Will 1e AD&D have me back?

[kaomera]

So, this is mostly tongue-in-cheek. Not entirely, but enough so that I thought putting it under "Humor" was appropriate...

So I've been meaning to (and brainstorming on) getting an online (OpenRPG or MapTools) game going. Only now it almost seems kind of pointless to start up a 3.5 game, especially given that online play (apparently, I'm new at this play-by-wire stuff...) takes longer than f2f. I mean, if nothing else waiting for the D&D Game Table means an opportunity to be lazy until it's up and running (and I never like to pass up an opportunity for laziness!)

But I had a thought: If not 3.5, what about 1e? I've got the books, I still know the system, I could run a game with virtually zero prep... So, why not? Well, for one thing my D&D has been pretty much strictly 3e since 3.0 came out, and it was "not much at all" before that as far back as the release of 2e. I'm not the same gamer and I'm not the same DM that I was in the late 70s to the late 80s.

So, I'm wondering: can you go back? Really? I'm pretty sure that using tables instead of BAB isn' going to bother me, the leveling curve and initiative systems are things I've missed while playing 3.5, but there is stuff in 3.5 that I just love. And there's part of the rub: Dare I wander over to Dragonsfoot if I'm not ready to denounce "thee later editions" completely? Actually, I'm pretty sure that's a dumb question, but I can say that I do feel a little guilty every time I read one of Diaglo's posts: there's just something really pure about knowing exactly what game you want to play and being able to wave a copy at people. (I, personally, am convinced that my "one true game" not only does not exist, but that is actually quite impossible in anything you could describe as "reality".)

However a more serious problem is: "Can I resist the urge to house-rule in the parts of 3.5 that I like?" And maybe I shouldn't be trying to resist this urge, except that I know what happens when I go on a house-ruling spree, and a little over 15 years ago I was (finally) convinced by several of my players at the time (a kind of DM intervention, ho-ho!) that it just isn't cool; that no player wants to have a 300-page "house-rules document" dropped on top of a 160-page rulebook, or even read more than about a dozen pages, tops, in any case.

So I think it comes down to: Can I go back to a simpler D&D, something I've been whining about wanting for nearly 20 years, or is it just too late for me? Am I doomed to forever see feats and PrCs and multi-classing options in my head when a player describes their character? I guess, if I can get up off my seat-interface-surface and actually get started I'll find out...

 

[Treebore]

I couldn't. Its why I went to Castles and Crusades instead. Simplicity of 1E, d20 values are all positive, easy to house rule in whatever you like from any edition of D&D.

So I got the simplicity of prep I wanted, the players get a good bit of the verstility they want (in many ways more), and I get use out of ALL of my d&D books ( i have a good pile of 2E books too).

Take a look at trolllord.com and download their free Quickstart PDF to see the basics.

 

[kaomera]

I couldn't. Its why I went to Castles and Crusades instead. Simplicity of 1E, d20 values are all positive, easy to house rule in whatever you like from any edition of D&D.

So I got the simplicity of prep I wanted, the players get a good bit of the verstility they want (in many ways more), and I get use out of ALL of my d&D books ( i have a good pile of 2E books too).

Take a look at trolllord.com and download their free Quickstart PDF to see the basics.

Five minutes.

I have C&C. I'm not overly fond of it, actually. I'm not really keen on the Siege Engine, and I kind of figure if I'm going to try to play 1e AD&D, why not just play 1e AD&D?

But you do have a good point, C&C + the stuff I like from 3.5 might be a way to go...

 

[Treebore]

Theres nothing wrong with coming over to our TLG boards and ask us how we do things. It might just be you dont see or know how to go about getting what you want with C&c. Or it may simply not be the system for you. Either way we won't "hate" you for it.

We realize that the system isn't for everyone, we just want to be given a
"fair shake" so to speak.

So come check it out, see what some of us have done with C&C, and see if it really isn't for you, or if it is.

