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

[overgeeked]

Makes me wonder if it’s less a total-package game, and more of a toolset for making your own game. I mean, he *was * a hobbyist gamer.

Maybe. I think he was falling into the same trap most designers eventually fall into. Doesn’t matter if it’s relevant or useful. Designers design, so he designed more stuff.

 

[deganawida]

Maybe. I think he was falling into the same trap most designers eventually fall into. Doesn’t matter if it’s relevant or useful. Designers design, so he designed more stuff.

Ah, so like the Civ VI quote for Engineering: “Most people say that, if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it. Engineers say, if it isnt broke, it doesn’t have enough features” (attributed to Scott Adams, and I may have some words off from going from memory.

 

[overgeeked]

Ah, so like the Civ VI quote for Engineering: “Most people say that, if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it. Engineers say, if it isnt broke, it doesn’t have enough features” (attributed to Scott Adams, and I may have some words off from going from memory.

Yeah, it’s a weird one. Maybe he was trying to show it was legally distinct by over designing it. But then he talks about how D&D is bad at realism and was never meant to be realistic, yet most of the rules are pushing the game towards a sense of at least passing realism.

 

[Jahydin]

Makes me wonder if it’s less a total-package game, and more of a toolset for making your own game. I mean, he *was * a hobbyist gamer.

From my understanding, it came from a demand for more concrete rules from the fans... so he delivered in spades.

Also, there were lots of competing products at this time, so the "do whatever you want" attitude could risk sales (since you didn't need D&D to do that). Much safer to have impressive complexity that could be scaled back to anyone's preference. Just speculating here, way before my time.

 

[Jahydin]

One thing I will say though, it adds a ton of charm and one of the reasons I'll have a copy on hand till the day I die. Having a ton of esoteric rules kind of adds to the "archaic feeling" of playing something ancient and fantastical IMO.

Also, the places where it seems he had a gaming session that the players pulled some BS so he hastily "sticky noted" more rules on top to fix it makes me chuckle. Identify spell for example.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Finished the PHB. It’s definitely anemic compared to later versions. Also, people were not kidding about the organization issues.

Started the DMG the other day. Now I’m wondering just what the heck is going on, and how the heck anyone could learn all these scattered rules, much less utilize them in a game that didn’t take hours for a single combat. I may need to reflect a bit on what I’ve already read, and let it soak in.

It's the parable of the blind men and the elephant. Everyone's version of 1E was likely unique, because each group remembered where to find certain rules and chose to reject/incorporate stuff like weapon speed and other fiddly combat variables.

Even with OSRIC, I can't imagine playing straight 1E now, since I don't want to use a lot of those fiddlier rules (which I think were probably intended as optional rules, but just not labeled as such, given how systems like that were discussed in The Strategic Review/The Dragon magazine).

Hard to beat the Gygaxian vibes, though.

 

[overgeeked]

It's the parable of the blind men and the elephant. Everyone's version of 1E was likely unique, because each group remembered where to find certain rules and chose to reject/incorporate stuff like weapon speed and other fiddly combat variables.

Even with OSRIC, I can't imagine playing straight 1E now, since I don't want to use a lot of those fiddlier rules (which I think were probably intended as optional rules, but just not labeled as such, given how systems like that were discussed in The Strategic Review/The Dragon magazine).

I think I mentioned it in this thread, but just in case here goes again.

It's also worth remembering the release schedule of D&D at the time. You had OD&D in 1974, Holmes Basic in 1977, AD&D Monster Manual in 1977, AD&D Player's Handbook in 1978, and AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide in 1979. B/X came out in 1981. Mentzer BECMI started in 1983.

There were no to-hit charts or rules in the PHB. So until the DMG was released a year later, people had to either make it up or look to Holmes Basic or OD&D to figure out how attacking worked. Groups started at different times with different levels of "completed" AD&D rules, looked to different sources to fill the gaps, homebrewed different solutions, etc.

A lot of people did not take the Basic line as a separate game line, as intended by TSR. They used it as the basic rules of the game. It was all D&D to a lot of people. So in practice you had people playing with AD&D classes and spells, but a lot of B/X and/or BECMI rules for everything else.

It was a real Wild West time for D&D.

Hard to beat the Gygaxian vibes, though.

I think the one that comes closest in modern times is Joseph Goodman, Goodman Games, and DCC RPG. Not the same, obviously, but to me at least, that stuff comes the closest.

 

[TiQuinn]

I think the one that comes closest in modern times is Joseph Goodman, Goodman Games, and DCC RPG. Not the same, obviously, but to me at least, that stuff comes the closest.

They do a fantastic job of emulating Gygaxian D&D, particularly DCC. Their maps and artwork are chef’s kiss

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I've been a fan of Goodman Games since the 3E era. Hard to go wrong with their stuff. (And the 3E Dragonfiend Pact is just 50 cents right now on sale at DTRPG. Holy crap, buy that if you don't own it and convert it to the system you prefer.)

 

[Mannahnin]

IMO letting Fighter-Mages cast in armour was a mistake, and that it was removed is good.

It works fine. And it lets them actually use all their class abilities, which is the baseline for multiclassing. You are paying full xp for each class, after all.

Removing the ability to cast in armor simulates one particular vision of a game world, but it's not one with any particular grounding in the source fiction. While wizards generally don't wear armor in the literature and that's a trope, characters who both fight and use magic (like Elric) have no issues doing so in armor, at least in pre-D&D fiction. And generally in post-D&D fiction that's not based on D&D.

Wait, a short bow can fire twice a round!

I've read all my AD&D books over COVID cover to cover and somehow still missed all these rules, haha.

All long and short bows do in AD&D (1st and 2nd ed). And all missile weapons fire at full ROF while stationary, or half their ROF if you move (and if you do, you only move half speed).

Official Basic D&D did not use rate of fire or AC adjustments, and a lot of OSR is based off of B/X.

OSRIC and Astonishing Swordwmen & Sorcerers of Hyperboria are standout 1e variants.

I tried to use the AC adjustments in practice for a while but the conceptual incoherence of doing that for straight armor AC when most AC numbers could represent both a specific armor or a different armor with a shield in AD&D ruined the purpose of it for me and I soon dropped it as extra fiddliness that would not execute its intended purpose.

The 2nd ed simplification of categorizing weapons as Slashing, Piercing, or Bludgeoning and having an optional rule for a +2 or -2 to hit adjustment against certain types of armor for certain types was more usable, but in practice we still mostly didn't.