thedungeondelver
Adventurer
I take that as great complement! Thank you!
You're entirely welcome; truth be truth.
I love AD&D
You're entirely welcome; truth be truth.
thedungeondelver
Adventurer
Another thought just crossed my mind: I think AD&D (and D&D before it) were the first codified cross-genre RPGs; that is to say, they at least offered the option to switch things up with the sections in the DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE (namely SIXGUNS & SORCERY and MUTANTS AND MAGIC).
If I'm wrong on that front of course someone feel free to correct me.
Storm-Bringer
First Post
Great thread, Delver!
He's got some great forums going on over at his place, so check those out. Drop by the Citadel, too, we have discussion on other vintage games from the 80s you may have thought were forgotten!
He's got some great forums going on over at his place, so check those out. Drop by the Citadel, too, we have discussion on other vintage games from the 80s you may have thought were forgotten!
thedungeondelver
Adventurer
As indeed it should. The GIANTS series and the DROW series are very, very different modules in tone - despite their linear connection - but they are both the blueprint for the massive dungeon crawl and the massive environment trek (despite the latter being underground), and D3 VAULT OF THE DROW stands alone as the exemplar of the sandbox (ugh...forge terminology) adventure.
Q1 QUEEN OF THE DEMONWEB PITS stands alone - I am not denigrating Mr. Sutherland's work, it is a fine module - as a perfect example of no-holds-barred gonzo dungeon adventures. It is incongruous with the majority of the G and D series, but then one could make the argument that the rather piscine nature of D2 SHRINE OF THE KUA-TOA is, as well (the module feels like it'd better fit beneath some Polynesian-esque island in the Azure Sea or the like).
I think to say that the totality of the awesomeness of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS lies solely with the modules isn't entirely true - what is laid out in those modules, and S1 through S4 and the WG series begins in the MONSTER MANUAL, the DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE and the PLAYERS HANDBOOK (but more strongly in the two latter).
thedungeondelver
Adventurer
Thanks for the bump, and yes, visit the Citadel, too!
TheGM
First Post
Wow, the Delver drags me out of my lurking after months and months of silence...
Been playing C&C for years, and HackMaster before that, and of late been considering going back to 1E. Recently had our annual get-together and had to take the 1E MM along for the devils... And wanting to play it.
Love the 1E, it feels comfy like an old shoe. Thinking of returning to it.
Don.
Been playing C&C for years, and HackMaster before that, and of late been considering going back to 1E. Recently had our annual get-together and had to take the 1E MM along for the devils... And wanting to play it.
Love the 1E, it feels comfy like an old shoe. Thinking of returning to it.
Don.
thedungeondelver
Adventurer
"Everytime I think I'm out, they pull me back in!"
You've got a good group, TheGM - there's no reason not to make the transition back.
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
1e is freakin' great. I remember trying to play a 2e game after 3e launched, and not being able to stomach the proficiency system. In comparison, 1e and older D&D don't have any of that baggage; they're fun, pure and simple. I dare someone not to read or play "In Search of the Unknown" or some of the S series and not be totally entranced.
Ulrick
First Post
Three more things that make AD&D awesome...
(These can apply to both AD&D and AD&D 2e).
1. Proficiencies were there but not required.
I was satisfied the proficiency system in both AD&D 1st and 2nd editions. It was, however, quick and dirty. I didn't make much sense why characters did not get better as they progressed, but that's what you get with a system that was tacked-on.
The neat thing about the proficiency system is both editions is that you did not have to use it. It was available. But it was not an integral part of the system. The DM could use it or not.
When my brother introduced me to AD&D back in the late 1980s, we did not use the proficiency system. There was a lot for me to learn as a 10 year old. In fact, we never did use the proficiency system and still had a lot of fun.
When I started running games for AD&D 2e, I held off on the proficiency system until my players were comfortable with the basics of AD&D--combat, roleplaying, character skills (thief, spellcasting, etc). And we had fun. In fact, IIRC, using proficiencies helped "round out" a character but didn't detract anything from the fun.
2. Layering of systems and subsystems
Unlike in later editions, you can learn AD&D in bits and pieces and still have a good time. The Players Handbook had the basics on combat, roleplaying, and general advice. More advanced information resided in the DMG, such as the combat tables. (although I admit it would suck only having the PHB and MM in the days before the DMG came out).
The proficiency system is great example of this, along with the weapon bonuses versus different types of armor. They could be learned and used... or not.
As the rule supplements came out (like Unearthed Arcana, Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, etc), they could be integrated into the game or not.
The fact is, you didn't have to study the books in order to have a fun game or create an optimal character. It helped to study so you could get the rules down, but it wasn't required as a player. The burden of mastering the system relied on the DM (who should know the rules anyway).
