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

[Crimhthan_The_Great]

*sigh*

I have played - and run - 1e. I've played BECMI.

They are less consistent rules bases (though you'll note that I wasn't actually referring to OD&D at all) - this is something that even most diehard oldschoolers will generally admit, and have no issues with.

It's not universally a value judgement, that's the thing. That you took it that way is. . . well, that's your choice; fair enough. Me personally, I do value consistency in the rules of any game I play (or run, only more so). To others, it's not nearly as important. I get that, and have no issue with that fact.


Re: power and DMs, sometimes there are not a lot of options for some people. They might feel that they have to put up with whatever is inflicted on them (to a point), just in order to game. There have certainly been enough accounts of somewhat similar circumstances on ENWorld just in recent times, for me to assume that it can't be that uncommon.


edit --- though I do agree that the ability to think on one's feet is a fine trait for a DM to possess.

Why the *sigh*? I understood you previous post to state that you only played 3E or 3.5E, hence my comment about you not playing OD&D or OAD&D, now that I know you have played OAD&D and BECMI, I still do not understand why you call them "less consistent". How does not spelling out everything that could possibly happen make them "less consistent", less detailed yes, that is part of the great thing about the original game, but less detailed does not translate to less consistent.

 

[Storm Raven]

Oh I agree that at this late date, it would create confusion if they were to go back and try to undue the past mistakes of T$R & WotC, but there should have been no confusion if the old stuff had never been allowed to go out of print. And of course 3rd Ed AD&D should have been left with that name instead of lying to the public and dropping the Advanced part of the name and pretending that it is D&D. 3E and 3.5E are descended from AD&D not D&D and the pretense by WotC that it is otherwise is particulary offensive. This is not to be taken that I am knocking 3E or 3.5E, I am not, but there is no reason to falsely identify them, it is unnecessary.

Now you are just looking for reasons to be annoyed. The reason that WotC dropped the "Advanced" is that it was confusing. There is no "Basic" version, and they didn't intend to put one out. It was especially confusing since there was no progression from anything like a "basic" D&D that progressed to "Advanced" D&D, making the designation especially pointless. There was intended to be no other version of D&D. Hence, why confuse people by using a title that implies that there are? AD&D, OD&D, BD&D and so on are just iterations of the same thing. It is not inconsistent to call any one of them D&D, nor is it more proper to call one D&D over the other. In fact, most people, when asked, would identify "AD&D" either 1e or 2e as being simply "D&D" over any other version. Getting all huffy and saying that WotC is "lying" to the public by calling this version simply "D&D" just makes all your other arguments look silly and petty, and pretty much blows your credibility on these issues.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

They are less consistent rules bases (though you'll note that I wasn't actually referring to OD&D at all) - this is something that even most diehard oldschoolers will generally admit, and have no issues with.

They're less consistent in the sense that they don't conform to a universal mechanic, and have various subsystems that work differently. One might call that "wonky." I like it, though. I think universal mechanics are overrated, and that some things benefit from separate treatment. If the subsystems were hideously complicated, I'd balk, but they're not -- they're all simple, and there aren't that many of them, so I don't see it as a problem.

I've been playing C&C, lately, which uses a universal mechanic for just about everything. However, I'm not completely satisfied with its application in a couple of areas (surprise and saving throws come to mind), and I'm considering house-ruling it to be more like B/X or AD&D in those areas.

 

[Crimhthan_The_Great]

Now you are just looking for reasons to be annoyed. The reason that WotC dropped the "Advanced" is that it was confusing. There is no "Basic" version, and they didn't intend to put one out. It was especially confusing since there was no progression from anything like a "basic" D&D that progressed to "Advanced" D&D, making the designation especially pointless. There was intended to be no other version of D&D. Hence, why confuse people by using a title that implies that there are? AD&D, OD&D, BD&D and so on are just iterations of the same thing. It is not inconsistent to call any one of them D&D, nor is it more proper to call one D&D over the other. In fact, most people, when asked, would identify "AD&D" either 1e or 2e as being simply "D&D" over any other version. Getting all huffy and saying that WotC is "lying" to the public by calling this version simply "D&D" just makes all your other arguments look silly and petty, and pretty much blows your credibility on these issues.

Are you serious??? Surely you can not believe any of what you just said!!! First of all D&D and AD&D are two completely different games, if you do not understand that it completely blows your credibility on anything to do with D&D or AD&D. To say that WotC dropped the "Advanced" because it was confusing is to pretend that the history of D&D and AD&D started when 3E came out. There was nothing confusing about it to any of the millions of people who had already played D&D and/or AD&D and it would have been simple enough to bring any new fans uptodate on this history; therefore, this "alleged" confusion is a strawman. I am also aware of the mistakes that WotC made in there intention and practice of killing off all that went before 3E, they basically said "play 3E or we don't want your business" and they have certainly done without my business and that of 15 other people that I know personally.

