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

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I think all of my own issues have been listed by others:

1. Weapon speed
2. Morale rules
3. Initiative
4. 1 minute combat rounds
5. Grappling
6. Excessive class/race/multiclass/level restrictions
7. Inconsistent mechanics
8. DMG in particular, while it is full of great stuff, is terrible to find specific rules in it.

But it's still the version of D&D I'd run after 3rd/3.5. Much of the above would be ignored or house ruled.

 

[billd91]

1. Demi-human level limits
2. Unarmed combat rules
3. Table-based resolution on attacks and saves
4. Ranges in varying scales
5. Limits on advancement in certain classes unless predecessor defeated in combat
6. Rules written in unclear manner
7. "screw the players" cursed items
8. Weak dragons
9. Exceptional strength
10. Weak healing options
11. d4 hit dice for monk
12. When UA came along, paladin as subclass of cavalier

 

[Matthew_]

Really?

Yeah, 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.

A 'Monty Haul' is not a result of player greed. A Monty Haul campaign is one where Players are given rewards that are not commensurate with the risks involved. It is a campaign where rewards are unearned, not one where there was a lot of treasure available. It's the sort of campaign where you receive a Long Sword +1 for defeating a Kobold. Player Characters in AD&D 1e were clearly expected to gain (and lose) huge amounts of treasure. The DMG discusses that very thing, especially with regard to 'life outside the dungeon'.

 

[Lanefan]

In 1e rules as written, these are things I don't like and thus have houseruled away or into near-unrecognizability...

- XP for treasure
- Weapon speed
- 6-segment combat rounds but 10-segment spellcasting rounds
- Dual-classing for humans only
- Multi-classing for non-humans only
- Psionics
- Monsters not getting their strength bonuses to hit-damage
- Killable gods

The organization in the DMG left something to be desired, solved here by lots and lots of little bookmarks and tabs and labels...

Lanefan

 

[Pale Master]

-There was little to distinguish one character of a given class/race/level combination from another, except for the (randomly-determined) ability scores. If you were a cleric or a wizard you could somewhat distinguish yourself by what spells you memorized. If you're a fighter - well, hope you pick an unusual weapon;

-Without the (optional) proficiency rules, there was no way to convey a character's skill with things that were not directly related to dungeon-crawling;

-Every god granted the same spells;

-You had to use hit dice and your own judgment to try and figure out whether a monster would be too easy or too difficult;

-Every class advanced on a different table.

-You go to Hell for playing it.

(Granted, these are with the benefit of hindsight; other games since them have shown us how much better we could have it, and so we've gotten spoiled).

 

[Uder]

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

Although it may seem counter-intuitive, I think you're wrong on this. In fact, I think NOT awarding xp for treasure leads to "Monty Haul" type games. Why? Advancement slows while PCs continue to gain treasure. Eventually they have too much wealth (=power) for their level, and more challenging encounters with greater treasures are required to spur their interest.

Hmm. I seem to remember reading some similar advice to this. Where was that... oh yeah, in the 1e DMG.

Also as noted there, it is the presentation of random tables for treasure determination without advice on how to properly use them that lead to power inflation in D&D, and it was the intent of AD&D to fix this (with apologies from the author, even!). I don't think it succeeded, but I don't think that has anything to do with any fault in the rules. I mainly think it's because most people didn't play AD&D, they played D&D with AD&D tables. The advice and design insight in the 1e DMG was probably lost on the majority of AD&D players.

 

[fuindordm]

Few of the things people have mentioned so far are things I really dislike, except for demihuman class restrictions and level limits.

What really gets my knickers in a twist is the way the game handles stealth. Between elf/halfling surprise, classes and monsters with non-standard surprise rolls, and the related thief skills, you end up with a baroque mess of a subsystem.

 

[Tetsubo]

Alignment languages... just a silly idea...

As for killable Gods... never happened... I always saw the God stats as being used to compare the relative power of one god to another. Mortals don't kill Gods.

 

[Matthew_]

Few of the things people have mentioned so far are things I really dislike, except for demihuman class restrictions and level limits.

What really gets my knickers in a twist is the way the game handles stealth. Between elf/halfling surprise, classes and monsters with non-standard surprise rolls, and the related thief skills, you end up with a baroque mess of a subsystem.

Nah, you just have to see it in terms of probabilities. The Sub Systems themselves are not that big a problem, as it all comes down to a percentage chance of success. A Thief successfully Moving Silently is perfectly quiet and has an increased probability of Surprise or of successfully avoiding detection. Similarly, an Elf or Halfling enjoys an increased probability when unarmoured and alone or in similar company. A magically silenced or invisible party also has an increased probability, but the system isn't really any different, it's just an adjustment to the initial probability. However you work out the probability, it's no more complicated than stealth rules that use opposed rolls and calculate modifiers based on distance...

 

[Melan]

1) Too much mediaeval fantasy, less sword&sorcery than I'd prefer (and 1e is much more S&S than anything that has come since). I'd just have dumped halflings, dwarves and elves right from the start, and wouldn't have bothered with that level limits stuff.
2) 1 GP=1 XP requires the DM to give out too much treasure. I love the general concept, perfect for a game of adventures and dungeon looting, but I'd use some sort of multiplier so 1000 gp is a special find.
3) Although making magic items should be special, the requirements to do so in 1e are a bit too much... especially when we compare it to by-the-book availability.
4) Tables are less intuitive than formulae. It worked in OD&D because they were small and simple; in 1e, it's a bit too much.
5) The aforementioned female Strength restrictions are stupid in a heroic fantasy game and needlessly inflammatory.
6) UA and everything after that.

The rest is either good, or easily modified if the DM desires. Also, I count a lot of supposed weaknesses as strengths.