D&D 1E Seriously contemplating an attempt at a retro AD&D

[Mannahnin]

I think you've got some of the history a bit off here, or maybe you're just expressing it in a way I'm not understanding.

This may be counterintuitive to everything you've heard before but think about it rationally.

The most rules laden tabletop game up until its time was D&D, a game published as an RPG. (Supposedly an improv story making game where tracking points is laughed at).

D&D was published as "rules for fantastic medieval wargames campaigns". The label of "role playing game" wasn't invented and settled on in the market for at least a couple of years afterward (see extensive discussion in Peterson's The Elusive Shift). It was not pitched as an improv story making game (though some people started to see that potential early) and it didn't present points as something to be laughed at. Experience points and the level advancement system were two of the game's killer initial concepts, creating the "hook" for players to want to come back again and again, as you get to shortly.

Well, AD&D contains more rules than even any wargame of its time, all these included in multiple hardcover books.

AD&D is quite extensive, but super-detailed wargames did already exist. Squad Leader was published in '77. The Campaign for North Africa came out in '79, the same year that the AD&D DMG did.

Korns' Modern Warfare in Miniature (1966), from which we know Dave Wesely and the Twin Cities wargamers got a lot of the ideas about single-character play which evolved into Braunstein and thence into Blackmoor and D&D is only 83 pages, compared to ~110 for OD&D's LBBs, but I would definitely say the rules in it are more complex, though more limited in scope. I'm taking a quick look at the rules for soldiers' stamina and the algebraic calculations described for determining their performance reductions based on time walking, marching, or crawling (p36-37), or based on how long they've been without rest, food, or water (all separate calculations & formulae, p37).

Other RPGs of greater complexity and attempted realism also came out prior to and contemporaneous with AD&D. Chivalry & Sorcery, for example, was first published in 1977. FGU was among multiple publishers whose offerings in the nascent RPG market were more complex than D&D or AD&D, and Gary commented on their existence indirectly at the start of the DMG.

From page 9:

THE GAME

APPROACHES TO PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS 8 DRAGONS

A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly on adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author’s opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn‘t been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the porticipants desire, but in no case something to be token too seriously. For fun, excitement, and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed. As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-than-life heroes and villains, who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste.

Gary himself says then RPGs are basically designed and balanced according to the same philosophy as wargames. The term game was wholly believed to mean something other than storytelling, in other words: a strategy game, an activity to test and score players in accomplishing an objective. Millions of players, young and old, were addicted to the D&D game striving to score more points so they could advance the powers of their gaming piece, the character.

Err; sort of. Just calling them a playing piece, what some folks refer to as "pawn stance", was definitely not the rule or only way it was played, even in the 70s or even just at Gary's table.

There were no "roleplaying" rules, personality performance rules, in D&D until 40 years later, in 5e.

Demonstrably incorrect. The 1979 DMG contains not just references to playing "in character", but has mechanical ramifications for doing so or failing to do so in several places. Especially as regards alignment. Look at the rules section titled "Graphing Alignment" on page 24 of the DMG, and the mechanical consequences for changing alignment detailed on page 25. The rules for Gaining Experience Levels on page 86 are also quite explicit in requiring that characters be played in character, both as reflects their class and alignment. Failure to do so results in stiff penalties making it much harder and more expensive to advance in level.

Consider the natural functions of each class of character. Consider also the professed alignment of each character. Briefly assess the performance of each character after an adventure. Did he or she perform basically in the character of his or her class? Were his or her actions in keeping with his or her professed alignment? Mentally classify the overall performance as:

E - Excellent, few deviations from norm = 1
S- Superior, deviations minimal but noted =2
F - Fair performance, more norm than deviations =3
P- Poor showing with aberrant behavior =4

Clerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, "cautious" characters who do not pull their own weight - these are all clear examples of a POOR rating.

There's a combination of rating "skilled play" as well as adherence to role and personality, but the latter parts are very clearly emphasized as important.

I'll agree with you that Gary's writing in the 1970s doesn't go into narrative theory or storytelling (though those started to be part of mainstream TSR D&D in the 1980s, particularly after what we refer to as the Hickman Revolution), but the importance of the character and drama were explicitly core to the game as Gary described it in AD&D.

