What do you miss about AD&D 1e?

[MerricB]

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.

It means too many things for me to respect people using it any more. Thanks to a bunch of losers on another forum, I now recognise that it's a word that can be conveniently used to denigrate people's preferences without giving solid reasons for why.

I find Gygax's personable writings to be far more enjoyable than the more detached writing in the 3E books, but if I characterised the change as a loss of "soul" (as some do), the actual meaning is lost.

Cheers!

 

[Henry]

I find Gygax's personable writings to be far more enjoyable than the more detached writing in the 3E books, but if I characterised the change as a loss of "soul" (as some do), the actual meaning is lost.

Ah, my love of Gygax's AD&D writings knows no depth! Due to his style of writing, and someone's (unsure who) style of editing, being a rules lawyer in those days actually MEANT something!

I mean, reading up on the rules is NOTHING compared to FINDING them first!

 

[Scribble]

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.

Oh definately, but that's why I said it was usefull.

I guess it's nostalgia but to me the older editions definately have a diferent "feel" because of all those holes in the rules that were being patched. It felt more "inclusive" to me. Like we were all more a part of growing the game, and making it what we wanted.

Now because the game is pretty polished, Dragon to me feels like it's just more of the same.

Yes they are new Magic Items, New Spells, New classes, etc... But they are still just spells, items, classes... Nothing that makes me think, oh wow let me try doing it that way instead...

Like I said, new spells, items, classes, etc are always usefull but I guess to me it's lost that "magic" it once held.

 

[Akrasia]

For me, part of the appeal of 1st edition is aesthetic -- I loved the "old school" art (Otus, Dee, Trampier). The illustrations in the 1st edition books (e.g. Emirikol the Chaotic; the illustration of the dwarves and halfling talking to the magic mouth in the PHB; the famous "paladin in hell" picture; etc.) conveyed the soul (sorry Merric) of fantasy adventure far more than most contemporary illustrations.

I also liked the faster pace of earlier editions -- you could get through so much more adventuring with 1st edition rules in a single session than you can with the 3.x rules. Combat in particular was much faster (though, of course, my group always ignored 1st edition's byzantine initiative, weapon speed, etc., systems). And prepping for sessions as a DM was much less of a chore than it is with 3.x.

Ironically, I also liked the slower pace of level progression in 1st edition. Making it to 10th level was a major accomplishment. With 3.x I find it absolutely necessary to cut experience rewards in half -- otherwise you seem to end up with 10th level PCs very quickly (absurdly quickly, to be honest).

Still, while I would be happy to play in a well-run 1st edition campaign again, I would never run one. 1st edition was not rules lite, and included many arbitrary or unnecessary rules.

A few years ago, when I wanted to get back into "old school" D&D again, I found the Basic/Expert and Rules Cylcopedia versions of the game far more appealing. The Otus covers for the Basic and Expert sets are classic, and the B/X/RC rules are relatively rules lite -- far more streamlined than any version of D&D. The optional rules in the RC (especially the unlimited level progression charts for demi-humans) resolved my main criticism of the original B/X system.

Despite my preference for the B/X/RC version of D&D, I certainly understand the appeal of the 1st edition game. To a great extent it is nostalgia, but everytime I see a half-page 3.x stat bloc, I long for simpler days.

And as Henry pointed out, there is the new Castles and Crusades game. The box set is quite good, and I am looking forward to checking out the complete game when it is released. It does a pretty good job in capturing the "feel" or "soul" of old school D&D, but while using the single d20 mechanism for all relevant tasks.

Time to stop rambling ...

 

[Blue_Kryptonite]

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,

Since when? I had two girls in my group in the 70s.

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?

Truthfully? Nothing. I remember enjoying the upgrade to the box sets, trying to figure out if "Advanced D&D" was the next set after Expert, enjoying playing through 2e, enjoying playing around with the Player's Options books, enjoying 3E, and now, the joy of 3.5 and D20 and the OGL. They're all just skins on our groups Story Machine. When the next one comes along, we'll get that, and love it, too.

 

[Veritas]

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.

Ooookay. I see where your feelings on this come from, given your experiences on another forum (I hang out on one that is less than friendly at times), but this was, in no way, what I intended with my use. I meant it to describe that undefinable presense in the game that makes it seem more than it really is... it was an imperfect word to use to express what I was trying to get across though... I'll admit that.

Anyways, I think you're correct in your description of how Gygax and the other designers put more personality into the writing... actually, now that I think about it it, I think that's kinda what I meant, more than soul... The BD&D and AD&D games had more personality.

Yeah... that sounds much better.

 

[Kax Tuglebend]

The only ranger that ever used two weapons was Drizzt, and he had that from being a drow, not from being a ranger.

I always thought the 2-weapon thing came from Aragorn fighting the Nazgul on Weathertop with a sword in one hand and a flaming torch in the other

Admitedly i'm too young to have ever played 1st Edition.. but i've always thought that the 2d8 hp Ranger was rather cool

 

[Akrasia]

Ah, my love of Gygax's AD&D writings knows no depth! ...

Yeah, Gygax had a very distinctive, colourful style. My vocabulary expanded quite a bit -- and my thesaurus saw some serious use -- as a result of reading the AD&D manuals.

I think I even tried to start a few high-school essays with "Gentle readers..."

 

[Maliki]

I miss the speed of which the game could be played, sure the rules where spread out more and they all didn't work off a single mechanic, but there was so many less rules that the game flowed faster. Plus it encouraged more role playing vs roll playing, there was no diplomacy checks, so you had better be able to explain why your thief was just found with the crown jewels.

 

[Veritas]

I always thought the 2-weapon thing came from Aragorn fighting the Nazgul on Weathertop with a sword in one hand and a flaming torch in the other

ehn, maybe... That seems to be a pretty tenuous connection though. A torch would be an improvised weapon anyways, so just by the rules would incur penalties regardless of whether or not you were using it paired with something else.