Will 1e AD&D have me back?

[grodog]

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?

Absolutely. I left D&D completely with the advent of 2e, and 3e's return to Greyhawk is what brought me back into the D&D fold. I played 3.0, and after 3.5 was published we were house-ruling our game to 3.3 or so; when I moved back from CA, I started running AD&D again to teach people the game, since it was so much easier as a player to learn AD&D vs. 3.x. I then found a local AD&D group, and haven't looked back.

So, moving back to 1e can definitely be done! I'm sure my story's not the only one out there, either (Treebore's is essentially similar, he's just playing C&C instead of AD&D).

You can also look at OSRIC, which is an OGL-based recreation of the 1e rules: http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/

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,

I wouldn't worry about that too much, personally: everyone has their own house rules in all games, so if you want to edge the system a little closer to 3.x, I don't see that as an issue at all, especially if that makes your game more fun.

 

[grodog]

Well, then you're thinking of house rules that coincidentally match up with 2E.

Rolling d10's for initiative and modifying that number in any way is a 2E thing (1E used d6's, weapon/casting speed basically broke any ties). The category of "fast" and "slow" actions I've never heard of, so I assumed that was also 2E.

FWIW, rolling d10 for initiative dates back to house rules from Rob Kuntz's Kalibruhn campaign in Lake Geneva (among others, I'm sure), since that's the mechanic he used to run Bottle City and Wizard's Walk at GenCon a few days ago

Remember that most of the rules changes in 2E arose from widespread 1E house-rules (including THAC0, d10 individual initiative, d20 roll-under ability checks, f/m-us only being able to cast spells in elfin chain, class-based XP awards, and probably more I'm forgetting -- I haven't looked closely at the 2E rulebooks in over 15 years).

Also FWIW, THACO first appears in the 1e DMG in Appendix E. In addition to d10 initiative, Rob also used ability checks vs. d20, 3d6/4d6/5d6 during the events. I can't vouch for the rest either, but I find it interesting that so many of these mechanics did in fact become official in 2.x!

 

[Treebore]

Because of my use of C&C and the fact that its compatible with every edition of D&D with little fuss, I have been reading through the 1E and 2E rules a lot, and the boxed sets a little bit.

The old rules aren't bad.

With a half dozen to a dozen house rules (probably fewer than I used back in the day) I can see each edition being very playable. Much easier to play than the current and future incarnation, thats for sure.

Is got me to the point of believing that people who bad mouth the old editions just weren't capable of learning the rules (to young? Incapable of comprehension? Drug use?), and house ruling them to something they were happy with, or have forgotten what it was really like.

Or were just players back then and never learned to DM and figure out how to fix things.


Whatever the reason, the old rules aren't a problem. Maybe its just because I have DMed so many systems now I have a much better idea of how to go about "fixing things". Maybe its because C&C showed me the "key" to how to unify all the iterations under one mechanic.

Whatever the reason, theold systems are not bad, worthless, unplayable. In a lot of ways they are very good.

Then again, I don't get why people are in such a hurry to switch to 4e. i mean I see the reasons, I understand them, but I don't get how that beats out staying with a system you have already spent the money on, already lets you run fun games, etc...

About the only reason I do fully understand is the few who say they are burnt out on 3E and want something new. ITs why I quit two years ago. However, at least I switched to a system where ALL of my books became a game resource again.

Oh well. People are different, they do many things I don't understand, and I do many things they don't understand. Even my own parents and brothers don't understand me. Guess its just all the "human condition".

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

You can also look at OSRIC, which is an OGL-based recreation of the 1e rules: http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/

I think OSRIC's section on combat is well-done, and can be helpful for clarifying AD&D combat. Read it along with the DMG.

...everyone has their own house rules in all games, so if you want to edge the system a little closer to 3.x, I don't see that as an issue at all, especially if that makes your game more fun.

When it's time to house-rule (and if you still want to edge closer to 3E), you might consider Mob United's First Edition Feats (an OSRIC publication).

 

[RFisher]

Then again, I don't get why people are in such a hurry to switch to 4e. i mean I see the reasons, I understand them, but I don't get how that beats out staying with a system you have already spent the money on, already lets you run fun games, etc...

Vanilla may be my favorite flavor of ice cream, but I can also really enjoy chocolate, cinnamon, orange sherbet, lime sherbet, &c. If I only ever ate vanilla, I'd probably get sick of it after a while.

Sometimes system B is going to work better for a campaign than system A even though I like system A better. Sometimes I want to play system C just for a change of pace.

I don't get why people aren't in a hurry to try nigh every TRPG that comes out.

Unfortunately, my TRPG to do list will probably always be growing much faster than I can check things off. Which, I think, is a good problem to have.