From Saving Throws, page 80:

As has been often pointed out, AD&D is a game wherein participants create personae and operate them in the milieu created and designed, in whole or in part, by the Dungeon Master and shared by all, including the DM, in imagination and enthusiasm. The central theme of this game is the interaction of these personae, whether those of the players or those of the DM, with the milieu, including that part represented by the characters and creatures personified by the DM. This interaction results in adventures and deeds of daring. The heroic fantasy which results is a blend of the dramati cand the comic, the foolish and the brave, stirring excitement and grinding boredom. It is a game in which the continuing epic is the most meaningful portion. It becomes an entity in which at least some of the characters seem to be able to survive for an indefinite time, and characters who have shorter spans of existence are linked one to the other by blood or purpose.These personae put up with the frustrations, the setbacks, and the tragedies because they aim for and can reasonably expect to achieve adventure, challenge, wealth, glory and more. If player characters are not of the same stamp as Conan, they also appreciate that they are in effect writing their own adventures and creating their own legends, not merely reliving those of someone else's creation. Yet because the player character is all-important, he or she must always--or nearly always - have a chance, no matter how small, a chance of somehow escaping what otherwise would be inevitable destruction. Many will not be able to do so, but the escapes of those who do are what the fabric of the game is created upon. These adventures become the twice told tales and legends of the campaign. The fame (or infamy) of certain characters gives lustre to the campaign and enjoyment to player and DM alike as the parts grow and are entwined to become a fantastic history of a never-was world where all of us would wish to live if we could.

(emphases mine)

Balancing the game was all some DMs ever talked about. A new game element could not be added to the game (monsters, spells, gear, etc) until it was thoroughly checked and playtested. And then there are those of us who were there, who remember the difficult to swallow attitude of how a DM was never to improvise when running the game lest they invalidated the players scores.

These base assumptions you won't find in OD&D's LBBs or AD&D vastly expanded tomes.

These sound like some localized assumptions. Gary made some public comments in Dragon and editorial asides in the DMG trumpeting the virtues of balance and OFFICIAL ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS products, and casting shade on (implied to be inferior) third party stuff by other companies trying to profit off "his" ideas, but the idea that you couldn't improvise anything or introduce new monsters or spells without prior testing definitely isn't in the books nor was it implied. Quite the opposite. It was expected that part of the job and fun of the DM was coming up with such new stuff to spring on their players as surprises.

The key takeaway here is: someone hid a beat-the-game strategic simulation game behind a screen and the wargamers treated it as such. This is the cardinal moment of RPG design. If you don't assume a gameboard hid behind a screen and tracking all the time and positioning, nothing else in those AD&D tomes will make sense.

"Beat the game" reminds me of the stories of what Dave Arneson did with Dave Wesely's Braunsteins, especially Braunstein 2, the Banania game.

Definitely part of Gary's and some other games was the adversarial, "Gygaxian Skilled Play" outwit-the-ref's-surprises style of game. Whence we get all sorts of weird trap monsters like earseekers ('ope; listened at the wrong door!) rot grubs (searched the wrong corpse!), Mimics (ha! you thought that was a treasure chest!), Lurkers Above (forgot to check the ceiling!), Trappers (whoops! Floor too!).

Hidden information and avoiding deadly surprises was certainly a big part of Gary's game, which is still a common thread with Korns. Though I remember in the 80s folks already complaining about these kinds of monsters as "gotcha" nonsense and not the sort of thing they wanted in their RPGs.

From the 40s to the 80s "roleplaying" meant role training. The thing all the CRPGers are doing when they are not acting out a personality. RPG players are scored for their successful gaming of their class (role) making the activity synonymous with strategic gaming in D&D.

Things to avoid as non sequiturs to the 20th century RPG hobby: narrative theory, storytelling, and acting "in character".

Vampire: The Masquerade kicked off The Storyteller System in 1991 and was all about the latter stuff. It won the Origins Award for best game the following year.

Off the top of my head I also thought of 1987's Whimsy Cards, a generic supplement from Lion Rampant, the precursor company to White Wolf, which were a way for players to introduce plot complications and narrative twists into an RPG mid-session.

But as early as the 1970s some folks were definitely arguing that the best way to play RPGs was immersion in the character, or to craft narratives and stories. As is documented in the zines, APAs, and other published discussions in the fan community which The Elusive Shift talks about in detail.

 

[Jahydin]

Gary himself says then RPGs are basically designed and balanced according to the same philosophy as wargames. The term game was wholly believed to mean something other than storytelling, in other words: a strategy game, an activity to test and score players in accomplishing an objective. Millions of players, young and old, were addicted to the D&D game striving to score more points so they could advance the powers of their gaming piece, the character. There were no "roleplaying" rules, personality performance rules, in D&D until 40 years later, in 5e. Balancing the game was all some DMs ever talked about. A new game element could not be added to the game (monsters, spells, gear, etc) until it was thoroughly checked and playtested. And then there are those of us who were there, who remember the difficult to swallow attitude of how a DM was never to improvise when running the game lest they invalidated the players scores.

