Any of you pine for AD&D 1/2?

[Psion]

So - looking up a THAC0 on a table is a lot harder than spending hours creating a villain?

This relates to a discussion we are having on the Necro Games boards right now. I think the argument that it was somehow better then because stat blocks were simpler is way off. Thats a bug, not a feature AFAIAC.

I almost didn't adapt 3e when it came out. What sold me about 3e was the MM. To wit, that they actually had full and robust statistics for monsters. That you could craft and expand them without ad hoccing.

Creating complex villains was not made easier by 1e. You just didn't make them. You went without.

Stat blocks being more complete is a good thing.

1. If you didn't like a rule - you didn't use it -(...)
2. No need for prestige classes that gave insipid and silly reasons for existing (...)

Um, practice what you preach. If I don't like a prestige class, I don't use it.

4. Just *why* does a monster need character levels, again?

Just why wouldn't an intelligent monster have them?

Monsters have pre-existing hit dice and abilities for a reason.

I'm eager to hear it.

The only one I can fairly think of is the primitive state of RPGs as a more immediate descendant of wargames where monsters were literally just meant to be hacked up.

As the games being played evolved, DMs started to see the need for more complex villains, but the system as it was presented didn't support that. So the needs of the players drove the game. That's why we have more robust stat blocks today: because we wanted/needed them.

 

[diaglo]

I miss the days of playing OD&D(1974) with the additional stuff from the Strategic Review, Greyhawk, Blackmoor, and Gods, Demigods and Heroes. (Never liked Eldritch Wizardy all that much). Though I did like some of the 1e stuff.

Never played 2e by then it was RQ2 or CoC.

And I've beaten Diaglo to the punch on this!

Homer diaglo: D'oh...

my preference of course is the same. OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.

however, i don't miss 1edADnD. i roll better than you. i'd hit that all night long. and i'd pack a lunch too. or 2edADnD or 2.5 or.... long before i'd enjoy a 2000ed or 3.11ed for Workgroups game.

 

[Ogrebear]

OK. These are NOT my views but those of a friend of mine who has had a problem with getting on today. ​

Ok, I have to declare first off that I have been a player and GM of D&D/AD&D in it's various guises since 1977. It's the only game I play now, but over time I have owned played and run more than 30 different systems. 1st ed remains the easiest to play.

1st edition is something that I still love, it had it's problems, that much is without doubt and not for me to disagree with. I would say however that since the game moved away from that early approach to the adding of skills it has become progressively worse. Atmosphere seem to have become less important with each edition, and the skills have made it increasingly possible to make a roll versus that skill to resolve a situation. 2nd edition has a lot to answer for as far as skills go. I play 3e now but still consider it vastly inferior in terms of a roleplaying environment. The skills do not force the players to be as inventive as they once were. The quantity of rules that there are now means character creation stopped being 10 minutes and then you were playing. Evolution sometimes is not always a good thing.

Am I just being nostalgic. No not really, it's not that long since I ran a modified Hellgate keep for a small group. I used the 2nd ed books but ripped the skills system out of it to make it into 1st. The game ran well and the players is still interested in a follow up adventure I had an idea for. The same players now play a 3e with me and the level of player inventiveness is much lower. The only difference is the rules, I still present them with difficult choices and situations. Now the first thing they do is look to the list of skills they have.

3e is lovely to look at, with presentation we could only dream about back in the late 70s, but creation of a character is such a bore.

The modules published for 1st ed have also stood the test of time, Against the Giants, The Slavers Series, The Descent Series are all classics. Of course then we have the Number one adventure of all time, The Temple of Elemental Evil. If this was not so popular, why did they bring out the "Return To" adventure, people have been asking TSR/WOTC for a reprint for years. There is little that has arrived within the last few years that can rival these. Look at the prices they fetch on eBay. In general 3e modules lack the epic scope and feel that these had.

Some people are going to disagree with me and I respect that, but what I will say to you is this, try and find somebody who has been playing as long as me who prefers the atmosphere generated by the new game, it is not going to happen. The new rules make a change, they give the opportunity for something new and different, but better, Well that the easiest question anybody anywhere could ever ask me. No, not in a million years.

 

[jasper]

My group just shifted from Friday night to Sunday afternoon so I can't play. In the group we play 3e or Traveller (me), two combination first/second E games and one loosely based on d&D and traveller charts but based off a book series.
The thing I do miss is the flavor writing. Some of the art work good example was the magic mouth drawing previously mention.
but what I miss more than that is the free time and carefree time I had. Instead of being a debt ridden 40 + year old who has no time for the game.

 

[Psion]

Some people are going to disagree with me and I respect that, but what I will say to you is this, try and find somebody who has been playing as long as me who prefers the atmosphere generated by the new game, it is not going to happen.

Ogrebear, pass this on to your friend:

How long have you been playing? I've been playing for almost 25 years now, and I do prefer 3e. Various polls taken here show I am not alone. 3e won many converts who were disenchanted by 2e, so I think you are off if you presume that only newer gamers prefer 3e. Not only do old players who love 3e exist, we are legion.

You presume to speak for all gamers with your experience. Do not. This is merely an appeal to are or experience to validate your preferences which are ultimately subjective.

 

[3catcircus]

This relates to a discussion we are having on the Necro Games boards right now. I think the argument that it was somehow better then because stat blocks were simpler is way off. Thats a bug, not a feature AFAIAC.

