Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5232909" data-attributes="member: 80487">Among old D&D editions, the particulars enter the equation more in actual play, I think, than in design.I would lump all the first four together as "old D&D". (I would say "TSR-D&D", but for the inclusion of "retro-clones".)Any one of those should serve well. They are all based on the original "dungeon game". All use the same basic 'stats' (monsters often being identical), which tend to be less extensive than in 3e. They forthrightly use a "character class and level" system, so that knowing those factors much follows (but not spell selection). The format is just a lot more compact and less laborious.That can be a big deal when dealing with big dungeons!The 1st ed. AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide has a very nice selection of tables to help out when deciding the contents of each room gets burdensome. You can use them with other rules-sets, too. The book is really a classic in the FRP field, worth reading for the questions it raises whether or not one adopts the answers.The sheer amount of material collected in AD&D -- classes, spells, magic items, monsters, and miscellaneous rules -- has its appeal, too. It's a "best of OD&D", revised and polished, plus more (and still more in the supplements).When running a dungeon for old D&D, I usually don't care which edition it's for. Heck, I can use a lot of stuff from Empire of the Petal Throne, Metamorphosis Alpha or The Arduin Grimoire without needing to have those rule-books handy.What trips me up is when I come across something I can't make head or tail of. (For example, I came across "thouls" -- just the name -- on an encounter table. It was some years before I learned that they combined features of trolls, hobgoblins and ghouls.) My impression is that most people are less comfortable than I am in just making up an interpretation that seems reasonable, or substituting something else that makes sense.Now, there's stuff in the later Mentzer sets (of BECM, of which the recent Dark Dungeons is a retro-clone) that you won't find elsewhere. Second Edition AD&D adds a ton of stuff in the supplements. However, 1st ed. AD&D covers, I think, the vast majority of what has remained perennially popular (and then some).However, the "retro-clone" scene, with so much available in free-for-the-download PDFs, makes it easier than ever to "mix and match". You've got OSRIC and Monsters of Myth, the S&W monster book, Kellri's Classic Dungeon Designer netbooks, Advanced Edition Companion for Labyrinth Lord ... a cornucopia of restatements or revisions of old material, plus new creations.A lot of folks use one or another 'basic' set for common game-mechanical procedures, and graft on 'stuff' from other editions (especially AD&D, which has so much) as it takes their interest.... So, really ...That brings us back to what you want in actually running a game, and which presentation works best for you as a reference for dungeon design. Those might actually turn out to be different editions.It's a matter of personal taste. My advice is to download the "retro-clones" and compare them for yourself.Castles & Crusades and Hackmaster:C&C is often characterized as having more of a "d20 System feel", which is a plus for some people and a negative for others. It may also "feel" more like 2E AD&D than like other old editions, but YMMV. It has pretty distinctive takes on some character classes, and various details can be surprisingly different. However, it is pretty easy to convert material between C&C and old D&D.Hackmaster "4e" is a mix of 1E and 2E AD&D, plus the extras and attitude familiar to readers of the Knights of the Dinner Table comic strip. I would call it "baroque", reminiscent of Chivalry & Sorcery and Rolemaster in its rules-heaviness, of Arduin in its more "gonzo" aspects.I am not so well acquainted with the new Hackmaster. I gather that the mechanics somewhat resemble Aces & Eights. So, while the HM "spirit" is probably unmistakably evident, the direct relationship with D&D has probably been pretty well wiped out.As to 3e, I find it too cumbersome for a "mega" dungeon in the old style. Even the pacing of sessions seems awkward to me. As well, there may be issues with magic.One could modify it, I guess, which raises the question of why one has chosen such an extensive and integrated set of rules in the first place. Players already fans of the system are (from my acquaintance) likely to raise the question rather pointedly. Common expectations concerning skill checks, magic, encounter design,  and other matters seem to go beyond the books to pretty strongly upheld conventions.YMMV, of course! My 3e experience is very minimal next to that of others here, and maybe some can speak from experience to the matter of designing and running big dungeons with it.In any case, I think the difference(s) between 3e and old D&D are likely to be pretty notable. Everyone I have watched go from one to the other, either way, has had to do a bit of "changing mental gears". Considering how much the DM deals with the rules-set, it should not be surprising that people tend very strongly -- more strongly, perhaps, than when acting in a player's capacity -- to prefer either 3e or old D&D to the other.</blockquote>

Verification