Gary Jackson, is that you?

Seriously though, cool post. This sort of attitude is exactly what is needed to get D&D back on track being a real game again.

 

[howandwhy99]

To the OP: As you can see, there are many naysayers who know either a false history or hold to a malignly constructed (a la the Forge) misunderstanding of the hobby of role-playing games, especially to D&D. To understand the gamebooks in your hands look back at my post and contemplate it. AD&D is exclusively a strategy game that plays like a computer role-playing game run by someone behind a screen. That is what all those 20th century CRPGs are emulating in their designs. Their gameplay is a representation of what role-playing is. No storytelling, no acting, just scoring points for role-playing (mastering a class, aka role mastery).

By the end of the 80s role-playing had changed its definition outside of the hobby and in D&D was used to refer to talking in 1st person during play. This could cause a serious detriment to gameplay, which BTB was about scoring points. When playing poorly, even through the disastrous decade of the 90s, it was common for poor players to blame their "character" for bad choices or bad behavior towards others.

Don't be misled by conflations of D&D with wargames. Strategy games simulate all kinds of behavior and AD&D is chock full of these designs. The essential rule here is: the players are never to be shown the "rules" (the design you are repeating, which allow players to actually game for higher scores and improve their proficiency) or the design of the current scenario behind the screen. These two features are the addictive elements of D&D and what kept it from being a footnote to having an enduring legacy of millions so many others wished to steal for their own.

When preparing to run, think of the campaign as a generative, borderless gameboard full of designs to be beaten for XP. Don't write a plot, design a balanced game. The Campaign will be the players attempting (and usually failing) to game up to Name Level. Adventures will be a kind of module in the multiverse gameboard similar to a mid-game problem or test in Chess but far grander in scope.

These adventures do not have beginnings or ends. They are simply designs held in dynamic equilibrium until the repurcussions of players actions alter them.

• B2 is a campaign starting adventure, big enough for a few early levels and balanced and ready for module insertion.
• B1 is a dungeon maker. Filled with important referee advice, novel designs at the time, and blanks so the final design isn't one players could cheat and read ahead of time for higher scores.
• T1 is a Town and Dungeon - delving is a key XP loop in D&D - but the town is actually the primary XP gaming site, so different than any others.
• All of these designs are balanced for strategy gaming and simulation. You plot out their potential futures before play by simulation runs and hold those future probabilities as the "Session Scenario" each and every time.

Compare these designs to 2E: The DMG is talking about a game the rules in no way are designed to support. The assumptions are the players know the rules and even the setting (the maze behind the screen).
- The Avatar Trilogy becomes the misguided design for adventures. All pre-plotted narrative, no matter how well written, with no whiff or comprehension of game design.

Of course there is so much more, but to get an idea if how people thought and talked about AD&D in its time read the discussions of the time. For instance, even the slanderous movie "Mazes & Monsters" has a group looking for a "9th level" player to join. It's like asking for a 30th level Pacman player. If you can't play up to that ability, they don't want you.

What I am saying is the truth, from someone who remembers. But if you are interested in more help and advice for an AD&D campaign we might be better off direct messaging.

 

[wicked cool]

Happy Friday!

First, I have never played AD&D 1e, nor played in Greyhawk, aside from beating the ToEE game 20 years ago (oof, I’m getting old).

Second, while I enjoy a wide variety of play styles and games, my preferences tend to be towards games with less crunch than the WotC editions of D&D have had, at least when it comes to traditional fantasy or swords and sorcery tales.

Third, I am something of an originalist when it comes to creative endeavors, or, if you prefer, I have the Primordial nature from the old World of Darkness. I like taking old things, finding what’s neat about them, and the sharing them with other as I make something new.

I have long flirted with the idea of buying, and then learning, AD&D 1.0/1.5, and then running some of the classic modules in Greyhawk for my group (who also have never played either).

1.0 and Greyhawk seem to be what AD&D was designed for; all the classes and races which have now practically become tropes feeding upon themselves have a natural place in Greyhawk. The feel is less high or heroic fantasy, and more swords and sorcery, which I generally prefer over other types.

Given the above, I am going to make the jump into it, learn it, run modules, and aim for a campaign that lasts the remainder of my natural life (hey, I’m aiming high).

