# I love AD&D



## thedungeondelver (Jun 23, 2009)

I love 1st edition *AD&D*.  I do.  I think it's a fantastic game system.  It is the best *D&D* I've ever played, and I've played them all.  Gary's writing is awesome.  The default assumption of *GREYHAWK* throughout the mainstay of the system's publication is awesome, too.

Once you get the flow of the rules organization, finding things in the rulebooks (on the occasions they're needed) is a snap.

The modules are great, and I really like the artwork.

1st edition *AD&D* is my favorite RPG.  It isn't the only one I play, nor is it the only one I like, but it's the one I like the most, and the *D&D* I'll play given the chance.

1st edition *AD&D* rocks.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jun 23, 2009)

thedungondelver loves AD&D?  GASP!  I would never suspect that AD&D would be the game that you enjoy the most!  This is a complete suprise that no one could ever predict!

Seriously though, it's good when you have a game that's the perfect match for you.  I'm sure that you have tons of fun with it at your gaming table.  Get you game on!


----------



## Mythmere1 (Jun 23, 2009)

Even though I actually play 0e/Swords & Wizardry, I agree that AD&D is awesome.  Love the art, love the wonky rules, love the Gygaxian language!

And man, I really hope this doesn't turn into an edition war with people coming to say what they don't like about it.  Let a thread stay positive about a game people like.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 23, 2009)

Playing 3.5E and burning out on it reminded me how much I loved and missed AD&D. If I was to take a break from 4E, AD&D would be what I would turn to.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 23, 2009)

I can still feel the AD&D love too. I would still play or run it if I could find a local group. I offered to run OD&D/BD&D/AD&D or any retro-clone on our gameshop messageboard, and no luck. I have enough BD&D/AD&D gamebooks to supply a table of 5 players too.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 23, 2009)

I have a good time with it, too.  Apart from maybe 1 year where all I had were the Basic and Expert sets, it's more or less the game I grew up on.  Kind of.  As much as any grade-schooler did, liberally mixing B/X and AD&D together. 

I still can't crack open the PHB or DMG without wanting to sit down and run a game.  Which is why I started doing just that a few months back!

My 1e Temple of Elemental Evil game is going wonderfully, even if 6 out of 8 characters died last session in a classic Gygaxian death trap.  We're playing again, finally, this week with just about a brand new party.

Anyway, I don't know that it's really meaningful for me to say what my favorite kind of D&D is.  I don't compare Battleship, Risk, and Monopoly directly either.  I love running 1e, I love running 4e, and I love running Call of Cthulhu d20 (which I'm also doing this week).

So hey, I agree.  AD&D rocks.

-O


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 23, 2009)

Although I started with B/X (Basic / Expert), my fondest D&D memories are of when I got my own AD&D books, so I could run something. I didn't look back. Of all the things I ran using AD&D, the bestest of all would have to be Lankhmar. Ah, good times. 

Evocative art, appealing writing, some nice innovations - and solid advice, what's more - just plenty of good stuff, really. Including some neat tables and tools I still turn to, even when not running AD&D, or anything particularly compatible.

I'd drop everything and run all the way to someone's place (erm, within limits, anyway), to play some AD&D again. It's been a while, but I'm sure it would all come back quickly enough.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 23, 2009)

The 1E DMG was certainly the most fun DMG of all the editions. I've kept my copy and still occasionally crack it open to use one or more of its many system-neutral charts or just to read for inspirational ideas.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 23, 2009)

To add to the previous, I love how well AD&D does a fast paced action/combat game. Both as a player and a DM, the gold box CRPGs Curse of the Azure Bonds and Champions of Krynn were a big inspiration to my 2E days, and that sort of play on the combat end was what we always strove for.


----------



## Dyson Logos (Jun 23, 2009)

I really REALLY enjoyed AD&D1e. 

But the most recent campaign that I played in was everything that some people claim is so bad about 3e - micromanaged rules, character "builds" instead of role-playing advancement, emphasis on tactical grid-based combat, and the feeling that if you didn't have a special ability to do something, you couldn't do it at all.

It really goes to show that it's not the rules set, it's the players and DM that set the tone of the game. It pains me to have people do that to such an awesome game.

Really turned me off. I figure I'll stick to 3.x and B/X for a while before I head back to 1e again any time soon. 

That said, I've been re-reading the 1e DMG cover-to-cover again for the first time since I was a teenager, and do I ever love that book.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 23, 2009)

I love 1e so much that it is turning out to be the backbone of my ideal dnd system (which I am working on slowly, and am calling "DnD Jazz Edition").


----------



## Crothian (Jun 23, 2009)

I almost got to use 1e in my last 3e campaign.  The setting we play in has been used throughout most of the editions of D&D.  I was going to have them travel back in time and then give them 1e versions of their characters since those were the rules of the setting at that time period.  It was going to work poerfectly since all the PCs were of race class combinations allowed in 1e.  I was going to buy everyone a copy of the 1e PHB for reference.


----------



## Thondor (Jun 23, 2009)

I too am completely enamoured with AD&D 1st edition. There just something . . . raw and creative and evocative about it. It allows an awesome kind of freeform rp with fast slick combats, its modularity, its art . . . sigh.

I have never had a problem finding things in the books, there is an excellent flow to it if you just sitting down to read it, and if your not doing that there are excellent table of contents. If you've ever had probablems findings something . . . your probably not looking at the table of contents.

@ Aus_Snow, I too would leap at the oppurtunity to play some 1e. Its hard to keep and game together when you keep moving around, I don't suppose your in Toronto . . .


----------



## Obryn (Jun 23, 2009)

Oh yeah!  I agree that the classic modules of the 1e days have never been matched, much less surpassed.  They provided just the right amount of detail and just the right amount of crazy to make a memorable experience.

They're also great, because much like with 3e's Sunless Citadel and 4e's Keep on the Shadowfell, they present a common experience for players in different games.  You can compare and contrast how far you made it in Tomb of Horrors; discuss strategies on tacking the Moathouse; or talk about your encounters with the Kuo-Toa.  It's a great common ground that's shared by an astonishing number of gamers.


----------



## jbear (Jun 23, 2009)

It's the game I began playing when I was 13. I have very fond memories of those times. My father is an envangelist and I had been strictly warned never to play any game called dungeons and dragons as it could lead to posession and mass murder.

I remember sleepless nights huddled around candle light with my friends, playing quietly as possible so my parents wouldn't wake up and catch us, exploring worlds of pure magic. Actually now that I think about it, it was the only time I actually got to play, and not DM.

Aaaahhh, the good old days.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 23, 2009)

Of the editions of _D&D_ I've played, 1e _AD&D_ is my favorite.

If I enjoyed fantasy roleplaying games more, I'd probably be in a regular game right now.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Jun 23, 2009)

The D&D/AD&D products released before 1983 will always have a special place in my heart.


----------



## Starglyte (Jun 23, 2009)

I started with RC D&D and then moved on to 2nd edition.  While I enjoy running 4th edition, 2nd will always have a special place in my heart. I been trying to get my group to let me run a campaign, but no luck.


----------



## Henry (Jun 23, 2009)

It's tied for favorite with me - I love 'em all, really. But I've had many fond memories, both as a kid playing in campaigns long past, and recent memories as I've introduced new faces to the cool parts of AD&D, and rekindled interest among long time gamers in various convention games.

I still have an old three-ring with all my previous AD&D characters in them - Linnaeus the Druid (the most twinked out character I ever owned), and Baxian, Swashbuckler of the Heplahnen Guard (the character I most enjoyed playing), you are both missed, as are the people in the groups we played in.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Jun 23, 2009)

It's still my favorite edition of the game. I still use as many settings and rules as I can get away with even in 3E and 4E. Nothing has inspired my RPG imagination more than the original DMG and the fantastic modules of the day. Greyhawk is still home nearly thirty years after I started there.

One new wrinkle of late is using the minis I bought for 4E to play a 1E game.

If the characters keep dying, I may have to drive up I-74 and help Obryn's group.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 23, 2009)

Pfffft. Second edition is better. 

::runs::

Seriously, I spent a goodly chunk of my D&D playing career in AD&D, and despite some of its uh, wonky mechanics, it has a flavor and tone no other RPG has yet to match.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Jun 23, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Pfffft. Second edition is better.





You're lucky I'm out of tar...


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jun 23, 2009)

The parts of 1E that I liked the best were the random rolls. Is the dragon sleeping? If he is, you can probably beat hi, if not, you are toast. Potion Miscibility was fun too, 

I just think the dice had a lot more power in 1E than in later editions, and I must admit I kind of miss that. The sheer randomness of not knowing what was going to happen could cause a lot of fun situations around the table.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 23, 2009)

I love AD&D.


----------



## Agamon (Jun 23, 2009)

I have to admit that I wax nostalgic from time to time about the good ol' days.  The amalgamation of AD&D and B/X D&D that I played as a kid was a lot of fun.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 23, 2009)

I get the biggest kick out of reading 1e modules, especially those written by Gary, Allan Hammack, and Dave Cook.  The style in which they were written gives one a feeling that you're reading DM's notes, in a very good way.  Those guys were the first "dungeon masters" to come around (along with Dave Arneson, of course), and you really get the feel for how they ran their games.

Since their "home campaigns" _became_ *ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS*, then not only is it a kick-ass adventure that you're playing (either as DM or P-C), but it's a window in to how things work, and why.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 24, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> I just think the dice had a lot more power in 1E than in later editions, and I must admit I kind of miss that. The sheer randomness of not knowing what was going to happen could cause a lot of fun situations around the table.





I watched the *FUTURAMA* "moviesode" titled *BENDER'S GAME* last night.  It was a love letter to Gary, and the entire thing hinged on just what you mention - the power of dice.  Quite apropos that they chose the oft-neglected d12 as the die in question - not a d20, yet provided a wide enough range that a lone d6 or d8 couldn't.

Also, *APPENDIX G*.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jun 24, 2009)

Yay for AD&D! One of my favorite RPGs and the one that I have played more than all the rest combined...

I'm currently running Temple of Elemental Evil for 7 players...


----------



## Obryn (Jun 24, 2009)

Invisible Stalker said:


> If the characters keep dying, I may have to drive up I-74 and help Obryn's group.



Hah!  How far are you?

My living room has become fairly full, but I'll let you know if spots open up. 

EDIT: Also, in a fun coincidence, my print copy of OSRIC came in today.    It's a very nice product, and will certainly help around the room.

-O


----------



## Hussar (Jun 24, 2009)

Serious, serious kudos for being a 100% positive thread!  Well done you sir!  Keep it up.

We need a LOT more of these threads.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 24, 2009)

*THE TEMPLE OF ELEMENTAL EVIL* is quite a module, that's for sure.  I like much of it; some of it, especially the elemental nodes, I'm not particularly fond of.

I played in a good part of it a few years back and the then-DM cut the Elemental Nodes out completely and instead used some of his favorite modules (*X1 THE ISLE OF DREAD* and *U2 DANGER AT DUNWATER* stand out in my mind) sending us around Greyhawk looking for various bits and clues to stopping the evil.

Alas that group broke up before the conclusion.

I am DMing the module now.

