Top Ten Reasons AD&D Is Fun

[Krensky]

1) Gygaxian Prose: While not strictly an element of play, EGG's writing style, particularly in the DMG, is full of character and evokes a certain kind of game. Far from being mere rule manuals, the AD&D books are a *discussion* about what makes a great AD&D game.

Uh huh. Whatever floats your boat. Personally, I want straightforward and clear text in the rule books. Save the prose and flavor for setting guides.

2) An evolution, not revolution: AD&D grew out of years of OD&D, with real life play and Dragon Magazine articles informing the design. And while the core books have a single author, its obvious that everyone EGG played with and much of what was created in Dragon informed his design. Even many of the arguments (slow burn flame wars in the Forum) that occurred at the time get addressed in the core books, with many why's and wherefore's regarding the design.

What does that have to do with the fun quotient?

3) Layers of Rules: Tastes vary on how "fiddly" a game should be in play. AD&D has a lot of complex rules, but almost all of them can be ignored for expediency or fun, largely due to the modular nature of the design. Some find weapon types vs armor class too much book keeping that slows down play, for example. it is easily ignored. However, it's there and has a real effect on play if it isn't ignored. Many systems in the game are like this, from encumbrance to the probability of contracting disease.

This is the case in other editions and other games, however they don't have the head scratching completely disparate systems and mechanics that 1e had. I tend to view having to memorize a dozen different ways of handling things as unfun.

4) Treasure=XP: It is often stated that D&D is about killing things and taking their stuff. The treasure as XP paradigm of AD&D brings this sharply into focus. In it there exists a mechanical game element designed to direct players toward the design goal of the game. With the inclusion of rules regarding the difficulty of encounters versus the XP reward for treasure acquired, players are motivated to engage more difficult foes to gain greater rewards. But the relatively low XP value of the monsters means that killing everything that rears its head is unnecessary: the real focus is the taking of stuff, not the killing of things. Players are rewarded in this way for using trickery and good planning to get the treasure, not necessarily leaping immediately into the fray.

Which leads to looting every corpse, room, chest, or whatever that the players encounter. In extreme cases, this leads to scraping gold leaf from gilded architectural features and debating the resale value of baby animals as pets or parts. I prefer systems where experience is awarded for doing things, overcoming challenges (through commbat, diplomacy, stealth, or whatever) and accomplishing goals and objectives.

5) Lower hit points: The low number of hit points for both heroes and monsters in AD&D, relative to other editions, makes fights fast and deadly. In the former case, it keeps the action flowing, and as to the latter it promotes good tactics and smart play.

Honestly, I've never had issues with this one way or the other, but I long ago determined my games must be well outside the norm since I've never had issues with any of the classical problems with 3/3.5.

6) Uncertainty: Random encounters. Random hit points. Random treasure. There's a lot of random elements in AD&D, all taken together amount to a degree of uncertainty that keeps the game fresh even for the true veteran. Even the DM is granted this benefit: between the unexpected things players are wont to do and the results of random roles in play, the DM can never be certain of what a session, and adventure or a whole campaign will be like.

If you like that, fine. I tend to find random results to be more useful as tools when I'm at a loss or don't care about the outcome. My table and I (whichever side of the screen I am on at the time) prefer consistency and verisimilitude of randomness in a game that isn't being run with Toon!

7) The Simulation-Game Tightrope: While EGG states AD&D isn't a simulation in the introduction to the DMG, the game is chock full of what we'd call "simulationist" elements, ranging from monster frequency to castle construction costs to rules for disease. At the same time, there's a great deal of material built specifically for the "gamist" experience of play, largely informed by the wargaming roots. Combine these two and AD&D allows us to play a game that creates a world.

Meh. This assumes you buy into that view of game design.

8) Forward Compatibility: Most of the "D&D-isms" we know and love were developed during the 1E days. These tropes and cliches permeate most every edition of the game that followed. Combined with AD&D relatively simple mechanics, "backward engineering" of material from BECMI, 2nd Edition and 3rd Edition is mostly easy, providing the modern AD&D group near limitless resources for their game. From kits to Eberron, those things that followed AD&D's legacies invariably provide the AD&D gamer with more for their AD&D game.

I can and have converted 1e and 2e stuff into 3e, and am confidnet I could fake something from 4e if I really had to.

9) The Fan Community: Folks that still play AD&D are passionate about it. they have to be: there game of choice has been out of print for decades. As such, they create resources, communities and play events -- whether online, at conventions or in their hometowns -- that add to the game and the experience of playing it.