Plus I am running an online I6 Ravenloft in October using SKYPE (a "talking" program, for talking live to each other) and the C&C rules, I have four more slots in group 3 left, if you would like to try it out, and see if you can beat or survive Strahd. I believe group 3 is for Thursday nights, 9 to midnight EST. Should last no more than 4 weeks, hopefully not as little as one night.

 

[T. Foster]

1E will have you back, but, in all honesty as a 1E-fan, you probably don't want to go back, unless you're willing to completely change your mindset and approach to the game (for instance, instead of coming up with a character concept and then attempting to model it via the rules, look at the available classes and races and decide "which role do I want to play" and then gradually personalize and individualize that archetype into an actual character through the course of actual play). It's perfectly possible to play 1E AD&D in a non-nostalgic, non-ironic way (half the players in my last campaign-group had no prior 1E AD&D experience), but only if you accept it on its own terms and don't try to turn it into something it isn't.

 

[MerricB]

So, this is mostly tongue-in-cheek. Not entirely, but enough so that I thought putting it under "Humor" was appropriate...

So I've been meaning to (and brainstorming on) getting an online (OpenRPG or MapTools) game going. Only now it almost seems kind of pointless to start up a 3.5 game, especially given that online play (apparently, I'm new at this play-by-wire stuff...) takes longer than f2f. I mean, if nothing else waiting for the D&D Game Table means an opportunity to be lazy until it's up and running (and I never like to pass up an opportunity for laziness!)

But I had a thought: If not 3.5, what about 1e? I've got the books, I still know the system, I could run a game with virtually zero prep... So, why not? Well, for one thing my D&D has been pretty much strictly 3e since 3.0 came out, and it was "not much at all" before that as far back as the release of 2e. I'm not the same gamer and I'm not the same DM that I was in the late 70s to the late 80s.

It's worth playing AD&D again. Even if you discover it is no longer for you, at least you'll take that knowledge away with you.

Me? I've DMed AD&D since 3e. (Heck, I finally got to DM a game of oD&D!) And I found it as enjoyable as before. More, actually, because I was a much more skilled DM. That's part of AD&D: it actually works better the more experience you have with RPGs. Any RPGs.

However, that's not true of all my players. There are some who are violently allergic to previous editions, and with reason. There is something very nice in 3e about the options it gives players when building their characters. In AD&D, you're pretty much limited to the game at the table - 3e gave you a lot more to think about between sessions. So, the limited options of 1e really didn't work for them. Playing "a fighter with a longsword" wasn't as thrilling as playing an incarnate, or a fochluchan lyrist, or whatever else they'd come up with.

So, I say: go with AD&D, but make sure your players want to try it.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

1E will have you back, but, in all honesty as a 1E-fan, you probably don't want to go back, unless you're willing to completely change your mindset and approach to the game (for instance, instead of coming up with a character concept and then attempting to model it via the rules, look at the available classes and races and decide "which role do I want to play" and then gradually personalize and individualize that archetype into an actual character through the course of actual play). It's perfectly possible to play 1E AD&D in a non-nostalgic, non-ironic way (half the players in my last campaign-group had no prior 1E AD&D experience), but only if you accept it on its own terms and don't try to turn it into something it isn't.

Nicely put. Very true.

Cheers!

 

[thedungeondelver]

I encourage you to go back regardless. However, before you do, read the DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE cover to cover. Understand the quirks (I know you said you know the rules, but reacquaint yourself with the whys as well as the hows), all of the little things you might have missed or taken for granted the first time 'round; you'll find that AD&D meshes rather well, I think.

 

[Treebore]

Yeah, definitely give 1E another "fair shake" as well. Like I've told the people over at DF, I'lll play any edition of D&D with a good DM. Its all fun.

 

[MerricB]

Oh, and if you do run AD&D again... use something simple for the initiative rules. Even Gary didn't use the rules as written. It's the one thing in AD&D that really shows the game's roots in Chainmail.

There's a really good summary on dragonsfoot of how the initiative system is meant to work, but you'll probably find it easier for just "both sides roll d6, whoever rolls higher goes first."

Cheers!