3.X DM for a 1E party

[IamTheTest]

A little background, I have only been playing D&D for a couple years. I am not an experienced DM though I do alright. My uncle recently told me that he and his friends used to play first edition when they were young lads. After chatting about things and trading stories he mentioned the possibility of me running a small adventure for their old party sometime. This, to me, is a great honor but I have no idea how to handle it. Should I convert them to 3.X or should I try to run and old school game? Currently I know more about coconuts than I do about first ed. so anything you can tell me is something that I probably didnt know. Thanks.

 

[delericho]

Tough question.

I think your best bet might be to ask your uncle if he has the 1st ed books handy. If so, take a look through them, and see whether you will be able to pick the rules up quickly (in all honesty, they're not that hard, but they lack the clarity and organisation of the new rules).

If you reckon you can adapt to 1st ed quickly, do that. If not, or your uncle doesn't have the books for you to look through, go with 3e. (Chances are the group will have hazy memories of the 1e rules, but they will know them better than the 3e rules. It will probably make for a better game if you don't have to stop every few minutes to explain the new rules. However, this is dependent on you being able to adapt to their play style, of course.)

Now, if it were more than a one-off your uncle was suggesting, I'd say go with 3e all the way, but it didn't sound like that from your post.

 

[S'mon]

I'd say run 3e (or C&C if you'd prefer a hybrid system). If you run 3e with 1st level PCs and don't over-emphasize the crunchy aspects it should work fine for both GM & players. I suggest either pregenerate some PCs or help your players create the PCs.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Sounds to me as if they want to try out D&D 3, so give them D&D 3. They're not Old Guard (yet ;-)), so you can give them the new-fangled stuff in all its glory.

 

[MonsterMash]

I vote for using 3e, or C&C if you have it and like it.

I think its important for the DM to be familiar with the rules and that would make 3e better for you and give a better gaming experience.

 

[IamTheTest]

Thanks for the help. They are all pretty smart guys, Im sure they would be fine with 3.0. Id like to know as many differences as possible as I think thatd make explanation of the new stuff easier. This is what I know about first ed.
1. There was THAC0 which to my understanding is basically the same as AC only backwards.
2. No feats.
3. No critical hits.
Thats all...please fill me in on the big stuff. Thanks.

 

[Turanil]

I vote for using 3e, or C&C if you have it and like it.

I think its important for the DM to be familiar with the rules and that would make 3e better for you and give a better gaming experience.

I second this suggestion; go for 3e, or if you know/have it, go for C&C. C&C will look like AD&D 1e, but with many easy to DM 3e-like mechanics.

Should I convert them to 3.X or should I try to run and old school game? Currently I know more about coconuts than I do about first ed.

Of course, running this "coco-nuts" might be another worthy option. Though I never heard about it before... Is it a rule-lite game??

 

[S'mon]

Thanks for the help. They are all pretty smart guys, Im sure they would be fine with 3.0. Id like to know as many differences as possible as I think thatd make explanation of the new stuff easier. This is what I know about first ed.
1. There was THAC0 which to my understanding is basically the same as AC only backwards.
2. No feats.
3. No critical hits.
Thats all...please fill me in on the big stuff. Thanks.

There are a huge number of differences - multiclassing worked differently, humans were the weakest race & elves the strongest, classes had stat requirements & differential XP charts and varied widely in power... I wouldn't worry about trying to grasp all the differences. If you run 3e starting at 1st level, it's similar enough the players can adapt. C&C would be easier to adapt to so would make a good halfway-house, unlike 3e a 1e player can look through a C&C Players' Handbook and be ready to play in 5-10 minutes.

 

[S'mon]

THACO = "To Hit AC 0", which translates to 3e as "Number needed to hit AC 20"

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Thanks for the help. They are all pretty smart guys, Im sure they would be fine with 3.0. Id like to know as many differences as possible as I think thatd make explanation of the new stuff easier. This is what I know about first ed.

There are tons of differences. 2e/3e was a big jump, and I think 1e/2e changes weren't exactly cosmetical, either

1. There was THAC0 which to my understanding is basically the same as AC only backwards.

No, it's attack bonus, only backwards. AC was backwards, too (if it works like 2e)

In 2e (and probably in 1e, too) AC started with 10, and you had to get it down instead of up. So AC 5 was okay, AC 0 was really nice, and negative values were great. THAC0 is "to hit armour class 0" Which means the die roll you have to make in order to hit an enemy with AC 0. So THAC0 8 means you have to roll 8 or higher to hit an AC 0 guy. THAC0 started with 20 and went down (and Str/Dex modified it, AFAIK). If you had a higher (read: worse) AC, it was subtraced to the to hit value. So if you have THAC0 8 and the guy had AC 5, you had to roll a 3.


First thing to explain them is that the system has been simplified: Higher means better. AC goes up (and you get your Dex bonus to it as well armour and maybe shield bonus, as well as other bonuses from magic); Attack bonuses go up and are just a bonus to be added to the roll.



Other things (and that's all only AFAIK).

There were no races and classes, it was all thrown together. So you could play a "fighter" or an "elf". Elven figther wasn't

Ability scores didn't have the simple, elegant way they are used today. Instead of a simple formula to get the modifier you just add to everything, every ability score hat a table that listed values and use, and this could vary by race and class.

No Feats, no Skills either.