The thing I miss most from AD&D is...

[MerricB]

I've never missed the morale rules. I don't feel that randomly rolling to determine if the baddies run away make much logical sense. Some creatures will run at the first sign of trouble, others when they know the fight has turned against them, and others just have to be put down like rabid dogs.

I don't quite see why morale rules work against that. Especially the Basic Morale rules, which has monsters that never run in it...

Morale might make more mechanical sense in a wargame, but an RPG doesn't really need it; it's something that can be adequately handled by a DM's judgement.

One of the joys of using a morale mechanic is that for games that are very interested in system mastery over storytelling, it allows the DM to simulate morale without being distracted by how the group is actually going. So, you don't make the monsters run just because the group is doing poorly...

Cheers!

 

[haakon1]

I miss the "You get a Keep and dudes to run it at 9th level". I like nation building and management of that style, and I haven't seen that thing in 3e or 4e at all yet.

I'm leading up to this in 3e, but the players don't seem deeply interested . . .

They do seem to like titles though -- one has been knighted, another is going to be made a captain of scouts pretty soon.

 

[InVinoVeritas]

I'm leading up to this in 3e, but the players don't seem deeply interested . . .

They do seem to like titles though -- one has been knighted, another is going to be made a captain of scouts pretty soon.

That's one of the big shifts I've seen over the years.

In the early days of D&D, getting your stronghold, your keep, your lands, your kingdom--that was a major goal of adventuring. It was to build a base of many underlings to support you.

Nowadays, though, that seems to be mostly avoided by players. They want to ensure that they can never be tied down to any obligation, no matter what the benefits are.

Has this happened, in your opinion?

 

[Aus_Snow]

I don't feel that randomly rolling to determine if the baddies run away make much logical sense. Some creatures will run at the first sign of trouble, others when they know the fight has turned against them, and others just have to be put down like rabid dogs. Morale might make more mechanical sense in a wargame, but an RPG doesn't really need it; it's something that can be adequately handled by a DM's judgement.

That could be said, otherwise word for word, about any RPG mechanics. So I guess I really don't get it. Put another way, rules for morale make just as much sense as rules for say, diplomacy, or for that matter, breaking down a door.

 

[HelloChristian]

Besides the people I used to play it with, I miss the easy to digest rules. The new version is going to have a 3rd PHB coming out in 2010. Three?!

Tooooo many rules.

 

[MerricB]

Besides the people I used to play it with, I miss the easy to digest rules. The new version is going to have a 3rd PHB coming out in 2010. Three?!

Tooooo many rules.

I find there's a real difference between "core" rules and "option" rules, especially if the "option" rules are discretely segmented away. For instance, if you don't have a rogue in the party, there's no need to know the sneak attack rules. It's a set of rules that only applies when a particular class is in the party. Little of PHB2 has any relevance at all to the overall game if no race nor class from it is used.

When Unearthed Arcana came out, (this is the AD&D version), it gave very little in the way of core rules - although it did fold, spindle and mutilate a lot of things about multiclassing. (To make things worse, the first printing of UA, which I have, didn't print all the new material - the result was quite confusing!)

Meanwhile, Wilderness Survival Guide and (especially) Dungeoneering Survival Guide added more "core" rules which could be quite annoying in application.

Yeah, I don't miss WSG or DSG much.

Cheers!

 

[Ahnirades]

Meanwhile, Wilderness Survival Guide and (especially) Dungeoneering Survival Guide added more "core" rules which could be quite annoying in application.

For me the WSG was the real offender. I was at a stage in my gaming where I felt compelled to use every rule published, so rolling for precipitation and wind chill every five minutes wasn't a great deal of fun.

If I'm honest there isn't much of AD&D I miss outside of the adventures. Basic D&D on the other hand still scratces my itch for rules light fantasy gaming like no other. I've recently gotten into Basic Fantasy in quite a big way - it does everything I always wanted the system to do, and very well too. When used with the supplemental material available on the site BFRPG cover most of the class and race combinations of core AD&D without adding reams of extraneous detail, which makes it just about perfect for my needs.

 

[green slime]

There are a couple of spells...but really, not that much.

Don't get me wrong, I love AD&D. I just don't miss it. If a game of AD&D popped up on my radar, I'd play, no question. But currently, 3.X is my D&D of choice.

me too.

 

[billd91]

Meanwhile, Wilderness Survival Guide and (especially) Dungeoneering Survival Guide added more "core" rules which could be quite annoying in application.

Yeah, I don't miss WSG or DSG much.

Cheers!

I actually really did like the WSG, but I always used it as an supplement to add texture to wilderness adventures and the weather. So beyond that, it didn't see much pervasive use.

What I didn't like about these two books, however, was that your level was the primary factor in determining your chance of success at tasks like using a grappling hook or making a jump.

 

[Perram]

Volo's Guides