Has anyone went back to 1E AD&D from 3E?

[SableWyvern]

There most definitely is not!

2e was a step forward. Not enough of a step forward, but a step forward. Biggest, most important improvement: most of UA nixed, along with the bizarro bard and freebie psionics! Speed factor was baffling in 1e, and there were steps towards relaxing the stifling level limit rules (before finally booting them altogether in 3e). The proficiency system became standardized and gave you a little room to customize your character. Likewise with the theif skill system and cleric spheres. Finally, S&P were the first intimations towards true character flexibility.

How dare you knock my beloved 1e Bard?

HOW DARE YOU?

As I've said before, the original and still the best PrC.

 

[Psion]

It is much more difficult to make changes to 3e combat because there are more rules built into the system that are based on the fundamental assumptions of the game mechanics. How can you streamline combat to get the speed of 1e?

What is so slow about 3e?

Get rid of miniatures? That makes tracking flanking and attacks of opportunity very difficult. Get rid of attacks of opportunity? You are destroying a great number of the feats in the game, crippling all melee oriented characters, and probably breaking other obscure rules that you won't even discover until you stumble upon them.

not at all. I run small melees all the time without miniatures, and flanking et al are still viable opportunities merely by using DM judgement. If a player has one of those feats and they want to use them, all they have to say is "can I flank this guy" and usually I'll kick out something like "if you take a move action this round" or somesuch.

It's NOT complicated. Minis in 3e are really quite optional. I usually only use minis for large battles where it would get confusing or to prevent the "chaotic everywhere" players from taking hold. Which are the exact same reason I used them in 1e.

There are also more rules to deal with, and if you choose to use supplements they are spread throughout a dozen different books. You can memorize them, sure, but there's more to memorize since there are now more combat options, feats, unique prestige class abilities, etc.

Yup. That's the tradeoff. Bland "I swing/you hit" combat and characters versus details. As I fail to see the details as all that complicated, I consider what little more I have to remember as a small problem at best. And I consider bits like 1e speed factors and armor modifiers harder to remember than AoOs or any comparable mechanic in 3e.

Personally, I still prefer 3e, but I do think that 3e both gained and lost some things by adding the extra layers of complexity that it did. 1e was more rules-light.

Yes and no. You can do more in 3e, but it uses a single underlying core system instead of one system for attack rolls, one for saves, one for theif skills, one for surprise, one for initiative, etc. Dealing with different subsystems is just as telling as the added details in 3e. And the added details in 3e give you more as you aren't so busy reinventing the wheel.

 

[Storm Raven]

I don't think that this argument is invalid. Take combat, for example. If you got rid of weapon vs. armor, weapon speed, re-rolling initiative, and didn't use miniatures in 1e, combat just flies by. It's incredibly fast.

I think it is invalid for demonstrating that 1e/2e were really good game systems. If you have to discard half of the combat system before it is playable, that's not much of a systm from my perspective.

It is much more difficult to make changes to 3e combat because there are more rules built into the system that are based on the fundamental assumptions of the game mechanics. How can you streamline combat to get the speed of 1e? Get rid of miniatures? That makes tracking flanking and attacks of opportunity very difficult. Get rid of attacks of opportunity? You are destroying a great number of the feats in the game, crippling all melee oriented characters, and probably breaking other obscure rules that you won't even discover until you stumble upon them. There are also more rules to deal with, and if you choose to use supplements they are spread throughout a dozen different books. You can memorize them, sure, but there's more to memorize since there are now more combat options, feats, unique prestige class abilities, etc.

Having played both, I prefer 3e's combat to the 1e/2e version tremendously. I also don't think the 3e system is any more complicated than the 1e/2e system even if you dump those elements of the 1e/2e system that you advocate. Try unarmed combat in 1e. Try some psionic combat in 1e. Those are just two of the immensely annoying things to deal with in the 1e rules.

Besides, I haven't wanted to muck with the 3e combat system, I can play it as it is presented, unlike the 1e/2e system where I had to ignore or modify several rules sections to make the thing playable.

1e was more rules-light.

Only to the extent that if you ignored a bunch of the 1e rules you had a relatively rules light system. Unless, of course, you wanted to grapple, overbear or pummel someone. God help you then.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I have every 1e book so there is no way I'd bother with Hackmaster. I never felt there was any problem with 1e rules.

Neither does HackMaster, really.

Anyone who loves 1e would likely enjoy HM. It's worth looking at.

As to switching back to 1e...well, maybe I'll just go back to playing Cops 'n' Robbers.

 

[Neqroteqh]

Nope. If I were not using 3e I would probably break out the old Rules Cyclopedia for a game of BD&D.

The Rules Cyclopedia!

