Griffith Dragonlake
First Post
And also c.f. and viz.T. Foster said:
QED
What DO you like about 1E AD&D
- Thread starter Odhanan
- Start date
QED
Philotomy Jurament
First Post
And n.b.Griffith Dragonlake said:
sunrisekid
Explorer
As mentioned by others previously, one thing that strikes me was how easy it was to jump in and start playing. Even brand new players could dope out the basics so long as the DM handled all the mechanics. Allowing the DM to adjudicate most things meant the game moved along really quickly; with 3E it seems that there's so much mechanics to simulate "reality" that it bogs down the game. The fight scenes were among the best moments in a D&D game; It seems that with 3E the start of a fight signals a two-hour lesson in mechanics and miniature micro-management. Shorter fights need a DM and players that have the mechanics mastered AND have the ability to remain incredibly organized with their tactical options. It feels like a bunch of people are trying to recreate an encounter from Neverwinter Nights (which strikes me as deeply ironic).
With old timey D&D you just swing and hit (or miss) and that's that; if you want to jump over a table or swing from a candelabra you just tell the DM and give 'er (or get into a short squabble as to whether doing so is feasible/plausible). Counting squares, moving minis, re-calculating in yer head whether or not such-and-such a move is tactically sound kind of detracts from the fun in my opinion and makes combat pretty boring (though I realize many gamers love that stuff). Personally I have more fun imagining the action and just letting the game move ahead rapidly; it feels way more exciting that way.
I like new iterations of D&D generally speaking; it feels fresh, stimulates the imagination, and is generally still a lot of fun. But how the game is played has altered in an important way since the advent of 3E in my opinion. From Basic through to 2ed. AD&D pretty much played the same, with only slight alterations to how classes and races were created. Feels too much like a simulation game these days; it's cool that mechanics-for-minis are built into the rules but at the same it feels like I can't escape them either. But again, that's just my own playing style I guess.
I'm thinking of getting into D&D again in the near future, and will definitely pick up the 4E core books, but my game will be without minis and battle maps; quick pencil sketches, getting the gist of things, and ad hoc descriptions between players is definitely where the fun lies.
With old timey D&D you just swing and hit (or miss) and that's that; if you want to jump over a table or swing from a candelabra you just tell the DM and give 'er (or get into a short squabble as to whether doing so is feasible/plausible). Counting squares, moving minis, re-calculating in yer head whether or not such-and-such a move is tactically sound kind of detracts from the fun in my opinion and makes combat pretty boring (though I realize many gamers love that stuff). Personally I have more fun imagining the action and just letting the game move ahead rapidly; it feels way more exciting that way.
I like new iterations of D&D generally speaking; it feels fresh, stimulates the imagination, and is generally still a lot of fun. But how the game is played has altered in an important way since the advent of 3E in my opinion. From Basic through to 2ed. AD&D pretty much played the same, with only slight alterations to how classes and races were created. Feels too much like a simulation game these days; it's cool that mechanics-for-minis are built into the rules but at the same it feels like I can't escape them either. But again, that's just my own playing style I guess.
I'm thinking of getting into D&D again in the near future, and will definitely pick up the 4E core books, but my game will be without minis and battle maps; quick pencil sketches, getting the gist of things, and ad hoc descriptions between players is definitely where the fun lies.
Storm Raven
First Post
I liked the suggested reading list in the DMG.
I liked being 11 and staying up all night with my buddes for a session of delving through a series of rooms that had an almost random assortment of monsters, traps, and treasure in them.
I liked tinkering with the system, trying to bend it into something that did what I wanted it to do.
I liked the silly comics in the books, and the less-than-professional artwork.
I liked being 11 and staying up all night with my buddes for a session of delving through a series of rooms that had an almost random assortment of monsters, traps, and treasure in them.
I liked tinkering with the system, trying to bend it into something that did what I wanted it to do.
I liked the silly comics in the books, and the less-than-professional artwork.
TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
Again, posting my thoughts before reading others..
Things in common to all editions
Adventure: Archetypal fantasy characters that explore strange—mostly underground—places, encounter odd beings, and get into a lot of battles with them;
In a Game: While it may have some (or more then some) narrative and simulation, is still a game;
From familiar Fantasy: Massive borrowing from history, mythology, and fantasy fiction;
But with Its Own Style: These borrowings are then warped into D&D shape, and supplemented by even stranger D&D-isms;
And still Flexible: AD&D still gave DMs and players a lot of freedom to put their own spin on things. To put the flesh on the bones, as the DMG said.
Things specific to AD&D
Style: Its not for everyone, but the attitude and style of 1st ed (through about 84-86) remains something approached, but basically untouched. Sure the art is technically better, something’s make more sense, but neither of those creates style by themselves.
The Adventures: These where the stars, and deservedly so. The 3rd edition era also has some gems (out of a much larger number when 3rd parties are included), as do those other editions of D&D, but again, style, the details, the execution, and the way they worked in play, mostly great.
Scope: earlier editions of D&D seemed a little light. And later would come the bloat. Put those first books, with their range of classes, spells, items, and monsters, still feel about right. And if you want more: your module will probably have it.
Play: worked in practice: I hammered AD&D for its rules in another thread, but in practice it worked. And its important to keep in mind that there were worse ideas—many of them—in the early D&D supplements and Dragon that where not put in. For all its flaws, it remains more playable (esp. once the old D&D “common law” is added) then many other role-playing games.
Things in common to all editions
Adventure: Archetypal fantasy characters that explore strange—mostly underground—places, encounter odd beings, and get into a lot of battles with them;
In a Game: While it may have some (or more then some) narrative and simulation, is still a game;
From familiar Fantasy: Massive borrowing from history, mythology, and fantasy fiction;
But with Its Own Style: These borrowings are then warped into D&D shape, and supplemented by even stranger D&D-isms;
And still Flexible: AD&D still gave DMs and players a lot of freedom to put their own spin on things. To put the flesh on the bones, as the DMG said.
Things specific to AD&D
Style: Its not for everyone, but the attitude and style of 1st ed (through about 84-86) remains something approached, but basically untouched. Sure the art is technically better, something’s make more sense, but neither of those creates style by themselves.
The Adventures: These where the stars, and deservedly so. The 3rd edition era also has some gems (out of a much larger number when 3rd parties are included), as do those other editions of D&D, but again, style, the details, the execution, and the way they worked in play, mostly great.
Scope: earlier editions of D&D seemed a little light. And later would come the bloat. Put those first books, with their range of classes, spells, items, and monsters, still feel about right. And if you want more: your module will probably have it.
Play: worked in practice: I hammered AD&D for its rules in another thread, but in practice it worked. And its important to keep in mind that there were worse ideas—many of them—in the early D&D supplements and Dragon that where not put in. For all its flaws, it remains more playable (esp. once the old D&D “common law” is added) then many other role-playing games.
Sanguinemetaldawn
First Post
sunrisekid said:
Actually it was even better than that.
A lot of combat options (like disarming with the spetum) were even easier, and FAR simpler than 3E.
Instead of needing feats and extra rolls all you needed was:
1) Proficiency with a weapon
2) Single to hit roll
Thats it.
...it was actually *simpler* than a regular AD&D attack because there was no damage roll.
Edit:Although it bears noting that some systems (grappling and overbearing, forex) were awful.
Last edited:
an_idol_mind
Explorer
I liked that bards were badasses, and that druids had to duel with their superiors to advance to 12th level and beyond.
