TSR Why would anyone want to play 1e?

[Willie the Duck]

People talk about fighters having the best saves in AD&D a lot, but I think relatively few actually experienced it much. In AD&D, fighters did have the fastest improving saves and the overall best saves at relatively high levels - but for the first 6 levels or so, they actually kind of sucked compared to clerics and magic users. But if most people didn't play high levels back in the day (as surveys suggested), they probably didn't actually experience it or, if they did, they only experienced it for a very few levels.

A very valid point. One I've made in other discussions. I repeated the prevailing wisdom here out of rote habit/expediency/it wasn't my main point (i.e. I was being lazy). I might say this is an exception because we're talking about monsters one faces at high levels, but even that's not the case as everyone fought dragons at near every level bitd (especially in 1e). Regardless, overall you are right -- for much of what appears to have been a typical play experience, fighters do not have the best saves.
There is some wiggle room in the old adage that part of the fighter's class features are found on the treasure table and they will have the best defensive magic items. But even that is pretty nebulous and inexact (do you give the best ring of protection to the fighter, or to the wizard or thief who otherwise are really vulnerable? If you run into ring mail +3 and plate mail +1, I bet the fighter is wearing the plate.).

 

[rabindranath72]

I was really happy to see dragons get a boost. A dragon causes a kingdom to fall. It should be one of the most powerful creatures alive. A challenge for a high level party. 3e boosted them even more I think.

I don't know, I guess it depends on how stat-inflated is the World. If you take the AD&D 1e World as an example, the largest majority of NPCs will tend to have hit points in the single digits.
On average, it would take a unit of 258 0-level soldiers (with 4-7 hit points, so less than 1HD) to inflict enough arrow damage (45 hit points) just to force a huge ancient red dragon to land in a single round of combat. Of course this assumes concentrated fire for the sake of range effectiveness. These NPCs would automatically rout as soon as the dragon passes over them, and they would die automatically on a breath attack (88 hit points damage, halved to 44, so even high level NPCs would die on a successful save.) Although not magic resistant, the huge ancient red dragon saves as a 22HD monster, even though it has 11HD. 30% of these dragons are also skilled spellcasters.
All in all, I reckon one such beast could well cause a kingdom to fall unless some skilled Heroes with plenty of magic were around...

 

[Emerikol]

I don't know, I guess it depends on how stat-inflated is the World. If you take the AD&D 1e World as an example, the largest majority of NPCs will tend to have hit points in the single digits.
On average, it would take a unit of 258 0-level soldiers (with 4-7 hit points, so less than 1HD) to inflict enough arrow damage (45 hit points) just to force a huge ancient red dragon to land in a single round of combat. Of course this assumes concentrated fire for the sake of range effectiveness. These NPCs would automatically rout as soon as the dragon passes over them, and they would die automatically on a breath attack (88 hit points damage, halved to 44, so even high level NPCs would die on a successful save.) Although not magic resistant, the huge ancient red dragon saves as a 22HD monster, even though it has 11HD. 30% of these dragons are also skilled spellcasters.
All in all, I reckon one such beast could well cause a kingdom to fall unless some skilled Heroes with plenty of magic were around...

I never really bought into the "most" people are zero level conceit. I agree it is the official viewpoint. I think that view though makes the world nonsensical and when you see the actual worlds they created, the reality is far different. Every three levels is another band of commonality. 1st to 3rd is commonplace. 4th to 6th is uncommon. 7th to 9th is rare. etc.. In a big city, I'd shift everything down so 4th to 6th were common.

Without these changes I always wondered how humankind survived against the monsters.

 

[Mannahnin]

People talk about fighters having the best saves in AD&D a lot, but I think relatively few actually experienced it much. In AD&D, fighters did have the fastest improving saves and the overall best saves at relatively high levels - but for the first 6 levels or so, they actually kind of sucked compared to clerics and magic users. But if most people didn't play high levels back in the day (as surveys suggested), they probably didn't actually experience it or, if they did, they only experienced it for a very few levels.

