What do you miss about AD&D 1e?

[Dr Simon]

You seem unusually bothered by the fermentation process.

Rest assured: the alcohol takes care of any troublesome wee-beasties.
:\

Leaping on the tangent here (rest assured I shall make an on-topic post in my next post)

Not to mention hops in any decent ale, which have a disinfectant property. I'd much rather fill my stomach with a decent bottle of beer (ingredients - water, malted barley, hops, yeast, all lovely and natural) than some hypercaffienated sugar/aspartame laden slop.

Beer can't be all bad - they canonised they guy who discovered its antiseptic properties (Saint Arnold).

Si.

 

[Dr Simon]

And now on-topic....

I'm puzzled that people seem to be taking so long over their 3rd Edition combats - people - it's really not that difficult, and certainly no more or less than 1st Edition (especially when you take into account comments like "I found 1st Edition easier, but then our group ignored speed factors, initiative etc.). Surely it's still just a D20 to hit followed by damage if you do? So there might be more modifiers to consider, but why should they slow donw the process?

Honestly, I truly don't understand :\

I can't say that I "miss" anything from 1st Edition because (a) I still have most of my books and (b) I occasionally play in a 1e game so there's nothing to miss.

What did/do I like about it over 3rd Ed? Not a great deal. The books smell more like books but the rest is pretty much pure nostalgia.

As for railroading adventures - they came along in 2nD Ed. I bought one of the early Forgotten Realms Adventures (the follow-on to Shadowdale. Perhaps FR2?) and it was rubbish - you basically follow four NPCs, who are more important to The Plot). A lot of the old dungeon crawls were a bit light on substance, but as others have pointed out at least you can implement that yourself.

 

[Akrasia]

I'm puzzled that people seem to be taking so long over their 3rd Edition combats - people - it's really not that difficult, and certainly no more or less than 1st Edition (especially when you take into account comments like "I found 1st Edition easier, but then our group ignored speed factors, initiative etc.). Surely it's still just a D20 to hit followed by damage if you do? So there might be more modifiers to consider, but why should they slow donw the process?
...

Even the biggest supporters of 3.x over earlier editions generally admit that combat takes longer.

The simple reason: there are now far more variables to keep track of during the combat (AoOs, 5-foot stepts, flanking, etc.), and it is very difficult to do this without some kind of graphic representation (boards and figures, or whatever). The iniative order rarely stays stable (as people delay actions, etc), feats and skills introduce new variables into the combat, etc.

Once you get to higher levels (above 9 or so), combat can slow to a crawl.

I've played in two 3.x campaigns now, and the combats in those campaigns have been, on average, at least three times longer than the combats in my last RC D&D campaign.

On the other hand, the combats in 3.x are more interesting than they were in earlier editions -- they are, in effect, mini-tactical wargames. This is a virtue for some people. As a DM, though, it is not my thing.

As for the weapon speeds, etc., in 1st ed. AD&D, those were indeed tedious. However, unlike many aspects of 3.x combat (e.g. AoOs), you could easily ignore those features without undermining game balance.

 

[jasamcarl]

Even the biggest supporters of 3.x over earlier editions generally admit that combat takes longer.

The simple reason: there are now far more variables to keep track of during the combat (AoOs, 5-foot stepts, flanking, etc.), and it is very difficult to do this without some kind of graphic representation (boards and figures, or whatever). The iniative order rarely stays stable (as people delay actions, etc), feats and skills introduce new variables into the combat, etc.

Once you get to higher levels (above 9 or so), combat can slow to a crawl.

I've played in two 3.x campaigns now, and the combats in those campaigns have been, on average, at least three times longer than the combats in my last RC D&D campaign.

On the other hand, the combats in 3.x are more interesting than they were in earlier editions -- they are, in effect, mini-tactical wargames. This is a virtue for some people. As a DM, though, it is not my thing.

As for the weapon speeds, etc., in 1st ed. AD&D, those were indeed tedious. However, unlike many aspects of 3.x combat (e.g. AoOs), you could easily ignore those features without undermining game balance.

yeah, because, you know, its hard to undermine balance in a game that doesn't have it.

 

[Remathilis]

I went to a Enworld thread and a kegger broke out...


Anyway, My theory still stands: 1e has a wonderful "lived in" feel that other editions (mayhaps OD&D as an exception) lack.

 

[D+1]

Anyway, My theory still stands: 1e has a wonderful "lived in" feel that other editions (mayhaps OD&D as an exception) lack.

So will 3E after 25 years - it's only been around for 4.

 

[solientious]

I also miss the days of AD&D 1e, it did have more personality. Recently I have tried to convert the 1e modules to 3.5, it been real tough and they have kind lost the feel, but it still playable (most of it anyways)

 

[The Grackle]

Even the biggest supporters of 3.x over earlier editions generally admit that combat takes longer.

The simple reason: there are now far more variables to keep track of during the combat (AoOs, 5-foot stepts, flanking, etc.), and it is very difficult to do this without some kind of graphic representation (boards and figures, or whatever). The iniative order rarely stays stable (as people delay actions, etc), feats and skills introduce new variables into the combat, etc.

Yeah, but I remember many battles that went: I swing, they swing, I swing, they swing, I swing, etc. until somebody finally drops. I'd rather have a slower combat that's more interesting.

I rarely play high level games though...

 

[Voadam]

I'm puzzled that people seem to be taking so long over their 3rd Edition combats - people - it's really not that difficult, and certainly no more or less than 1st Edition (especially when you take into account comments like "I found 1st Edition easier, but then our group ignored speed factors, initiative etc.). Surely it's still just a D20 to hit followed by damage if you do? So there might be more modifiers to consider, but why should they slow donw the process?

Honestly, I truly don't understand :\

Movement is more tactical and precise. There are AoOs. You have different ACs for touch versus normal versus denied dex and versus touch denied dex. Your AC can vary depending upon opponent or individual round choice based on feats or combat actions. There are more buffs and game effects and conditions that alter your stats. Power attack requires a choice on every melee attack. Grappling is complex and takes more time to resolve than an attack. Difference between different types of movement and actions. Slight variations in rules depending on 3.0 vs 3.5 (AoO for rising from prone or not?). Characters have more options that are bound by rules mechanics.

IME combats generally last fewer rounds but take longer to resolve in 3e.

 

[Altalazar]

I miss the look and feel of the old modules. There is something that sort of recaptures that today. And I do like the new 3E modules, but I just loved especially the cover of the modules that had the blue grid maps for the adventure. I just always thought they looked so cool.

I also miss the artwork - something about it just really got me into the whole mood of the game.