Is the AD&D 1E Revival here to stay?

[dcas]

Isn't this turning in to a bit of an edition war? Isn't that materia non grata?

Is the 1e revival here to stay? I certainly hope so. Pod-Caverns is a worthy and innovative adventure; so is Rob Kuntz's Cairn of the Skeleton King and Goodman Games' Iron Crypt of the Heretics. Kuntz's Tower of Blood also looks promising.

EDIT: Corrected Latin grammar.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Racial level limits, inexplicable total lack of ability to use certain weapons or armor, or restriction of some races to not be some classes, or worse, only as NPCs (e.g., elven clerics) are a few example that come immediately to mind that break the fourth wall and thereby blow immersion out of the water.

Sounds like you have an aversion to the strongly archetyped approach that was used. Older versions of D&D relied on strong archetypes (or "typicals") to help define concepts. For example, in B/X, Elf was a class, and was basically a Fighter/Magic-User. And that was the only option given for elves. But that didn't mean there were no no elven religious leaders. Or that every elf knew magic. The Elf class was meant to define a typical adventuring elf -- an archetype. And the relatively limited choices for demi-humans in both B/X and in AD&D also upheld a typical vision in fantasy where humans are the dominant, flexible race coming into their own.

For a period, there was an idea out there that B/X and especially OD&D(1974) were for DMs who liked to change things and play with the rules and archetypes, and AD&D was a tournament-system where everything was defined and consistent. In other words, AD&D's rules and archetype definitions were (for a time) seen as sacrosanct. That idea was dismissed immediately by most gamers, and gradually lost mind-share.

So my advice if you don't like the class restrictions (or whatever) is to change them to suit your game. Now, there's also the possibility that you don't like an archetype-based system at all, and prefer a more fine-grained "build your PC" approach. That's the direction 3E went. If you prefer that, it's okay with me. However, I wouldn't agree that archetype based systems are completely arbitrary and inexplicable, or unrealistic and silly. They're just operating under a set of assumptions that you don't share. And I believe the strongly-archetyped systems have some distinct advantages over fine-grained (usually skill-based) systems, in certain areas that are important to me.

3E encouraged "rules mastery": understanding the "behind the curtain" reasons rules were there. I think that's a good thing, and something that I never really tried to apply to older editions until recently. When I did, I found that there were things that I had previously dismissed as silly or undesirable, but that I now understand. (You could even say that learning and playing 3E increased my understanding and appreciation of the older editions.)

 

[tx7321]

dcs: "Isn't this turning in to a bit of an edition war? Isn't that materia non gratis?"

Yes it is, and my apologies.

Psion, I had all those same problems with 1E over the years, and just housed ruled them out (and the game is designed to do that). I've brought them back however, because they protect a certain "look and feel" (a human-centric world, with fighters in plate armor, magic-users in robes carrying staves) I've come to like. I'm not opposed to other looks generated by other games like 3E, C&C, etc. I play them. Anyhow, that wasn't the main issue: I was saying that 1Es tables are a critical part of the unique 1E experiance (which is one that keeps the players in the black (as far as combat and saves go) as much as possible, and keeps the DM forfront and center). I'm not saying IE is "better" its just different.

EDIT- To add to what Phil said, the archetypes are like todays careers (doctor, lawyer, indian chief). Each comes with a preset number of skills that generally improve overall as you gain experiance and basic training. For instance, you don't go to a lawyer to have a broken bone set, and you don't go to a doctor to have your taxes done. And the doctor after practising 20 years gets better at setting bones in general, though his skill in doing his taxes likely has remained the same (perhaps even gotten worse :\ ).

3E takes the approach that players want to fine tune their PCs (a doctor with some skills in accounting, or skills in lawyering), and thats fine if thats what they like, each to their own. BUT that doesn't mean the 1E and 0E archetypes were illogical. Even saves work that way. A thief has a better chance to save vs. a trap (usually petrification) then a fighter because he has extensive experiance in making and getting around traps. Thats why a fighter with a high dex is still more likely to say fall in a pit trap then a thief with a low dex. In AD&D 1E natural abilities are seen as pretty much equal between people (thus de-emphasised) what counts most is trade-knowledge.

 

[RFisher]

I find it odd that Thac0 is considered too hard, yet factoring +2 for bull's strength, +2 for x spell, +4 for x, +1 luck bonus, etc, and does this stack with that, is considered easy.

I find both hard. For some reason, I may be able to do calculus, but I'm very slow at arithmetic. These days, I try to eliminate as many special cases whenever I can so that I can have more things pre-calculated. THAC0 is simple enough, but I find using the table faster.

But, yeah, subtraction also tends to be a bit slower for most people than addition.

I find that my immersion needs are much better met by 3e, than that provided by some of the arbitrary rules set forth in 1e and 2e. Racial level limits, inexplicable total lack of ability to use certain weapons or armor, or restriction of some races to not be some classes, or worse, only as NPCs (e.g., elven clerics) are a few example that come immediately to mind that break the fourth wall and thereby blow immersion out of the water.

