What DON'T you like about 1E AD&D?

[Angel Tarragon]

Dual & Multi Classing, racial level caps. Thats it.

 

[Wik]

1) Level Limits. While I love how the game encourages human characters for long-term campaigns (since there's a cap on how high your dwarf can go), I don't like how low the levels actually are.
2) Multi-classing. If you're in a one-shot game, or you know it'll be a short campaign, multi-classing is always superior to being a human. I hate that.
3) Saving Throws. We always hated them, and we tended to use Ability Checks to repalce them. Something about having to copy a table down onto your character sheet just irked me, and we always ignored them.
4) Psionics. The 1e Psionics table was awful. GODAWFUL, really.
5) Prime Requisites, and the associated XP bonuses. Gah.
6) Morale for monsters. While a good idea, the numbers never worked very well, in my experience.
7) Stat blocks were a pain to find, well, anything.

 

[jdrakeh]

I can't really see it leading to Monty Haul Campaigns. . .

Really?

Look at AD&D. What tangible player rewards exist in the rules as written? Experience points. This is the sole tangible player reward in the game systems as written. And how do you earn this reward? You kill things or collect treasure. That's it.

You can reward experience for other things in AD&D if think outside of the rules but inside of the rules there are only two conditions for earning experience points -- killing things or hoarding treasure. These are the only two ways to earn player rewards.

Now, most people play games for rewards. If people aren't getting something in return for playing X game, most of them will drop it quickly. Would you play AD&D if your characters never got stronger or better? Maybe, though I doubt it.

Honestly, I don't know how anybody could argue in good faith (and convincingly) that rewarding players for specific behaviors will lead to anything other than players pursuing those behaviors when the opportunity is present.

There is a reason that Monty Haul games are commonly associated with AD&D.

That reason is simple. The rules, as written, encourage it.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Almost Forgot: Treasure tables in the Monster Manual.

 

[Henry]

1) Level limits for demi-humans as a balancing factor.
2) The combat system of segments and rounds, as written in the DMG. Gary himself didn't even use it as written.
3) The pummeling, grappling, and overbearing rules. They are so far removed from the basic "to hit armor class" system that they're a convoluted mess.
4) Humans using a totally different system to "multi-class."
5) Saving throws that were not well-defined, and seemed more tacked-on than well-done.
6) A really viable way to make an effective swashbuckling-type character without variant rules.

Some important points, but there was a lot more to like.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

2) The combat system of segments and rounds, as written in the DMG. Gary himself didn't even use it as written.

So what did Gary use then?

 

[Tewligan]

3) Saving Throws. We always hated them, and we tended to use Ability Checks to repalce them. Something about having to copy a table down onto your character sheet just irked me, and we always ignored them.

Copy a table? You don't really mean that you copied down the entire table for a character's entire level progression, do you? Because if so, it seems like it would have been a lot easier to just write the relevant number for each of the five saves, and just erase that and write in the new save as levels were gained. That is how the character sheets were set up, after all - five numbers barely constitute a table!

 

[Tewligan]

So what did Gary use then?

A much simpler system that later appeared in Unearthed Arcana, if I recall correctly.

 

[Henry]

A much simpler system that later appeared in Unearthed Arcana, if I recall correctly.

I don't know about Unearthed Arcana, but I recall he said he put that, and and unarmed rules, in there as a concession to some simulationist-heavy gamers he knew (either professionally or in his gaming groups, I can't recall what he said). He used a 1d10 roll most often, and just counted off the inits from 1 to 10. I think weapon speed mattered in ties only, as in the system, but I'm not sure he even used that. When we played OD&D together at Gencon this year, we used d6's for inits, as in the rules, and ties meant we went simultaneously, that's it. None of this "spells versus weapons in melee" confusion, etc. The 1E rules DO work, if you gloss over the part about guys casting spells in melee range of enemies -- I've used it many times in con games teaching people how to play 1E and gaming with fellow old-schoolers -- but the 1 minute combat round really stretches credibility too much for me.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Am I the first one to complain about the sexist Strength restrictions on females vs. males?

Welcome to the Old School. Offense is never intended and if you choose to take it that way that's your problem. Enjoy.