Any game or edition has this. What does this have to do with your argument?

10) The OGL and OSRIC: And now, with the OGL and OSRIC, fan made APA style materials are not the limit to what new material is available for the AD&D game. Many professionals and semi-professionals have picked up the torch and carried on, giving AD&D gamers fresh adventures, supplements and other resources, making the game new again.

3/3.5 is in the same boat now. How does this make 1e more or less fun then any other edition?


These are aall reason why you (and possibly your table) finds 1e more fun then another edition. Perssonally, a number of them are reasons why my table findes 1e/OSRIC the least fun. Non-human level limits, and non-coherent sub-systems are two others. You like 1e. Fine, cool. You think it's the most fun version of D&D. Awesome. I find 3.5 to be the most fun and versital editon. That's cool too.

{Requisite editon war snarky insult goes here}

 

[Reynard]

This is the case in other editions and other games, however they don't have the head scratching completely disparate systems and mechanics that 1e had. I tend to view having to memorize a dozen different ways of handling things as unfun.

Ah, but modularity equates to customization. Strong core systems that have lots of internal links make adding and/or removing elements more difficult and time consuming, and therefore less fun.

Which leads to looting every corpse, room, chest, or whatever that the players encounter. In extreme cases, this leads to scraping gold leaf from gilded architectural features and debating the resale value of baby animals as pets or parts.

You say this like it's a bad thing.

I prefer systems where experience is awarded for doing things, overcoming challenges (through commbat, diplomacy, stealth, or whatever) and accomplishing goals and objectives.

These things are not mutually exclusive. You can, and should, award XP for doing stuff like killing things and achieving goals. But XP for treasure provides a motivation for what is otherwise a pretty unsual and risky activity (just ask Conan -- he was constantly going in holes, killing things and taking stuff, and was still broke all the time). Of course, awarding the lion's share of XP for treasure when you're running a game about leading a rebellion against an usurper or somesuch might not work so great, but I was speaking of KTTS gaming.

If you like that, fine. I tend to find random results to be more useful as tools when I'm at a loss or don't care about the outcome. My table and I (whichever side of the screen I am on at the time) prefer consistency and verisimilitude of randomness in a game that isn't being run with Toon!

No disparaging Toon. Great game. However, the point isn't the silly results that occasionally come up with AD&D's inherent uncertainty, but the way that inherent uncertainty makes the game less predictable and more fun for everyone at the table, DM included. Besides, you have a game screen for a reason -- even the Master advised not taking every random die result for gospel if it would throw off the game.

Meh. This assumes you buy into that view of game design.

Well, I'm just using terms I think people have enough of a grasp over to grok my meaning. What I mean is that rpgs are different from other kinds of games, and one of those differences is that narratives emerge naturally from play, and AD&D is the edition I think supports both of those aspects, the play and the narrative, the most -- 2E tipped way over to the narrative side; 4E is entirely too play oriented; 3E was probably second to 1E in this regard.

I can and have converted 1e and 2e stuff into 3e, and am confidnet I could fake something from 4e if I really had to.

Agreed, but 1E is simple than those that follow it, so it's more of a matter of exclusion than invention to fit something from 2E or 3E into 1E. This means its easier to do, and hence more fun.

Any game or edition has this. What does this have to do with your argument?

Have you been over to dragonsfoot? They're passionate and the community produces material on par with the production values, minus paper, of the original. Now, I think you'd see more of this for 3E if the OGL and the d20 license didn't turn every fan into a pdf publisher. Granted, because the 1E fan community is passionate, I occassionally find myself on the wrong side of an edition battle (I think 1E is the most fun, I don't claim it's "the best" or "the one and only" edition).

3/3.5 is in the same boat now. How does this make 1e more or less fun then any other edition?

I needed a #10 and I'm all kinds of giddy that there's new professional publications for 1E after 20 years or so. Sue me.

You like 1e. Fine, cool. You think it's the most fun version of D&D. Awesome. I find 3.5 to be the most fun and versital editon. That's cool too.

Indeed! I think we (all of us) can (and probably should) have a conversation about why this edition or that makes us happy or not. See, edition wars only happen because we allow ourselves the indulgence of getting offended -- what with it being text and all, we can apply "tone" however we like and if we feel like getting offended, it's easy to do so. Ultimately, fundamental disagreements about what's fun about D&D and what's "best" in play make for great duscussions.

{Requisite editon war snarky insult goes here}

there's nothing "requisite" about edition war threads.