For this, what books and editions of them are the best? What do I need to know when reading these? Is it true that knowledge of how to play is passed on more as an oral tradition than through the books (a concept with which I’m familiar, given my Orthodox background)?

Any help from those who have played, are still playing, and/or loved it would be greatly appreciated.

Try shadowdark. Free beginnner pdf. It’s better than old school d&d. I’m not a 5e hater and shadow dark is old school but just better

 

[TiQuinn]

To the OP: As you can see, there are many naysayers who know either a false history or hold to a malignly constructed (a la the Forge) misunderstanding of the hobby of role-playing games, especially to D&D. To understand the gamebooks in your hands look back at my post and contemplate it. AD&D is exclusively a strategy game that plays like a computer role-playing game run by someone behind a screen. That is what all those 20th century CRPGs are emulating in their designs. Their gameplay is a representation of what role-playing is. No storytelling, no acting, just scoring points for role-playing (mastering a class, aka role mastery).

By the end of the 80s role-playing had changed its definition outside of the hobby and in D&D was used to refer to talking in 1st person during play. This could cause a serious detriment to gameplay, which BTB was about scoring points. When playing poorly, even through the disastrous decade of the 90s, it was common for poor players to blame their "character" for bad choices or bad behavior towards others.

Don't be misled by conflations of D&D with wargames. Strategy games simulate all kinds of behavior and AD&D is chock full of these designs. The essential rule here is: the players are never to be shown the "rules" (the design you are repeating, which allow players to actually game for higher scores and improve their proficiency) or the design of the current scenario behind the screen. These two features are the addictive elements of D&D and what kept it from being a footnote to having an enduring legacy of millions so many others wished to steal for their own.

When preparing to run, think of the campaign as a generative, borderless gameboard full of designs to be beaten for XP. Don't write a plot, design a balanced game. The Campaign will be the players attempting (and usually failing) to game up to Name Level. Adventures will be a kind of module in the multiverse gameboard similar to a mid-game problem or test in Chess but far grander in scope.

These adventures do not have beginnings or ends. They are simply designs held in dynamic equilibrium until the repurcussions of players actions alter them.

• B2 is a campaign starting adventure, big enough for a few early levels and balanced and ready for module insertion.
• B1 is a dungeon maker. Filled with important referee advice, novel designs at the time, and blanks so the final design isn't one players could cheat and read ahead of time for higher scores.
• T1 is a Town and Dungeon - delving is a key XP loop in D&D - but the town is actually the primary XP gaming site, so different than any others.
• All of these designs are balanced for strategy gaming and simulation. You plot out their potential futures before play by simulation runs and hold those future probabilities as the "Session Scenario" each and every time.

Compare these designs to 2E: The DMG is talking about a game the rules in no way are designed to support. The assumptions are the players know the rules and even the setting (the maze behind the screen).
- The Avatar Trilogy becomes the misguided design for adventures. All pre-plotted narrative, no matter how well written, with no whiff or comprehension of game design.

Of course there is so much more, but to get an idea if how people thought and talked about AD&D in its time read the discussions of the time. For instance, even the slanderous movie "Mazes & Monsters" has a group looking for a "9th level" player to join. It's like asking for a 30th level Pacman player. If you can't play up to that ability, they don't want you.

What I am saying is the truth, from someone who remembers. But if you are interested in more help and advice for an AD&D campaign we might be better off direct messaging.

When you say contemplate your post, should I do it on a mountaintop in the Himalayas or will my living room suffice?

 

[Nikosandros]

Didn't Anthony "The Blue Bard" Huso write one of these? I know he's got a series of articles on his site , but I could swear he also had a whole downloadable guide, though I'm not seeing it right now.

I have a file called "ANTHONY HUSO'S GUIDE TO AD&D 1E (UNOFFICIAL COMPILATION)" (compiled by Lucas March M. March). I don't remember if I downloaded it directly from Huso's site. I think so, but I'm not positive.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

AD&D was my first meeting with the system, but these days I vastly prefer OSE Advanced for a similar experience.

 

[rabindranath72]

When you say contemplate your post, should I do it on a mountaintop in the Himalayas or will my living room suffice?

In keeping with the S&S themes of AD&D, you should contemplate this on the Tree of Woe

 

[TiQuinn]

In keeping with the S&S themes of AD&D, you should contemplate this on the Tree of Woe

It was right there for the taking and missed the most classic reference!

 

[Theory of Games]

Dang. @deganawida left us hanging. I wanted to know how their game went.