I completely see your point. I used to feel much the same way. Though, I don't think, for me, it was about immersion, since many of these things aren't really "visible" from the character's PoV--or only indirectly so. You seldom see people wondering why Gandalf or Merlin or any other magic using legendary or literary character doesn't wear armor. Or question a legendary or literary hero's choice of weapon. The vast majority of the population of a fantasy world aren't going to waste time considering why there are no dwarven wizards. (& for those few sages that do, a dwarf's resistance to magic offers a ready explaination.) The characters don't know that the elfin cleric is an NPC & not a PC.

Although, in the game, an unusual situation is bound to come up that threatens to make these things visible. Most DMs I've known have found a way to handle it: Letting the mage wield a sword, but with a non-proficiency penalty. Allowing the thief to wear plate mail, but his extraordinary thief abilities would always fail as long as he did so. Denying XP to the mage who insists on wearing armor.

One thing that I like about 3e was the way that trade-offs like this were made explicit. Leaving it up to the DM is fine, but the older editions were often completely silent on such issues, not even giving the DM a hint that he could use those kinds of solutions. It's easy enough for me to deal with these days, but when I was younger I could've used more guidance.

I really hated the TSR product that said mages on trial would be locked in armor so that they couldn't cast spells. (9_9)

& I wouldn't really call those rules arbitrary. They were put in place thoughtfully for specific purposes.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

All rules are arbitrary. The question is whether they're justified.

The 1e rules are certainly finicky, pedantic, inconsistent, often hard to interpret, and make no real world "sense". Why can't mages use swords? Why can't dwarfs be wizards? To a certain mindset, those limits are ridiculous.

Such players should certainly be playing D20 or Rolemaster or Runequest or GURPS or some other coherent system with unified, logical, consistent, flexible mechanics that make sense in the presumed game world.

1e isn't popular because it makes sense (it doesn't), nor because it's rules-lite (it's probably more complex and certainly less intuitive than D20), nor because it's flexible (it forces the characters into a narrow range of archetypes).

The reason for its continued popularity is because, with all its flaws and sillinesses, 1e has a truly fantastic feel to it that very few games have ever managed to capture. And because once you know the system, you can resolve a fight between eight player characters and nineteen henchmen on one side against thirty-five orcs with a priest and a couple dozen war dogs on the other, in about half an hour.

 

[tx7321]

Another thing to remember is that the strict 1E rules protect a particular setting/look Gary Gygax wanted us to play in. The games look and feel never drifted over time (as it has in other games as people chase novelty) because of the crazy walls and fences Gary put up.

And thus, AD&D remains VERY popular with some people for the same exact reasons others don't like it. Sometimes if you want to preserve the core of something, you have to "protect" it. And I think thats what Gary did (with level limits on races, and armor restrictions on MUs etc.etc......his walls. But remember, those walls have doors the DM can open any time he chooses).

Oh, and as Phil. pointed out above, an MU can use a sword, he just gets a minus to hit.

 

[Psion]

I completely see your point. I used to feel much the same way. Though, I don't think, for me, it was about immersion, since many of these things aren't really "visible" from the character's PoV--or only indirectly so. You seldom see people wondering why Gandalf or Merlin or any other magic using legendary or literary character doesn't wear armor.

Sure, I understand that. But again, I was talking about immersion and breaking the fourth wall. From an immersion standpoint, having a reason WHY you can't (or rather, wouldn't want to) use armor was more satisfying that being arbitrarily told that you couldn't. (I use arbitrary here in the sense that there was no reasoning presented that made sense in the milieu, not that there was no flavor reason behind the design.)

& I wouldn't really call those rules arbitrary. They were put in place thoughtfully for specific purposes.

Again, I'll emphasize my use of the word arbitrary above as not meaning "without reason" but "without in-game justification". That said, as far as it goes,
1) While their may have been reasons, I simply didn't agree with them or find them consistent with immersion or suspension of disbelief (like why elves have limits on wizard levels? As best I can tell, the answer was "because Gygax wanted a humanocentric setting." Which is a fine goal, but never really had much of an in-game reason.
2) Some still do seem arbitrary to me, even in the context of "matching archetypes." Why are elven clerics only allowed to be NPCs again.

 

[dcas]

I don't see why being told you can't do something is fundamentally less consistent with "immersion" than being told that you can. For example, I don't think disallowing halfling wizards (when in Middle-earth "there is little or no magic about them") is any more conducive to suspending belief than permitting half-orc paladins or gnoll druids (I'm deliberately not using ridiculous examples -- gnoll druids were cited in at least the 3.0 PHB). I would find a world in which half-orc paladins or halfling wizards existed at least as unbelievable as the standard BTB AD&D campaign world.

Allowing half-orc paladins seems at least as arbitrary as level limits (IMHO).

 

[Psion]

I don't see why being told you can't do something is fundamentally less consistent with "immersion" than being told that you can.

I guess we differ in that, then. That's about all I'll say, because to say more would entertain more arguing and tread into dangerous territory.

 

[Storm Raven]

I don't see why being told you can't do something is fundamentally less consistent with "immersion" than being told that you can.

I think the main reason is that saying "you can't" begs the reply "why not", and when the answer is, in many cases "just because" people find that unsatisfying. And in many cases in 1e and 2e the answer is little more than "just because", especially, for example, in cases in which NPCs may be members of certain classes, but PCs cannot.

There is a perception that "you can't" is more arbitrary than "you can" when there is little else justifying either choice.