After this I hope to send the party to the Lortmils on a run through *WG4 THE FORGOTTEN TEMPLE OF THARIZDUN* and *S4 THE LOST CAVERNS OF TSOJCANTH*.  Really, those two modules together could have been sold as a boxed set with little more added and been just fine as a sort of *GREYHAWK CAMPAIGNS* or a set that focused on the abovementioned mountains.  They're that good.

I also hope to cap the campaign off with Paizo and Rob Kuntz's most excellent MAURE CASTLE/WG5 MORDENKAINENS FANTASTIC ADVENTURE.  I'm told Rob did some additional work on "side treks" for *DUNGEON* Magazine, and I'm entirely sure I can convert them to *AD&D* with little to no problem.

All of that is inclusive in the awesomeness that is *AD&D* and *THE WORLD OF GREYHAWK*.  More to love.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 24, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I can still feel the AD&D love too. I would still play or run it if I could find a local group. I offered to run OD&D/BD&D/AD&D or any retro-clone on our gameshop messageboard, and no luck. I have enough BD&D/AD&D gamebooks to supply a table of 5 players too.



So, where are you?  I've an open seat if you're anywhere near Victoria BC...

I cut my teeth on AD+D a very long time ago, and have been playing or running (or both) the same system pretty much without a break ever since.  Other editions or games come and go, and occasionally a good idea rears its head long enough to be snitched and adapted in to our system, but this is and always will be the game for me. 

And best of all: the recent "retro-clone" resurgence has people writing and publishing system-compatible modules again!

Lan-"chaotic random"-efan


----------



## Obryn (Jun 24, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> *THE TEMPLE OF ELEMENTAL EVIL* is quite a module, that's for sure.  I like much of it; some of it, especially the elemental nodes, I'm not particularly fond of.



The nodes are a ways off, assuming we make it that far. 

I've had to change up my original plan, though - I had started with an idea that all new PCs would start at 1st level.  While it's a good goal, I don't think it will work for this specific circumstance.  It would be fine for a full-scale campaign, but this game is specifically for playing Temple of Elemental Evil.  As such, a near-TPK right before the party enters the Temple ... well, it kills off the whole campaign concept, sadly.

I think they learned their lesson from the near-TPK, and each of them is starting with about half what they had before - somewhere around 5000 xp at start.

I know, I know.  I'm a wussy non-Gygaxian DM.   But half the reason I'm running this is because I wanted to run Temple of Elemental Evil.  The other half is because I wanted to run AD&D.  If I'm not doing both, I won't be completely happy.

-O


----------



## Jasperak (Jun 24, 2009)

/signed

Yea for games that sparked my imagination in my earlier days.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 24, 2009)

Obryn said:


> The nodes are a ways off, assuming we make it that far.
> 
> I've had to change up my original plan, though - I had started with an idea that all new PCs would start at 1st level.  While it's a good goal, I don't think it will work for this specific circumstance.  It would be fine for a full-scale campaign, but this game is specifically for playing Temple of Elemental Evil.  As such, a near-TPK right before the party enters the Temple ... well, it kills off the whole campaign concept, sadly.
> 
> ...





You seem to have come to grips with the problem admirably; I think there's a juncture at which a near total party kill must be dealt with in an "efficient" manner.  Certainly lining a number of 1st level characters up behind the survivor(s) where they can only hope not to be wiped out again is one way of doing it, but, as you point out, just prior to facing off against Iuz, Zuggmetoy, or any of the other powerful creatures in the Temple with one or two strong and a bevy of weak characters becomes wholly untenable.

In a long-term campaign, clearly, the survivors should take the new cohorts under their wings and find safer environs to delve!  A trip downriver to N1 or the like would be in order (with of course the wise DM appropriately restocking the Temple dungeons, perhaps the surviving members meting out some vengeance against the innocent folk of Hommlet in the meantime); but again, I think you're going about it correctly.

Or, to turn an internet phrase...YOU'RE DOING IT RIGHT.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 24, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> Or, to turn an internet phrase...YOU'RE DOING IT RIGHT.



Oh, I feel definitely that it's right for my game. 

It's just, you know, I had _goals._  One of them was, "I will be a bastard."

As far as I'm concerned, though, since I mercilessly killed off most of the party while half of them were pretend-petrified, and the other half were _held_, I think I've been a bastard quite enough. 

-O


----------



## spunky_mutters (Jun 24, 2009)

I'll always have a special place in my heart for B/X where I had my first games...

but the 1e AD&D DMG made me a DUNGEON MASTER! I haven't looked back since.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 24, 2009)

For the record, I think I should point out that my "first" *D&D* wasn't any version of the rules; the closest would be the J.E. Holmes edit of "Basic" *D&D* (you know; blue cover, dragon menacing wizard and fighter...or vice-versa, anyway).  I had no idea what *D&D* was and only the vaguest possible idea what a role-playing game was.  I was sort of-kind of introduced to the concept by my schoolmates at the time (this was 1980/81), and I thought "okay, you buy these _modules_ and you're all set..."

So I bought (or, rather, pestered my perplexed parents to buy me) *B2 KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS* - a fortuitous choice, because thanks to its inclusion of several key tables, and heaps of advice to the nacent DM, I was able to divine some kind of playability out of the thing, and so it was for quite a while until I had an amalgam of rulebooks, including but not limited to a *DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE*, *MONSTER MANUAL*, *MONSTER MANUAL II* and *DEITIES & DEMIGODS*, occasionally using my copies of the Dave Cook/Tom Moldvay edits of basic *D&D* as a guide for the things I was missing (e.g., a *PLAYERS HANDBOOK*.

I also didn't have many modules.  The gratis copies of *X1 THE ISLE OF DREAD* and *B2 KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS* (now made confusing by the shift of rules from Dr. Holmes' version to Mr. Moldvay's edit), and a copy of *A1 SLAVE PITS OF THE UNDERCITY*.

I only played a tiny bit, and the group I did game with was, to be very frank, completely ed in the head - but that's a story for another time.

Point being, in '99 I'd gathered up what I'd missed out on and the things that I'd had, and I found it all as awesome as I'd hoped and remembered.

Art, rules, modules, all.


----------



## FriarRosing (Jun 24, 2009)

I've never played AD&D, but owning the 1st edition Dungeon Master's Guide, and I can say it is one of the best books for any game. Even beyond all of the tables and information, I've  never read a game book written with such passion for the game and Dungeon Mastering. It's super cool.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 24, 2009)

Sandwich said:


> I've never played AD&D, but owning the 1st edition Dungeon Master's Guide, and I can say it is one of the best books for any game. Even beyond all of the tables and information, I've  never read a game book written with such passion for the game and Dungeon Mastering. It's super cool.



Yep!  It's a great collection of essays, more or less.

I hate to say that it's tough to actually learn the rules from it, and the organization is more stream of consciousness than topical, but it's one of those books where the author's personality and enthusiasm just kind of leap off the page.  As I mentioned, I can't thumb through it and _not_ want to sit down and roll some dice.  It's got plenty of goodies, both insightful and downright bizarre.

Looking at it through a modern gamer's eyes, I'm glad I had OSRIC around to spell out the actual rules a little better, but nothing will ever really replace my demon-cover DMG with all my tacky little 80's stickers in it, collected from supermarket vending machines all through my childhood.

-O


----------



## La Bete (Jun 24, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> I also didn't have many modules.  The gratis copies of *X1 THE ISLE OF DREAD* and *B2 KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS* (now made confusing by the shift of rules from Dr. Holmes' version to Mr. Moldvay's edit), and a copy of *A1 SLAVE PITS OF THE UNDERCITY*.




Speaking as somone running B2 with the Rules Compendium - I can agree - there's definitely some "Man, What?" moments....


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 24, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> So, where are you? I've an open seat if you're anywhere near Victoria BC...
> 
> Lan-"chaotic random"-efan




Hey thanks, but I am in Virginia. That would be a legendary commute for a game.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Jun 24, 2009)

I enjoy the pre-3E stuff too.  Just this week I purchased T1-4 and S1.  I've been on a classic DnD kick for a while now.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 24, 2009)

La Bete said:


> Speaking as somone running B2 with the Rules Compendium - I can agree - there's definitely some "Man, What?" moments....





Be aware that there are two distinct print runs of *B2 KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS* with regards to rules - and it's one of the rare cases where a module was rule-amended during the pre 2e days.

The edit for the J.E. Holmes basic denotes monster Dex scores (with *DX* in the stat line).  Additionally, there is a half-plate illustration in the back of the module of the minotaur at the end, rendered by Erol Otus.

The edit for the Moldvay/Cook Basic *D&D* rules features no monster Dex score and different artwork (a new minotaur rendition by Bill Willingham, as well as a medusa).  This later printing is probably more compatible with the the *D&D RULES COMPENDIUM*.

At least, I think it is.


----------



## Derulbaskul (Jun 24, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> I get the biggest kick out of reading 1e modules, especially those written by Gary (snip)





Two years ago thanks to the efforts of a member on these boards in the Philippines I was able to buy unopened copies of D1-2 and D3 which I believe are Gary's finest. The writing is simply outstanding. His ability to capture the feel of the what is now known as the Underdark and the subtle and overt evil of the drow and their society as made all the more astonishing by the absence of art. Gary did it all by the power of his writing.

Such a shame he wasted time attempting to run a business when he could have been writing instead.



> After this I hope to send the party to the Lortmils on a run through *WG4 THE FORGOTTEN TEMPLE OF THARIZDUN* and *S4 THE LOST CAVERNS OF TSOJCANTH*.  Really, those two modules together could have been sold as a boxed set with little more added and been just fine as a sort of *GREYHAWK CAMPAIGNS* or a set that focused on the abovementioned mountains.  They're that good.




The wilderness portions of those two were fantastic. I learnt a lot about building the "en route" part of a campaign from those adventures.

WG4 is one of my favourite sites of all time. I'm not too fond of certain elements of the adventure above ground but the forgotten temple itself is simply outstanding.




ExploderWizard said:


> Hey thanks, but I am in Virginia. That would be a legendary commute for a game.




My commute is a tad longer: 7,000 kilometres from Singapore to Australia just for a game (and sometimes I have done it only for the game).


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 24, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> The edit for the Moldvay/Cook Basic *D&D* rules features no monster Dex score and different artwork (a new minotaur rendition by Bill Willingham, as well as a medusa). This later printing is probably more compatible with the the *D&D RULES COMPENDIUM*.
> 
> At least, I think it is.




The later edit for B2 is compatible with the Moldvay, and Mentzer editions of Basic. If the full rules from the RC were used additional material such as skills and weapon mastery would need to be taken into consideration.


----------



## Insight (Jun 24, 2009)

I've wanted to run ToEE, Slavers, and Queen of the Spiders for some time now.  My current group is composed of all post 1E gamers (some post 2E), so they have little interest in *my* nostalgia trip.  You see, despite the fact that I've been gaming since 1984, I have never played those particular modules, and I am now bound and determined to do so, in AD&D, the way it should be done.

What I'm going to do, and what may be a farcical trip of the highest order, is to run ToEE across 6 events at Origins 2010.  Unfortunately, I didn't come up with this "gem" until it was far too late for this year's show, but on the flip side, I have an entire year to prepare!  If it works out, I would then do Slavers at Origins 2011 and Queen of the Spiders at Origins 2012 (the end of the world, dontcha know!)

