Philotomy Jurament
First Post
That's one of the few things that I don't like in JG material. I typically change that to fit my concept of level scales and leveled vs. non-leveled characters.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
How did pre-3E D&D "play"?
- Thread starter Khuxan
- Start date
Henry
Autoexreginated
That's no mean feat, unless that Fighter had an armor class of -8 or higher -- Fire Giants are TOUGH customers in 1e!
One thing about pre-3E editions that I did like is the economy of numbers in that version. Even at high levels, you mostly weren't dealing with armor classes and hit points so high that juggling them became tedious over many combats. In the 1E demo games I've been running for years, the ACs have hovered around 5 to -2, and the hit points for even fighters rarely went over 100 hit points (more like 50 to 80). 1e had its problems going over 10th level, though, and it showed, as the game initially started out scaling only over about levels 1 to 6 or so.
I'll get shot for this, but 1E feels to me like it played, in terms of combat, like 4e -- fights usually lasting 4 to 10 rounds, damage usually anywhere from 5 to 15 points per hit, monsters taking anywhere from 1 hit (for the 1 Hit dice peons) to 3 to 5 hits for the higher beasties to die. 1 Hit dice peons were even better hitters than they were in 3e, because even 1 HD monsters started with a THACO of 17 -- in other words, they were useful for longer than just 1st level as opposition without even being modified. Also, since THACOS for all PCS were a bit lower than for 3E, their ACs stayed useful for a few more levels.
One difference is that Mages were the real strikers of the game -- albeit limited time strikers, and the conventional wisdom I grew up with was "rationing" rather than "nova-ing", because of fear of random encounters and such.
Rolling 3d6 in order for each ability score Playing AD&D (1e and 2e), my groups almost never did this. Other editions, however, we have. (And these days, I might be inclined to do it in AD&D as well.)
The style of play in my groups, however, tends to favor player skill over mechanics. (Part of which is the players figuring out how to minimize the effect of their PCs’ mechanical disadvantages.) So, ability scores rarely have a huge impact on the game.
Complicated and scattered charts and tables Playing classic (specifically B/X) D&D again, I was struck by how few and simple the mechanics are. You wouldn’t really gain much by unifying them.
AD&D? My groups honestly played it closer to classic D&D than how it was written. We tended to only use a few charts during a session. The charts we used during character creation weren’t scattered.
As a DM prepping, I always found the scattered and complicated charts part of the fun. Sparks to the imagination. With the result rarely used without tweaking.
Races as classes This was honestly one of the reasons I originally abandoned classic D&D for AD&D fairly quickly. Coming back to classic D&D, however, I really like the effect it has. It tends to make demihumans as rare in the party as I expect them to be. Admittedly, this is a personal bias, but having so often played the sole human PC in parties in every game system I’ve played (unless human was the only choice), I find it a refreshing change-of-pace.
And, yes, there are other ways to effect that, but there are other things about race-classes I like.
Weak low-level mages and powerful high-level mages As I’ve said, my groups tend to favor player skill over mechanics. A PC is only useless if its player is useless. Furthermore, the wizards I was used to reading about never did a lot of magic. So, it never seemed so odd for low-level MUs to do the same.
Coming back to classic D&D, the thing I noticed about low-level MUs was that my spells might be fewer than in other games, but they mostly just worked (didn’t require a roll) and were significantly more powerful.
Can’t say that I ever played many high-level MUs. I don’t ever remembered feeling overshadowed by them, though. Just glad they were on my side. Again, this may come back to the fact that mechanics have never been overly important in my groups.
Levelling differently If you ever did start to feel like the MU was getting too powerful, it helped when you gained a level and he didn’t. ^_^ I don’t ever remember this really meaning anything much to us.
Buying guard dogs, henchmen and alchemist's fire instead of fighting Coming up with various schemes that we would like to if we could really go adventuring in a fantasy world—I think that was what D&D was really about to my old group. I don’t think we ever really cared if there were mechanics for something or whether we thought the DM might make it matter despite mechanics. We just enjoyed thinking about things and putting them into action. Alarm systems to use while camping. Approaches to exploring dungeons. How we’d stow our gear. How we’d camp, march, explore, or fight.
