What didn't you like about 1st Ed. AD&D?

Dristram · Post by **Dristram** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:00 pm

I've been inspired recently to look into some 1st Ed. AD&D rules to house rule into my C&C game and I noticed that I can't remember why I switched so quickly away to 3e. I remember I didn't switch to 2nd Ed. until the black cover books came out in 1995 and only because no one I knew played 1st Ed. anymore . Looking over that book, btw, really shows the progression to 3e.

So, what I can't remember is if I was ever unhappy with 1st Ed. AD&D. So, if you played 1st Ed. AD&D, what didn't you like about it?

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:21 pm

Generally I didn't like the "complexity" of 1st edition with all these different books describing new classes and alternate rules (Wilderness Survival Guide, Unearthed Arcana, etc.) I liked 2nd edition's streamlineyness and more unified rules and the complete lack of combat matricies.

What I like about C&C even better is that nearly every aspect of the 1/2nd edition game was improved upon, streamlined and codified.

........................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:44 pm

That's interesting, when I started with AD&D it was with 2nd ed but since few things were available for it... I got a lot of 1st ed stuff for it. Basically, I had the 2nd ed PHB, DMG, and eventually, the Monstrous Compendium stuff but everything else was 1st ed. I didn't really notice the differences between 1st and 2nd till much later. I also never got the 'black series' so I wasn't familiar with the Skills, Power, and Options stuff till I started picking up 3rd ed.

But yes, the 'revised 2nd ed' did set some ground work for 3rd ed IMO.

Moriarty the Red
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

Dristram · Post by **Dristram** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:03 pm

moriarty777 wrote:
But yes, the 'revised 2nd ed' did set some ground work for 3rd ed IMO.

One thing of particular note was the Non-weapon Proficiencies which evolved into the Skills and Feats of 3e.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:29 pm

Actually you need to look at other systems to see where skills and feats came from. a good palce to start would be GURPS.

Why did I switch from 1E to 2E? Don't remember for sure. I knew I wasn't "hot about it" (switching to 2E). I think it was mainly because my players/game group wanted to switch because they thought it would be better. With the house rules I had at the time I was running a game I was perfectly happy with, so best I can remember my players thought the pasture was greener on the other side of the fence.

Don't get me wrong, I had plenty of fun with 2E, especially after I worked out everything I wanted to house rule and my groups accepted the changes.

I've had fun with every edition of D&D, just 3E is the first time I got overwhelmed and overloaded that I wanted to quit. I'm just glad C&C came along when it did and gave me the middle ground game I needed.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:20 pm

Ive not been unhappy with any game I've played. Whatever the group was into.

At the time I thought what is now known as '2e' was just a newer printing with some new rules. I didnt then, and I really still don't care about this 'edition' nonsense.

The groups I was involved with just mixed and matched whatever the hell we felt like throwing into the game.

If you wanted to play a basic race class, bring it, if you wanted skills, use em, if you wanted stuff from the 2e skills and powers, bring it in. It didnt really matter.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Jyrdan Fairblade · Post by **Jyrdan Fairblade** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:30 pm

There are some things I recall dropping, like the weapons vs. armor bonus/penalty matrix. Then there were the gender-based ability score caps.

It may be solely perception, but I think that there was less of a concern about following the Rules As Written back then.

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 12:45 am

The only thing that pops out to me was demi-human level limits. I'm sure there are others but I'm hard pressed to remember them.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Maliki · Post by **Maliki** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 12:51 am

I only played 1E for a very short while before 2E came out, looking back things I dislike.

-combat matrix

-demi-human level limits

-monks
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 1:15 am

Just to be clear, there were a lot of RAW rules I threw out. My house rules handout was not short. I believe it was 4 typed pages. Wish I still had it, to tell the truth. I think I would use a lot of it for my C&C game if I did.

Same goes for my 2E house rules as well. At least I know what happended to those, they burned up with my Dungeon collection.

Barrataria · Post by **Barrataria** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 1:16 am

As for 2E, I only switched because of the Core Rules CD software which was great.

Unfortunately, I later discovered that PCs were powered up greatly compared to monsters, to the detriment of the whole thing. I ignored the deletion of assassin/monk, etc.

I too didn't appreciate having to look in the DMG, PHB, UA to come up with character generation details, which was even more cumbersome when trying to script adventures since it added 3 monster books to it!

2E was much worse with the splatbooks. 3E is of course the same.

