Going Back in Time...AD&D

[Jhaelen]

Yup, if someone posts their opinion that they enjoyed 1e because they felt that it is simpler than 3e or 4e, you can count on a whole bunch of people to show up, point out some really obscure 1e rules, tell them they played 1e wrong, and that if they played 1e correctly, they would have realized how much it sucks. This is referred to as "mythbusting".

I haven't noticed anyone saying that the game would suck if played correctly. All I'm seeing here is a bunch of grognards jumping at every excuse to promote their 'one true system' because they have an unreasonable hate for everything new on this planet.

Just looking at your xp comment, I immediately got this 'nazi-gamer' vibe:
You take the tidbit that supports your opinion and use it to 'prove' that your views are the only correct ones and the source of all that is good while everything else is bad.
It's disgusting.

Bullgrit (and others) have been most reasonable in their responses and I didn't get any sense of an attempt to 'bash' 1e.

(Someone please give Bullgrit some xp for his reasonable posts here!)

See, I've been playing AD&D 1e for years and spent a lot of time and effort into houseruling it until it represented the game I enjoyed playing. I'd hardly have done that if I thought it súcked. Of course it's a fun system - but it's not without its flaws, just like 4e has its flaws. Why can't we all just get along?!

 

[Scribble]

Setting notwithstanding, the mechanics of Vampire: The Masquerade didn't actually encourage angsty self-exploration mode. They encouraged... well, pretty much exactly what you describe. The system was a munchkin's wet dream.

Maybe- but the same was pretty much true in every game we played at the time, no matter what system. They just looked for a fight.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Combat was very fun as it moved quickly. Sure, with 10 guys, a typical battle took about 30 minutes, but almost every stayed focused.

When you say "10 guys," do you mean you had 10 players, or 10 PCs + NPCs, or 10 combatants, total? (Or something else.) Just curious.

My games have been getting larger, lately. A think the average party size (PCs + NPCs) is probably around 8, but a couple sessions ago the players took a party of 12 into the dungeon. At the North TX RPG Con, last weekend, my session filled up to the max of 9 players; it took me a few minutes to get used to handling that many players. (Although that was OD&D, rather than AD&D.) I think Matt Finch ran a table of 15 players for one of his games (Matt's games were pretty popular at the con). I think 15 is over-the-top, for me.

 

[Dausuul]

In response to the OP... I did something like this a while back. When Gary Gygax died, I broke out my BECMI rulebooks and we played a session of Classic D&D. It went very fast and everyone had a blast; several players stated they preferred BECMI to 3E. And this, mind you, was a group that (except for me) had never played anything previous to D&D 3.5.

It's this sort of thing that makes me think seriously about joining the Old-School Revival. But there are features in 4E that I really like (the ritual system, improved game balance, at-wills for casters, et cetera) and don't want to give up. Ah well, time to bust out the house rules...

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, actually - there's a section saying that a character that is reduced to fewer than 0 hit points is basically bedridden until they've had a significant rest... and goes on to talk about the potential of scarring. It must be in the discussion of the "death at -10" 'optional' rule.

Spot on.

Remember when we were having that discussion on how the meaning of damage and/or healing had/had not changed between 1e and 4e?

This was a significant change.

I used to use this rule back in the day for most games; it meant that there was a reason to heal up before you were dropped. It also helped model the source literature; esp. some of Howard's stuff.

Yup, if someone posts their opinion that they enjoyed 1e because they felt that it is simpler than 3e or 4e, you can count on a whole bunch of people to show up, point out some really obscure 1e rules, tell them they played 1e wrong, and that if they played 1e correctly, they would have realized how much it sucks. This is referred to as "mythbusting".

Interesting.

Someone makes claims that are false. They then use those false claims to make comparisons to something else. But, we're never, ever supposed to comment on it. We're just supposed to let it go and accept that their "facts" are gospel and their interpretations are rock solid.

I'll have to remember that one.

I can understand both of these points of view.

1e was intentionally modular, with specific instructions to the DM to use what he felt was right, while not using other materials. D&D up to 3e (at least) was intended to be similarly modular. I am not sure how modular 4e is intended to be, but I suspect that it is modular in use if not in theory.

It is no more "wrong" to use 1e without using a particular rule than it is to use 4e without forcing CAGI or "Healing" Surges to be interpretted literally. Likewise, it is problematic to pan 4e for the above (etc) without also accepting similar criticism of 1e.

In either event, I doubt that it is too far out to suggest that any ruleset will encourage what it rewards. If the key to victory is mechanical, it will encourage mechanical thinking. If the key to victory is description, it will encourage descriptive thinking. If they key to victory is X, it will encourage X in its players.

Seems common-sensical to me.

In fact, it doesn't even make sense since it would be unlikely you'd want to adjust the same rules from system to system given the game has not actually remained zee same.

Agreed. This seems very obvious to me.



RC

 

[Mark]

Speaking of disingenuous, this argument is an excellent example. Not keeping up with the latest errata is very different from instituting your own house rules. If you play by the rules in the book in front of you, you're playing "rules as written."

As was pointed out, many of the rules that got dropped as part of house ruling an earlier game of 1E were dropped in official versions of the game, too (weapon speeds, for instance). It's virtually the same thing as what happens these days with the DDI. To claim otherwise and to try and invalid any discussion of game versions on that basis is foolish. Your strict definition of RAW as being a literal construct denies the reality. In fact, since many of the rules changes of the current version aren't even in the most recent printings of the books, then it is unlikely anyone who uses the DDI actual plays RAW, which makes my point.

 

[Dausuul]

As was pointed out, many of the rules that got dropped as part of house ruling an earlier game of 1E were dropped in official versions of the game, too (weapon speeds, for instance). It's virtually the same thing as what happens these days with the DDI. To claim otherwise and to try and invalid any discussion of game versions on that basis is foolish. Your strict definition of RAW as being a literal construct denies the reality. In fact, since many of the rules changes of the current version aren't even in the most recent printings of the books, then it is unlikely anyone who uses the DDI actual plays RAW, which makes my point.

You misunderstand me. Errata are written rules, too. I'm just saying that if you play by the rules in the book in front of you, no matter how out of date that book may be, that's just as much RAW as playing with the very latest errata fresh from the WotC website.

I mean, if playing with the latest official rules/errata is required to play RAW, then the only edition for which RAW even exists is 4E.

 

[the Jester]

The same basic rule was ported over into 2e, though listed as an optional rule (meaning a hard-assed DM might decide to play the game as 0 hp = dead). The way I understand, the 1e rule wasn't optional. And yeah, I never paid much attention to the whole rest and recovery stuff myself, though honestly I DMed a lot more 3e than 2e.

For the record, in 1e, the default is "0 hit points = dead" and the -10 rule was an option mentioned in the DMG.

 

[the Jester]

Oh, and can we stop the stupid slap fight and get on with the thread, please?

 

[coyote6]

Zero Hit Points:
[...]
Such loss and death are caused from bleeding, shock, convulsions, non-respiration, and similar causes. It ceases immediately on any round a friendly creature administers aid to the unconscious one. Aid consists of [...] administering a draught (spirits
[...]

So a guy torn up by a fearsome troll gets dropped to negative hp, and giving him a slug of whiskey can stabilize him and keep him from bleeding out.

That is awesome.

I never quite grasped that when I was a kid, reading the DMG. And nobody ever used that means of stabilization.

We may now return to our regularly scheduled edition war...