Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 7528629" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!I think you and I mostly agree with a lot of things in regards to 1e...we both still play it, for example. Grappling...and Punching...rules in the DMG were one of the ones I remember reading when I first got my DMG and thinking "What the heck are these rules?!? WHY do it all this way?". That said, I did have one friend later (about 15 years later) who, when he DM'ed 1e, absolutely loved those rules and we used them. At least I didn't have to try and figure them out! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Psionics I found a nice addition and easy to use/understand. Still use them to this day...although they are "canon" in my games, I give the player the option of rolling for them or not. I'd say that it's pretty much a 50/50 split if the player wants to roll or not for the character. Psionics are great...if you have the stats for them and you roll well. If you BARELY have Psionics, you are almost as good as dead the first time you meet something with psionics. One house rule I did use for them was reducing the "10 psionic attack sequences per round" thing because it takes about as long as a regular attack, so a PC with psionics immediately jumps to taking 10 times the actual play-time at the table for every 1 time a normal player gets to go.At any rate, yes, I do agree that some of the rules are...extra-quirky to the point of being barely usable in an actual game session (unarmed grapple/punch, for example). I also agree that those who "grew up with" those rules like you and I remember it being "easy" because, well, we learned it on our own and that was the only option. But at the same time I disagree that so many rules had to be discarded or changed/homebrewed for them to work. They may not be pretty, but they did (for the most part) work; it's just that the mindset of a 1e DM (and player) was that "If it doesn't do it for you, change it so it does". I had one little ongoing debate with one of my friends (Dave; Yen Wang Yeh rest his soul) about how "good" (me) or "bad" (him) the 1e system was. I claimed that because it had so many 'modular subsystems' it was a GOOD system...because it let if not encouraged the DM to make it his/her own. He was on the other side, saying that it was a BAD system...because a DM almost always had to modify it to make it his/her own. Different sides of the same coin.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Viva la 1e AD&D!PS: I'm one of those 'wierd' 1e DM's that actually liked a lot of the Unearthed Arcana stuff, and I LOVE both the Dungeoneers and the Wilderness survival guides! So... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />  ^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

Verification