BB

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 1:42 am

I've always liked AD&D1e, and some elements of AD&D2e. In fact, one of the things I liked the most was that I could take something from one game (like Palladium stuff) and do some slight math work and get it to function. However, there were some rules I thought were superfluous and bogging, like the weapon vs. armor type, the "helmet rule" and by-the-book initiative. Because it was easy enough to ignore (unlike some games), it never made me not play.

So, what drew me out was lack of player interest. They wanted to use the "newest and bestest version" which was exciting for the first few months or so... and then I realized I was happier playing something else.

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 2:32 am

Barrataria wrote:
As for 2E, I only switched because of the Core Rules CD software which was great.

I havn't played 2E for a long time, but this to date, was still the best D&D program to come around dealing with character creation, items, prof, etc. Awesome program, especially the Core Rules 2.0. Love that stuff, and still play around with the program from time to time even though I don't play 2E anymore.

.......................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Tadhg · Post by **Tadhg** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 2:58 am

I don't recall anything in particular about why I wouldn't like the book/game, except that coming from BD&D, I remember thinking why the need for a huge book of rules? Of course, much of it was clarifications and enhancements, but I was and will always be a rule-lite man. So, way back when, I ignored it.

Since returning to the game and having more time and patience to analyze the book, I do very much like a great deal of what's there. But, I would still, most likely throw out a load of stuff if I weren't playing C&C!
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:02 am

You know, I never played 1E all that much, but while I loved the D&D game so (I began playing Mentzer Basic), there was a few other reasons why I didn't particularly care for 1E. First off, coming from Mentzer, I thought the artwork sucked (please before you go off typing mean things to me, understand that I didn;t realize that 1E was older, and a different game then Basic D&D). This was a turn off for me as well. As I got older and more experienced in the D&D game I began to appreciate 1E much more, but still to this day I prefer other editions far above 1E... although the 1E DMG is still a bust-ass, good product.

......................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:05 am

Omote wrote:
First off, coming from Mentzer, I thought the artwork sucked (please before you go off typing mean things to me, understand that I didn;t realize that 1E was older, and a different game then Basic D&D). This was a turn off for me as well.

Hear hear! Elmore and Easley were my inspiration back in the day. Course, they still are in large part.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Orpheus · Post by **Orpheus** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:16 am

gideon_thorne wrote:
Hear hear! Elmore and Easley were my inspiration back in the day. Course, they still are in large part.

I definitely love the Easley stuff. In fact his 2e DMG cover is my cell phone's wallpaper. When I think of D&D art, Easley is the first one to come to my mind.

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:23 am

Orpheus wrote:
I definitely love the Easley stuff. In fact his 2e DMG cover is my cell phone's wallpaper. When I think of D&D art, Easley is the first one to come to my mind.

Agreed. Growing up in D&D in the era of those artists have also caused me to consider both of them definative D&D artists.

...........................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Dristram · Post by **Dristram** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:34 am

I got introduced to Elmore's and Easley's work thorugh 1st Ed. Dragonlance. I was in awe!

But I still have a special affinity to the black&white art of the old school artists. I guess it all comes down to what you saw when you were first introduced to D&D.

Dristram · Post by **Dristram** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:38 am

Jyrdan Fairblade wrote:
There are some things I recall dropping, like the weapons vs. armor bonus/penalty matrix.

I never used it either. I remember trying on many occasions by it didn't stick. I also didn't understand the purpose at the time. Now I know is was meant to replicate the historical aspect that some weapons were better used against certain armors. I've actually considered playtesting a weapons vs. armor adjustment in C&C. It would be more directly related to armor instead of armor class though.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:51 am

Dristram wrote:
I guess it all comes down to what you saw when you were first introduced to D&D.

*smiles* Not really. I was introduced into gaming by OD&D and the Otus and Sutherland basic boxed sets. I sort of came into AD&D sidways through the Mentzer sets.

I never would have bought any of it on my own. I used to look at all this "Dungeons & Dragons" stuff on the shelf of the local hobby shop and none of the work really jumped out at me.

My folks just thought I needed a hobby with people my own age. Thats the only reason I wandered into it.

I didn't actually start buying any of the books untill I saw a vast improvement in the technical skill of the art. By this time (11 years old) I was already delving into the realm of comic art, which is what I'd intended to go into at first.
Art is all about taste.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Orpheus · Post by **Orpheus** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:06 am

There's an interview with Elmore that's a part of the "Dungeons & Dragons Experience" documentary that's up on YouTube, and he goes into the change at TSR towards more "professional" art.