I like the suggestion about switching up the elemental nodes.  I may have to do something along those lines because, from reading ToEE, it seems like it might be difficult to do at a convention.


----------



## La Bete (Jun 24, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> Be aware that there are two distinct print runs of *B2 KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS* with regards to rules - and it's one of the rare cases where a module was rule-amended during the pre 2e days.
> 
> The edit for the J.E. Holmes basic denotes monster Dex scores (with *DX* in the stat line).  Additionally, there is a half-plate illustration in the back of the module of the minotaur at the end, rendered by Erol Otus.
> 
> ...





Yep, I've got the first one (with the DEX score).

I mean they are both RC-compatible (enough), but it's the little differences that make you go Hmmmm....


----------



## Falstaff (Jun 24, 2009)

-Sigh- I *LOVE* AD&D First Edition. I fondly remember the days as a young teenager, playing AD&D with my older brother and his friends. I keenly remember playing a thief in the Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh modules because my character was the PC the pseudodragon bonded with. I remember being really bummed when a lizardman killed him!

I have continued to play AD&D at every chance I get. It is fun to meet young gamers today that have never played the classic modules - like Keep on the Borderlands and White Plume Mountain - and show them AD&D and run them through the adventures.

Game on!


----------



## Mallus (Jun 24, 2009)

I _liked_ AD&D. It will always be my first (edition).

But I _loved_ 2e. I ran my best and longest-running campaign using it. 

(Am I about to be pelted with dice? )

Which is to say, while I have opinions on all the editions of D&D I've played (1-4), in the end, what matters most is what my friends and I do with the game, not the game system itself. 

I care more about the painting, less about the blank canvass and assortment of paints.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jun 24, 2009)

Mallus said:


> But I _loved_ 2e. I ran my best and longest-running campaign using it.




My AD&D is mainly 1e (with many house rules), but I take stuff from 2e, for example the description of several spells.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 24, 2009)

I think the attack rolls are, probably, better in 2e than in 1e.  They have similar progressions, but it's almost shocking how slowly non-fighters' chance of hitting increases in 1e.

I'm used to 3e (where your chances of hitting are often 95% at higher levels with initial attacks) and 4e (where it usually hovers in the 30%-70% range) nowadays.  In 1e, your chances are much, much lower most of the time.  Often, it's around 20% or so at low levels.

-O


----------



## Nikosandros (Jun 24, 2009)

Edit: I can't read...


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 24, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I think the attack rolls are, probably, better in 2e than in 1e.  They have similar progressions, but it's almost shocking how slowly non-fighters' chance of hitting increases in 1e.





Yes, but those classes are doing things other than Fighting, which is the province of Fighters.  


But this is sailing dangerously towards "Let's compare 1e *AD&D* to 2e *AD&D*" which is beyond (my, anyway) desired scope of the thread.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 24, 2009)

Derulbaskul said:


> Two years ago thanks to the efforts of a member on these boards in the Philippines I was able to buy unopened copies of D1-2 and D3 which I believe are Gary's finest. The writing is simply outstanding. His ability to capture the feel of the what is now known as the Underdark and the subtle and overt evil of the drow and their society as made all the more astonishing by the absence of art. Gary did it all by the power of his writing.



_Shrine of the Kuo-Toa_ is one of my favorite site-based adventures, and introduced one of my favorite monsters to spring on adventurers.

_Vault of the Drow_ was much more than an adventure. It was a campaign setting, filled with the seeds for scores of adventures. The merchant and noble clan rivalries, the unholy war, the denizens of Erelhei-Cinlu - just fantastic stuff.


----------



## rkwoodard (Jun 24, 2009)

*I like*



thedungeondelver said:


> I love 1st edition *AD&D*. I do. I think it's a fantastic game system. It is the best *D&D* I've ever played, and I've played them all. Gary's writing is awesome. The default assumption of *GREYHAWK* throughout the mainstay of the system's publication is awesome, too.
> 
> Once you get the flow of the rules organization, finding things in the rulebooks (on the occasions they're needed) is a snap.
> 
> ...





I like AD&D, not my favorite not the most played, but I really like it.

The modules just totally rocked.  Reading the Intro to Ghost Towers of Inverness and the Intro to White Plume Mountain gave me enough inspiration to build a whole campaign (I made the two mages into one and the same).  I never got to run it.

And re-reading the PHB last year, I was stunned at an implication that I had always overlooked.

Half-elves and Half-orcs have the same alignment probablities.  That resonated with me.  WOW, 1/2 elves should be mysterious and not auto-trustworthy.  

Thank you for the thread

RK


----------



## Obryn (Jun 24, 2009)

So, quick question about D123 I'll ask here, since sadly Gary isn't around to ask anymore...

_What gives with those hilariously bad PC names?_   (No offense intended to the ENWorld posters Philotomy Jurament - the best name among them, fwiw - or Fonkin Hoddypeak.  But Fage the Kexy?  Beek Gwenders?  _Really?_)  My own theory is that they were random keypresses with extra letters added in for pronunciation. 

-O


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 24, 2009)

Obryn said:


> So, quick question about D123 I'll ask here, since sadly Gary isn't around to ask anymore...
> 
> _What gives with those hilariously bad PC names?_   (No offense intended to the ENWorld posters Philotomy Jurament - the best name among them, fwiw - or Fonkin Hoddypeak.  But Fage the Kexy?  Beek Gwenders?  _Really?_)  My own theory is that they were random keypresses with extra letters added in for pronunciation.



Link.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 24, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> Link.



Curses!  Foiled by the site being blocked at work!

Still, thanks!  I'll check that out when I get home.

-O


----------



## Mallus (Jun 24, 2009)

stupid double post...


----------



## Mallus (Jun 24, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Beek Gwenders?...



... of Croodle. 

I'm partial to Gleep Wurp the Eyebiter and St. Cuthbert of the Cudgel. Frankly, I dig a lot of the (nutty) iconic AD&D names.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 24, 2009)

Obryn said:


> So, quick question about D123 I'll ask here, since sadly Gary isn't around to ask anymore...
> 
> _What gives with those hilariously bad PC names?_  (No offense intended to the ENWorld posters Philotomy Jurament - the best name among them, fwiw - or Fonkin Hoddypeak. But Fage the Kexy? Beek Gwenders? _Really?_) My own theory is that they were random keypresses with extra letters added in for pronunciation.
> 
> -O




I don't know If I would give Frush O'Suggil any grief about his name. An AD&D pregen fighter with 104 hp is sewious business.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 24, 2009)

AD&D is still my true RPG love, but I like a mixture of 1E/2E stuff. THAC0 is THE greatest gaming term ever. The Haunted Halls of Eveningstar started more than a couple of campaigns (although came after Keep on the Borderlands a couple of times) that somehow led to the Assassin's Knot and running away, only to be stranded on The Isle of Dread and experiencing the Dwellers of the Forbidden City before finding the way back to civilization only to be recruited to go Against The Giants. Later, they even discovered the nefarious Drow.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 24, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Curses!  Foiled by the site being blocked at work!
> 
> Still, thanks!  I'll check that out when I get home.



Oops!

Let me 'splain . . . no, let me sum up: many Gygaxian names are anagrams, or based on actual people, but some, like Beek Gwenders, are derived from old English or (actual) thieves' cant.


----------



## Corathon (Jun 24, 2009)

AD&D is my game of choice. I've been running it for over 25 years, with the few interruptions.


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 24, 2009)

I agree with just about everyting the Delver has said. Yet I am not sure I agree. 

The style, including writting and art. Yes. 

The adventures. Yes. 

The default world of the first three books. Yes. Best implied (or explicit) setting ever. Except for the ones I made myself. But it is still a little different (and bettre) then Greyhawk as would be published seperately at the the time. And of course different as it would evolve. 

Rules reference. Hmmm. 

And this leads to the problem. The rules as actually written. Just not that user friendly. Of course, you work around it, knowing what to ignore, what the problems will be (if you don't have training, find some other way to deal with all that treasure), how to play over the gaps. Its fine. But it lessons the love a little.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jun 24, 2009)

Obryn said:


> _What gives with those hilariously bad PC names?_   (No offense intended to the ENWorld posters Philotomy Jurament - the best name among them, fwiw - or Fonkin Hoddypeak.  But Fage the Kexy?  Beek Gwenders?  _Really?_)  My own theory is that they were random keypresses with extra letters added in for pronunciation.



Those names are drawn from archaic words that were once in use, and they all have actual meanings.  [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Poplollies-Bellibones-Celebration-Tenderfeet-Ladyfingers/dp/1568525214]This book[/ame] will shed glorious illumination on them.  (This was Gary's source when he created the names.)


----------



## Mallus (Jun 24, 2009)

Philotomy Jurament said:


> Those names are drawn from archaic words that were once in use, and they all have actual meanings.



It doesn't make them any less silly. 

Note: I'm not using 'silly' in the pejorative sense.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 24, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> Oops!
> 
> Let me 'splain . . . no, let me sum up: many Gygaxian names are anagrams, or based on actual people, but some, like Beek Gwenders, are derived from old English or (actual) thieves' cant.






Philotomy Jurament said:


> Those names are drawn from archaic words that were once in use, and they all have actual meanings.  This book will shed glorious illumination on them.  (This was Gary's source when he created the names.)



While I appreciate this, neither of these explanations makes the names less hilarious. 

Thank you both for the explanations, though.  That's one more question that's wracked my brain for two decades that I can cross off my lists!

-O


----------



## Nikosandros (Jun 24, 2009)

TerraDave said:


> And this leads to the problem. The rules as actually written. Just not that user friendly. Of course, you work around it, knowing what to ignore, what the problems will be (if you don't have training, find some other way to deal with all that treasure), how to play over the gaps. Its fine. But it lessons the love a little.




That's actually very true. On the other hand, this was partially countered by the fact that most folks "graduated" to AD&D coming from some version of the basic game... all the rules that I didn't fully understand in AD&D, I substituted with those from BD&D and I think that it was a rather common thing to do.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 24, 2009)

Obryn said:


> While I appreciate this, neither of these explanations makes the names less hilarious.



I'd much rather play with Beek Gwenders of Croodle than Bob the Fighter or Icetongue Shadowbadfinger. 


			
				Obryn said:
			
		

> Thank you both for the explanations, though.  That's one more question that's wracked my brain for two decades that I can cross off my lists!


----------



## Obryn (Jun 24, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> That's actually very true. On the other hand, this was partially countered by the fact that most folks "graduated" to AD&D coming from some version of the basic game... all the rules that I didn't fully understand in AD&D, I substituted with those from BD&D and I think that it was a rather common thing to do.



I think it's safe to say I've only learned the actual AD&D combat rules this past year, in preparation for my ToEE game.

This is despite playing it for basically the entire 80's.   I used it alongside B/X at first, and then used it alongside B/X/CMI later on.  (Yeah, we had the first two in the three-hole-punched variety, and Companion and on in the box sets.)

-O


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jun 24, 2009)

Mallus said:


> It doesn't make them any less silly.






Obryn said:


> While I appreciate this, neither of these explanations makes the names less hilarious.




Just so; I think the fact they actually mean something makes them even more amusing.  (Gary told me I should have chosen one of the more amusing ones for my screen-name, instead of PJ.)