To say that AD&D, OD&D etc are just different iterations of the same thing is just not true. In fact it is a bald faced lie, something that no one could ever honestly say. How can you be taken seriously when you utter such rubbish! You are the one without credibility when you ignore the vast differences between the different "D&D" games and deny that they are different games. You can poo poo my opinion all you want to, but don't expect me to think it is anything more that the mutterings a very sick person when you utter such dishonest and deceitful nonsense.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

(off-topic)

Hey there, Crimhthan_The_Great. Your group has played that long? In that many adventures? And held together as friends for all these years?
I am green with envy. And respect. And admiration. Cheers to you and your group!

And my respects to the other Old-Timers here as well, and to their groups.

Yours Sincerely
Edena_of_Neith

 

[Aus_Snow]

Why the *sigh*? I understood you previous post to state that you only played 3E or 3.5E, hence my comment about you not playing OD&D or OAD&D, now that I know you have played OAD&D and BECMI, I still do not understand why you call them "less consistent". How does not spelling out everything that could possibly happen make them "less consistent", less detailed yes, that is part of the great thing about the original game, but less detailed does not translate to less consistent.

I wasn't claiming that less detail == less consistency. I consider True20 to be (relatively) consistent for example, though it is of course significantly less detailed than 3rd edition D&D.

They're less consistent in the sense that they don't conform to a universal mechanic, and have various subsystems that work differently. One might call that "wonky." I like it, though. I think universal mechanics are overrated, and that some things benefit from separate treatment. If the subsystems were hideously complicated, I'd balk, but they're not -- they're all simple, and there aren't that many of them, so I've never seen it as a problem.

I've been playing C&C, lately, which uses a universal mechanic for just about everything. However, I'm not completely satisfied with its application in a couple of areas (surprise and saving throws come to mind), and I'm considering house-ruling it to be more like B/X or AD&D in those areas.

Ha! Wonky, yeah. I'd agree with that, surely - based on my experiences and those of countless others. And again (as you've just demonstrated) - not necessarily a value thing, that. Or at least, not necessarily implying negative value, in this case. (you masochist, you )

I didn't realise C&C had a universal mechanic - although I have heard of the 'Siege Engine' or 'Siege Mechanic' or something like that, on forums. I'll not be lumping C&C in with 1e then, when I'm rabbiting on about 'inconsistency'.. or 'wonkiness'

What is it about surprise and saving throws, out of curiosity?

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I didn't realise C&C had a universal mechanic - although I have heard of the 'Siege Engine' or 'Siege Mechanic' or something like that, on forums. I'll not be lumping C&C in with 1e then, when I'm rabbiting on about 'inconsistency'.. or 'wonkiness'

Yeah, the SIEGE engine is what I was referring to. It's basically an ability check, but there are several variables. The first is whether an ability is "prime" or not. If it's prime, your base target number for the check is lower. The second is whether you apply your level as a bonus; if the activity is something central to your character/archetype, then you get your level as a bonus. Lastly are the situational modifiers common to any such system.

So a SIEGE engine check is used to cover class abilities (e.g. a Rogue's move silently check), skill-like abilities (e.g. a Knight might check against Int to recognize the heraldic device of another knight), feat-like maneuvers (e.g. disarming an enemy), saving throws (e.g. Save vs. Poison is a Con SIEGE engine check), et cetera. Pretty much everything except attack rolls; those are similar, of course, being a d20 roll to hit a target AC, but they don't use the SIEGE engine mods (i.e. prime, PC level), they use a base attack bonus, etc, just like 3E. (And AC works just like 3E, too, rather than like older D&D editions.)

What is it about surprise and saving throws, out of curiosity?

After playing C&C for a while, I find that using the SIEGE engine for surprise has genre and archetype-breaking effects. In C&C, surprise is handled with perception checks (i.e. Wis-based SIEGE engine checks). Because primes weigh heavily in such checks (a prime is equivalent to a +6 bonus), clerics are often the best PCs for detecting enemies, because they usually have high Wis scores that are also prime. This just doesn't feel right to me: I think rogues and rangers should be best at this type of thing. Also, as levels go up, surprise becomes almost impossible. I don't like that, either. This is a case where I think a separate subsystem with a different mechanic would work better.

I like the B/X way of doing things, but I want a few more modifiers than B/X's approach provides. AD&D's approach added to the B/X system, but did so in a way that made calculating surprise very difficult in some situations. I'm adopting the concept, but converted everything to percentages instead of ratios (e.g. 2:6, 1:8, etc). So my system makes surprise a percentile check. Rangers and rogues have a modifier, as do certain races. It's straightforward and seems to work pretty well. I haven't implemented it in-game, yet, though. Actually, I've been relying more on common sense and less on die rolls to determine surprise, so it hasn't felt like a critical issue.