The other day, I payed a visit to my favorite used bookshop, and what did I find on their shelves but two copies of the old Cyclopedia. Since they were only $7 each, I picked myself up a copy.

Although 3rd edition is superior in almost every significant way, there are a few interesting features of the old game:

1. Everything in one book! No monster manual, no DMG... you had everything you needed to play from 1st to 36th level in a single tome. Hint, hint, WotC (Okay, they've given us Star Wars and Wheel of Time in a single book, I'll concede that one)

2. The book included several features that haven't been covered in detail in any 3E product I've seen yet- Stronghold design and construction, ruling nations, and mass combat. Hopefully the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook, the High-Level Handbook, and AEG's War book will rectify this situation, but until then, if any of my PC's want to add General, Baron, or Lord Defender to their name- I'll be pulling out the Cyclopedia. In all honesty, the stronghold construction system jives with the economics of 3E better than the prices listed in the DMG (300,000-500,000 GP for a huge castle seems more on target than 1,000,000 GP, for instance), the rules for governing fiefs have few game mechanics (but converting the GP values for taxation to SP values seems to make more sense), and the mass combat rules are easily converted to 3rd (with some interesting twists- I'd add bonuses for units in which most of the soldiers have adventurer class levels, scrap the bonus for all-elf and all-dwarf units, and roleplay out PC actions in the battles).

 

[JeffB]

My group actually gave up on 3E. We are a bunch of old farts and other than the sleaker mechanics, we just could not get into all the modifiers/options/exceptions/rules/ etc. For us 3E could use the treatment others talk about giving 1E. Take out about half the rules and the game becomes simple and fun.

I would rather run the oiginal game (brown books + supplements) anyday, or the early B/X sets games. IMO, it's much easier to add and modify those versions than it is to 3E, which is so structured and matter of fact that modifying the game really can screw it up.

We went to playing WW's Exalted after the failed 3E campaign and have had a blast. Simple, easy to follow rules that aren't built w/ wargaming and/or minatures in mind (and yes I realize the original game was based on miniatures, however it's less defined rules did not require, or make the game harder to run w/out them, like 3E)

Personally, I think 3E should have been done like the D20 Wheel of Time game, which IMO keeps all the great things about the D20/3E system w/out all the complicated mess. I will be starting a D20 game soon using the WoT book, and only glancing at the 3E books for things like monsters/treasure.

JeffB

 

[Altalazar]

I have seen postings in the local hobby store looking for 1E players. It has been up there a LOOOOONG time. And this is on MSU campus, so there are plenty of gamers around.

Personally, I could never go back. The closest I could come would be to play Hackmaster, and that would be a more beer-and-pretzels kind of game. I will eventually get the books to that when I have the extra cash.

You just can't go back to 1E. I did play 1E and 2E at the same time, but they were much closer together in systems.

 

[cildarith]

We've given up on 3E also. Probably go back to Rolemaster, but if we want to play D&D in the future it will be 1st edition.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

What I miss about 1e was the simplicity and speed. We ignored weapon speed factor and weapon vs. armor to-hit modifiers and boy was combat quick and simple. Now it just takes forever and all of the complicated parts are built into the rules, like flanking, spring attack, and other feats and such, so it's difficult to streamline combat. It seems like, because of this, sessions get fairly bogged down whenever a fight starts. There are also more rules debates, since the rules are now much more numerous, and much more complicated.

Right! Why I ever put those in still mystifies me--for the sake of combat buffs, I suppose, although that "small bit" wasn't suffienent.

Damme if I didn't again put in weapon speed into the LEJENDARY ADVENTURE game system, and I ignore it too, although it is okay for more detailed initiave determination.

Gary

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I love this sort of defense of 1e/2e.

"1e (or 2e) was great! If you just ignored weapon vs. armor type modifiers, weapon speed, demihuman level limits, added house rules allowing for a skill system and removing the restrictions on what races could be what classes, and monkeyed around with a couple dozen other things it was a great game!"

Apparently 1e/2e was a better game because, if you ignored half the rules and added a bunch of house rule patches, the game worked okay.

Well said.

I call it the "1e/2e rules are better because all the mechanics are so stupid that they are easy to customize" argument.

I can perfectly understand finding 3e too complicated for someone's taste. But it is just nostalgia-based bias to claim it is easier to customize the 1e/2e vs. 3e.

If you rip out AoOs, reach, a few Feats, a few spells, and shave down the xp awards you basically have old style D&D except you have a decent skill system and playable Rogues. If you don't like those features you can always toss them as well.

As far as game balance is concerned, doctoring 3e is a non-issue; if you liked 1e/2e you have proven that you can handle mechanics that do not support game balance.