Figuring out how to avoid a fight and still accomplish our goals? That’s something my groups have enjoyed in every game I’ve played. Plus, figuring out how to tilt things in our advantage when we can’t avoid a fight.
Regularly dying and being replaced by new characters I don’t know that I’ve ever seen it so common as to be called “regularly”. (Well, maybe in the last T1–4 campaign, but that was 3.5e.) <shrug> Almost all of my PCs that have died have died because I made a poor—naw, an outright bad—decision. Creating new characters is always fun. In any case, I don’t think this has really been very different in any game I’ve played. Except for how long it may take you to get the next character ready.
DM vs. Players, not DM working with players I haven’t found DM vs. players to work well in any system. If we were going to go that way, that might be the one thing that would make me suggest we go with 3e rather than most other systems. In classic D&D, IMHO, the DM has to really listen to the players and not be trying to screw them over (saving that for his NPCs to do) and the players have to be trusting and forgiving of the DM.
Clumsy pastiche of pop culture, pulp fiction and mythology Hated it. Yet when I did embrace it, I found I enjoyed the game a lot more. I’m still doing my best to embrace rather than hate.
Simple game, few options I’ve never felt there were few options. I’ve always felt free to do almost anything and leave it up to the DM to determine the results. Sure, there were limits. (“My first-level fighter grows wings and flies!”) But there were still enough options within those limits to seem unlimited.
There were two things that bothered me. (1) When an increase in a mechanical number by one point made no difference. After years of trying to eliminate that kind of thing, I think I’m mostly over it. I still prefer to match the measuring resolution and the resolving resolution (ouch, I think I just hurt my brain) whenever possible, though.
(2) Not enough covered by the rules at the same level of detail and not “realistic” enough results. After many years of chasing those, I’ve come to prefer higher level abstractions, more rules where I find them fun and less rules where I don’t, and simple mechanics with freedom for the DM to override “bad” results.
Dungeon as an underworld, where every PC cannot see in the dark and every NPC can As the only human in the party, it was more often every PC except me can see in the dark.
Sprawling, nonsensical mega-dungeons For good or ill, I haven’t really experienced one.
Wilderness adventures Can’t really say this has been different in the different games I’ve played. Sometimes the adventure’s underground, sometimes a fortress, sometimes the wilderness, sometimes in the village, sometimes in town.
I only recently tried the “hexploration” style of game.
Invincible overlord Never seen one.
NPCs and PCs follow different rules I don’t think I ever minded monsters following different rules. Although, I did appreciate it whenever monsters did fit the PC rules better. I think I long suffered from trying to make NPCs fit PC rules. Once I accepted that the PC rules weren’t meant to be a general simulation system...well, that was part of more generally moving away from looking for simulation.
Everyone had house rules. This is another, “no different from any other system I’ve played.”
The style of play in my groups, however, tends to favor player skill over mechanics. (Part of which is the players figuring out how to minimize the effect of their PCs’ mechanical disadvantages.) So, ability scores rarely have a huge impact on the game.
Complicated and scattered charts and tables Playing classic (specifically B/X) D&D again, I was struck by how few and simple the mechanics are. You wouldn’t really gain much by unifying them.
AD&D? My groups honestly played it closer to classic D&D than how it was written. We tended to only use a few charts during a session. The charts we used during character creation weren’t scattered.
As a DM prepping, I always found the scattered and complicated charts part of the fun. Sparks to the imagination. With the result rarely used without tweaking.
Races as classes This was honestly one of the reasons I originally abandoned classic D&D for AD&D fairly quickly. Coming back to classic D&D, however, I really like the effect it has. It tends to make demihumans as rare in the party as I expect them to be. Admittedly, this is a personal bias, but having so often played the sole human PC in parties in every game system I’ve played (unless human was the only choice), I find it a refreshing change-of-pace.
And, yes, there are other ways to effect that, but there are other things about race-classes I like.
