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

[Mishihari Lord]

Secondly, the idea that the norm was for groups to have a single DM and the players to be ignorant of the rules is so far from my experience that I wonder if it's fairly unique.

I can't speak for anyone but my group, but from 1980-1988 I was pretty much the only DM for my AD&D group, the exceptions being occasional one-shots by players that wanted to give it a try.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I am somewhat surprised that [female Str restrictions are] not making more lists on this thread.

I'm not bothered by it. The tallest gnome is shorter than the tallest human, the strongest woman is weaker than the strongest man, et cetera. Exceptions can always be made if you must have a 6' gnome or a woman with the muscle mass and athletic ability of Conan.

 

[Valiant]

Guys, my point is that in AD&D the rules were not written to be exposed to the players, only the DM. Thats the opposite in 3E. Clearly if Gygax had wanted the players from the get go to read teh DMG he would have suggested it. Instead he suggested the opposite. The fact that you couldn't keep your little fingers out of the pie wasn't his fault.

Hussar wrote: -Certainly the idea that a new DM should wait up to two years learning the ropes as it were from a more experienced DM was never true.-

IMO nobody should need 2 years to learn the ropes (we cert. didn't), we just enjoyed the DM we had (and preferred being players) for the first few years thats all (I always felt the DM got the worst of it honestly, I didn't realize what I was missing until I DMed ). The actual time it took me to learn (when our DM wanted to try just being a player for a while) was about 3 game sessions (with the DM sitting next to me helping me out), but that was just the basics (there's really not much to being a DM if you just use common sense and understand the tables). It was over the summer vacation, so less then a week anyway.

 

[Tewligan]

Not to nitpick, but I just wanted to comment on a couple of these:

1 Ability score tables where only exceptional scores matter (exacerbated for exceptional strength).

I always found that ability checks (rolling equal to or under strength, for example) were fairly common in gameplay. In that case, an 11 certainly is better than a 10!

3 Different xp charts for different classes.
4 Lack of balance between classes.

There were different xp charts BECAUSE the classes weren't perfectly balanced. Classes that were by level weaker than another class advanced faster - a thief is generally at least 1 level higher than an m-u with the same amount of xp.

13 Bonus xp for high ability scores.

Makes sense, though - wouldn't a thief who's extra nimble, or an exceptionally intelligent m-u be more likely to be a quicker study than his clumsier/dumber counterpart?

17 Obvious spell info hidden in the DMG.

Most spell info is in the PHB - the info in the DMG is clarification and/or adjudication advice for difficult/abusable spells. Also, remember that the DMG came out a year after the PHB - some of the info could be considered errata.

Okay, that's all I've got. I know this thread is specifically about what you don't like about 1e - I just couldn't resist the urge to defend the ol' girl on a couple of points!

That being said, the rules for surprise, psionics, and the DMG version of unarmed combat sucked really, REALLY bad.

 

[ejja_1]

What I didnt like in advanced

Thaco
The Saving Throws
Strength Percentile
The pungant smell of mildew coming from the wet dungeon walls......

 

[Particle_Man]

Thaco

I thought that was 2nd ed.

 

[Odhanan]

I thought that was 2nd ed.

THAC0 is 2nd edition, indeed.

 

[Tewligan]

THAC0 is 2nd edition, indeed.

First formalized in the 2e books, at any rate. I believe that THACO was in fairly common usage during 1e, though.

 

[Storm Raven]

Guys, my point is that in AD&D the rules were not written to be exposed to the players, only the DM.

You keep saying this like it isn't total nonsense. Yet we know that it is complete and utter nonsense. We know how the AD&D rules were written and the play conditions under which they were developed, and that the players in the original "test group" rotated DM duties among themselves. The rules were designed in an environment in which the players all knew the rules, even those rules that ended up in the DMG. So making some sort of argument about how the contents of the DMG were supposed to be sacred text forbidden to mere players is just silly. And every time you make the argument it just drops your credibility on any subject lower.

We also have pretty good evidence that in most groups, the DM duties rotated. Which means that at any point in time, most groups had several people at the table who had seen and studied the inside of the DMG by necessity. And somehow they were able to make the game work and have fun - we know many of those people liked the game enough to keep playing even to this day, 25-30 years later. So your argument that the game is "fun" because it is like Calvinball just falls flat int he face of what evidence we have.

The simple fact of the matter is that unclear rules and vague subjective decisionmaking are hindrances to the game, not benefits. If vague rules and subjective judgments were what made the game more fun, then there wouldn't be any reason to play anything with more specific rules than "Cops and Robbers". The vast piles of house rules that 1e engendered to fill in these gaps and clarify the vaguness is a sign of the weakness of the system, and a sign that the Calvinball nature of the rules actually isn't where the fun comes from.

 

[Storm Raven]

I always found that ability checks (rolling equal to or under strength, for example) were fairly common in gameplay. In that case, an 11 certainly is better than a 10!

Could you tell me where those rules were in the 1e PHB or DMG? Or even UA?

Makes sense, though - wouldn't a thief who's extra nimble, or an exceptionally intelligent m-u be more likely to be a quicker study than his clumsier/dumber counterpart?

Or they might be more likely to be lazy and rely on their natural talent rather than work hard to learn their stuff. Either way, bonus xp for ability scores doesn't make much sense..