams, he (Skip) was largely influential in the move toward codification. In interviews, Skip stated that Gygax, originally, did not want more rules codification- it was many players that wanted them. D&D players would call both Gary's house and TSR asking for rules clarifications and how to handle situations not covered. Gary and many others at TSR employees did not understand why players were calling. To Gary and many TSR employees, the players calling missed the point that individual DMs should be deciding those answers themselves. Furthermore, Skip as a player, had a strong preference for games with codified rules, wanted more rules codification for D&D, and talked Gary into the benefits of rules codification (including for organized play and tournaments which Gary was already interested in pursuing).

We also know from Gary's post 3e release interviews on this site and elsewhere, that his preferred edition to run (at least in later years) was OD&D with the three orignal booklets and a few house rules on character generation. Even when running AD&D, he states that he ignored several of the rules which were, originally, included at the behest of his players (I am not clear if this was always the case or something that happened with time).

Mmm.

1. I think it is inarguable that Gary played with less rules than we see now, even though he liked making them (see also, Cyborg Commando).

2. I think it is also inarguable that I originally set this up as Gygax/Arneson, and Gary definitely was more into codification than Dave was.

3. Finally, Gary was often confused by what the players wanted. "Why would they want modules?" "Why would they want a campaign setting?" "Boy, it seems weird that the whole 'turn undead' thing took off, huh?"

 

[TwoSix]

C. The primary direction of codification of rules, ESPECIALLY player-facing rules, has to do (in 3e on, although you could argue starting with the 2e kits) with selling more books, to more players, because that's where the money is. It's a larger consumer base than just DMs. And if you make chargen its own mini-game, you can make more money.

So I would strongly disagree with the last part of your statement.

Sure, but why do player-facing rules sell better? If they didn't provide utility to the players, then they wouldn't sell so well. And I'd argue that utility is providing the players leverage to make statements in play.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Sure, but why do player-facing rules sell better?

Because .... wait for it ... I know you're going to like this ....

There are more players.

If there are more players than DMs, then there is a larger market for the product.

 

[TwoSix]

Because .... wait for it ... I know you're going to like this ....

There are more players.

If there are more players than DMs, then there is a larger market for the product.

That still puts you in the position that players continue to buy things that are actively detrimental to providing them with more options at the table, as opposed to just asking the DM for whatever they want. Which seems strange!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That still puts you in the position that players continue to buy things that are actively detrimental to providing them with more options at the table, as opposed to just asking the DM for whatever they want. Which seems strange!

Not really.

Once that particular battle was lost in D&D, say, by the mid-80s at the latest, it makes perfect sense.

In other words, once you have resigned yourself to only doing what is explicitly allowed in the rules, then it also makes sense that you will pay money to give yourself additional rules options.

It's almost beautiful, isn't it? It's capitalism, distilled to its essence. Restrict your freedom, sell it back to you piece by piece, and make you grateful for being able to buy it.