What DO you like about 1E AD&D
- Thread starter Odhanan
- Start date
1. The "Gygaxian Flavor": a kitchen-sink melange of Howard and Leiber meets Vance meets de Camp & Pratt meets Burroughs meets Merritt meets Lovecraft meets Tolkien meets Moorcock meets a dozen other authors all filtered through one man's creative vision. Nowadays people think of this as "the D&D feel" as if it's something that either always existed or grew up organically on its own but in reality it was pretty much single-handedly the invention of one man -- Gary Gygax. OD&D (especially Supplement I: Greyhawk) gives hints of the "Gygaxian Flavor" to come, but nothing like what AD&D (the rulebooks, the modules, and the Sorcerer's Scroll articles in Dragon) provides. OD&D is a toolbox for creating your own fantasy campaigns; AD&D is an extended portrait of Gary Gygax's fantasy campaign, and it's immensely seductive.
2. Gygax's authorial voice: something of a Jack Vance-pastiche -- mock-erudite, absurdly ostentatious language that felt baroque and old-fashioned in the 70s and nowadays feels downright archaic and bizarre. Who else would use a phrase like "the antithesis of weal" in place of the word "evil" in a rulebook for a game?! People who don't realize that this authorial voice (and the mock-antagonistic and occasionally condescending tone that goes with it) is at least 50% put-on and spoof are missing the joke (or are, perhaps, the butts of it).
3. The inspirational essays in the PH and DMG: The PH doesn't just teach players the rules of the game, it also gives mounds of instruction and advice on how to play it well (assuming your DM is Gary Gygax and the campaign is Greyhawk Castle) -- there's tons of valuable and inspiring stuff on PH pp. 101-109 which makes you want to start playing right away. And the DMG is even better -- while it's crappy as a reference work (almost impossibly badly organized) it's great as inspiration, with Gygax taking on the role of coach or mentor taking fledgling DMs by the hand and encouraging them with all manner of anecdotes and examples, trying not so much to teach a set of rules as to instill an attitude. There are many sections of the DMG that I still re-read from time to time and draw fresh inspiration from, which is ultimately much more interesting and valuable to me than, say, a straightforward explanation of how initiative is actually supposed to work (but OTOH it would've been nice to have that too...).
4. All the Charts and Tables and Lists of Miscellaneous Crap: Reputed magical qualities of gemstones and herbs, wandering prostitutes, dungeon dressing (including weird noises and junk found in dungeon hallways), characteristics of magical substances, types of diseases and insanity, areas of expertise for sages, glossary of naval terminology, types of governments, NPC personality characteristics, the Potion Miscability Table, material components for spells, the Inspirational Reading List (I'm still pulling titles from that list 20+ years later), etc. etc. etc. This stuff is informative (find someone of a certain age who knows how to use all those Latin abbreviations (i.e., e.g., q.v., et al.) correctly and it's almost certainly a former 1E AD&D player), entertaining, and hugely inspirational -- I can still pour over these lists and tables for hours and come up with dozens of encounter and adventure ideas.
5. The Davids' (Trampier and Sutherland) Art: Sutherland's art captures the Spirit of the Game absolutely note-perfectly (and, yes, the lack of professional technique is part of the appeal) whereas Trampier's art is, IMO, still the best art ever produced in the rpg industry. Honorable mentions also to Erol Otus and Tom Wham.
2. Gygax's authorial voice: something of a Jack Vance-pastiche -- mock-erudite, absurdly ostentatious language that felt baroque and old-fashioned in the 70s and nowadays feels downright archaic and bizarre. Who else would use a phrase like "the antithesis of weal" in place of the word "evil" in a rulebook for a game?! People who don't realize that this authorial voice (and the mock-antagonistic and occasionally condescending tone that goes with it) is at least 50% put-on and spoof are missing the joke (or are, perhaps, the butts of it).
3. The inspirational essays in the PH and DMG: The PH doesn't just teach players the rules of the game, it also gives mounds of instruction and advice on how to play it well (assuming your DM is Gary Gygax and the campaign is Greyhawk Castle) -- there's tons of valuable and inspiring stuff on PH pp. 101-109 which makes you want to start playing right away. And the DMG is even better -- while it's crappy as a reference work (almost impossibly badly organized) it's great as inspiration, with Gygax taking on the role of coach or mentor taking fledgling DMs by the hand and encouraging them with all manner of anecdotes and examples, trying not so much to teach a set of rules as to instill an attitude. There are many sections of the DMG that I still re-read from time to time and draw fresh inspiration from, which is ultimately much more interesting and valuable to me than, say, a straightforward explanation of how initiative is actually supposed to work (but OTOH it would've been nice to have that too...).