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 25, 2009)

Philotomy Jurament said:


> Just so; I think the fact they actually mean something makes them even more amusing. (Gary told me I should have chosen one of the more amusing ones for my screen-name, instead of PJ.)




I think Faffle Dweomercraeft especially rocks!


----------



## Henry (Jun 25, 2009)

Fonkin Hoddypeak - King of audacious names!

I'll be honest -- all those names that are crazy to modern ears have really good company -- Ethelred the Unready ("wise counsel the uncounselled"), for instance, and I'm sure I'm forgetting more, but after a quick internet search, modern names like Rose Bush, Carrie Oakey, Stan Still, and others are all-too-unfortunately real.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 25, 2009)

Corathon said:


> AD&D is my game of choice. I've been running it for over 25 years, with the few interruptions.





That's awesome.  I mean, as in, it literally inspires a sense of awe in me.  Twenty five years.  Man.  I wish I'd been able to kick it off back in '81 and keep going...!  I'll have to settle for...huh!  Ten years this autumn now.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 25, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> That's awesome.  I mean, as in, it literally inspires a sense of awe in me.  Twenty five years.  Man.  I wish I'd been able to kick it off back in '81 and keep going...!  I'll have to settle for...huh!  Ten years this autumn now.



Corathon is not alone. Admittedly mine hasn't been the same campaign the whole time, but the same rule-set and in a few cases the same players since 1984.

Ten years, eh?  Puppy. 

Lanefan


----------



## Derulbaskul (Jun 25, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> (snip) _Vault of the Drow_ was much more than an adventure. It was a campaign setting, filled with the seeds for scores of adventures. The merchant and noble clan rivalries, the unholy war, the denizens of Erelhei-Cinlu - just fantastic stuff.




You're right, I really should have called it a campaign setting. I am still astonished at how much information was compressed into such a short product. Gary's writing talents were spotlit with _faerie fire_ in D3.


----------



## rounser (Jun 25, 2009)

> I'll be honest -- all those names that are crazy to modern ears have really good company -- Ethelred the Unready ("wise counsel the uncounselled"), for instance, and I'm sure I'm forgetting more, but after a quick internet search, modern names like Rose Bush, Carrie Oakey, Stan Still, and others are all-too-unfortunately real.



I quite like Hotspur.  Straight out of history, and what a name for a knight.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 25, 2009)

TerraDave said:


> Rules reference. Hmmm.




Yes. As much as I loved AD&D, the rules were slapdash at best. The example that sticks in my mind involved a player pulling an animal fom his bag of tricks and getting a boar. I cracked open the Monster Manual to boar so we could continue. The party was in the jungle and currently fighting snakes. The boar got bit by one of the smaller snakes and I asked the player to roll the boar's saving throw against the snake's poison. He tells me that the boar doesn't have to make the save. I scan the MM entry to make sure I didn't miss something and tell the lpayer to make the save again. No, the DMG p.XXX says the boar doesn't need to make the save. Sure enough, on the page the player quoted from memory, there was a random parargraph with its own heading buried amongst other non-related topics about animals with tough hides (the paragraph uses the boar as its example) not having to make saves against poison bite attacks. Why wasn't this in the MM entry for the boar?


----------



## rounser (Jun 25, 2009)

> Sure enough, on the page the player quoted from memory, there was a random parargraph with its own heading buried amongst other non-related topics about animals with tough hides (the paragraph uses the boar as its example) not having to make saves against poison bite attacks. Why wasn't this in the MM entry for the boar?



Probably because the Monster Manual was the first book released for AD&D (even retaining some D&Disms, such as no AC above 9 IIRC).  

So I'd assume that when Gary was thinking about boars at the time of writing the MM, he wasn't thinking about poisons.  But when he began thinking about poisons at the time of writing the DMG, he thought of boars.

Not a very satisfying answer, but just maybe a correct one.


----------



## Roland55 (Jun 25, 2009)

Crothian said:


> I almost got to use 1e in my last 3e campaign.  The setting we play in has been used throughout most of the editions of D&D.  I was going to have them travel back in time and then give them 1e versions of their characters since those were the rules of the setting at that time period.  It was going to work poerfectly since all the PCs were of race class combinations allowed in 1e.  I was going to buy everyone a copy of the 1e PHB for reference.




That is a splendid idea.  Of course you realize, I'm going to steal it.

This entire Thread has made my week.  It brought back spontaneous memories of good times and good friends.

For that, I thank you all.


----------



## Falstaff (Jun 25, 2009)

I'm assuming y'all already know about this, but if not:

Black Blade Publishing > Home

NEW First Edition modules.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jun 25, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> . Why wasn't this in the MM entry for the boar?




Heh, I don't think that anyone here is claiming that AD&D 1e is a well-organized game... 

It's a general rule that applies to many creature... still it would be helpful to have a remainder in the MM. However, it's also quite possible that when the MM was being written Gary hadn't even thought yet about such an idea.

BTW, for the curious, the rule is on page 81 of the DMG. 



			
				DMG said:
			
		

> *Poison Saving Throws For Monsters: *
> 
> There  are  exceptions  to  the  death  (or  damage)  rule  for  poison.  Any
> creature with a  thick  layer  of  fat  (where blood vessels and  nerves  are
> ...


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 25, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> It's a general rule that applies to many creature.




And 13-year-old me could have really used Animal Planet back then to make the decision as to which creatures had a sufficient fat layer to protect them from venemous attacks. 

Edit: Also, Nikosandros, would you mind posting what the headings of the sections above and below the *Poison Saving Throws For Monsters* section were? What stuck in my head all these years is how random the placing of that section seemed all those years ago.

I'm not trying to bash 1E here, BTW. These types of things added to the quirkiness of the game in a good way, IMO.


----------



## Ulrick (Jun 25, 2009)

If it hasn't been said already, you know what's really great about AD&D: 

The Dungeon Master's Guide. A classic. I used that DMG all the way up to 3.5e because of the cool stuff that is in it: 

1. a random dungeon generator
2. the properties of gemstones and herbs, 
3. cartoons ("+2 backscratcher")
4. Gygaxian Prose
5. advice how to deal with troublesome players ("Ethereal Mummy!")
6. disease and parasite infection tables
7. the combat tables not found in the PHB!
8. a halfling getting ate by ghouls
9. illustrations of a group making their way through a dungeon and encountering progressively stronger monsters
10. A list of inspirational reading
11. random city encounters that include a Nycadaemon(!) and a harlot. What kind of of harlot? Roll it up on the harlot table! 

That, and the book just "feels" like an old tome with secret knowledge only the DM is supposed to know--especially the one with the cover of the robed man opening the door.

The DMG is dated now when compared to other RPG books, but its still a classic and my favorite.


Edit: The DMG has been mention, but it cannot get enough praise! It's the "Chuck Norris" of RPGs.


----------



## Greg K (Jun 25, 2009)

Roland55 said:


> That is a splendid idea.  Of course you realize, I'm going to steal it.
> 
> For that, I thank you all.




Make sure your players on board. If a DM had my friends and I create 3e characters and then presented us with 1e versions of the characters, that DM would find himself (or herself) alone at the table.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jun 25, 2009)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> And 13-year-old me could have really used Animal Planet back then to make the decision as to which creatures had a sufficient fat layer to protect them from venemous attacks.




13-year-old me was blissfully unaware of this rule (and many others)... 



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Edit: Also, Nikosandros, would you mind posting what the headings of the sections above and below the *Poison Saving Throws For Monsters* section were? What stuck in my head all these years is how random the placing of that section seemed all those years ago.




This one actually makes sense. It's under Combat (Saving throws). The preceding paragraph is titled _Poison Saving Throws For Characters:_, while the next one is the beginning of a new section and talks about magical armor and saves.


----------



## Mythmere1 (Jun 25, 2009)

Falstaff said:


> I'm assuming y'all already know about this, but if not:
> 
> Black Blade Publishing > Home
> 
> NEW First Edition modules.




Not just that, but all the OSRIC stuff is for First Edition.  Check out Expeditious Retreat Press for the Advanced Adventure line.  About 8 or 9 modules right there.  Kenzer has done a couple, too.

And if you expand out into the other retro-clones for OD&D and Basic, there's a lot more that works with virtually no conversions.  Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, and BFRPG modules are all highly usable.

Knockspell Magazine contains OSRIC material on a roughly quarterly basis along with Swords & Wizardry (0e) and other clones, and Dragonsfoot has a free e-zine called Footprints with tons of new resources for 1e.

There's a heck of a lot of new material out there.

(I forgot Guy Fullerton's Fane of Poisoned Prophesy, for example).
(and I forgot Fight On! magazine, which is a bit more 0e, but still usable with 1e).


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 25, 2009)

Yup. AD&D is decidedly alive and well.


----------



## Falstaff (Jun 25, 2009)

Mythmere1 said:


> Not just that, but all the OSRIC stuff is for First Edition.  Check out Expeditious Retreat Press for the Advanced Adventure line.  About 8 or 9 modules right there.  Kenzer has done a couple, too.
> 
> And if you expand out into the other retro-clones for OD&D and Basic, there's a lot more that works with virtually no conversions.  Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, and BFRPG modules are all highly usable.
> 
> ...




Every read this mag?

Fight On! magazine - Home Page


----------



## Akrasia (Jun 25, 2009)

I'll add my voice to the chorus praising the 1e AD&D *Dungeon Master's Guide* as one of the greatest FRPG books of all time.

As Mythmere mentioned, there are many new things available for AD&D (and AD&D-compatible games, like OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry, etc.).

It's not a bad time to be into 'old school' games!


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jun 25, 2009)

On the "rules reference" thing…

I think the 1e DMG is a rules reference, but it's also an "information dump" from Gary on how to think like and be a DM.  That means sometimes the DMG is laying out rules, but other times, it's Gary providing advice, example, and guidelines on how to rule on certain situations.  Sometimes the lines between those areas aren't clearly demarcated, and Gary's authoritative tone can cloud it even further.

In the case of the poison saving throws and monsters, I see the DMG as saying: the rule is that poison attacks require a saving throw vs. poison.  And then Gary saying "...however, keep in mind that the specifics of the situation might create an exception."  He's saying that the DM should consider the source of the poison and the target of the poison and make a judgment.  The main purpose isn't to provide a rule on whether specific creatures are immune to poison attacks; it's about providing advice to the DM on how to rule on the situation.  

Even more formal rules are often presented in this light (i.e. this is the general rule and these are ways to handle exceptions and corner cases).


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 25, 2009)

Yes. The DMG isn't just a rules book. It is also a discourse, or rather, a conversation from one DM to another. It's a coaching guide. It's a toolbox full of fascinating references, and hooks to build a healthy DM culture, and leaves you wanting more, pushing to research well outside the sphere of RPGs for inspirations, explanations, definitions, referential materials and more. 

It's hard to understate the fantastically versatile nature of the DMG's contents. It's one of Gary's masterpieces, and a masterpiece of role-playing games in general.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jun 26, 2009)

Those are fine points, but I also know that if I hadn't the Mentzer "red box" to fall back upon, I would have had a lot of problems in running AD&D back when I started...


----------



## Mythmere1 (Jun 26, 2009)

Falstaff said:


> Every read this mag?
> 
> Fight On! magazine - Home Page




Yup, it's at the end of the quote.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 26, 2009)

AD&D is *awesome*! I think that's self-evident.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 26, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> Those are fine points, but I also know that if I hadn't the Mentzer "red box" to fall back upon, I would have had a lot of problems in running AD&D back when I started...




