What do you miss about AD&D 1e?

[Biohazard]

I'm sure I'm not the only old-timer here who sometimes yearns for the early 80's, when men were men, women were not gamers, and 10-year-old kids eagerly waded through the voluminous tome that was AD&D 1e's DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE (no apostrophe, mind you ).

Perhaps spurred by the recent polls on AD&D and OD&D, I've been toying with some nostalgia-laced trips back into AD&D 1e.

But before I take the plunge, let me ask a simple question: What do you folks (those of you who were around back in the day) miss about AD&D 1e? Am I just seeing things through nostalgia-fogged goggles, or was there really something special in AD&D 1e, something that we've perhaps lost?

 

[Veritas]

I've been thinking about the same kind of thing lately, since I've been collecting the 1st edition books again (specifically the old lizard idol cover PHB and the efreet cover DMG now), and I picked up a few of the different BD&D boxed sets earlier this year.

I think 1st edition had more soul to it. I mentioned this in another discussion last night. BD&D and AD&D1e had soul. 2e lost some of that, and 3.Xe just seems rather soulless. Everything is too crisp, to clean... maybe it's that 1e and BD&D called for the DM to put more into it, since there weren't rules for every kind of action the players wanted to do... so the DM made adhoc rules and made stuff up more, making the game more personal.

Now, something I specifically miss is the 1st edition Ranger... 2d8 for hit points starting hit dice, maxing out at 24 hit points at first level. That's a survivor. heh. Concentrating on archery and swordsmanship... fighting the good fight against "giant-class creatures". Ah, good times.

The 3.5e ranger has started to approach the feel of the 1e ranger, but ever since 2e, I really haven't bothered with it. I have no idea what game designer pulled two-weapon fighting outa his rear, but he shoulda put it back. The only ranger that ever used two weapons was Drizzt, and he had that from being a drow, not from being a ranger.

 

[Henry]

What do I miss about playing 1st edition?

Gaming with friends in the wee hours of the morning from 1987-1990, listening to GNR, Metallica, and Whitesnake, swaddled in heavy clothes in an unheated second story room of an Antebellum House in the middle of winter, and figuring out what weapon proficiency to take next.

Today - different life, different friends, different venues, new memories.

 

[MerricB]

I absolutely detest the use of "soul". It's a word that has been overused with reference to D&D, and its only purpose is to demean those who you don't agree with.

 

[Henry]

Guys, just a reminder - Troll Lord Games (d20 Company) has released a "Basic" d20 system called Castles and Crusades, reminiscent of the original, complete with three books in a Box Set, low-impact plastic dice, and crayon to color with.

 

[Scribble]

Everything is too crisp, to clean... maybe it's that 1e and BD&D called for the DM to put more into it, since there weren't rules for every kind of action the players wanted to do... so the DM made adhoc rules and made stuff up more, making the game more personal.

I agree with this statement.

That's sort of why Dragon has bugged me. Back in the days of 1 and 2e Dragon was a host of new rules and ideas.. Now it seems like it's just a collection of new variations of the same rule. Usefull, but not as cool as I used to find it.

 

[Henry]

I absolutely detest the use of "soul". It's a word that has been overused with reference to D&D, and its only purpose is to demean those who you don't agree with.

Maybe it's the nostalgia talking, but in one sense, Merric, I can see where they come from, if you mean soul to be "completely unprofessional but still good anyway." Kind of like a comparison between Techno and early 1900's Jazz music - both are good, but whereas one sounds slick and polished, the other is COMPLETELY unprofessional in creation, but comes together anyway.

That's sort of why Dragon has bugged me. Back in the days of 1 and 2e Dragon was a host of new rules and ideas.. Now it seems like it's just a collection of new variations of the same rule. Usefull, but not as cool as I used to find it.

One might say, however, that there's only so many times an idea can me truly "new." In D&D's case, all those pre-#100 issues filled in gaps either intentionally or accidentally left in the rules - now, most topics are covered.

The Good news is, the Re-launch of Dragon and Dungeon (to me at least) has returned somewhat to that format of useful information instead of mechanics-heaviness rehashing of similar concepts constantly. And what slack Dragon and Dungeon leave, the new ENWorld Gamer magazine picks up - very few PrC's and equipment and feats, and more heavy on concepts that not everyone thinks to add into their campaigns. We as an audience are savvier now than we were in 1980, so that bar has to be raised.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

The only thing I really miss about AD&D1e is the rate of experience advancement. Not that each class got its own advancement rate, but instead the rate of overall class advancement.

But I also have some measure of appreciation of the optional nature of proficiencies and skills in AD&D. Not using proficiencies or skills in AD&D didn't significantly diminish playability measureably.


Regards,
Eric Anondson

 

[MerricB]

The big thing I miss from 1E is the actual goal of the game in that edition: to gain XP, you really needed to get treasure.

Thus, the game was all about getting loot! Monsters were just something you fought to get the treasure.

It's a fundamental change in the game. That's not saying it's a bad thing, though.

Thus, the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth: a lot of treasure, but Gygax put a lot of really weird creatures in there to make the PCs work for the treasure.

Cheers!

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The only thing I miss about Firest Edition is the feeling of newness and excitement. But that had nothing to do with the game system, and everything to do with being new to roleplaying.


Jeff