TSR Why would anyone WANT to play 1e?

[Flying Toaster]

Some reasons to not play 1E:

Ability Score Anarchy
The attribute system was an absolute mess. EGG actually recommended four generous methods to roll up characters, which were necessary because bonuses were only available for very high scores. This created a perverse incentive to get 18% STR for all martials and 18 INT for all mages no matter what (wouldn’t want to be the dullard who can’t learn Fireball or Lightning Bolt!). If your thief had 17 or 18 CON you got +3 or +4 HP, right? Silly rogue, hit points are for fighters! Non-warriors were capped at +2 because reasons. There was no standardization of ability score effects, so you always needed to check the PHB in case you remembered them wrong. If I ever run an old style game I would use the nice smooth ability curve of B/X, with all abilities working the same way, and bonuses and minuses capped at +/-3. Decent bonuses were much more available in B/X, which relieved the pressure to get super high scores.

Class Chaos
Several 1E classes were almost untenable if the DM interpreted the rules too harshly. Rangers and paladins had weird behavior restrictions which could get you busted down to fighter if you broke the rules even once, without even a chance for a dramatic redemption quest. The UA barbarian and cavalier had superpowers that undercut the other martials (especially EGG’s precious fighter) and were “balanced” by infuriating behavior rules. Barbarians were not allowed to associate with mages and were supposed to destroy magic items whenever possible (!), and cavaliers had a Lawful Suicidal code of chivalry that required them to scorn peasants and pick fights they could not win. Clerics and druids had weird armor and weapon restrictions, and no way to theme their abilities to match in-game religions. Mages depended not only on finding decent spells, but on rolling well on INT checks to see if they could even learn them. Illusionists had to contend with powerful monsters that were often completely immune to illusion magic. If an arcane caster lost their spellbook(s) they would probably have to retire from play because replacement was just too costly. Thieves had very poor chances to succeed at their class abilities, and some DMs treated all failures as catastrophic.

Demi-Human Level Limits & Class Restrictions
EGG claimed that these were necessary for game balance, but at low to mid levels demi-humans were just better than humans until they hit a wall and became worse, so not balanced at any level. The real reason was in fact an unsuccessful attempt to strongarm players into playing humans, EGG’s favorite.

Level Drain Lunacy
Wastes your time in the game AND in real life! Also not thematic at all. People have homebrewed whole tables full of much better effects that are scary but not rage-inducing.

Weapon Wackiness
If your class allowed long swords, any other choice of weapon was a mistake because so many magic swords were long swords. Swords in general did much more damage to Large size creatures, while other weapons generally did less. So many obscure French polearms. Crossbows and slings should have done more damage.

 

[Flying Toaster]

I would never play any edition that contains the following sentence (or a variation thereof): "A "no" indicates that the race cannot become the character class in question".

Really. D&D came to age when you were able to play dwarven druids. And half-orc wizards.

The 1E race/class restrictions seem completely arbitrary to me. Elves and half-elves could be mages but not illusionists, while for gnomes it was the reverse, and dwarves, halflings, and half-orcs could not be any kind of spellcasters until UA IIRC. Those rules seem to be based not on any kind of real world folklore, but more on what characters could or could not do in Appendix N pulp fiction or even in Tolkien (perish the thought!).

Reading up on medieval European history, languages, and literature really gave me an appreciation for the original sources of Western fantasy tropes, as opposed to later pastiches. There is all kinds of weird, wild stuff in original texts written in Old Irish, Old Welsh, Old English, and Old Norse, and even Arthurian tales from the age of chivalry often have an eerie, otherworldly quality that never seems to appear in much RPG material.

One thing I learned is that the dwarves of Norse/Teutonic legends and lore were often spellcasters and shape-shifters as well as miners, smiths, and jewelers, so it is not at all clear why Gygax thought dwarves should never be magic-users. Curiously most of the lore does not actually specify that dwarves were short in stature, or even that they were in fact distinct from “light” or “dark” elves!

Slightly off-topic, but some of the really hard core OSR people like James Maliszewski seem to think that D&D has become “decadent” because it is too self-referential* and because not enough people read Appendix N literature anymore. I do not think that mid-20th century pulp is the only legitimate source of inspiration for RPGs. There is so much other material to draw on - ancient mythology, medieval epics, non-Western lore, and of course modern fantasy written after 1979.

*Show me a successful form of art or entertainment that isn’t self-referential: think of all the novels about living with writer’s block, movies about Hollywood, workplace sitcoms about working at a TV network, etc.

 

[The Soloist]

The house rule 'tradition' of AD&D 1e was caused, in part, with the delayed release of the three books. The MM was first in1977. DMs used it with either OD&D or Holmes basic. Then the PBH came out in 1978 with only classes, races and spells. The DMG came out in 1979 with new initiative and a many new combat rules. TSR encouraged house rules because the game was incomplete for a long time. This caused the creation of countless 'Frankenstein' versions of D&D and AD&D. DM and players choosing which rules they like and didn't like.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Well, Occam's razor says I'm an idiot. That's the best answer. The alternative is, "listen to what I mean, not what I said."

Man, I let myself get mixed up with double negatives.

