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

[Storm Raven]

I find using your own judgement a good thing.

Which works reasonably well for experienced DMs, but usually is disasterous for beginning DMs. The game should give some easy to follow guidance concerning how to balance encounters in a reasonable manner.

Something I've personally found in the play of the newer editions is that if it's all "balanced" so encounters are designed to take a certain percentage of the party resources, then it becomes a bit of a treadmill/grind rather than challenge or opportunity.

"Yes, you can kill it, you probably will, (it's a designed encounter for your level) so hit it and don't worry about thinking of alternative approaches." But then to me D&D 3e+has never been about non-combat, so I cold be wrong!

Only assuming that, as DM, you always give the players an encounter of the exact CR equal to their level. Which is not the advice given to DMs in the DMG concerning what sorts of encounters to provide. I always find it amusing when people criticize 3e by citing some sort of example of a "problem with the game" that is contradicted by the text of the rules.

 

[Greg K]

Some of my dislikes include:

-No central universal mechanic
-Stat bonuses inconsistancies due to class
-dual classing
- No skills system (noticed after playing Rolemaster and Champions)
-Hiding, Listen, and Suprise used different dice depending on race or class.
-negative AC being better
-grappling rules
-psionics

 

[Clavis]

All of the information we have concerning the early D&D campaigns played by Gygax and his friends indicates that they all pretty much took turns DMing. Which means that keeping the DMG some sort of sacred text never to be read by the players does not reflect how the game was developed, and couldn't work in practice either.

Of course, remember that at the time that Gygax, Arneson & their friends were the only players in existence. Taking turns DMing was a necessity!

In my experience, rotating DMs was pretty much the norm for most D&D groups that I was involved with, which is a practice that pretty much makes this supposed intent completely unworkable.

Funny, in my experience it's been just the opposite. DMs are few and far between.

 

[Hussar]

In my experience, rotating DM's was the norm until 2e. My friends and I all took turns DMing. Take it for what it's worth. Then again, in my current 3e game, of the 7 players (including myself) 5 also DM. So, not that much has changed IME.

What I disliked the most about 1e was the schizophrenic nature of the game. The advice in the DMG was pretty much ignored by most modules. Dragon would say something and the next issue would say the complete opposite. The game should be about low magic S&S, but, we'll stuff every module with oodles of treasure. We should be Tolkienesque in our fantasy, but, Conan is a major inspiration. We should stick to traditional fantasy, but, we'll put space ships and Nazi stormtroopers out there.

It was very confusing to me what thread I should follow. So, I tried to follow them all. And, most of my campaigns collapsed under the weight of all the balls I was trying to keep in the air at once.

 

[prosfilaes]

Thats true, there is some uncertainty but much much less then in real life (where we don't have a clue and are often completely off).

I don't think that's true. People in their field of expertise are pretty good about knowing whether or not they can do something. When a gymnast hits the Olympic floor, they have a good idea of how likely they are to pull their whole routine off.

 

[jdrakeh]

You're missing his point. I think he meant that it emulates reality better because of the uncertainty (and possible excitement) it creates on the player's part. It certainly is a valid argument.

Except that the very text of AD&D 1e (as penned by Gary Gygax) states rather emphatically that emulating reality is not the goal of the game and that when emulating reality conflicted with simple potential for fun, fun took precedence. Unless Gary was lying when he wrote that (which I sincerely doubt), the whole "The purpose of RPGs is to emulate real life!" argument isn't valid in the context of AD&D (and, honestly, I can only think of one RPG where this has been stated specifically as a design goal).

 

[Valiant]

Actualy, that could not have been their intent, because that's clearly not how they played. All of the information we have concerning the early D&D campaigns played by Gygax and his friends indicates that they all pretty much took turns DMing. Which means that keeping the DMG some sort of sacred text never to be read by the players does not reflect how the game was developed, and couldn't work in practice either.

In my experience, rotating DMs was pretty much the norm for most D&D groups that I was involved with, which is a practice that pretty much makes this supposed intent completely unworkable.

