What DON'T you like about 1E AD&D?
- Thread starter Odhanan
- Start date
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
Weapon speed. While these rules add an element of realism to the game, you have to go as far as the introduction to see Gary Gygax write that realism wasn't a design goal. Wise man. In actual play, I've found that artificially forced realism by way of rules like weapon speed does more to detract from a D&D game than add to it.
Grappling. In fairness, I dislike this about every edition of D&D. As with weapon speed, I've never found the grappling rules to add to the D&D experience. Most everybody that I know (again, in every edition of D&D) has used a basic series of "To Hit" checks versus armor class to resolve grappling -- and games have been better for it.
XP for treasure. I always found it odd that many of the AD&D designers complained endlessly about Monty Haul games. They obviously didn't get it. The rules specifically rewarded players for accumulating treasure. If you don't want people to make treasure the focus of play, it probably shouldn't be the foundation of the game's primary reward mechanism. I mean, duh. At any rate, treasure should be its own reward. Life experience should be awarded for deeds.
Grappling. In fairness, I dislike this about every edition of D&D. As with weapon speed, I've never found the grappling rules to add to the D&D experience. Most everybody that I know (again, in every edition of D&D) has used a basic series of "To Hit" checks versus armor class to resolve grappling -- and games have been better for it.
XP for treasure. I always found it odd that many of the AD&D designers complained endlessly about Monty Haul games. They obviously didn't get it. The rules specifically rewarded players for accumulating treasure. If you don't want people to make treasure the focus of play, it probably shouldn't be the foundation of the game's primary reward mechanism. I mean, duh. At any rate, treasure should be its own reward. Life experience should be awarded for deeds.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
The thing I disliked most was the rigid class and race restrictions. Like so many other so-called balancing techniques that permeate 1E, it provides crippling restrictions as a means to 'balance' advantages that for the most part are almost non-existant or quickly become useless (as an off-the-cuff example, the elves immunity to the sleep spell - after, what, 4th level that does them no good but they are continually penalized for the rest of their lives in other areas). There's a good reason that probably the most common 1E house rule is to remove those restrictions.
lots of things -
1) low level limits for non-humans and fewer class options;
2) weak monsters - the most powerful red dragon had 88 hit points, meaning it has potentially less hit points than four 1st level 1E rangers (each ranger gets 2d8 + Con)
3) XP for treasure
4) Stats for Gods, including that massive 64 HP goddess Lloth.
I could add more, but I'd have to rewind my memory.
1) low level limits for non-humans and fewer class options;
2) weak monsters - the most powerful red dragon had 88 hit points, meaning it has potentially less hit points than four 1st level 1E rangers (each ranger gets 2d8 + Con)
3) XP for treasure
4) Stats for Gods, including that massive 64 HP goddess Lloth.
I could add more, but I'd have to rewind my memory.
Simia Saturnalia
First Post
Level limits as a gamble towards balance.
A class system that further rewards you for rolling better stats than the other players.
Reliance on charts & matrices.
The hidden balancers that mean certain rules work right only if you use certain other rules (see: monks + weapon vs. AC).
XP for treasure.
The idea, fostered by its primacy, that it somehow represents the height of RPG design rather than an important milestone in the early days of the hobby.
A class system that further rewards you for rolling better stats than the other players.
Reliance on charts & matrices.
The hidden balancers that mean certain rules work right only if you use certain other rules (see: monks + weapon vs. AC).
XP for treasure.
The idea, fostered by its primacy, that it somehow represents the height of RPG design rather than an important milestone in the early days of the hobby.
Everything I thought I didn't like about the original AD&D game we house ruled out and gave it a try (over 25+ years) which covers most of the above complaints and then some. What ended up EVERY TIME (following an initial boost from pure novelty of changing the system) was an experiance inferior to the system BTB; so we keep going back to just that.
Anyhow, I've found most people haven't really given AD&D a chance (BTB) having piled on the house rules over the years to compensate for percieved shortcomings (or purely not understanding the rules as written). Its very difficult to figure out just reading the DMG and PH, so I'd suggest downloading the OSRIC document and read that along with them to speed up the learning process.
One thing I finally figured out over the years, is that the AD&D setting (rather then the rules) is probably the 2nd most important aspect to the game (second to the open ended freedom and immersion aspects for the players). And many of the rules people have problems with (level limits, archetypes without customization, poor hand to hand combat system etc.) have everything to do with keeping that setting grounded to a generic base (Gygax knowing full and well each DM is going to have their own take on what the fantasy setting will look like). By sticking to the rules, even a poor DM with little or no imagination can run a really enjoyable game.
The only rule I have a problem with in AD&D is the one involving going below negative. Having to wait a week to heal up stops the action to much IMO, and results in DMs fudging the outcomes to keep characters from going below negative. We house rule that if your healed above 1 you can get back into the fight.
Anyhow, I've found most people haven't really given AD&D a chance (BTB) having piled on the house rules over the years to compensate for percieved shortcomings (or purely not understanding the rules as written). Its very difficult to figure out just reading the DMG and PH, so I'd suggest downloading the OSRIC document and read that along with them to speed up the learning process.
One thing I finally figured out over the years, is that the AD&D setting (rather then the rules) is probably the 2nd most important aspect to the game (second to the open ended freedom and immersion aspects for the players). And many of the rules people have problems with (level limits, archetypes without customization, poor hand to hand combat system etc.) have everything to do with keeping that setting grounded to a generic base (Gygax knowing full and well each DM is going to have their own take on what the fantasy setting will look like). By sticking to the rules, even a poor DM with little or no imagination can run a really enjoyable game.
The only rule I have a problem with in AD&D is the one involving going below negative. Having to wait a week to heal up stops the action to much IMO, and results in DMs fudging the outcomes to keep characters from going below negative. We house rule that if your healed above 1 you can get back into the fight.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
- Inconsistent mechanics. Some things roll high to succeed, others low. Some things go up, others go down. Some addressed by rules, others by tables.
- Mechanics that don't work, or work badly (grappling).
- Psionics.
Setting, flavor, etc I love. 3E Rules, 1E flavor is definitely my thing. 1E was great for its time, but there is/was definitely room for improvement.
- Mechanics that don't work, or work badly (grappling).
- Psionics.
Setting, flavor, etc I love. 3E Rules, 1E flavor is definitely my thing. 1E was great for its time, but there is/was definitely room for improvement.
Simia Saturnalia
First Post
Valiant: I'll certainly grant you OSRIC was written with remarkable insight into the design intent of 1e. The first time I paged through it I came to understand how 1e saves worked.
Which actually summarizes a lot of my issue with 1e. The core rule books are written to inspire and engage rather than explain - which means, unless you see the resultant picture much as E.G.G. did, they're rather poor guides.
Which actually summarizes a lot of my issue with 1e. The core rule books are written to inspire and engage rather than explain - which means, unless you see the resultant picture much as E.G.G. did, they're rather poor guides.
Similar Threads