4. All the Charts and Tables and Lists of Miscellaneous Crap: Reputed magical qualities of gemstones and herbs, wandering prostitutes, dungeon dressing (including weird noises and junk found in dungeon hallways), characteristics of magical substances, types of diseases and insanity, areas of expertise for sages, glossary of naval terminology, types of governments, NPC personality characteristics, the Potion Miscability Table, material components for spells, the Inspirational Reading List (I'm still pulling titles from that list 20+ years later), etc. etc. etc. This stuff is informative (find someone of a certain age who knows how to use all those Latin abbreviations (i.e., e.g., q.v., et al.) correctly and it's almost certainly a former 1E AD&D player), entertaining, and hugely inspirational -- I can still pour over these lists and tables for hours and come up with dozens of encounter and adventure ideas.
5. The Davids' (Trampier and Sutherland) Art: Sutherland's art captures the Spirit of the Game absolutely note-perfectly (and, yes, the lack of professional technique is part of the appeal) whereas Trampier's art is, IMO, still the best art ever produced in the rpg industry. Honorable mentions also to Erol Otus and Tom Wham.
Evocative prose and pictures, short monster stat blocks, magic items that were exciting, a design centred around exploration rather than tactical combat.
Generally speaking, I still use my 1e DMG frequently for the advice and random tables, both of which remain useful. I also still use my 1e monster books; while I don't use my 1e PHB, preferring eg C&C PHB or maybe Moldvay-Cook Basic-Expert.
Generally speaking, I still use my 1e DMG frequently for the advice and random tables, both of which remain useful. I also still use my 1e monster books; while I don't use my 1e PHB, preferring eg C&C PHB or maybe Moldvay-Cook Basic-Expert.
Melan
Explorer
All good points, T. Foster, but this is probably the best of them. The DMG may not be an excellent reference work, but it is very educational in giving a new (or even old) DM a perspective on what makes it fun... all in a readable, entertaining style. I am suspecting it may even have been more effective than a dry "just the facts, m'am" approach, and had a definite role in establishing D&D in the popular imagination.T. Foster said:
I have also argued that Gygaxian fantasy is very far from generic - it is a specific creative vision which is almost unknown today in its real form... cited more often as a negative stereotype than the real deal.
Mauricio Pezzotta
First Post
Not much, but:
The relativelly fast combat; Vancian magic; the implied don't-pull-punches attitude; experience coming mostly from gold; and the non-customizable classes.
The relativelly fast combat; Vancian magic; the implied don't-pull-punches attitude; experience coming mostly from gold; and the non-customizable classes.
Philotomy Jurament
First Post
In addition to the stuff I listed earlier, I also like the concept of "name level" as a sort of "soft ceiling" for advancement. It happens to delineate the range of levels that I find most fun, and it also defines a "top end" that most mortals don't go beyond (which is useful for determining relative power levels in the campaign).
Favorite
I like things that were so obscure that even the DM was surprised!
"The evil fighter swings, his weapon seem preternaturally accurate. Morgan takes a deep wound in his side. Margan take 15 hp damage. Scourge, it's your initiative."
"I use my spetum to disarm the evil fighter, I need a 4 to hit AC 8."
"What?"
"I roll a 10! He is disarmed! Look at the notes under weapons."
The DM looks with consternation in the PHB. "AC 8? Yep that's what it says here. The evil fighters sword flys from his hand to the ground at his feet. Adverhb what do you do?"
"I make a pick pocket attempt to grab the preternaturally accurate sword!"
Good times.
I like things that were so obscure that even the DM was surprised!
"The evil fighter swings, his weapon seem preternaturally accurate. Morgan takes a deep wound in his side. Margan take 15 hp damage. Scourge, it's your initiative."
"I use my spetum to disarm the evil fighter, I need a 4 to hit AC 8."
"What?"
"I roll a 10! He is disarmed! Look at the notes under weapons."