Weak low-level mages and powerful high-level mages As I’ve said, my groups tend to favor player skill over mechanics. A PC is only useless if its player is useless. Furthermore, the wizards I was used to reading about never did a lot of magic. So, it never seemed so odd for low-level MUs to do the same.
Coming back to classic D&D, the thing I noticed about low-level MUs was that my spells might be fewer than in other games, but they mostly just worked (didn’t require a roll) and were significantly more powerful.
Can’t say that I ever played many high-level MUs. I don’t ever remembered feeling overshadowed by them, though. Just glad they were on my side. Again, this may come back to the fact that mechanics have never been overly important in my groups.
Levelling differently If you ever did start to feel like the MU was getting too powerful, it helped when you gained a level and he didn’t. ^_^ I don’t ever remember this really meaning anything much to us.
Buying guard dogs, henchmen and alchemist's fire instead of fighting Coming up with various schemes that we would like to if we could really go adventuring in a fantasy world—I think that was what D&D was really about to my old group. I don’t think we ever really cared if there were mechanics for something or whether we thought the DM might make it matter despite mechanics. We just enjoyed thinking about things and putting them into action. Alarm systems to use while camping. Approaches to exploring dungeons. How we’d stow our gear. How we’d camp, march, explore, or fight.
Figuring out how to avoid a fight and still accomplish our goals? That’s something my groups have enjoyed in every game I’ve played. Plus, figuring out how to tilt things in our advantage when we can’t avoid a fight.
Regularly dying and being replaced by new characters I don’t know that I’ve ever seen it so common as to be called “regularly”. (Well, maybe in the last T1–4 campaign, but that was 3.5e.) <shrug> Almost all of my PCs that have died have died because I made a poor—naw, an outright bad—decision. Creating new characters is always fun. In any case, I don’t think this has really been very different in any game I’ve played. Except for how long it may take you to get the next character ready.
DM vs. Players, not DM working with players I haven’t found DM vs. players to work well in any system. If we were going to go that way, that might be the one thing that would make me suggest we go with 3e rather than most other systems. In classic D&D, IMHO, the DM has to really listen to the players and not be trying to screw them over (saving that for his NPCs to do) and the players have to be trusting and forgiving of the DM.
Clumsy pastiche of pop culture, pulp fiction and mythology Hated it. Yet when I did embrace it, I found I enjoyed the game a lot more. I’m still doing my best to embrace rather than hate.
Simple game, few options I’ve never felt there were few options. I’ve always felt free to do almost anything and leave it up to the DM to determine the results. Sure, there were limits. (“My first-level fighter grows wings and flies!”) But there were still enough options within those limits to seem unlimited.
There were two things that bothered me. (1) When an increase in a mechanical number by one point made no difference. After years of trying to eliminate that kind of thing, I think I’m mostly over it. I still prefer to match the measuring resolution and the resolving resolution (ouch, I think I just hurt my brain) whenever possible, though.
(2) Not enough covered by the rules at the same level of detail and not “realistic” enough results. After many years of chasing those, I’ve come to prefer higher level abstractions, more rules where I find them fun and less rules where I don’t, and simple mechanics with freedom for the DM to override “bad” results.
Dungeon as an underworld, where every PC cannot see in the dark and every NPC can As the only human in the party, it was more often every PC except me can see in the dark.
Sprawling, nonsensical mega-dungeons For good or ill, I haven’t really experienced one.
Wilderness adventures Can’t really say this has been different in the different games I’ve played. Sometimes the adventure’s underground, sometimes a fortress, sometimes the wilderness, sometimes in the village, sometimes in town.
I only recently tried the “hexploration” style of game.
Invincible overlord Never seen one.
NPCs and PCs follow different rules I don’t think I ever minded monsters following different rules. Although, I did appreciate it whenever monsters did fit the PC rules better. I think I long suffered from trying to make NPCs fit PC rules. Once I accepted that the PC rules weren’t meant to be a general simulation system...well, that was part of more generally moving away from looking for simulation.
Everyone had house rules. This is another, “no different from any other system I’ve played.”