In fact, AD&D almost geared itself for newbies to play. Each character class at first level had a small amount of skills to keep track of (yeah, the wizard only got one spell...). This made the game fairly simple to learn. The players didn't have to spend time mulling over their character sheets during play deciding what powers to use. Their attention was on the DM and what was going on in the game.
I cut my teeth playing a dwarven fighter. I've seen dozens of newbie players over the course of 1st and 2nd edition start by playing a fighter. It is the perfect class to begin AD&D. It has high hp, has a reasonable chance of getting decent armor, and it easily enables a player to learn the combat system.
Many of those players, of course, often moved on to a more specialized class. But they learned the combat system before moving on.
3. Lack of Ripple-Effect from altering the rules...
I came up with the "Ripple-Effect" term when 3e came out and I tried running it with a low-magic campaign world. Basically, if I altered one part of the system, it would cause "ripples" throughout the system. For example, cutting down on magic items would alter the CR of various monsters and NPCs. It would be difficult, for another example, to alter the skill system without effecting the rogue and the bard. Tinkering with feats might hose the fighter.
Rules altered in AD&D usually don't "ripple" out and effect other systems. For example, altering the proficiency system will not effect thieves skills. Another example, letting the poor 1st level wizard get bonus spells for high intelligence (like a cleric with high system) will not make him overshadow other classes (he still needs to conserve his spells and stay out of combat).
Or removing demi-human level limits won't effect the rules (thought it might affect player choices for races).
This lack of "ripple effect" enabled a DM to tailor AD&D to suit his desires and tastes without much difficultly.
(These can apply to both AD&D and AD&D 2e).
1. Proficiencies were there but not required.
I was satisfied the proficiency system in both AD&D 1st and 2nd editions. It was, however, quick and dirty. I didn't make much sense why characters did not get better as they progressed, but that's what you get with a system that was tacked-on.
The neat thing about the proficiency system is both editions is that you did not have to use it. It was available. But it was not an integral part of the system. The DM could use it or not.
When my brother introduced me to AD&D back in the late 1980s, we did not use the proficiency system. There was a lot for me to learn as a 10 year old. In fact, we never did use the proficiency system and still had a lot of fun.
When I started running games for AD&D 2e, I held off on the proficiency system until my players were comfortable with the basics of AD&D--combat, roleplaying, character skills (thief, spellcasting, etc). And we had fun. In fact, IIRC, using proficiencies helped "round out" a character but didn't detract anything from the fun.
2. Layering of systems and subsystems
Unlike in later editions, you can learn AD&D in bits and pieces and still have a good time. The Players Handbook had the basics on combat, roleplaying, and general advice. More advanced information resided in the DMG, such as the combat tables. (although I admit it would suck only having the PHB and MM in the days before the DMG came out).
The proficiency system is great example of this, along with the weapon bonuses versus different types of armor. They could be learned and used... or not.
As the rule supplements came out (like Unearthed Arcana, Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, etc), they could be integrated into the game or not.
The fact is, you didn't have to study the books in order to have a fun game or create an optimal character. It helped to study so you could get the rules down, but it wasn't required as a player. The burden of mastering the system relied on the DM (who should know the rules anyway).
In fact, AD&D almost geared itself for newbies to play. Each character class at first level had a small amount of skills to keep track of (yeah, the wizard only got one spell...). This made the game fairly simple to learn. The players didn't have to spend time mulling over their character sheets during play deciding what powers to use. Their attention was on the DM and what was going on in the game.
I cut my teeth playing a dwarven fighter. I've seen dozens of newbie players over the course of 1st and 2nd edition start by playing a fighter. It is the perfect class to begin AD&D. It has high hp, has a reasonable chance of getting decent armor, and it easily enables a player to learn the combat system.
Many of those players, of course, often moved on to a more specialized class. But they learned the combat system before moving on.
3. Lack of Ripple-Effect from altering the rules...
I came up with the "Ripple-Effect" term when 3e came out and I tried running it with a low-magic campaign world. Basically, if I altered one part of the system, it would cause "ripples" throughout the system. For example, cutting down on magic items would alter the CR of various monsters and NPCs. It would be difficult, for another example, to alter the skill system without effecting the rogue and the bard. Tinkering with feats might hose the fighter.
Rules altered in AD&D usually don't "ripple" out and effect other systems. For example, altering the proficiency system will not effect thieves skills. Another example, letting the poor 1st level wizard get bonus spells for high intelligence (like a cleric with high system) will not make him overshadow other classes (he still needs to conserve his spells and stay out of combat).
Or removing demi-human level limits won't effect the rules (thought it might affect player choices for races).
This lack of "ripple effect" enabled a DM to tailor AD&D to suit his desires and tastes without much difficultly.