Ditto with me. With the Rules Cyclopedia, I don't think I could've DMed 2nd edition...


----------



## Falstaff (Jun 26, 2009)

Mythmere1 said:


> Yup, it's at the end of the quote.




Ah, I missed that, sorry.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 26, 2009)

I have a fondness for 1st ed., as well as B/X.  Alas, it is hard to get any of my friends to try it out, at least at this time.  The closest I can get is, maybe, Castles and Crusades.  I have a friend in another city that ran it.  Maybe he will agree to a one-shot.

I did just buy the RC and a bestiary for it.  At least I can read them.  

And I totally did not know about swine and poison saves.  And I thought I knew that book!


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 27, 2009)

Just to kick this most excellent thread up to the 100-reply point so it gets the neat little orange ball to the left of the listings... 

Part of what makes 1e so much fun is the sense of mystery.  The DMG and MM are intended to be off limits to players, as is anything on the back (i.e. DM's) side of the DM screen...and while astute players can eventually figure out the math behind the system if they want to, the emphasis is not put on doing so, leaving a clear field for immersion, story-telling, mule-kicking, or any desired combination of these.

Lanefan


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 27, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> Part of what makes 1e so much fun is the sense of mystery. The DMG and MM are intended to be off limits to players, as is anything on the back (i.e. DM's) side of the DM screen...and while astute players can eventually figure out the math behind the system if they want to, the emphasis is not put on doing so, leaving a clear field for immersion, story-telling, mule-kicking, or any desired combination of these.
> 
> Lanefan





Off limits? Players peeking into the the sacred tome of the DM were regarded as somewhat less than worthy of an honorable death!! 

One of the greatest strengths of AD&D was flexibility. There were so many rules and subsystems that could be included or excluded as desired without having to rework the whole system. Sometimes we used the training rules and sometimes not. The weapon type vs armor type modifiers were played with very briefly then skipped and the games kept running smoothly. Looking back at all the cool stuff that was optional, I see AD&D as more of a build your own game kit than a regular game system, at least it was for us.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 27, 2009)

As I mentioned earlier, a lot of the awesomeness of *AD&D* comes from the modules.  When you're playing *S1 TOMB OF HORRORS* or *S4 LOST CAVERNS OF TSOJCONTH* you really feel (as a player) that you're hanging it out over the edge.  No super-powers are going to save you, only by careful planning and executing that plan well (and some lucky dice rolls!) can you best the DM in the GREAT mods.


----------



## Ulrick (Jun 27, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> The weapon type vs armor type modifiers were played with very briefly then skipped and the games kept running smoothly.




I used those modifiers for an AD&D game. They did slow down combat a little bit. But players liked how the modifiers made each weapon unique. The game took on a more medieval feel. PCs used swords against lightly armored brigands and peasants, and large hacking weapons like 2H swords and halberds against knights and other heavily armored foes.


----------



## Agamon (Jun 27, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> As I mentioned earlier, a lot of the awesomeness of *AD&D* comes from the modules.  When you're playing *S1 TOMB OF HORRORS* or *S4 LOST CAVERNS OF TSOJCONTH* you really feel (as a player) that you're hanging it out over the edge.  No super-powers are going to save you, only by careful planning and executing that plan well (and some lucky dice rolls!) can you best the DM in the GREAT mods.




While I wasn't personally a fan of the puzzle-style modules, I agree with your fundamental point.  The 1e adventures really ran the gamut.  _The Secret of Bone Hill, Ravenloft, Vault of the Drow, Against the Cult of the Reptile God_ and _Tomb of Horrors_ were all uniquely different experiences that helped make the game fun for everyone.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 27, 2009)

Agamon said:


> While I wasn't personally a fan of the puzzle-style modules, I agree with your fundamental point.  The 1e adventures really ran the gamut.  _The Secret of Bone Hill, Ravenloft, Vault of the Drow, Against the Cult of the Reptile God_ and _Tomb of Horrors_ were all uniquely different experiences that helped make the game fun for everyone.





They did.  Their genius was their adaptability; their...dare I say..._modularity_.


----------



## FriarRosing (Jun 27, 2009)

All this talk makes me want to try an AD&D game. I ran a Rules Cyclopedia one for a while, but my players found the combat too dull (which was probably mostly my fault--I think I needed more gripping descriptions). I got some AD&D books recently since they were so cheap and I figured they'd be a fun read, and I may crack them open for a game. I may try to get my hands on a classic module and run them through that. I have Against the Giants as a PDF I bought a while back, but Temple of Elemental Evil sounds more interesting. It's a shame all of that PDF nonsense had to go down before I could get a hold of it that way. :-(


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 28, 2009)

Sandwich said:


> All this talk makes me want to try an AD&D game. I ran a Rules Cyclopedia one for a while, but my players found the combat too dull (which was probably mostly my fault--I think I needed more gripping descriptions). I got some AD&D books recently since they were so cheap and I figured they'd be a fun read, and I may crack them open for a game. I may try to get my hands on a classic module and run them through that. I have Against the Giants as a PDF I bought a while back, but Temple of Elemental Evil sounds more interesting. It's a shame all of that PDF nonsense had to go down before I could get a hold of it that way. :-(




*T1-4 THE TEMPLE OF ELEMENTAL EVIL* is a tough nut to try and crack your first time out of the gate with *AD&D*, even with *T1*.  *G123 AGAINST THE GIANTS* is a more straightforward campaign, and may be better suited to trying out the first time.  _Regardless_, if your players only have second hand (and worse, negative) information on *AD&D* then have a non-game game session where you sit down and hash out how it all works first.  Or get ready to send a lengthy email or letter or whatever to them explaining a lot of things.  Assuming they _are_ experienced gamers, or can at least put aside their conceits regarding previous-versus-current rules, then by all means, have at them!

(And remember, if you do play *T1-4*, _stick the knife in up to the hilt and break it off_.)


----------



## Mythmere1 (Jun 28, 2009)

Nobody makes it past the moathouse without casualties of some kind.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jun 28, 2009)

Mythmere1 said:


> Nobody makes it past the moathouse without casualties of some kind.



I still remember what happened the first party that I run through the module nearly 20 years ago... after a tough fight in the dungeon of the moathouse where one or two characters had died and the rest were wounded, the party inexplicably decided to rest in the dungeon, _without posting guards_. 

Talk about a short adventure...


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 28, 2009)

Mythmere1 said:


> Nobody makes it past the moathouse without casualties of some kind.



Agreed. It's a very satisfying experience when you finally make it through!


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 28, 2009)

Mythmere1 said:


> Nobody makes it past the moathouse without casualties of some kind.



The moathouse is why men-at-arms are part of the game.


----------



## Lidgar (Jun 29, 2009)

Funny, I just started re-reading the ToEE and the preponderance of men-at-arms suddenly struck out - not only at the moathouse, but the entire dungeon. I love all the special weapons as well - like the crossbow the fires four bolts at once, and the shield that fires poison darts....

On another note, I am running a group through the 3.5 version of S1. So far, 4 deaths. It is modified a bit to fit a larger story arc - they need to reach Acererack within 3 days - but deadliness intact...


----------



## Obryn (Jun 29, 2009)

My group finally made it into the Temple Dungeon proper last night.  Quick sblock for those who might be playing it...

[sblock]
They headed to the area with the pillared hall, harpies, and ghouls.  At first things weren't going so well - they had the party's beefy fighter and paladin stuck in the room, while the rest of the group was outside the portcullis.

Fortunately, the Harpies' songs didn't take hold, and they were largely ineffective as a result.  So then, we came to the six ghouls... who couldn't get past the paladin's protection aura.  They got the portcullis up, the cleric turned all of them, and then they worked on slaughtering the hapless undead.  Not without a fight, though - the ghouls managed to paralyze the party's half-orc, and four more ghouls ran out of another nearby door... only to be blocked by the aura, themselves.

Those ghouls ran off, and the party decided to trust in the paladin's holiness and camp out in that room for a bit, waiting an hour or so for the half-orc to get back up.  They smartly spiked the door the ghouls had retreated through.

...which was maybe fine in theory, until a pair of ghasts followed by the four ghouls from before exited from an unnoticed secret door and charged right up to the resting party.  They won initiative, and the two ghasts charged the paladin.  The first paralyzed him, and the second basically bull-rushed him and knocked the poor guy away from the rest of the party...

...which in turn exposed the party's cleric, now outside the circle of protection, along with one other PC.  The four ghouls, now with a clear path, attacked the two of them, sadly paralyzing the cleric, who could now only silently pray to Tritherion.

Seeing the writing on the wall, the druid, magic-user, and ranger all ran, leaving the rest of the group to the ghouls' tender mercies, defended only by a _charmed_ boar and a henchman.  Since the portcullis was down, they figured the secret door the ghasts came from would be a good escape route.  They spent a round or two working on getting the door from that room open, only to find ... that it looped back around to the door they'd spiked shut.

They finally decided to help the rest of the party, who had been hanging on.  Because the paralyzed folks were in plate armor, I made a call that the ghouls and ghasts couldn't kill them instantly, but they'd been basically doing a lot of damage every round.  The cleric had already been killed, with four ghouls feasting greedily on his marrow.  The henchman and boar were still in the fight, but barely.  The paladin had 1 HP.

So the druid threw a potted plant he'd been saving for this purpose into the mix, followed with an _entangle_ spell.  It wrapped up almost everyone, living, dead, and undead alike.  The paladin was dropped to negatives, _cured,_ and managed to live.  They were able to kill the ghasts and hid out in the paladin's circle while the ghouls continued to eat the cleric.  In a few more rounds, the half-orc fighter was back into the fray, and ghoul slaughter finally commenced.[/sblock]

It was an insane and completely entertaining encounter, from start to finish.  One of my favorites, ever. 

-O


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 29, 2009)

Obryn said:


> My group finally made it into the Temple Dungeon proper last night.  Quick sblock for those who might be playing it...
> 
> [sblock]
> They headed to the area with the pillared hall, harpies, and ghouls.  At first things weren't going so well - they had the party's beefy fighter and paladin stuck in the room, while the rest of the group was outside the portcullis.
> ...





That is truly awesome.  My party is down on the 2nd level and 
[sblock]
nearly got their lunch eaten in the Temple of Evil Air Elementals, then again at the hands of the bugbears on the west side of the dungeon
[/sblock]

You _are_ using the week-to-recover from negative HPs, right?


----------



## Obryn (Jun 29, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> You _are_ using the week-to-recover from negative HPs, right?



I'm using something like it - but not that _precisely_.  I implemented a house-rule that they can go down to -5 with only a day's recovery time, assuming magical healing of some kind.  (And, really, they're probably taking at least a day's break after that, anyway.)  -6 and -7 take a week of recovery, unless they receive excessive healing - say, a full potion of extra-healing or cure critical wounds or something of that nature.

That makes it easier on the PCs, so to counterbalance, I also decided if they get to -8 or -9, they also get a bonus, lifelong maybe-crippling injury. 

