AD&D 1E Snarf's Challenge: Was it Possible to Play 1e RAW? SHARE YOUR STORIES!

[Alas]

My college crew's longest 1e campaign ran from Fall 1993 to Spring 1995. This was after 2nd edition was well under way, but our DM wanted to use 1st edition, so that's what we used, happily. We had weekly 6-8 hour sessions, mostly pretty classic dungeon crawling (smash doors, get loot, retreat to town).

I want to say we used RAW, but it's actually hard to remember! Certainly I remember we kept a copy of the DMG open to page 75-76 for the combat tables, rather than using THAC0, but we used 1d6+Dex bonus for initiative. We didn't use the weapon vs AC type modifiers, and didn't count segments for spellcasting. We did consistently use miniatures (however improvised), and marching order was pretty important. Gold got counted towards XP. We paid training costs. Healing without spells took ages. I think it's notable that (other than arguably initiative) our DM didn't add any house rules-- they just skipped a bunch of the book rules.

If we had any rule disputes, I don't remember them now. I do remember the time our characters splurged at the tavern and we the players roleplayed getting progressively drunker for 90 solid minutes, falling off our chairs laughing. And I remember the time our DM and the elf F/M-U/T both forgot that elves are immune to ghoul paralysis, which contributed to a TPK that we had to retcon.

We switched to playing Vampire: The Masquerade for the rest of college, but later came back for D&D 3.0, then 3.5, then 4th...
And just this year our group had our first face-to-face game in ages using D&D 5e/2024. At our next game I'll have to ask our DM if they recall how closely they hewed to the book back in the day...

 

[Sacrosanct]

Are you using the RAW as written in 1979 or are you including UA and-or Dragon-article amendments and additions thereafter?

I ask because one factor in the early 1980s that we don't see today is that Dragon came out every month and sometimes had new rules or Gygax's interpretations in it that were intended to be "core" (not that we used that term for it then) and other times had new rules etc. that were intended to be optional. In other words, the game was a living and evolving document rather than a locked-in set of rules.

Then UA came out and made some of that optional stuff core and overwrote or discarded some of the previously-core bits from Dragon.

No, she's been very clear only the core books are used. I even tried to convince her to use OA one time, but that was shot down quickly lol.

I keep hearing you say, "That's all done," and talk about miniatures, but did you actually read what I posted?

I did. And I said we do in fact do that stuff you mentioned, and gave an example of why (because she's incredibly detail orientated and that's her vision). I already said I'm not the DM so I can't for sure say what she is or isn't tracking in the numerous binders she has full of notes and tables and whatnot, but based on how we're playing the game and from what i know of the rules as they are written, it seems more likely than not that she's also factoring in the behind the scenes stuff because of what I know about her and her style.

I've also fully admitted that I can't see why anyone would want to do that or put them though 1e RAW. But I'm not her, so more power to her. Despite the pain of actual play (especially the first few sessions), it's a good group of people at the table, so it's fun. And as someone who's been playing 1e for 44 years but never actually RAW, it's very interesting from an academic perspective.

You keep pointing out rules that are wonky, painful, or not user friendly, which I have always admitted exist, but they don't actually contradict each other, which is what was claimed.

 

[Lanefan]

No, she's been very clear only the core books are used. I even tried to convince her to use OA one time, but that was shot down quickly lol.

That alone probably removes most if not all contradiction issues; as those tended to rear their heads when later rules were added that hadn't been 100% vetted against what already existed.

You say the DM is quite young (wonderful to hear!) - mind if I ask what the age range of the players is?

 

[Sacrosanct]

That alone probably removes most if not all contradiction issues; as those tended to rear their heads when later rules were added that hadn't been 100% vetted against what already existed.

You say the DM is quite young (wonderful to hear!) - mind if I ask what the age range of the players is?

We're all over the board. Some folks have come and gone between sessions (she does an open session). I said she's late 20s, but might be early 30s--I didn't ask. As for players, of the 10 or so that have been playing in her game (half of us are every weekly 4 hour session, the other half are half that time), I'd say 4 of us are 50+, 2 between 40-50, 2 between 30-40, and 2 under 30. Just a rough guess. I'd say about 40/40/20 male/female/non-binary. 8 are Caucasian appearing, one Latino, and one African American. Again, didn't ask, just thinking back on who has all played.

 

[Lanefan]

We're all over the board. Some folks have come and gone between sessions (she does an open session). I said she's late 20s, but might be early 30s--I didn't ask. As for players, of the 10 or so that have been playing in her game (half of us are every weekly 4 hour session, the other half are half that time), I'd say 4 of us are 50+, 2 between 40-50, 2 between 30-40, and 2 under 30. Just a rough guess. I'd say about 40/40/20 male/female/non-binary. 8 are Caucasian appearing, one Latino, and one African American. Again, didn't ask, just thinking back on who has all played.

There's long-range hope for the old school yet, if the playerbase in that game is any indication!