I did this once. It was my first true campaign, back in second edition, and we wanted to do things low powered. We wound up with a great collection of characters who we still talk about to this day. The most notable was Allieta, and elf wizard who didn't have enough dexterity to make the prerequisites to be an elf (even after adjustment). So we came up with a story about how she had been the victim of a magical experiment gone wrong at the hands of her master, and it had sapped her dexterity. It was a great campaign.
Hey, just tonight (the start of a new campaign) I made my players roll their stats randomly and in order.
We got a strong, willful character with the lowest possible comeliness. Answer: A priest of the fire god (and a smith and glass blower). We got a scrawny, tough character who turned out to be a kid. Another character who is an older lady. Another who is a middle-aged fellow (he's dumb but with lots of expertise, so he must be old). And of course our big, dumb brute!
It's a very colorful party. It's probably far more interesting because it's far less sensible and mechanically efficient than if I'd given the players control over their stats.
And it's a fine thing to see the players rise admirably to the challenge. They take what the dice give them and then make it into something cool.
Yes, by 10th level using the 1e DMG treasure tables as written AC -10 was not uncommon. I remember once rolling up +4 full plate unattended in a ca 5th level dungeon, I hid it in a stream. More importantly, statting out high level NPCs using the 1e Adventurer Party generator system they would have tons of protective gear; once the lower level PCs had killed a few such they'd have tons of stuff. Rem that Q1 Queen of the Demonweb Pits where the PCs fight Lolth on her home plane was for 10th-14th level PCs.
I'm pretty sure monster THAC0 was as follows:
hd THACO
1/2 21 - kobold
1-1 20 - goblin
1 19 - orc
1+1 18 - hobgoblin
2-3+ 16 - gnoll, bugbear
4-5+ 15 - ogre
But maybe I misremember. The main thing to note was 2 hd critters had THAC0 16, compared to Fighter-2 THAC0 20.
I agree about rationing rather than nova-ing. I've tried to encourage that in my current 3e campaign.
robconley
Hero
Mythmere's primer on old school gaming is a good place to start
http://stores.lulu.com/mythmere
The basic principles are
1) Rulings, not Rules
2) Player Skill, not Character Abilities
3) Heroic, not Superhero
4) Forget “Game Balance.”
Rob Conley
http://stores.lulu.com/mythmere
The basic principles are
1) Rulings, not Rules
2) Player Skill, not Character Abilities
3) Heroic, not Superhero
4) Forget “Game Balance.”
Rob Conley
Last edited:
Mercule
Adventurer
[*]Rolling 3d6 in order for each ability score.
Rarely used. Always 4d6 -lowest, arrange to taste. I've kinda got a yearning to try the 3d6 in order, though, and really embrace the idea of fate.
[*]Complicated and scattered charts and tables.
Not an issue. The DM learned the rules and the players expected him to know his stuff or be competent enough to keep things moving by winging it. Honestly, other than attack tables, I'm not sure what was table driven in 1e that isn't in 3e.
[*]Races as classes.
I mostly played AD&D, so it wasn't an issue. We had level limits, instead, which were sometimes (and sometimes not) ignored. From what I remember of old D&D, racial classes weren't bad, just inflexible.
[*]Weak low-level mages and powerful high-levle mages.
Magic-users were often played by players who had a certain temperment. The weakness at low levels usually resulted in thoughtful, strategic play (or dead mages).
Also, the specific spells available and the inherent capabilities of fighters to actually fight meant the wizard was expected to manage his resources based on the time the fighters spent adventuring, not the other way around. This was less true at 1st level, though.
[*]Levelling differently.
Not an issue, generally. The only time it was was when a DM would say, "Create 7th level characters for this game." Better DMs tended to base high-level PC creation on XP totals.
[*]Buying guard dogs, henchmen and alchemist's fire instead of fighting.
I don't understand what you're saying, here. Do you mean there was more time spent roleplaying the shopping trip? I suppose that would depend more on the group.