 

[Andre]

3) Layers of Rules: Tastes vary on how "fiddly" a game should be in play. AD&D has a lot of complex rules, but almost all of them can be ignored for expediency or fun, largely due to the modular nature of the design. Some find weapon types vs armor class too much book keeping that slows down play, for example. it is easily ignored. However, it's there and has a real effect on play if it isn't ignored. Many systems in the game are like this, from encumbrance to the probability of contracting disease.

This is an interesting point. One of the strengths of 3E is the (mostly) unified mechanics used for the various elements. One of its weaknesses, however, is the extreme degree to which everything is integrated. There are advantages to having a simpler base of rules, onto which players can layer additional rules as they see fit. House ruling and customizing a game to fit one's own group would be much easier if 3E had taken such an approach.

That said, I do not miss the obtuse, confusing, overly complex systems Gary tended to come up with.

 

[jdrakeh]

Why? I didn't say 1E was better than [insert your favorite edition here]. Nor did I say "1E roxxorzz!!!" with no qualification for the statement.

If one were to view the post in the least conspiratorial light, one might surmise I am "spoiling for a conversation."

Okay, I'll bite. You said that AD&D is "more fun" — more fun than what?

 

[Morrus]

A

Have you been over to dragonsfoot? They're passionate and the community produces material on par with the production values, minus paper, of the original. Now, I think you'd see more of this for 3E if the OGL and the d20 license didn't turn every fan into a pdf publisher. Granted, because the 1E fan community is passionate, I occassionally find myself on the wrong side of an edition battle (I think 1E is the most fun, I don't claim it's "the best" or "the one and only" edition).

A valid point, but it can be shortened to: "1E fan stuff is free, 3E/4E fan stuff costs money".

I can understand that as a point of view; but I'd argue that the market kicks in and that 3/4E stuff, while costing money is more abundant and of generally better quality than 1E fan stuff.

I don't think it has a thing to do with universal personality traits such as "passion" magically shared only by players of 1E and not by those of later editions.

 

[Reynard]

Okay, I'll bite. You said that AD&D is "more fun" — more fun than what?

I thought it was implicit, but okay: other editions of D&D.

 

[Reynard]

A valid point, but it can be shortened to: "1E fan stuff is free, 3E/4E fan stuff costs money".

I can understand that as a point of view; but I'd argue that the market kicks in and that 3/4E stuff, while costing money is more abundant and of generally better quality than 1E fan stuff.

I don't think it has a thing to do with universal personality traits such as "passion" magically shared only by players of 1E and not by those of later editions.

Certainly there's "passion" anywhere in fandom, but I guess what I mean is that given that there's been a couple decades and now 3 editions between the heyday of 1E and now, those folks that are both a) still playing 1E and b) part of the public community qualify as "veteran fans". Again, this can lead to some intolerance at times, but it can also mean that they have a deep understanding and rich base of experience. This leads to some really interesting discussions and analysis, not to mention well worn and tested houserules and homebrews.

I don't mean to disparage EN World at all by the way -- I mean I posted this here for a reason: I like this community and I think we do a pretty good job of talking about D&D (as a general thing, not as any given iteration of the game). I also think EN World is more inclusive and generally less reactionary.

 

[jdrakeh]

I thought it was implicit, but okay: other editions of D&D.

Okay, so you did, in fact, mean that "1E was better than [insert your favorite edition here]" — you just didn't spell it out word for word. Thanks for the clarification!

 

[jephlewis]

I agree with each of your points; my favorites are numbers 9 and 10.

I didn't play that much 1E, though. I started with red box basic, and played maybe ten sessions tops, of 1E. Then went to 2E and BECMI.

What do you think of castles and crusades, OP?

 

[Reynard]

Okay, so you did, in fact, mean that "1E was better than [insert your favorite edition here]" — you just didn't spell it out word for word. Thanks for the clarification!

Close.

"More fun" =/= "better"

At least, that's not the claim I'm making. "Good" implies some sort of objective measurement, which is, of course, impossible when discussing preferences for things like games. AD&D is a well designed game, but so are 2E, 3.x and 4E. 1E is, however, "more fun".

PS I am totally leaving out BECMI on purpose. That was the version I grew up with and nostalgia prevents me from making any clear judgment on its quality. I didn't discover AD&D until later, and shortly thereafter switched to the "shiny new" 2E (the game in with which I had both the most success and most experience) -- so nostalgia isn't really an issue with 1E. It's only been since realizing there was something just not quite clicking with 3E with me that I begin to really look at each edition individually and disocvered that 1E was, in fact, the "most fun" D&D edition.