Also, in regards to your story... 
[sblock]My group was about five seconds away from going down the well to Level 2, but ended up taking the stairs at the last minute.  Probably saved their bacons, too.  Also, I would have cracked up because that'd mean they would have been to level 2 and level 3, without ever really hitting level 1. [/sblock]

-O


----------



## Agamon (Jun 29, 2009)

What's this negative hps nonsense?!?



lol, j/k


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 29, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I'm using something like it - but not that _precisely_.  I implemented a house-rule that they can go down to -5 with only a day's recovery time, assuming magical healing of some kind.  (And, really, they're probably taking at least a day's break after that, anyway.)  -6 and -7 take a week of recovery, unless they receive excessive healing - say, a full potion of extra-healing or cure critical wounds or something of that nature.
> 
> That makes it easier on the PCs, so to counterbalance, I also decided if they get to -8 or -9, they also get a bonus, lifelong maybe-crippling injury.
> 
> ...





Harumph, I say to you, you player-coddling softie!  -8 or -9?  It's -6, whippersnapper!



Oh, and my group has cleaned off the entirety of the first level except for the [sblock]Earth Temple; they don't know how to deal with the Elementals in the room, and were almost wiped out by them but for some quick thinking[/sblock].  They're working through the aforementioned areas of the 2nd now.

Given how the factions of the Temple hate each other, I have deemed that the levels will remain _fairly_ un-populated after being cleaned out.  Wandering monsters still apply (patrols from other levels, scavenging, etc.).


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 30, 2009)

To point up more *AD&D* awesomeness (and stay with the *T1-4* theme that we have going at the moment...):

Sunday's game was great because of the, dare I say, balance of players and characters that were in the mix.  Clerics pulling duty as fighting men and as holy healers, thieves saving the party's butt from clever traps, and the wall of steel up front, hacking down the bugbears*.

*=to be fair, one of the thieves pulls double duty as a Ftr/Thf, but it's all good.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 30, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> Harumph, I say to you, you player-coddling softie!  -8 or -9?  It's -6, whippersnapper!



Hah!  I guess I am   Of course, I'm still maintaing a better than 100% character death rate after 4 long sessions, so I think I'm still okay!

-O


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jun 30, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I can still feel the AD&D love too. I would still play or run it if I could find a local group. I offered to run OD&D/BD&D/AD&D or any retro-clone on our gameshop messageboard, and no luck. I have enough BD&D/AD&D gamebooks to supply a table of 5 players too.





Oh man, I totally missed this.  Why don't you offer up over at TheDelversDungeon and see if anyone will do a pbp?  I'll give you the forum for it.


----------



## darjr (Jul 1, 2009)

I love AD&D 1e Psionics. I really do. I loved how my players could never quite understand what the deal was with them and so it was always weird and mysterious. OK, it is weird and mysterious to me to, but that's why I love it.

I never quite ran it by the book, cause my other players would riot while they waited. But I'll never forget those times when Sheards character would get that far off glazed look and every one else just KNEW mind flayers were afoot. (even if they were way not high enough level yet)


----------



## Grimstaff (Jul 1, 2009)

I'm currently running Swords & Wizardry in the Wilderlands, but after showing off my new printed copy of OSRIC the other day, we're talking about a marathon AD&D one-off of ToEE's moathouse.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jul 2, 2009)

*T1-4* is good, but honestly, for in your face ass-kicking unstoppable *AD&D* awesome, you cannot beat *G123 AGAINST THE GIANTS*.  Yes, it takes seasoned characters to play (and win!), but leveling them slowly through *N1 AGAINST THE CULT OF THE REPTILE GOD*, then a truncated *SLAVERS* campaign (*A1*,*A2* and *A3*) plus emphasizing that they need some handy men at arms, and the *GIANTS* series is really, really top of the heap.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 2, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> *T1-4* is good, but honestly, for in your face ass-kicking unstoppable *AD&D* awesome, you cannot beat *G123 AGAINST THE GIANTS*.  Yes, it takes seasoned characters to play (and win!), but leveling them slowly through *N1 AGAINST THE CULT OF THE REPTILE GOD*, then a truncated *SLAVERS* campaign (*A1*,*A2* and *A3*) plus emphasizing that they need some handy men at arms, and the *GIANTS* series is really, really top of the heap.



What you suggest is fine for a blast-through 1-2 year campaign, but if you slow down the level advancement a bit (say, cut the ExP-for-treasure in half) there's room for tons more fun in there and a fine long-lasting campaign.

A side trip, for example, to Lost Caverns of (unspellable) and-or Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun could fit in between Slavers and Giants.  And any number of enjoyable low-level adventures (Rahasia leaps to mind as one) could slip between N1 and the start of Slavers...

Not to mention whatever homebrew adventures you write or 3rd-party adventures you find (there are quite a lot out there, both old and new) that catch your eye as ways to kill...er, I mean challenge, your stalwart party. 

Lanefan


----------



## Treebore (Jul 2, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> I love 1st edition *AD&D*.  I do.  I think it's a fantastic game system.  It is the best *D&D* I've ever played, and I've played them all.  Gary's writing is awesome.  The default assumption of *GREYHAWK* throughout the mainstay of the system's publication is awesome, too.
> 
> Once you get the flow of the rules organization, finding things in the rulebooks (on the occasions they're needed) is a snap.
> 
> ...




I love my house ruled AD&D!


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jul 2, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> What you suggest is fine for a blast-through 1-2 year campaign, but if you slow down the level advancement a bit (say, cut the ExP-for-treasure in half) there's room for tons more fun in there and a fine long-lasting campaign.
> 
> A side trip, for example, to Lost Caverns of (unspellable) and-or Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun could fit in between Slavers and Giants.  And any number of enjoyable low-level adventures (Rahasia leaps to mind as one) could slip between N1 and the start of Slavers...
> 
> ...





A Hickman module?  In MY *AD&D*?  Don't make me bring the Pimp Hand, lanefan!  

No, that's a good track too, and offers equal amounts of awesome.  I'm just so enamored of *G123* that I want people to play it _right now!_


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 2, 2009)

Treebore said:


> I love my house ruled AD&D!



Me too! 

In the last few years, I've (very slowly) started to add to my old HR some more substantial changes, like a revision of the ability modifiers tables and the addition of an extra save category.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 2, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> Oh man, I totally missed this. Why don't you offer up over at TheDelversDungeon and see if anyone will do a pbp? I'll give you the forum for it.




Thanks for the offer, but for me it can't be memorex, it's gotta be live.

Too much is missing to feel like a D&D game, even if it uses an awesome set of rules. Shared junkfood, spontaneous dialogue, that moment of pure awesome when everyone at the table cracks the same joke. This is the stuff you can only get FTF.

A live old school game WILL happen one of these days. I will be patient and accept no substitutes.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jul 2, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Thanks for the offer, but for me it can't be memorex, it's gotta be live.
> 
> Too much is missing to feel like a D&D game, even if it uses an awesome set of rules. Shared junkfood, spontaneous dialogue, that moment of pure awesome when everyone at the table cracks the same joke. This is the stuff you can only get FTF.
> 
> A live old school game WILL happen one of these days. I will be patient and accept no substitutes.





I understand completely; it pains me that our remote player can't be here with us and I'd find it maddening to try and herd that many people over a connection.  PbP is kind of like that - you as the DM want the action _right now_ (and other players do, too), so the slow response time is...well...slow!


----------



## grodog (Jul 3, 2009)

AD&D:  best fantasy rpg ever


----------



## The Highway Man (Jul 3, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> *T1-4* is good, but honestly, for in your face ass-kicking unstoppable *AD&D* awesome, you cannot beat *G123 AGAINST THE GIANTS*.  Yes, it takes seasoned characters to play (and win!), but leveling them slowly through *N1 AGAINST THE CULT OF THE REPTILE GOD*, then a truncated *SLAVERS* campaign (*A1*,*A2* and *A3*) plus emphasizing that they need some handy men at arms, and the *GIANTS* series is really, really top of the heap.



I get where you're going with this, delver. I think it really depends on what the DM, in particular, is searching for. If the DM wants a clear "adventure path" of sorts, your suggestion  *N1/A1-3/G1-3* absolutely makes sense. If the DM wants a loose frame on which to build his own adventures/campaign, however, it's hard to beat *T1-4*.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jul 4, 2009)

The Highway Man said:


> I get where you're going with this, delver. I think it really depends on what the DM, in particular, is searching for. If the DM wants a clear "adventure path" of sorts, your suggestion  *N1/A1-3/G1-3* absolutely makes sense. If the DM wants a loose frame on which to build his own adventures/campaign, however, it's hard to beat *T1-4*.





Well, I think we could go back and forth; both have an equal amount of adventure pathyness to them.  Ultimately what's needed for either is a good Dungeon Master and four to eight folks willing to have a blast, regardless.

I think *T1-4* is the folk music end of the spectrum, whereas *G123* is the full on in your face death metal.

Although Gary would probably have eschewed either description.


----------



## Xyanthon (Jul 4, 2009)

Just figured I'd add my voice.  I love 1e so much I'm still actively working on several print projects for it.


----------



## The Highway Man (Jul 4, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> Ultimately what's needed for either is a good Dungeon Master and four to eight folks willing to have a blast, regardless.



True, true.


----------



## TheNovaLord (Jul 4, 2009)

did have a rawness lost in todays polish and balance

as all paladins for example where basically the same it was the character that was most important, rather than the build.

N1, I6, L1 and L2..being some of my fav mods.

I too like gygax use of language....milleu just being a fab word, he seemed to use a lot.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 6, 2009)

The one thing that I do very much miss from the 1e (and possibly early 2e days) is how the writers rarely took the game too seriously.  There were all sorts of jokes and whatnot going on in just about every published book or module.  From the cartoons in the 1e DMG (One false step and the familiar gets it!) to the pictures in the Monster Manual (the blank pic for the invisible stalker always made me giggle) to all sorts of whacky weirdness like Earthshaker (Communist gnomes driving a mountain sized robot).  

That's one thing that I do think is missing from later era D&D is a willingness to laugh at ourselves.  Reading those old books, I always got the sense that the writers were very much tongue in cheek almost all the time.

I miss the goofy.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jul 7, 2009)

Oh I don't miss the fun stuff of *AD&D* at all - it didn't go anywhere.

(checking my *DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE*)

Nope!  The Bill McLean cartoons are all still intact!


----------



## FriarRosing (Jul 8, 2009)

A curious thing happened to me today. My group and I had just finished up a session of 4th edition, and we were talking about what we liked and didn't like about the game. And then, much to my surprise, my World of Warcraft addict said he liked 1st edition the best. We had never played AD&D, actually--it was a Rules Cyclopedia game--but he stated that he felt it was the best in terms of roleplaying and storytelling, and that the newer editions' game aspects were just too obvious. It really surprised and amused me, and it makes me want to run an AD&D game. He's the kind of guy who would probably love the assassin.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jul 8, 2009)

Sandwich said:


> A curious thing happened to me today. My group and I had just finished up a session of 4th edition, and we were talking about what we liked and didn't like about the game. And then, much to my surprise, my World of Warcraft addict said he liked 1st edition the best. We had never played AD&D, actually--it was a Rules Cyclopedia game--but he stated that he felt it was the best in terms of roleplaying and storytelling, and that the newer editions' game aspects were just too obvious. It really surprised and amused me, and it makes me want to run an AD&D game. He's the kind of guy who would probably love the assassin.