Or do you mean using non-class-based resources in a fight? Because that's just smart. To this day, I expect the party to have a couple of NPCs, animal "companions", and other assorted entourage with them. Worked fine in 3e, and I expect it to work fine in 4e. The only issue is that 3e added a lot of extra book-keeping for the poor DM. It looks like 4e will alleviate some of that, though -- hopefully they don't screw the summoners so that only the fighters have their henchmen helping them, though.
[*]Regularly dying and being replaced by new characters.
Not an issue. I've had multiple times the PC deaths in the eight years I played 3e than in the 15+ I played earlier editions. It's all about the group's dynamics, attitudes, and capabilities.
[*]DM vs. Players, not DM working with players.
3e did introduce a certain amount of adversarial relationship between the DM and players. I think that's inherent in the way the rules were "balanced", though, so it's a matter of taste. Every now and then, I'd get an adversarial player in earlier editions, but they were quickly either cured of that attitude or removed from the group -- usually by the other players.
In 1e, the DM was expressly declared to be referee and arbiter of the game. It took someone with pretty bad social issues to set out to "prove" they were in charge when that was already a given. Even as a geeky ten-year-old, that wasn't a temptation.
[*]Clumsy pastiche of pop culture, pulp fiction and mythology.
No worse than 3e. Probably less so. You could reasonably ditch elements of the rules that didn't fit with your group (monk never featured in my games, for example). The idea that "D&D only seeks to emulate D&D" is something that, AFAIK, only came into being late in 2e and leading up to 3e.
[*]Simple game, few options.
Pure awesome, at least in nostalgia. I know that, when I stopped playing D&D in the early 1990s, one thing that frustrated me was the lack of options. But, looking back, each character, even the fighters, are distinct in my mind. In 3e, despite the choking glut of feats, PrCs, etc., the characters often seem to blur together. Could just be the players, though.
[*]Dungeon as an underworld, where every PC cannot see in the dark and every NPC can.
Unchanged in 3e. Actually, aggravated in 3e, since elves and gnomes get low-light, rather than infravision. In 25 years, though, I only remember it even being an issue once. We put together a stealth-based party for RtToEE. That went poorly.
[*]Sprawling, nonsensical mega-dungeons.
I home-brewed 90% of what I did. Still do. There doesn't seem to be much difference, though, from what I've seen of modules.
[*]Wilderness adventures.
No difference.
[*]Invincible overlord.
Never read.
[*]NPCs and PCs follow different rules.
This was something that really frustrated me in 1e/2e and was probably my biggest issue with the system. Ironically, it's probably my biggest issue with 3e, too, just the other way. I think 4e got the mindset (jury's out on the mechanics) right on this one. PCs should be able to accomplish anything an NPC could, but it's okay to use streamlined stats to represent it.
[*]Several different parallel versions of the game.
I don't understand this one. Do you mean AD&D vs. D&D? Most groups played one or the other -- generally AD&D. No worse than 3e D&D vs. Iron Heroes or AE/AU. Probably easier conversions, actually.
[*]Everyone had house rules.
Yup. That helped to add flavor to every setting. Most often the house rules were in the form of extra (or restricted) classes/races, lifting level limits, relaxing multi-classing, etc. I gave rangers stealth as a thief. All things that were quick and easy to grasp and generally only impacted character generation in obvious ways. There were exceptions, but they were uncommon and the DM was usually cognizant of telling them to new players as needed.
Rarely used. Always 4d6 -lowest, arrange to taste. I've kinda got a yearning to try the 3d6 in order, though, and really embrace the idea of fate.
[*]Complicated and scattered charts and tables.
Not an issue. The DM learned the rules and the players expected him to know his stuff or be competent enough to keep things moving by winging it. Honestly, other than attack tables, I'm not sure what was table driven in 1e that isn't in 3e.
[*]Races as classes.
I mostly played AD&D, so it wasn't an issue. We had level limits, instead, which were sometimes (and sometimes not) ignored. From what I remember of old D&D, racial classes weren't bad, just inflexible.
[*]Weak low-level mages and powerful high-levle mages.
Magic-users were often played by players who had a certain temperment. The weakness at low levels usually resulted in thoughtful, strategic play (or dead mages).