Thats the outcome of every group that overplayed the game and eventually wanted variety, not a result of a rule or even advice in the DMG. Honestly, I don't think Gygax new how people would continue playing the game as long as they did. As players we weren't allowed to see the DMG until we were trained as DM (for me that was about 2 years before I saw the inside of the DMG). Even today 2 of our players who have never DMed (and have no desire to) have yet to read the DMG. And thats after 15 + years (yes they are wives).

In any event, the freedom the DM has in OD&D and AD&D to have a player role what he wants when he wants (d20, d100, d6 etc. up down sideways, tables, no tables) based on his objective opinion of your chances (rather then some concrete rules) makes your ability to predict your outcome very difficult (even for the experianced DM/player) its his game not yours...the DM is in complete control.

Thats the brilliance of the game, it stays exciting because there aren't hard and fast rules for everything, not despite it. Thats something the creators of 3E didn't understand IMO.

The only exception to this is the To Hit tables and some of the saves (vs. poison, magic etc.) which most of us have memorized...which sucks, but its still fun to play........anyhow, knowing your chances to hit an orc or some zero level gaurd in chain isn't the same as not knowing your chances to climb a tree suddenly to avoid wolves....there's no "role your climb" garbage with a stack of modifiers, its:

DM: "hey Joe, role this d100 to see if your dog food or not" .

Player (experianced DM): "What am I rolling for, are you considering I have a 14 strength and 14 dex; how much is this chain armor going to effect my chances, I'm 6th level so that will help me right? When I DM I'd factor that in....."

DM: "shut up and role, the wolves are closing in". When the player feels panic and can focus on playing rather then calculating you have a good game.

In 3E the player would know his base chance to climb (having calculated out his pluses and minuses...the DM is hardly needed (the only mystery is, "is this tree harder or more difficult to climb then the average and what secret modifier has the DM added). 3Es resolution system may be more simple and concrete, but it takes the freak'n spirit out of the game. Its dry as toast I tell you.

PS one other thing, the freedom to figure out odds by the DM on the fly makes for a much quicker and fluid game (and as I stated above unpredictable). This is all in stark contrast to 3E.

 

[Valiant]

I don't think that's true. People in their field of expertise are pretty good about knowing whether or not they can do something. When a gymnast hits the Olympic floor, they have a good idea of how likely they are to pull their whole routine off.

A fighter might have a good idea they can kill 12 approaching wolves (being high level they've got the training and experiance to know this), but they probably have little idea how well they could climb a tree in chain to escape. Hell, there level might not help them at all (thats up to the DM).

Also, trained police and FBI agents who need to pull their weapons routinely miss criminals at point blank range (even though they might be crack shots at the draw in the range). Stress and conditions have a funny way of screwing you up. Same is true with most professions. Now, I agree a person might have a ball park idea of what there chances might be, but not the exact percentage. And alot has to do with the type of activity (ie. have you practised jumping muddy streams while being chased by a troll to the point you'd know your chance...give me a break).

Hussar, we never gave any wieght to Dragon and rarely used purchased modules (preferring our own). Dragon actually screwed up peoples games more then it helped IMHO. But, it was still fun to read.

 

[Numion]

In 3E the player would know his base chance to climb (having calculated out his pluses and minuses...the DM is hardly needed (the only mystery is, "is this tree harder or more difficult to climb then the average and what secret modifier has the DM added).

I don't think that many people in real life would have much trouble estimating whether they can climb a certain tree, and whether it's going to be easy or hard. It's not exactly rocket science.

 

[Fifth Element]

A fighter might have a good idea they can kill 12 approaching wolves (being high level they've got the training and experiance to know this), but they probably have little idea how well they could climb a tree in chain to escape. Hell, there level might not help them at all (thats up to the DM).

Considering that the wolves can react and behave in unpredictable ways, while the tree is just there (for the most part), I think you have this reversed. Also, a high-level fighter will likely have ranks in Climb, so he's trained there, too, yes? Maybe it's just a bad example.