With saving throws, it's mostly the "advancing level" and primes issues. Between the two, saving throws either become trivially easy or harder than they should be for a given PC level. I think the B/X or AD&D saving throw table better models the way I think saving throws should work; I think your class and level should weigh more than your ability score/bonus/prime. So this is another case where I'd rather have a wonky, separate subsystem, instead of shoe-horning saving throws into the universal mechanic system. Again, I haven't actually changed anything in-game, yet, but if I do, I'll probably just adopt the AD&D saving throw charts.

I really like C&C's SIEGE engine for handling skill-like or feat-like actions, though.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Hm. Interesting system actually, by the sounds of it. I'm not sure I would like "primes" much, though. But who knows.

I'm tempted to ask a lot of other questions now, but I guess it's either not the right thread, or perhaps even the right forum. Not sure about that one.

Having assumed it was essentially 1e redux, I never paid too much attention to the talk about C&C. Turns out it's pretty much its own beast (right?), but with rather noticable shades of 1e and 3e.


Eh, just one more question - if that's OK. How does it run in actual play? A bit like each of its parents?

 

[Maggan]

Why were you confused? I do not understand what there was to be confused about?

To us, the name of the game was Dungeons&Dragons. It didn't really register at first that there were two iterations, BECM D&D and Advanced D&D. We thought that it was the same game, basically.

So we were confused when we bought magazines with D&D adventures that contained rules that weren't what we were used to. We were confused when we bought modules for the "wrong" version of the game. Our parents were confused when they wanted to buy presents .. but I guess that'll never change.

IMO, WotC did the right thing ditching the "Advanced" moniker, focusing on the important part brand wise: "Dungeons&Dragons". And bringing the rules more up to date.

There was nothing confusing about it to any of the millions of people who had already played D&D and/or AD&D and it would have been simple enough to bring any new fans uptodate on this history; therefore, this "alleged" confusion is a strawman.

It is not an "alleged" confusion. I've seen it with my own eyes and I've experienced it myself. And as a selling point "new and better" is a more powerful marketing tool than "the same as before".

/M

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Hm. Interesting system actually, by the sounds of it. I'm not sure I would like "primes" much, though. But who knows.

The main benefit of primes is that assigning primes lets you tweak your character while keeping the system simple. For example, if you want a dexterous fighter, then make Dex prime, and your PC will be very good at Dex-based stuff. It's a broad-stroke short-cut: instead of buying lots of individual skills and feats, you just say "Dex is prime." The end result is pretty much the same, but much simpler. So C&C has a simple system for addressing the complaint that classes make for cookie-cutter PCs. It's obviously not as detailed as the d20 approach, but it works very well, IMO, and the decreased complexity and prep-time is a good trade-off.

Each class has one prime already associated with it (Str for Fighters, Wis for Clerics, etc). A human gets two additional primes to assign as he likes. Other races get one additional prime to assign.

Having assumed it was essentially 1e redux, I never paid too much attention to the talk about C&C. Turns out it's pretty much its own beast (right?), but with rather noticable shades of 1e and 3e.

Yeah, I'd say it's pretty much its own beast. To me, it's kind of like a modern version of OD&D. I don't mean the mechanics (mechanically, it's mostly a mix of 3E and AD&D), I mean the freedom and the attitude. It has some modern RPG design philosophy, but it shares the OD&D attitude of the rules being your servant, not your master, and it seems to encourage tweaking. If you read the C&C forums, you'll see all sorts of house-ruling and tweaking going on. A lot of "making the game your own."

Eh, just one more question - if that's OK. How does it run in actual play? A bit like each of its parents?

Yes. I sometimes call C&C a "best of" version of the various editions. (Keeping in mind that's "best of" in my eyes. And keeping in mind that I don't see any system as perfect -- I'm still tweaking things.)

My C&C games are fast and loose. I try to keep things moving, and the system is a great help with that. I also try to encourage a sense of "anything is possible" with my players, which is one reason I like the SIEGE engine. You say what you want to do, and your class, background, and primes provide the basis for how hard it will be. That means players are always trying new things, and I'm getting to exercise DM judgment, which I find fun. In any case, it makes for some dynamic combats! I have one player who has been using his spear to do stuff like two-legged kicks, or sweeps, or stabbing someone and then trying to move them. He's been keeping me on my toes, ruling-wise. But for all of those actions, the basic questions are: is it in keeping with his class/concept (so he gets a level bonus), what ability is it based on (e.g. Dex, Str, etc), and how difficult is it (modifier to the target number). Anyway, we've been having fun with the system. 3E players take to it very well, and they seem to enjoy being able to try anything and everything: they have a whole list of possibilities to draw on from 3E feats. The main difference is that they don't need a feat written down in order to try it, they just need to worry about how hard it's going to be to pull it off.

I give some more details on the Troll Lords' "Why Play Castles & Crusades" page. Scroll down to the big list (I'm wordy) attributed to Philotomy Jurament. (I'm not affiliated with Troll Lord Games -- everyone quoted on that page is just a GM or a player.)

(Sorry for the semi-threadjack, everyone...)