Also, the specific spells available and the inherent capabilities of fighters to actually fight meant the wizard was expected to manage his resources based on the time the fighters spent adventuring, not the other way around. This was less true at 1st level, though.
[*]Levelling differently.
Not an issue, generally. The only time it was was when a DM would say, "Create 7th level characters for this game." Better DMs tended to base high-level PC creation on XP totals.
[*]Buying guard dogs, henchmen and alchemist's fire instead of fighting.
I don't understand what you're saying, here. Do you mean there was more time spent roleplaying the shopping trip? I suppose that would depend more on the group.
Or do you mean using non-class-based resources in a fight? Because that's just smart. To this day, I expect the party to have a couple of NPCs, animal "companions", and other assorted entourage with them. Worked fine in 3e, and I expect it to work fine in 4e. The only issue is that 3e added a lot of extra book-keeping for the poor DM. It looks like 4e will alleviate some of that, though -- hopefully they don't screw the summoners so that only the fighters have their henchmen helping them, though.
[*]Regularly dying and being replaced by new characters.
Not an issue. I've had multiple times the PC deaths in the eight years I played 3e than in the 15+ I played earlier editions. It's all about the group's dynamics, attitudes, and capabilities.
[*]DM vs. Players, not DM working with players.
3e did introduce a certain amount of adversarial relationship between the DM and players. I think that's inherent in the way the rules were "balanced", though, so it's a matter of taste. Every now and then, I'd get an adversarial player in earlier editions, but they were quickly either cured of that attitude or removed from the group -- usually by the other players.
In 1e, the DM was expressly declared to be referee and arbiter of the game. It took someone with pretty bad social issues to set out to "prove" they were in charge when that was already a given. Even as a geeky ten-year-old, that wasn't a temptation.
[*]Clumsy pastiche of pop culture, pulp fiction and mythology.
No worse than 3e. Probably less so. You could reasonably ditch elements of the rules that didn't fit with your group (monk never featured in my games, for example). The idea that "D&D only seeks to emulate D&D" is something that, AFAIK, only came into being late in 2e and leading up to 3e.
[*]Simple game, few options.
Pure awesome, at least in nostalgia. I know that, when I stopped playing D&D in the early 1990s, one thing that frustrated me was the lack of options. But, looking back, each character, even the fighters, are distinct in my mind. In 3e, despite the choking glut of feats, PrCs, etc., the characters often seem to blur together. Could just be the players, though.
[*]Dungeon as an underworld, where every PC cannot see in the dark and every NPC can.
Unchanged in 3e. Actually, aggravated in 3e, since elves and gnomes get low-light, rather than infravision. In 25 years, though, I only remember it even being an issue once. We put together a stealth-based party for RtToEE. That went poorly.
[*]Sprawling, nonsensical mega-dungeons.
I home-brewed 90% of what I did. Still do. There doesn't seem to be much difference, though, from what I've seen of modules.
[*]Wilderness adventures.
No difference.
[*]Invincible overlord.
Never read.
[*]NPCs and PCs follow different rules.
This was something that really frustrated me in 1e/2e and was probably my biggest issue with the system. Ironically, it's probably my biggest issue with 3e, too, just the other way. I think 4e got the mindset (jury's out on the mechanics) right on this one. PCs should be able to accomplish anything an NPC could, but it's okay to use streamlined stats to represent it.
[*]Several different parallel versions of the game.
I don't understand this one. Do you mean AD&D vs. D&D? Most groups played one or the other -- generally AD&D. No worse than 3e D&D vs. Iron Heroes or AE/AU. Probably easier conversions, actually.
[*]Everyone had house rules.
Yup. That helped to add flavor to every setting. Most often the house rules were in the form of extra (or restricted) classes/races, lifting level limits, relaxing multi-classing, etc. I gave rangers stealth as a thief. All things that were quick and easy to grasp and generally only impacted character generation in obvious ways. There were exceptions, but they were uncommon and the DM was usually cognizant of telling them to new players as needed.