I say: give it a spin.  You can pick the books up for a couple of bucks from amazon resellers.


----------



## Humanaut (Jul 9, 2009)

Just gotta add my two bits, that I'm really digging this thread.  I skipped over 2e and 3e.  Although recently (past 2 yrs) we've given 3.5 a try.  I wonder if after this campaign they'd wanna jump back to my ADnD game...

Over the years the old adventures that have been requested to be "run again" have been S3, G1-3 and T1-4.  I tweek them every time to keep it somewhat "new".  We always have a blast!

Game On!


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jul 9, 2009)

Humanaut said:


> Just gotta add my two bits, that I'm really digging this thread.  I skipped over 2e and 3e.  Although recently (past 2 yrs) we've given 3.5 a try.  I wonder if after this campaign they'd wanna jump back to my ADnD game...
> 
> Over the years the old adventures that have been requested to be "run again" have been S3, G1-3 and T1-4.  I tweek them every time to keep it somewhat "new".  We always have a blast!
> 
> Game On!




Oh yeah, you've gotta throw a few curves in there - don't want the players of old modules getting complacent.  The last run through of the "G" series had Nosnra using the *javelins of lightning* like pub darts on the players!


----------



## grodog (Jul 9, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> Oh yeah, you've gotta throw a few curves in there - don't want the players of old modules getting complacent.  The last run through of the "G" series had Nosnra using the *javelins of lightning* like pub darts on the players!




LOL!---that's a great one, Bill!


----------



## Aris Dragonborn (Jul 9, 2009)

I've got a couple of friends that I've introduced to gaming in the recent past, and they've been asking me when we are going to play again.

I've been seriously considering 1E, but I'm not sure how to sell them on the idea.

Anyone have any experience with this situation? Do I need a lengthy explanation on why 1E is fun, or should I just let the game speak for itself?

Their gaming experience includes Marvel FASERIP and Castles & Crusades, but they haven't been playing for long. 

If/when this game gets off of the ground, they'll start at 1st level, probably with The Keep on the Borderlands, and when they reach 8th-9th level, I plan on running them through the Giants series.

And to add my voice with others, AD&D is indeed awesome.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 9, 2009)

Aris Dragonborn said:


> Anyone have any experience with this situation? Do I need a lengthy explanation on why 1E is fun, or should I just let the game speak for itself?



In my experience of "converting" people to AD&D, definitely the latter. I avoid any lengthy speech and just tell them, I think this game is pretty cool... why don't we try it?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 9, 2009)

Aris Dragonborn said:


> I've got a couple of friends that I've introduced to gaming in the recent past, and they've been asking me when we are going to play again.
> 
> I've been seriously considering 1E, but I'm not sure how to sell them on the idea.
> 
> ...




If your players love the adventures more than character building, and tweaking then they should enjoy AD&D. If they had fun with the C&C games then AD&D will not be a huge leap for them.


----------



## Aris Dragonborn (Jul 9, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> In my experience of "converting" people to AD&D, definitely the latter. I avoid any lengthy speech and just tell them, I think this game is pretty cool... why don't we try it?






ExploderWizard said:


> If your players love the adventures more than character building, and tweaking then they should enjoy AD&D. If they had fun with the C&C games then AD&D will not be a huge leap for them.




Thanks to you both.


----------



## Ulrick (Jul 9, 2009)

AD&D is organic. It grew and evolved over time. Play experience varied from DM to DM who each could tailor the game to his or her tastes. The rules were more like guidelines and Gygax's way of saying "Here's a bunch of cool stuff I used, you don't have to use them, but here they are to use as you see fit!" 

AD&D is about playing the game with skill instead of character building and showing off cool powers. In AD&D, cool powers mattered little in the Tomb of Horrors, cool powers would not decipher the code found in the Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, cool powers would make you seem like a bigger threat to Strahd in the Ravenloft module--who would throw more minions at you. AD&D emphasized player skill, rather than character powers. 

And these are just a couple more reasons why AD&D is awesome.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jul 9, 2009)

Ulrick said:


> AD&D is organic. It grew and evolved over time. Play experience varied from DM to DM who each could tailor the game to his or her tastes. The rules were more like guidelines and Gygax's way of saying "Here's a bunch of cool stuff I used, you don't have to use them, but here they are to use as you see fit!"
> 
> AD&D is about playing the game with skill instead of character building and showing off cool powers. In AD&D, cool powers mattered little in the Tomb of Horrors, cool powers would not decipher the code found in the Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, cool powers would make you seem like a bigger threat to Strahd in the Ravenloft module--who would throw more minions at you. AD&D emphasized player skill, rather than character powers.
> 
> And these are just a couple more reasons why AD&D is awesome.





I'd say something pithy like "You win the thread" or the like but we're not having any kind of debate or flamewar...so I will rather say that's the most right thing I've seen in a long time when it comes to *AD&D*.


----------



## Ulrick (Jul 10, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> I'd say something pithy like "You win the thread" or the like but we're not having any kind of debate or flamewar...so I will rather say that's the most right thing I've seen in a long time when it comes to *AD&D*.




I take that as great complement! Thank you!


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jul 10, 2009)

Ulrick said:


> I take that as great complement! Thank you!




You're entirely welcome; truth be truth.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jul 12, 2009)

Another thought just crossed my mind: I think *AD&D* (and *D&D* before it) were the first codified cross-genre RPGs; that is to say, they at least offered the option to switch things up with the sections in the *DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE* (namely *SIXGUNS & SORCERY* and *MUTANTS AND MAGIC*).

If I'm wrong on that front of course someone feel free to correct me.


----------



## Psion (Jul 12, 2009)

As I've said before, the glory of 1e was its adventures. Little wonder that the most successful third party adventure writers have been those who have tried to channel or recapture the 1e era in this way.

I think the G/D/Q sequence informs my DMing philosophy to this day.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Jul 12, 2009)

Great thread, Delver!

He's got some great forums going on over at his place, so check those out.  Drop by the Citadel, too, we have discussion on other vintage games from the 80s you may have thought were forgotten!


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jul 13, 2009)

Psion said:


> As I've said before, the glory of 1e was its adventures. Little wonder that the most successful third party adventure writers have been those who have tried to channel or recapture the 1e era in this way.
> 
> I think the G/D/Q sequence informs my DMing philosophy to this day.




As indeed it should.  The *GIANTS* series and the *DROW* series are very, very different modules in tone - despite their linear connection - but they are both the _blueprint_ for the massive dungeon crawl and the massive environment trek (despite the latter being underground), and *D3 VAULT OF THE DROW* stands alone as the exemplar of the sandbox (ugh...forge terminology) adventure.

*Q1 QUEEN OF THE DEMONWEB PITS* stands alone - I am not denigrating Mr. Sutherland's work, it is a fine module - as a perfect example of no-holds-barred gonzo dungeon adventures.  It is incongruous with the majority of the *G* and *D* series, but then one could make the argument that the rather piscine nature of *D2 SHRINE OF THE KUA-TOA* is, as well (the module feels like it'd better fit beneath some Polynesian-esque island in the Azure Sea or the like).

I think to say that the totality of the awesomeness of *ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS* lies _solely_ with the modules isn't _entirely_ true - what is laid out in those modules, and *S1* through *S4* and the *WG* series _begins_ in the *MONSTER MANUAL*, the *DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE* and the *PLAYERS HANDBOOK* (but more strongly in the two latter).


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jul 13, 2009)

Storm-Bringer said:


> Great thread, Delver!
> 
> He's got some great forums going on over at his place, so check those out.  Drop by the Citadel, too, we have discussion on other vintage games from the 80s you may have thought were forgotten!




Thanks for the bump, and yes, visit the Citadel, too!


----------



## TheGM (Jul 13, 2009)

Wow, the Delver drags me out of my lurking after months and months of silence...

Been playing C&C for years, and HackMaster before that, and of late been considering going back to 1E. Recently had our annual get-together and had to take the 1E MM along for the devils... And wanting to play it.

Love the 1E, it feels comfy like an old shoe. Thinking of returning to it.

Don.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jul 13, 2009)

TheGM said:


> Wow, the Delver drags me out of my lurking after months and months of silence...
> 
> Been playing C&C for years, and HackMaster before that, and of late been considering going back to 1E. Recently had our annual get-together and had to take the 1E MM along for the devils... And wanting to play it.
> 
> ...





"Everytime I think I'm out, they pull me back in!"

You've got a good group, TheGM - there's no reason not to make the transition back.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 14, 2009)

1e is freakin' great. I remember trying to play a 2e game after 3e launched, and not being able to stomach the proficiency system. In comparison, 1e and older D&D don't have any of that baggage; they're fun, pure and simple. I dare someone not to read or play "In Search of the Unknown" or some of the S series and not be totally entranced.


----------



## Ulrick (Jul 14, 2009)

Three more things that make AD&D awesome...
(These can apply to both AD&D and AD&D 2e).


*1. Proficiencies were there but not required.*

I was satisfied the proficiency system in both AD&D 1st and 2nd editions. It _was_, however, _quick and dirty._ I didn't make much sense why characters did not get better as they progressed, but that's what you get with a system that was tacked-on. 

The neat thing about the proficiency system is both editions is that you did _not have to use it._ It was available. But it was not an integral part of the system. The DM could use it or not.

When my brother introduced me to AD&D back in the late 1980s, we did not use the proficiency system. There was a lot for me to learn as a 10 year old. In fact, we never did use the proficiency system and still had a lot of fun.

When I started running games for AD&D 2e, I held off on the proficiency system until my players were comfortable with the basics of AD&D--combat, roleplaying, character skills (thief, spellcasting, etc). And we had fun. In fact, IIRC, using proficiencies helped "round out" a character but didn't detract anything from the fun. 



*2. Layering of systems and subsystems*

Unlike in later editions, you can learn AD&D in bits and pieces and still have a good time. The Players Handbook had the basics on combat, roleplaying, and general advice. More advanced information resided in the DMG, such as the combat tables. (although I admit it would suck only having the PHB and MM in the days before the DMG came out).  

The proficiency system is great example of this, along with the weapon bonuses versus different types of armor. They could be learned and used... or not. 

As the rule supplements came out (like Unearthed Arcana, Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, etc), they could be integrated into the game or not. 

The fact is, you didn't have to study the books in order to have a fun game or create an optimal character. It helped to study so you could get the rules down, but it wasn't required as a player. The burden of mastering the system relied on the DM (who should know the rules anyway). 

In fact, AD&D almost geared itself for newbies to play. Each character class at first level had a small amount of skills to keep track of (yeah, the wizard only got one spell...). This made the game fairly simple to learn. The players didn't have to spend time mulling over their character sheets during play deciding what powers to use. Their attention was on the DM and what was going on in the game.

I cut my teeth playing a dwarven fighter. I've seen dozens of newbie players over the course of 1st and 2nd edition start by playing a fighter. It is the perfect class to begin AD&D. It has high hp, has a reasonable chance of getting decent armor, and it easily enables a player to learn the combat system. 

Many of those players, of course, often moved on to a more specialized class. But they learned the combat system before moving on.



*3. Lack of Ripple-Effect from altering the rules...*

I came up with the "Ripple-Effect" term when 3e came out and I tried running it with a low-magic campaign world. Basically, if I altered one part of the system, it would cause "ripples" throughout the system. For example, cutting down on magic items would alter the CR of various monsters and NPCs. It would be difficult, for another example, to alter the skill system without effecting the rogue and the bard. Tinkering with feats might hose the fighter. 