I almost didn't adapt 3e when it came out. What sold me about 3e was the MM. To wit, that they actually had full and robust statistics for monsters. That you could craft and expand them without ad hoccing.

Creating complex villains was not made easier by 1e. You just didn't make them. You went without.

Stat blocks being more complete is a good thing.

Regarding the 3e MM - while it had full statistics, the majority of the comments I've read and heard have been that the 3e MM was poorly laid out and that it should have just been a 3e-ization of the 1st edition MM.

As far as creating complex villains - the DM had the leeway to make them socially complex without needing to make them mechanically complex. Now, the emphasis on making half-dragon/half-demon lycanthrope Kobold Ftr6/Clr6/[Insert Prestige Class Umpty-Squat here] rather than making them "Groob the Kobold King," a kobold who was smarter and stronger than average and chose to terrorize a human village through Mafia tactics rather than the normal "kill-and-pillage" kobolds.

Um, practice what you preach. If I don't like a prestige class, I don't use it.

My point was that unless your players are willing to go along with it, you will never be able to get away with not using feats or prestige classes. Banning specific items is one thing, but say "No prestige classes at all, no feats at all," and watch how fast your players stop playing with you...

Just why wouldn't an intelligent monster have them?

Uhh - because they are *monsters* and not PCs...

The only one I can fairly think of is the primitive state of RPGs as a more immediate descendant of wargames where monsters were literally just meant to be hacked up.

As the games being played evolved, DMs started to see the need for more complex villains, but the system as it was presented didn't support that. So the needs of the players drove the game. That's why we have more robust stat blocks today: because we wanted/needed them.

Who wanted/needed robust stat blocks for monsters? I got along just fine without them. The fact that the Tome of Horrors was able to 3.x-ize various monsters that didn't make it into 3e MM/MM2/FF *without* having full stat blocks is proof enough that they aren't necessary. And, as I stated before - you *don't* need mechanical complexity to make a villain complex. It is, I would argue, more important that a villain have a *reason* for acting the way he/she/it acts rather than that they have PC levels. As a DM, I think it is way more important to know the how and why of the way they think and act.

 

[Count Arioch the 28t]

Although I am perhaps younger in age than most of the old time players, I am still an old guy in spirit, having learned roleplaying while playing OD&D in 1994 or so. (20 years too late, but hey, better late than never.)

I liked that old version. A lot, actually. It had a feel that no other game can quite catch.

In 1999, I switched to 2E, and wish I hadn't a few months in. It was cumbersome, clunky, and weird. Even though I was more than used to Thac0 (Was called something else in OD&D, but was basically the same idea), the rest of the system seemed odd. (If you so called old timers think monsters with character classes seem odd, you should have seen me when I realized that not only could elves, dwarves, and halflings take classes, but they could take more than one at the same time! The mind wobbles . . .)

I had pretty much given up D&D for good about when 3E came out. The local gaming store was running a demo game when it came out, so I said "What the hell, I have an afternoon to kill!"

I tried it, and kinda liked it.

After a few adventures, I took over the campaign from the shop owner, who didn't have tie to run it past the sample adventures.

When I was DMing the game, wow! I had customization over every encounter, every monster, every villain! The control was intoxicating. Sure, it did take a lot longer to create villains than it did earlier, but I didn't mind one bit. I love the fact that I can tweak any given aspect of a monster to exactly what I wanted. (Also would like to point out that in 3E, I never had to take time to figure out what I roll to determine 2-5 damage, in 3E, it's written 1d4+1, which takes me less time to figure out.)

A lot of people say that 3E isn't D&D. I agree with them, it just isn't. But that doesn't mean it's not fun, a lot of people have fun with GURPS, ro Palladium, or Storyteller, why not have fun with D20? Sure, they bucked a lot of trends, but that doesn't mean it can't be a fun ride.

And though I would love to play in an OD&D campaign again, I still enjoy immensely my 3E campaign.

 

[diaglo]

Ogrebear, pass this on to your friend:

How long have you been playing?

Psion... RTFP... his friend says in the first line when he started.

I've been playing for almost 25 years now, and I do prefer 3e. Various polls taken here show I am not alone. 3e won many converts who were disenchanted by 2e, so I think you are off if you presume that only newer gamers prefer 3e. Not only do old players who love 3e exist, we are legion.

i agree converts were made from older gamers. i'll pull an Umbran on you and say all internet polls are biased.

i would agree more old timers just gave up gaming than converted. they gave up for various reasons. but they still don't game.

You presume to speak for all gamers with your experience. Do not. This is merely an appeal to are or experience to validate your preferences which are ultimately subjective.

and 2000ed is not all gamers either. don't validate your preferences.

 

[DragonLancer]

2nd edition was a great system, and I really do miss it sometimes, but 3rd is better overall IMO.

If I had the chance to play 2nd ed again I'd take it, but it doesn't compare to the ease of the 3rd ed rules.

 

[Ogrebear]

A lot of people say that 3E isn't D&D. I agree with them, it just isn't. But that doesn't mean it's not fun, a lot of people have fun with GURPS, ro Palladium, or Storyteller, why not have fun with D20? .

Absolutly.

Just cos I like and remember my OD&D campigns with fondness and nostaglia does not mean D20 is not fun to play or run, its just a differant game.

I play and run lots of games, D20 is one of them- anyone who says you cant have fun with it needs a new gaming group/GM.

Guess the answer is the same as it has always been- play whatever you enjoy. The game/system should be no inpediment to enjoying yourself!