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

[rabindranath72]

Give him time! He is still recovering from the ordeal

 

[rabindranath72]

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.


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.

Indeed. AD&D 1e's XP system must be the one I prefer most amongst all the various D&D XP systems, both old and new (with 4e's scoring a close second.)
While it's true that "scoring" doesn't directly involve roleplaying as it's based just on acquisition of loot (~80% treasure and magic items) and defeating monsters (~20%), a player that consistently refuses (or is incapable) of roleplaying (adhering to class role and professed alignment, per DMG p.86) will find that he will be forced to acquire WAY more treasure (and thus risk the character's life!) if he wants to gain levels. This creates a "virtuous" game loop where roleplaying is practically essential to advancement, not just a (somewhat arbitrary) source of XPs.
The whole reminds me of the "Describe to Survive" mantra of Torchbearer (and the fact that also in Torchbearer roleplaying is essential to advancement.) I think AD&D 1e's system is pretty "modern" by any reasonable criterion.

 

[deganawida]

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

No combat, set up for an extraction of hostiles. Lots of focus on story and role-playing. Fun, but want to try combat. Also, it's been so long since I've actually been able to play a TSR-era game that I was a bit shocked when I was told that my ranger couldn't make a snare trap using 50' of rope. I rolled with it, though.

 

[Theory of Games]

No combat, set up for an extraction of hostiles. Lots of focus on story and role-playing. Fun, but want to try combat. Also, it's been so long since I've actually been able to play a TSR-era game that I was a bit shocked when I was told that my ranger couldn't make a snare trap using 50' of rope. I rolled with it, though.

Sorry that you didn't get any combat. It's a thing with these new GMs unfortunately (they prefer social interaction and rules over rulings). But it's good to see you jump back in the pool and have some fun!

 

[Jahydin]

No combat, set up for an extraction of hostiles. Lots of focus on story and role-playing.

You're playing AD&D all wrong! /jk

Crazy about the Ranger. That seems like that shouldn't be an issue to make a simple trap.

 

[Claudius1967]

1ed is so much more controlled by the DM. If you have a great DM it is the best edition. But prepare to die. It is way more deadly than the later editions. I love that. But someone who made a big deal developing the character that gets wiped by the first hobgoblin they meet, isn't going to be happy about it. Also none of these other species / races thing besides the basics. I find it lovely but I am old. LOL. A bad DM, not so great. The later editions are more structured which is good - but they aren't as deadly and sometimes it can get a bit rules lawyery. The later editions also allow much more control of what the character is and there are so many more options.

 

[Queer Venger]

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.

have fun, I don't see the point of it when other 1e clones already exist that do it better. Ive been playing 5e for 10 years for a reason.

 

[TiQuinn]

have fun, I don't see the point of it when other 1e clones already exist that do it better. Ive been playing 5e for 10 years for a reason.

C’mon. Don’t threadcrap this.

 

[Queer Venger]

C’mon. Don’t threadcrap this.

just statin the facts.

 

[Mannahnin]

just statin the facts.

It could be the facts that I'm ugly and my mother dresses me funny, but it still wouldn't be cool to say it here.