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
I only ever saw this in OD&D and even then you could still make adjustments. Not MANY adjustments as you were sacrificing one stat at a rate of 2 points for a 1 point increase in your "prime requisite" stats, but it was never, EVER 3d6, in order without changes.
Scattered, yes. Complicated, no. Well, I shouldn't really say that, 1E combat rules regarding surprise and initiative were STUPIDLY complicated and with details spread everywhere. IIUC not even GARY used it as written - he put it in as a sop for the grognards of the time who just couldn't live without such foolishness. For surprise and initiative most people _I_ knew used house rules much like 2E long before 2E came along.
Never played much OD&D before moving to 1E and never played ANY BECMI which are the only two places you find this. AFAIC nobody really missed it in moving from OD&D to AD&D.
Yep. It really isn't too hard to institute house rules to keep them from sucking quite so badly at low levels but then it's harder to keep them from being dominant at high levels. Never did see a solution to the problem at the time that I cared for. Mostly you just lived with it and made sure that tactically wizards at least didn't get a free pass - keep them harrassed whenever possible.
Levelling up always took TIME in-game. There was no video-game "ding" and suddenly you attack better, defend better, know more spells, have new abilities, etc. Neither approach is particularly appealing though as DM I always appreciated the "downtime" it created as characters levelled that allowed a more gradual introduction to new adventures, characters that had opportunity to do more than JUST crawl through dungeons, and so forth.
Not, "instead of", but, "as a valuable supplement to..." It also drove a certain amount of creativity and player-driven campaign development.
Yep. But it got old fast. At least by late 1E it was my experience that you'd go through several low-level characters but then you'd eventually get survivors (even if by sheer luck) and not have to worry about it. With a VASTLY simpler character creation process it was at least FAST to whip up those replacements. I got so I could do it between encounters and IME at least players explored a LOT of different characters in doing so.
Well it was more... tolerated I guess you'd say, in the old days. Mostly because nobody really knew any better. But again IME, the more time you'd get as a DM the more you knew that that sort of mindset could too easily kill the fun for everyone.
Pulp fiction and mythology yes, but the only paen I ever saw to pop culture was the advent of the Drizzt-inspired ranger - which was, IMO, a tragic mistake.
You say that like it's a bad thing. The game sure played faster and was easier to run off-the-cuff. Game prep could be as little as a few minutes rolling up hit points or random encounters. Stat blocks? What the hell are those? You roll up their hit points maybe but the actual data on the critters is what you had a MM for.
Now you're talking! And that's the way it SHOULD be!
Naw. They were a rarity IME. Biggest dungeon in pre-3E was probably Temple of Elemental Evil and it was hardly worthy of being called a "mega-dungeon" and certainly wasn't nonsensical. Really that sort of thing started in 2E with places like Undermountain, and only really became a problem in 3E when everyone and his brother started shovelling out mega-dungeons that put anything from 1E to shame - and this for an edition whose paradigm screamed for SMALLER dungeons, SHORTER adventures than previous editions had seen because of the increased, measured pace of advancement.
When players were too bored to pick up clues to an adventure, or when I as DM was too bored to bother creating one the PC's used to go "wilderness adventuring". They'd pick a direction and march, then just see what the random encounter tables threw at them.
If you mean the City State of the Invincible Overlord then yes, yes, a thousand times yes. That place stood in for EVERY major city in EVERY campaign I ran or played in until FR started detailing every city with a population over 50.
They still do - in MY games anyway.
Not where I came from. It was years before I knew there was still that OTHER version and it got ignored entirely by everyone. IME, of course. And even so there were just two versions of the game - AD&D and Basic D&D. When 2nd Edition came along there may have been holdouts who didn't make the switch but they had nobody to complain to publicly and nobody cared. There were always just two versions - the current version of AD&D and whatever other people played.
The only difference between then and now is that back then house rules were necessary to make the game what YOU wanted it to be, they were openly accepted as part of the hobby, and while people even then argued about what the ACTUAL rules said and meant, anybody who tried to claim that house rules weren't just part and parcel of the hobby but YOUR RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITY would be laughed at until they shut up.
YMMV