I’m confused. “Why you wouldn’t” and “why would anyone not” are the same question, except the latter is more general.

see above

Also: edited the title for clarity, because the sarcasm didn't come through. the original thread was "why would anyone want to play 1e RAW" as a sarcastic title, meaning, "1e RAW is really bad I can't see how anyone would want to play it." This title was a mirror of that, but apparently the sarcasm didn't carry over. The intent was "why wouldn't you want to play 1e NOT RAW, because it's great!". Apparently that didn't carry over well.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I, on the other hand, much prefer the saving throw categories of older editions that are classified by effect to avoid and not by avoidance method. I've even added a sixth category (for my house-ruled AD&D).

The challenge of doing it this way is that instead of saying "well, I think you'd probably need to try and dodge that effect, so it's a DEX save," you have to figure out if a new effect is more like a wand, a death ray or petrification. It doesn't scale well when adding new effects and challenges.

 

[Mannahnin]

Slightly off-topic, but some of the really hard core OSR people like James Maliszewski seem to think that D&D has become “decadent” because it is too self-referential* and because not enough people read Appendix N literature anymore. I do not think that mid-20th century pulp is the only legitimate source of inspiration for RPGs. There is so much other material to draw on - ancient mythology, medieval epics, non-Western lore, and of course modern fantasy written after 1979.

*Show me a successful form of art or entertainment that isn’t self-referential: think of all the novels about living with writer’s block, movies about Hollywood, workplace sitcoms about working at a TV network, etc.

Maybe I'm misremembering Maliszewski's take (here?), but I know some versions of that argument (like Delta's) absolutely don't focus only on the historical pulps. Dan does suggest that it's a problem if/that D&D has become too self-referential, but argues that it should include more references to reality, to classical mythology, to real world folklore, and to other sources that are outside the game itself because they give the fantasy more grounding and useful reference points.

Here's an example. In discussing rules for disease, Dan argues that it was an error for Gary to disconnect the diseases in AD&D from real world maladies like Arneson discussed in Supplement II: Blackmoor. That expanding and genericizing the diseases made them less interesting and evocative and playable, and that this bad trend got worse in 3rd ed with the list of diseases changing entirely to made up fantasy diseases. Which may have been more mechanically playable than Gary's version, but lost all grounding in reality.

Damn You, Gygax! Part 1

Math, history, and design of old-school D&D.

deltasdnd.blogspot.com

 

[billd91]

Here's an example. In discussing rules for disease, Dan argues that it was an error for Gary to disconnect the diseases in AD&D from real world maladies like Arneson discussed in Supplement II: Blackmoor. That expanding and genericizing the diseases made them less interesting and evocative and playable, and that this bad trend got worse in 3rd ed with the list of diseases changing entirely to made up fantasy diseases. Which may have been more mechanically playable than Gary's version, but lost all grounding in reality.

I figure it falls victim to the general ghoulishness of gamifying a real disease that real people suffer and die from - like malaria which infects over 200 million and kills about 600,000 people a year. I think there are places that can be a bit touchy to tread on.

 

[Mannahnin]

I figure it falls victim to the general ghoulishness of gamifying a real disease that real people suffer and die from - like malaria which infects over 200 million and kills about 600,000 people a year. I think there are places that can be a bit touchy to tread on.

I'm not sure I find it inherently more ghoulish than gamifying physical injuries or other forms of death, dismemberment, or disability which PCs suffer from. But you could be right that it was a factor in WotC's thinking.

 

[Voadam]

The challenge of doing it this way is that instead of saying "well, I think you'd probably need to try and dodge that effect, so it's a DEX save," you have to figure out if a new effect is more like a wand, a death ray or petrification. It doesn't scale well when adding new effects and challenges.

The multiple saves have their own logic for groupings but they are not as explicit as the 3e/4e three saves/defenses.

1e has:
Paralyzation, Poison, or Death Magic - mostly are you lucky/favored of the gods as these saves are did it get you or not as opposed to resisting them after being actually tagged.
Petrification or Polymorph (but not from wands) - how solid is your body.
Rod, Staff, Wands - line zaps.
Breath Weapon - big areas.
Spells (unless from another covered save) - miscellaneous effects like mind control.

You do have to make the judgment call for new things like say a drug in your system could be a poison or go with body integrity petrification or mind affecting spell.

But you have to choose in the 3e system as well. Is that blast a normal AC attack, a touch AC attack, or a reflex save? An auto hit but will or fortitude save to resist the effects?

 

[Willie the Duck]

It could equally be that they didn't think real-world infectious diseases had enough (or the right) resonance for many western audiences in the early 00s. Or the simple 'D&D isn't set in the real world' mindset that made them remove Lucerne hammers and include double-bladed swords, etc.

Regardless, while I'm dubious of any grand meaning to the disease charts (any more than whether ST:ToS has Spock suffering from space-measles instead of leukemia or diphtheria), I think it is a reasonable premise -- and significantly more persuasive than a notion that everyone has to read a specific select list of supporting fiction or some other claim. That said, if Maliszewski actually used the term "decadent," I'm going to roll my eyes a little, because, good lord, can't we just say we prefer X over Y without having to imply that Y is somehow indulgent, inferior, condescending, worthy of condescension, or reflecting a state of moral or cultural decline?