Rules altered in AD&D usually don't "ripple" out and effect other systems. For example, altering the proficiency system will not effect thieves skills. Another example, letting the poor 1st level wizard get bonus spells for high intelligence (like a cleric with high system) will not make him overshadow other classes (he still needs to conserve his spells and stay out of combat). 
Or removing demi-human level limits won't effect the rules (thought it might affect player choices for races).

This lack of "ripple effect" enabled a DM to tailor AD&D to suit his desires and tastes without much difficultly.


----------



## TheGM (Jul 14, 2009)

Ulrick! Are you my lost brother? I have listed these reasons (while saying AC going up was the bomb) to my wayward son when he tries to dis 1E.

Don.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 14, 2009)

I would disagree that Non-Weapon Proficiencies were optional under 2e in the way I normally understand "optional" rule systems.  Yep, they're labeled as such, and if all you're using are the core books and writing your own adventures they're absolutely unnecessary... but pretty much every supplement and setting assumed that, yes, you were using the Non-Weapon Proficiency system.  Kits - which were just outside of core rules - were particularly dependent on them.

-O


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jul 14, 2009)

Some people found weapon proficiencies, as outlined in *UNEARTHED ARCANA* to be particularly onerous.  I have found a use for them: solo or two person campaigns.  When you've got a player, or two players, who don't want to run multiple characters, weapon proficiencies can be a good method for helping them to not have to roll up a new character every five minutes!

They're a good force multiplier.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 14, 2009)

Ulrick said:


> In fact, AD&D almost geared itself for newbies to play. Each character class at first level had a small amount of skills to keep track of (yeah, the wizard only got one spell...). This made the game fairly simple to learn. *The players didn't have to spend time mulling over their character sheets during play deciding what powers to use. Their attention was on the DM and what was going on in the game.*




The whole post was great but this part deserves special attention. I think Ulrick just nailed the most important thing that makes AD&D awesome. Having the leveling process be a mere moment of bookeeping which allowed attention to return to the actual game is golden. No time wasted on wondering what you will choose from column A or B, or what items you would like to get for slot X when a level is gained. 

When playtime is limited it sure is nice to devote more of that time to the actual game.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jul 14, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> The whole post was great but this part deserves special attention. I think Ulrick just nailed the most important thing that makes AD&D awesome. Having the leveling process be a mere moment of bookeeping which allowed attention to return to the actual game is golden. No time wasted on wondering what you will choose from column A or B, or what items you would like to get for slot X when a level is gained.
> 
> When playtime is limited it sure is nice to devote more of that time to the actual game.




I'd just like to point out that Ulrick is incorrect - a _wizard_ has anywhere from twenty-one to fifty-eight spells, ranging from 1st to 9th level.  However a 1st level _magic-user_ has the one spell per day they can cast.

This message brought to you by the Society for 1e *AD&D* Pedantry.  



And yes, back on the serious side, the "mere moment of book-keeping" is one more point of *AD&D* Awesome.  There's a _tad_ bit more when you consider how to get the money to train to level.  When the party is spending upwards of a month or more doing the training, the DM must of course have suitable surprises waiting for them in the wings should they return to the Caves, the Steading, the Temple, the Caverns, etc.

All also part of the awesome.


----------



## Ulrick (Jul 15, 2009)

TheGM said:


> Ulrick! Are you my lost brother? I have listed these reasons (while saying AC going up was the bomb) to my wayward son when he tries to dis 1E.
> 
> Don.




Ha! 

Na, just a guy who's observed a thing or two about his favorite hobby. But thanks! 




			
				thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> I'd just like to point out that Ulrick is incorrect - a wizard has anywhere from twenty-one to fifty-eight spells, ranging from 1st to 9th level. However a 1st level magic-user has the one spell per day they can cast.
> 
> This message brought to you by the Society for 1e AD&D Pedantry.




LOL! That's what I get for playing 3e/3.5e for about nine years! 
In AD&D they're called _magic-users_. A _wizard_ is a name level. It is all coming back to me now! 

Man, this thread makes me want to run an AD&D campaign--probably a mixture of 1st and 2nd Editions. 

About a year ago I managed to get a short-lived AD&D 1st Edition campaign going. I had a blast! My players enjoyed themselves but they didn't like having "limited options." Two players ran rangers and complained about being "pidgeon holed" into basically playing "Aragorn." I found this interesting: the ranger is arguably one of most powerful classes in AD&D (2d8 HD at 1st level!), but they weren't happy.

They also, of course, complained about Thac0! So I had them roll the dice and I consulted the tables in the DMG. Then they complained about the tables. I was going to flip the ACs so they'd be like in 3e (AC 5 = AC 15) but the campaign ended. 

Maybe I'll give it another shot here soon.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jul 15, 2009)

Ulrick said:


> Ha!
> 
> Na, just a guy who's observed a thing or two about his favorite hobby. But thanks!
> 
> ...





Remember, the charts are there for you, not for them - tell 'em not to sweat it!

As to being shoehorned into a role by the rules, I say fie!  Fie on 't!

Playing *AD&D* (and this is part of its awesomeness) is about putting into the role what you want out of it.  So you wanted to play a thief rather than a fighter, but for whatever reason the stats weren't there - whose to say you can't reflect that in your character's concept and your vision of his or her background?  Hey, yeah, you wanted to be a cutpurse but those jerks at the thieves' guild and their stupid "move quietly across the room for the instructor" tests...!  So now you're out there in the big wide open world, making your living by a sword.  _You_ still think of yourself as a thief - except your lockpick is three feet of sharpened steel!

...and _et cetera_.

If players like lots of fiddly options, some suggestions (not just to you, but to folks in general) are:

Make sure to use "secondary skills", and let the players exploit these (but not lean on them!)  Case in point, I had a shipwreck scenario happen that started with the sinking of the ship - one player had "net fisherman" as his secondary skill so I ascertained that he could cast a rope pretty well, and as the ship was going down he was able to lasso a nearby timber and use it and other jetsam as a makeshift raft until the party was able to get to a convenient (not so) deserted isle.  Needless to say his abilities became priceless when the matter of food came up...!

Multiclassed demi-humans often help newcomers (or latecomers if they played before) get into *AD&D*.  Show them what a fighter/magic-user or fighter/thief can do and watch their feelings of "limited options" disappear!


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 15, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> I'd just like to point out that Ulrick is incorrect - a _wizard_ has anywhere from twenty-one to fifty-eight spells, ranging from 1st to 9th level.  However a 1st level _magic-user_ has the one spell per day they can cast.
> 
> This message brought to you by the Society for 1e *AD&D* Pedantry.




And I'd like to point out that a 1st level magic user can actually cast up to FOUR spells per day - as long as they are cantrips.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 15, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> Some people found weapon proficiencies, as outlined in *UNEARTHED ARCANA* to be particularly onerous.  I have found a use for them: solo or two person campaigns.  When you've got a player, or two players, who don't want to run multiple characters, weapon proficiencies can be a good method for helping them to not have to roll up a new character every five minutes!
> 
> They're a good force multiplier.





How so? WP are already present in the PHB and I'm unaware of any advantage they confer to a character.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 15, 2009)

Ulrick said:


> About a year ago I managed to get a short-lived AD&D 1st Edition campaign going. I had a blast! My players enjoyed themselves but they didn't like having "limited options." Two players ran rangers and complained about being "pidgeon holed" into basically playing "Aragorn." I found this interesting: the ranger is arguably one of most powerful classes in AD&D (2d8 HD at 1st level!), but they weren't happy.




That's a laugh.  The AD&D 1E ranger is the least pigeon-holed version of the class ever. As a 1E ranger you can wear heavy, medium, or light armor depending on the mobility you desire. A 1E ranger isn't forced into using a bow or two weapons all the time-talk about a lack of options.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jul 15, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> How so? WP are already present in the PHB and I'm unaware of any advantage they confer to a character.





Arr!  I was posting late at night - I meant weapon _specialization_!


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 15, 2009)

Ulrick said:


> *3. Lack of Ripple-Effect from altering the rules...*
> 
> I came up with the "Ripple-Effect" term when 3e came out and I tried running it with a low-magic campaign world. Basically, if I altered one part of the system, it would cause "ripples" throughout the system. For example, cutting down on magic items would alter the CR of various monsters and NPCs. It would be difficult, for another example, to alter the skill system without effecting the rogue and the bard. Tinkering with feats might hose the fighter.
> 
> ...



I agree with your general view. There is more "rules space" in the system to allow you to change things without having too many unintended consequences for other parts of the system. However, I disagree with what I bolded: a low-level magic-user able to use several _Sleep _spells could seriously unbalance a typical low-level game.


----------



## Ulrick (Jul 16, 2009)

Gentlegamer said:


> I agree with your general view. There is more "rules space" in the system to allow you to change things without having too many unintended consequences for other parts of the system. However, I disagree with what I bolded: a low-level magic-user able to use several _Sleep _spells could seriously unbalance a typical low-level game.




Balance? _Balance?_ We don't need no stinking balance! Blah!

A couple sleep spells could knock out a bunch of kobolds or goblins, but they're not worth a whole lot of XP anyway. And, eventually, the magic-user will run out of spells... 

But then again, I've gamed with a guy who miscast sleep. He targeted it so that half of the bad guys and half of the PCs got hit. And he did this TWICE! Fortunately, I had played an elf both times who stayed awake to yell at him!


----------



## Irda Ranger (Jul 16, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> The whole post was great but this part deserves special attention. I think Ulrick just nailed the most important thing that makes AD&D awesome. Having the leveling process be a mere moment of bookeeping which allowed attention to return to the actual game is golden. No time wasted on wondering what you will choose from column A or B, or what items you would like to get for slot X when a level is gained.
> 
> When playtime is limited it sure is nice to devote more of that time to the actual game.



Yes. I've been known to house-rule my AD&D campaign occassionally, but I always keep a sharp eye on making sure I don't violate this "During game time, keep it simple" philosophy or the strong class archetypes easily leveled "with the least of bookkeeping." These design philosophies (along with the modules!) are what makes AD&D so great to play.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Jul 16, 2009)

Ulrick said:


> I've gamed with a guy who miscast sleep. He targeted it so that half of the bad guys and half of the PCs got hit. And he did this TWICE! Fortunately, I had played an elf both times who stayed awake to yell at him!



I gamed with a guy who miscast _Holy Word_ and knocked the entire party except himself unconscious just as we were about to face off against a Lich. Not good.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 16, 2009)

Hah, I have a similar _sleep_ story from my recent AD&D game, in the Moathouse.

The party's wizard cast Sleep.  The party was all first level, and the snake had 3 HD...  He rolled a 7 for the amount of HDs affected...  And you can guess how that went. 

Fortunately, given that it was a giant snake, it just ate the guy it had already killed and crawled off. 

-O


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jul 18, 2009)

The current *TEMPLE OF ELEMENTAL EVIL* game I'm running has the same "cast *sleep*, damn the torpedoes" thing going on with regard to the party magic-user...that, and he throws darts into close quarters melee. 

There are some funny, funny stories about how the party has dealt with this.


----------