Dristram · Post by **Dristram** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:48 am

The part 2 mentions Gary's and Dave's Castles and Crusades club! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD_t19Pp ... ed&search=

Korgoth · Post by **Korgoth** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:06 am

Didn't like about 1E? Here are mine:

- Demihuman class restrictions (why no Dwarven MUs?)

- Demihuman level limits

- Dual-classing

- Bards

- Rangers as spellcasters

Nowadays, I'd also add:

- Non-Weapon Proficiencies (I like "background skill bundles" so much more)

I like both 1E and 2E way more than 3E.
_________________
"I despise all weavers of the black arts. Speaking of which, can you pass the gravy?"

----------

"I didn't know there would be this much talking."

Dristram · Post by **Dristram** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:28 am

Korgoth wrote:
- Demihuman class restrictions (why no Dwarven MUs?)

What's funny is I never cared for Dwarven magic-users because I saw dwarves as the antithesis to elves. I've always felt kind of alone in my view though.

miller6 · Post by **miller6** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:09 am

gideon_thorne wrote:
Hear hear! Elmore and Easley were my inspiration back in the day. Course, they still are in large part.

Don't forget Caldwell! He drew the best babes and the coolest, most detailed armor!
Brian Miller
_________________
"The adventure continues"

Orpheus · Post by **Orpheus** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:23 am

miller6 wrote:
Don't forget Caldwell! He drew the best babes and the coolest, most detailed armor!
Brian Miller

And clearing his castle was fun too.

Moorcrys · Post by **Moorcrys** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:07 pm

Dristram wrote:
What's funny is I never cared for Dwarven magic-users because I saw dwarves as the antithesis to elves. I've always felt kind of alone in my view though.

You're not alone, Dristram. Dwarven magic users always seemed wrong to me -- druids and magic users seem very elvish... although I thought the level limits for dwarven clerics (or any other demi-human cleric for that matter) were weird.

As 'runecaster' sorts of classes have come out over the last 20 or so years, they have seemed to fit dwarves more than bookish, d4 hit die magic users. To my mind anyway.
_________________
----------------

Moorcrys

Korgoth · Post by **Korgoth** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:58 pm

Moorcrys wrote:
You're not alone, Dristram. Dwarven magic users always seemed wrong to me -- druids and magic users seem very elvish... although I thought the level limits for dwarven clerics (or any other demi-human cleric for that matter) were weird.

As 'runecaster' sorts of classes have come out over the last 20 or so years, they have seemed to fit dwarves more than bookish, d4 hit die magic users. To my mind anyway.

Hmm. You know, when I was typing my post I wasn't thinking of a Dwarven MU as a dwarf in a pointy hat tossing fireballs. I was thinking of a Smith character, who forges magic into hammers and blades. I guess that's not what a Dwarven MU would work out to be in practice, though.

So... how do 1E dwarves make all those nifty magic items? In RCD&D they had a "Clan Forge" that made up for the fact that they were all the same class - it could do some clerical magic and make Dwarf-themed magical junk.

I don't know: I guess from Tolkien and Norse stuff I get the idea that Dwarves should have some sort of magic... even if it is very different from that of other races.

In fact, the magic possessed by each race probably should be unique. That would make for a cool game.
_________________
"I despise all weavers of the black arts. Speaking of which, can you pass the gravy?"

----------

"I didn't know there would be this much talking."

Dristram · Post by **Dristram** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:43 pm

Korgoth wrote:
So... how do 1E dwarves make all those nifty magic items?

IM1eC the adventuring classes were uniqe to adventurers, at least for the demi-human races. I had in my mind that there were dwarven crafsmen who made the wonderful and magical items of the dwarves. They never became adventurers though. And their magic was embedded from the power of the earth honed through their ability to tap into the power of creation that created the whole world. It was not something that could be manifested into spells. But that was my look at it.

Quote:
In RCD&D they had a "Clan Forge" that made up for the fact that they were all the same class - it could do some clerical magic and make Dwarf-themed magical junk.

That's pretty cool actually. What does the RC stand for? Could you possibly IM me the basic features of the class?

Quote:
I don't know: I guess from Tolkien and Norse stuff I get the idea that Dwarves should have some sort of magic... even if it is very different from that of other races.

I guess that's what I ended up doing with mine. Except the magic-using dwarves were too busy creating to become adventurers.

Quote:
In fact, the magic possessed by each race probably should be unique. That would make for a cool game.

Add to that unique racial arms and armor and that would be some major flavor!

Troll Lord Games

What didn't you like about 1st Ed. AD&D?

What didn't you like about 1st Ed. AD&D?

Re: What didn't you like about 1st Ed. AD&D?