A very valid point. One I've made in other discussions. I repeated the prevailing wisdom here out of rote habit/expediency/it wasn't my main point (i.e. I was being lazy). I might say this is an exception because we're talking about monsters one faces at high levels, but even that's not the case as everyone fought dragons at near every level bitd (especially in 1e). Regardless, overall you are right -- for much of what appears to have been a typical play experience, fighters do not have the best saves.
There is some wiggle room in the old adage that part of the fighter's class features are found on the treasure table and they will have the best defensive magic items. But even that is pretty nebulous and inexact (do you give the best ring of protection to the fighter, or to the wizard or thief who otherwise are really vulnerable? If you run into ring mail +3 and plate mail +1, I bet the fighter is wearing the plate.).

IME dragons were more a mid to high level opponent. At low levels you'd usually be running/evading if you saw evidence of one in a dungeon or got unlucky on a wilderness random encounter and had them turn up. Too high a chance of a TPK. So at the levels where you're taking on dragons the fighters are generally catching up or at least doing better. But this is another place where different tables had variety.

I was going to mention magic items too. It's true that low level fighters suffer a bit on saves, but once you factor in magic armor and shields helping out, that picture improves a bit. Rings and cloaks of protection were more variable- IME somewhat more likely to go to the non-Fighters as we tried to distribute magic items pretty evenly, but could definitely vary depending on the distribution scheme the group used.*

*(One of my favorite gaming moments was in a group which diced off for pick order of magic items, re-rolling once everyone had gotten an item, when my Paladin made a pitch for just distributing them to whoever could best use them- "Surely, we should be guided by the principle of from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need?")

 

[Willie the Duck]

Without these changes I always wondered how humankind survived against the monsters.

This is a consistent place where the game rules and worldbuilding mesh... poorly? Inexactly? Something along those line. There are any number of monsters out there that could completely wipe out a town. Mind you, the game works with this dichotomy in place -- those monsters show up in dungeon (not in town), and maybe on wilderness encounter charts (not in town), with no specified rules for how often they attack people in town. It just makes the worldbuilding (which I feel the game never really leaned too closely on, see also the game economics) rather implausible.

The basic explanations I've heard that make sense to me are:

• Scarcity: despite dragons and wraiths and whatzits and whatnots being positively bubbling over in every dungeon and every wandering encounter chart, they are actually really rare overall. Somewhere, hundreds of miles away, there are people who've barely heard of a whight, much less seen one. That's the place that set the standards such that giant rats are called giant rats instead of, y'know, rats--if PCs set the standards, they would be the normative form and regular rats something like 'mini-rats' or 'nearly harmless (unless you are a level 1 magic user) rats.' It's just that the PCs have a habit of ending up in the places where all the chaos is going down these days. This is the same reason that castles are built like IRL castles (maybe with some extra ballista up high) instead of roofed structures more suitable for worlds with griffins and dragons -- those just aren't common enough to build your defenses around (why that isn't true in areas with a persistent griffin problem remains to be seen, and sometimes/some DMs, it does change).
• World based on PCs: It does seem like there are problems out there that only the PCs (or someone like them) can solve. Well, what a coincidence that the PCs are right there. It's almost as if the people who built this town ten leagues from a desecrated ancient temple knew that, (on average) 2 major undead incursions happened per season and there would be (again, on average) 3 level 2-4 adventuring groups coming along looking for purpose each season (and that third group could by plied with a bandit quest or something else that'll keep them from stirring up trouble on their own). So the world is built with the expectation that adventurers like the PCs are there to solve the problems that townsfolk can't. These two combine in:
• Frontier as an exception: everyone's heard the analysis that D&D, despite being 'medieval' (or whatever they've landed on instead in the medieval vs. steampunk thread) themed, is really kind of a western. It certainly makes sense with the main location of PC action being an exceptionally wild and untamed locale. In this model, it literally and deliberately is a place one wonders how humankind can survive -- because that's a gamble the settlers there are actively making. They think they can survive (and thrive) in a place where they shouldn't, partly because they think they will be the ones (through pluck or good luck) to not get hit with the bad effects, and part because they know that some enterprising adventuring party will be out there thwarting the deeds which would keep them from surviving.

These work wonderfully right until the world gets filled in, and you see that everywhere is just like where the PCs are: perfect for adventurers, and hell for peasants. It makes sense in that you build your worlds for the PCs, and why bother with huge swaths of map you deem 'too boring for adventuring' that your PCs aren't going to go visit? It just once again leaves the worldbuilding in a bind.