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

[rogueattorney]

As anyone who knows my posting history should know, I really, really, really like 1e. I'm one of those weirdos that's actually come to grips with the init. system and feel like I've "grokked" it to the extent that it can be "grokked." That said, there are a number of things I don't like.

1. I don't like segments for both surprise and casting time purposes. I'd convert casting time to an initiative penalty, like the dex bonus for firing missiles. For surprise, I'd try to systemize a d6 or d8 roll, with a standard bonus/penalty value. I'd also drop the casting time v. weapon speed initiative variant and only use weapon speed to adjudicate ties.

2. I don't like the contradictory shield and magic armor encumbrance rules.

3. I'd like to have had a combat tutorial somewhere among the products. (I know the DMG was really written as an advice book rather than a tutorial and much of the combat advice was meant to be viewed through the lens of the procedures you were already using coming from BD&D or OD&D. And frankly, I'd have it no other way... I really love the way the DMG is written. That said, there should have been a basic primer within the AD&D books and resources somewhere that did a better job of integrating all the rules together.)

4. I don't like the morale rules. I'd use the much less clunky 2d6 morale rules introduced in the Moldvay version of BD&D. Assigning morale numbers to all the monsters would be a lot easier in the long run than using AD&D's "base 50% and adjust every round" rules.

5. I don't like the vast, vast majority of the 1e products that came out from 1984 to 1988. While the AD&D product quality stagnated a bit in the early 80's, the bottom dropped out from 1984 on.

That's really about it. A lot of the stuff that I rarely use (psionics, weapon v. armor class, training rules, etc.) I'm glad it's there simply for ideas and inspiration, and for when I want to give something kooky a try for a lark. Often I fine they work a lot better in practice than you'd ever expect.

 

[Roland55]

Funny how the "What DON'T you like about 1e AD&D?" thread turned into an edition war while the "What DO you like about 1E AD&D?"" thread is doing just fine, without people popping in and telling other people that their tastes are wrong.

Any chance we could go back to what the threads were apparently intended for?

Well -- there is always a chance, no matter how slim.

I like your optimism.

 

[Tewligan]

Except that when you obtain the magic item (assuming you have identified it as a magic item), you get that information pretty much by using the magical identification process. So, exactly how does knowing something you would find out anyway cause problems?

Except that the magical identification process is a huge pain in the ass. If I recall correctly, it requires a pearl and a miniature live carp. IME, a lot of parties aren't carrying a tank full of koi around in the dungeon, potentially making a new-found item useless/risky until they leave the dungeon to identify it. If they know the DMG, however, things can get a bit easier:
"Oh, a Bag of Holding! Don't put the Portable Hole in it!"
"Don't put sharp things in it, either!"
"Oh, that's a Sphere of Annhilation! You can try to control it, but it'll come after you if you fail!"
"An organ?! Guys, it's that artifact! Try to play relevant tunes to see what happens!"
A horn? It'll either knock down a wall or summon some berserkers!"
"A brazier? We can probably summon a fire elemental!"

And so on...

Only the vaguest and most bare-bones possible stats. If you can figure much out from what was on that list in the appendices to the DMG, then you already know much more than what was in the PHB.

Vague and bare-bones? You may have been looking at a different DMG, because those were pretty complete stats. At the very least, even never having seen anything outside the PHB, someone could pretty easily figure out what "# of attacks" and "damage/attack" means, not to mention the special ability names. "I don't know the details, but that thing can drain levels!"

 

[Odhanan]

I think the concept is getting a lot more attention and argument than it deserves.

I agree. Some people think it's a factor of enjoyment. Others don't. Points have been made, now let's move on, please.

 

[billd91]

I'll confess that I absolutely don't understand the "ignorance of the rules makes it more fun" idea. I've been playing Shadowrun with my girlfriend's gaming group down in Baltimore when I go for a visit, and other than the very basic task resolution (roll a number of d6s determined by your abilities and your skills in the relevant area and count successes), I don't understand the rules at all. I don't have the rulebook, and even if I did, I wouldn't have the time to read it (except at their table). It's often frustrating to find out that I lost my turn because an action I wanted to take just didn't jive with the rules.

In a case like this, I think the GM should have helped you make your action conform with the rules a bit better. That's one of the benefits of a refereed RPG. The GM can filter your action declarations through the rules so they work out appropriately. It's one of the reasons that RPG are playable despite many of the players not knowing all of the rules.
That said, I think there's always a decent argument for the players knowing the rules well. But unlike many other games, RPGs are games in which the players can play without rules knowledge without making the game unplayable.

 

[Voadam]

wrong thread sorry.

 

[SuStel]

I don't like the fact that seven days' worth of iron rations and standard rations were given encumbrance values of 75 and 200 respectively, instead of 70 and 210 (which are divisible by 7).

Naturally, I change those values when playing.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm not entirely sure this is true. Most of the time, if I want to show someone a new game, I introduce them through play rather than handing them the rules. With D&D, I almost exclusively throw the players into an adventure rather than showing them the Player's Handbook.

Learning through playing is something I have done more than once. That can work, but then again, that's not what Darkwolf said he did. He went to a game store and cluelessly watched a bunch of people he didn't know play a game without participating in it.

 

[Storm Raven]

So, I should have dropped 40 or so bucks on a rule book that I may never have had any use for?

You find it impossible to read through a book that you have not bought?

 

[Storm Raven]

Vague and bare-bones? You may have been looking at a different DMG, because those were pretty complete stats. At the very least, even never having seen anything outside the PHB, someone could pretty easily figure out what "# of attacks" and "damage/attack" means, not to mention the special ability names. "I don't know the details, but that thing can drain levels!"

Really? Let's see, just flipping my 1e DMG open to Appendix E, let's look at, say, the ogre mage.

Size L, THAC0 15, AC 4, HD 5+2, # Attacks 1, Damage 1-12, Special Attacks magic & spell use, Special Defenses regeneration, Int avg. to excep., xp value 900 + 6/hp

That's pretty bare bones if you ask me. Vague too. There's a reason that the MM usually had at least a couple paragraphs detailing each entry.