The DM looks with consternation in the PHB. "AC 8? Yep that's what it says here. The evil fighters sword flys from his hand to the ground at his feet. Adverhb what do you do?"
"I make a pick pocket attempt to grab the preternaturally accurate sword!"
Good times.
P
PaulofCthulhu
Guest
From my point of view, I have to agree with that.S'mon said:
More than anything else, even character rules crunch, it must be that change of ethos for me. For tactical combats, I play wargames.
1st Ed. AD&D (and prior) seemed more story-driven, truer 'adventures' than the current iteration. Now it feels all about the combat. (At least in the games I've played in 3e, your mileage may vary.)
I think I finally gave up when our combats lasted the best part of an hour each. People may get their kicks that way, just not me.
Last edited:
The greatest strength of this system IMO was the "setting focus" and the lack of hard and fast rules to determine every situation. By leaving this up to the DM (with only suggestions by the author) it made it difficult for the players to know their chances to do things (this decreased the rules feel and increasing the immersion "playing make believe" experiance, it kept the game fluid, exciting and fresh...like you were really there). Also the "veto power" of the DM kept the players from trying to put on the DMs hat, freeing them up to simply imagine, strategize etc. Many other FRPG games focus too much on micro-managing with rules and too little on making (ie. inspiring and guiding) the players. AD&D tells you to trust the DM (giving him the creativity). The reason AD&D feels so alive with spirit is because of the complete control of the DM. It is the most miss-understood aspect of the game. A good DM will impartially let the players do whatever they feel like, and thus create the story as they go. Ironically, the difficulty in understanding the real rules of the game even furthered this experiance, as each DM was forced to interpret the rules as he saw fit (infact we still can't agree on simple things like how initiative is supposed to work).
To recap others:
1. Archetype system (flavor was added by role play, equipment etc.)
2. De-emphasis on attributes
3. Death always a strong possibility
4. The setting (heavily dungeon focused) esp. pre-Greyhawk (which was limiting IMO).
5. Using a to hit and save table system (freed up the DM and players).
6. The speed and ease of resolving battles (espl. when compared to later versions).
7. The initiative system (Side A vs Side B) role a D6, high role goes first. The details about
exactly how this works shouldn't detract from its basic concept.
8. Not having a hard fast rule for every situation (allowed for a fluid and unpredictable experiance).
9. Ease of creating your own world and dungeons
The list could go on of course, but reality unfort. calls.
To recap others:
1. Archetype system (flavor was added by role play, equipment etc.)
2. De-emphasis on attributes
3. Death always a strong possibility
4. The setting (heavily dungeon focused) esp. pre-Greyhawk (which was limiting IMO).
5. Using a to hit and save table system (freed up the DM and players).
6. The speed and ease of resolving battles (espl. when compared to later versions).
7. The initiative system (Side A vs Side B) role a D6, high role goes first. The details about
exactly how this works shouldn't detract from its basic concept.
8. Not having a hard fast rule for every situation (allowed for a fluid and unpredictable experiance).
9. Ease of creating your own world and dungeons
The list could go on of course, but reality unfort. calls.
Last edited:
JamesM
First Post
QFT, as the kids say. Far too many people seem to have this idea that the flavor of D&D just naturally evolved, bubbling up from the ooze of mid-70s fantasy spontaneously, when the reality is that 95% (or more) of that flavor was the brainchild of one man and we've been living in his shadow ever since.T. Foster said:
The great English classicist Benjamin Jowett once famously quipped that the whole of Western philosophy was nothing but a series of footnotes to Plato. In many ways, the whole of fantasy roleplaying is nothing but a series of footnotes to Gygax.
Well said. The notion of authorial voice has gone decidedly out of fashion overall but particularly so in RPGs, which tend to read nowadays like technical manuals rather than as invitations to imaginative adventure. Gygax's style, while occasionally opaque, rather nicely encapsulated everything about why this hobby we all love took off and grabbed people: it was baroque and old-fashioned and it drew me in like a moth to the flame. Reading Gygax, I felt transported; I still do. He was and is a master of literary evocation and D&D benefited immeasurably from his talents in this area. I'd even even argue that it was Gygax's skills as a writer far more than his skills as a game designer that cemented D&D's success.
We shall not read his like again.
Last edited:
