Thoughts on the Gygax's AD&D (1E)

[Plebian]

Don't forget to include the last two sentences of the quoted post. Especially the part where the other system in question is AD&D.

I will go ahead and clue you in on a great secret; AD&D mechanics are basically identical to 3e mechanics are basically identical to 4e mechanics. it's all rolling a d20 against a target number; AD&D just used am overly complex formula to get at the exact same results and that was still just a less streamlined version of the 3e mechanic which is the same mechanic as 4e

fuck I hope the Illuminati forgive me for this

You're confusing dice with mechanic. Just because you're rolling d20s in all the systems do not mean they all have the same mechanic.

you're right, it's not because you're rolling d20s. it's because you're rolling d20s for the exact same reasons and using the exact same math to get your results.

roll d20 add number compare against target number if d20+number>target number you are happy! shockingly this is the same mechanic used in AD&D, 3e, and 4e. how could this be? oh right because they use the same mechanics with only streamlined clarifications as to how the math occurs without any change of the math itself.


though I can't remember how exactly AD&D treated saves except that it was needlessly complex and arbitrary, like Rods/Staves/Wands and Spells being separate and why was Petrification or Polymorph not under Spells and so on.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Yeah, AD&D was all d20+mods vs target number. I loved how bending bars was a d20-based roll and bashing doors didn't involve a d6 in any way, and thiefly wall-climbing also fit this unified model.

...oh, wait, I'm wrong; and Plebian's an idiot.

[tzor]

I will go ahead and clue you in on a great secret; AD&D mechanics are basically identical to 3e mechanics are basically identical to 4e mechanics. it's all rolling a d20 against a target number; AD&D just used am overly complex formula to get at the exact same results and that was still just a less streamlined version of the 3e mechanic which is the same mechanic as 4e

No it is not. AD&D (1E - Pre THAC0) was more like bridge scoring. There were numbers "above the line" (those used to determine to hit and "below the line) those used to determine AC. You then worked on a grid comparing your level to the final AC (the below the line) adding the portion above the line to your dice roll. There are a ton of caps, limitations and quanta issues that simply no longer existed once 2E's THAC0 came out.

And that's just raw weapon combat. You really don't want to go to the weaponless system of Gygax, or the Psionic one. Neither existed once his name was removed from the game.

[tzor]

OK Time to post another insight into the original game. The joy pf combat - part 1 of a really big number. We talk alot about how AD&D is a lot of combat. But here is the basic encounter sequence.
[quote="DMG Pg 61]

1. Determine if either or both parties are SURPRISED
2. Determine distance, if unknown, between parties
3. If both parties are unsurprized or equally surprised, determine INITATIVE for that round
4. Determine whatever actions are decided upon by the party with initative
   1. Avoid engagement (flee, slam door, use magic to escape, etc.) if possible
   2. Attempt to parley
   3. Await action by other party
   4. Discharge missles or magical device attacks or cast spells or turn undead
   5. Close to striking range or charge
   6. Set weapons against possible opponent charge
   7. Strike blows with weapons, to kill or subdue
   8. Grapple to hold
5. Determine the results of whatever actions are decided upon by the party whcih lost the initative (as per A through H above)
6. Continue each melee round by determination of distance, initative and action until melee ends due to fleeing, inability to continue or death of one or more parties.

[/quote]
Wow, look at that. item 4.B "Attempt to parley." I realize this is only magical tea party at this point in the history of the game, but it's there as a full and solid rule. You have the right to parley!

Upon encountering another party, the party with initative can always elect to attempt some form of communication. This can be a friendly gesture, a throwing down of arms, offering of treasure, or some spoken word or phrase. Just whatever this effect will be is determinable only by the DM considering the prevailing circumstances. It is safe to say that a group of elves attempting to parley with a red dragon will find their efforts generally unsucessful unless they also have some obvious advantage which the dragon is aware of. It is common for player characters to attack first, parley afterwards. It is recommended that you devise such encounters which penalize such action so as to encourate parleying attemtps - which will usually be fruitless, of course!

Sometimes, Gary was a real DM Bastard, you know. But note that while he discourages this, parley is a part of the basic options for every round, as indicated by the rules for 4 and 5. This ability is completely lacking in later editions whatsoever (as you can't use diplomacy in the middle of a combat). Yelling "You're outnumbered, surrender or die" was always a 1E option!

[Plebian]

Yeah, AD&D was all d20+mods vs target number. I loved how bending bars was a d20-based roll and bashing doors didn't involve a d6 in any way, and thiefly wall-climbing also fit this unified model.

...oh, wait, I'm wrong; and Plebian's an idiot.

wicked sick burn, broseph!

oh wait we were talking specifically about combat damn I guess that makes you stupid for bringing up noncombat percentile based checks (which were stupid)

[angelfromanotherpin]

AD&D mechanics are basically identical to 3e mechanics are basically identical to 4e mechanics. it's all rolling a d20 against a target number

Yeah, I like where you were specifically talking about combat only. That was great.

[tzor]

Plebian: Please find someone with a copy of the old 1E AD&D DMG before you start making assmptions that are simply not true. Especially check out pages 72,73 on "Non-Lethal and Weaponless Combat Procrdures."

[quote="DMG p72']The base score on percentile dice is opponent AC value times 10 to arrive at a percentage chance to hit, i.e. AC 10 = 100%, AC = 90%, all the way to Ac ratings of 0 and minus numbers which indicate o chance or a negative chance to score a hit.[/quote] There are three types of attacks, pummel, grapple and overbear. There is only an attack roll; the better the attack the more damage done.

The amount of percentage based rules in 1E is, compared to later editions, staggering. Even in combat.

[Plebian]

AD&D mechanics are basically identical to 3e mechanics are basically identical to 4e mechanics. it's all rolling a d20 against a target number

Yeah, I like where you were specifically talking about combat only. That was great.

beep boop I am a robot what is this thing you humans call context

[Plebian]

Plebian: Please find someone with a copy of the old 1E AD&D DMG before you start making assmptions that are simply not true. Especially check out pages 72,73 on "Non-Lethal and Weaponless Combat Procrdures."

[quote="DMG p72']The base score on percentile dice is opponent AC value times 10 to arrive at a percentage chance to hit, i.e. AC 10 = 100%, AC = 90%, all the way to Ac ratings of 0 and minus numbers which indicate o chance or a negative chance to score a hit.

There are three types of attacks, pummel, grapple and overbear. There is only an attack roll; the better the attack the more damage done.

The amount of percentage based rules in 1E is, compared to later editions, staggering. Even in combat.[/quote]

yeah I think we all know 1E AD&D was a pile of steaming shit you don't have to point it out so relentlessly

[Bobikus]

yeah I think we all know 1E AD&D was a pile of steaming shit you don't have to point it out so relentlessly

Ah, so 1E really is just like 4E!

[Winnah]

I think part 6 of your combat list needs a liitle expansion and explaination. Not much, just a discussion on morale. A few spells and magical items had an effect on this attribute check.

Also missing reaction tables, the thing that set monster behaviour for normal encounters. Though I could be thinking of 2e coz I can't seem to find the relevant rules in my book.

[tzor]

yeah I think we all know 1E AD&D was a pile of steaming shit you don't have to point it out so relentlessly

Oh give me a break! The last thing we want to do is to comapre Gygax's AD&D to high quality organic fertilizer. I'd never even want to suggest that it was anywhere near that good!

Still, you have to admit that compared to 4E, it ROCKS!

Which isn't saying much.

[Josh_Kablack]

While I have been known to misunderstand Tzor frequently, I really didn't see the point of this thread being to insult Gygax's AD&D - more to analyze the good and bad parts and shed some light on the early evolution of the game as it's relevant to other current discussions on this forum.


Or maybe he's just trying to educate some of the willfully ignorant 12 year olds who have registered in the last few months.

[Lago PARANOIA]

http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2009/03/ ... dgame.html

If this is true, this is one of the things that 1E D&D did absolutely right and better than every other edition.

I've been backhandedly pushing this paradigm for awhile, but in my opinion D&D should be divided into three tiers.

Fairy Tale Tier: A bit of a misnomer, since 'fairy tale' is a broad descriptor. But when most people think of Fairy Tale they think of an altogether ordinary protagonist who gets a curveball thrown in their face of the form of mild magical or physical inconvenience.

Fairy Tale Tier should start out with dirt-covered orphans and rowdy kids with swords and sticks and should top out with your characters becoming 1st-level wizards and paladins. Five angry orcs should be a graduation challenge out of this tier instead of a generic encounter.

Heroic Tier: Plays just like the bog-standard level 1-20 D&D we're all used to. I'm a big fan of reducing the numbers of levels in the game. 20 is just too many for most groups to get through. The number of levels should seriously be something like 10-15, preferably at 12. But people get all crybaby and retarded at new and different things, even if they're superior, so it'll probably have to be 15 levels.

Epic Tier: Plays like the Expert Rules detailed in that grognardia article I linked, except with more special effects. The idea of a Dungeon Crawl is totally extinct by now; not to say that you don't go into smelly underground lairs, but the stakes are higher than 'asshole hobos die because of their greed'. When a hero gets a magical disease, a plague strikes the land for 10 times as long as it takes for them to get cured.

Moreover, while people still have squad-level adventures DBZ and JLA-style, large-scale battles are a lot more common at this point. So is city-building. While not every PC is expected to futz around with their own stronghold or city or whatever, you start out in Epic Tier with your own Sigil district if you so desire.

In short, the game plays like ActRaiser at this point, only with more special effects.

[Blasted]

It is true, but note that the article is about Basic D&D and it's followers, as opposed to 1E AD&D which is what this thread is about.
BD&D had a reasonble tiering system, with modules to suit - focusing on political intrigue and eventually gaining immortality rather than dungeon crawling.

1E has a similar system of reaching 'name' level and then the game changes - slightly, by default it never was divided into tiers as wellas BD&D. I think that the wilderness expansions took it a bit further in this direction. I've never used the 1E immortals rules, but the BD&D ones were mediocre.

[Winnah]

That article was a great read, even the majority of comments were informative. For one, I am surprised poeple can run a game without having their characters become a landlord at some point. As for sandboxing, that how the game is supposed to be played isn't it? That was my experience with every edition since the last anyway.

[Username17]

Yeah, actually this is one of the reasons that I felt that the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook was one of the best chunks of money I spent on a 3rd edition book. As the game goes on, it's supposed to become more Sim Cityish and involve more collection of stuff for your Barbie Dreamhouse. Back in the early 80s, I'm pretty sure that I spent more time with some graph paper drawing castle plans than I did moving a lead mini around fighting ogres.

And that's honestly the way it's supposed to be. And OD&D and AD&D did that right out of the box, 3e required supplements, and 4e doesn't go there at all.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

I've never played a D&D game where the PC's called themselves "adventurers" and went dungeon delving. I've never even understood how that made sense. I play D&D with very little 'dungeon.'

I like to create or interact with a living, breathing world. If I'm going into a dungeon, there's an actual reason it's in my character's interests, like it's the home of the local goblin menace. Making peace/killing the goblins has a tangible, noticeable effect on the region.

But that sort of dungeoneering gets outgrown fast, because goblin caves are low-level threats. You clear them to gain money and respect, and then that money and respect eventually makes you captain of the guard, and then you're the one hiring low-level so-called 'adventurers' to go clear the goblin cave while you're trying to figure out how to stop the bandit organizations on the caravan routes to and from the city, and once you put a stop to that, well it's just obvious you're going to be the next mayor, because the merchants love you and they're going to throw their lot in with you. And once you're the mayor... so forth and so on.

I was actually kind of shell-shocked by this recently - I found a new group, and they seem to play adventurers. We'd been hired by a recently broke aristocrat (we didn't quite know that at the time) to act as escorts, and we arrived at his manor to find that bandits had moved in. We drove them out, rescued his servants, and discovered he was dirt poor and had spent all his money, and couldn't pay us. I suggested, to the other party members, that we just offer to buy his manor. He's broke, he's going to lose it soon anyway, and he tried to rip us off, so we can get a good deal out of him just by threatening to string him up for not being able to pay us. The response was, "what are we going to do with a manor?"

I didn't quite know how to respond. I just remember thinking, "but we could have a manor at level 2. At level 2! Isn't that awesome?" I almost wanted to try and buy it with my own money, and hire the servants on for a year to take care of it. Oh well.

[Red_Rob]

I think part of the problem is the power creep of later editions. In BD&D a level 5 warrior had maybe 25-30hp. There was no max hp at first level, no additional attacks, and mages were much more vulnerable. All this combined to mean that a group of low level followers could actually do something. As more and more abilities have been keyed into the classes there is more of a gap between higher and lower level characters, to the extent that in 3e a group of level 1 followers at level 5 are more of a hindrance than a help.

Also, D&D has changed over the years from the murderous hobo stereotype to more of a heroic fantasy leaning, emphasising the individuals achievements and often overlaying a "save the world" plot onto the dungeon crawling. The type of player attracted to the heroic swashbuckling game is often not the same type of player who wants to get involved in the minutia of running a stronghold.

[hogarth]

Yeah, actually this is one of the reasons that I felt that the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook was one of the best chunks of money I spent on a 3rd edition book. As the game goes on, it's supposed to become more Sim Cityish and involve more collection of stuff for your Barbie Dreamhouse. Back in the early 80s, I'm pretty sure that I spent more time with some graph paper drawing castle plans than I did moving a lead mini around fighting ogres.

And that's honestly the way it's supposed to be. And OD&D and AD&D did that right out of the box, 3e required supplements, and 4e doesn't go there at all.

-Username17

Does anyone actually know what proportion of Gary Gygax's campaign would have consisted of wandering through levels of Castle Greyhawk or the Tomb of Horrors vs. having the PCs managing estates and building castles of their own? I've heard plenty of stories about the former and not so much about the latter.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Also, D&D has changed over the years from the murderous hobo stereotype to more of a heroic fantasy leaning, emphasising the individuals achievements and often overlaying a "save the world" plot onto the dungeon crawling. The type of player attracted to the heroic swashbuckling game is often not the same type of player who wants to get involved in the minutia of running a stronghold.

I think that this is also part of the reason why almost no one plays past the mid-levels. Not only is it just too much of a slog from a time-investment perspective (and anything can happen to a campaign given half a year's time), it also just becomes boring.

Saving the world is fine and all, but it's not exactly a high-level exclusive goal. Luke Skywalker and Willow did it and it'd be a stretch to call them mid-level characters at that point in time. Similarly, getting upgrades to your power is cool beans, but if the only thing to look forward to with getting an upgrade is the upgrade itself it gets old really fast. If you tied certain advancement feats or levels to paradigm shifts in the game (7th level is also when you start commanding large armies WHFB style, 8th level powers is when you start ascending to demigodhood, 9th level is where you're ready to take on Yahweh and the Lady of Pain) it'd help keep the game fresher. 4E had the right idea of splitting the game into tiers and then stating that gameplay would be different at each tier, but they obviously didn't go far enough.

[Bobikus]

Was there an actual 3.5 stronghold builder's guide, or just a 3.0 one?

[Swordslinger]

Yeah, actually this is one of the reasons that I felt that the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook was one of the best chunks of money I spent on a 3rd edition book. As the game goes on, it's supposed to become more Sim Cityish and involve more collection of stuff for your Barbie Dreamhouse. Back in the early 80s, I'm pretty sure that I spent more time with some graph paper drawing castle plans than I did moving a lead mini around fighting ogres.

And that's honestly the way it's supposed to be. And OD&D and AD&D did that right out of the box, 3e required supplements, and 4e doesn't go there at all.

I had the opposite reaction to the SBG. It felt like a waste of time. Nobody was going to spend their money on strongholds instead of more magic items. The SBG would have made sense in 2E where you can't buy magic items at all, but so long as you can buy magic items, that's where your money is going to go.

Because when you get down to it, owning the stronghold is cool, but it doesn't actually produce any game effect, since the game is more than ever about a superhero team, and nobody cares if you have an army. You'd have to go with a more realistic style of game if you wanted strongholds to matter where having a fighting force of 50 men is generally a better bonus than just having one hero.

I generally just treat strongholds as flavor text in game, because that's pretty much all they are at that point.

[Username17]

Yeah, actually this is one of the reasons that I felt that the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook was one of the best chunks of money I spent on a 3rd edition book. As the game goes on, it's supposed to become more Sim Cityish and involve more collection of stuff for your Barbie Dreamhouse. Back in the early 80s, I'm pretty sure that I spent more time with some graph paper drawing castle plans than I did moving a lead mini around fighting ogres.

And that's honestly the way it's supposed to be. And OD&D and AD&D did that right out of the box, 3e required supplements, and 4e doesn't go there at all.

-Username17

Does anyone actually know what proportion of Gary Gygax's campaign would have consisted of wandering through levels of Castle Greyhawk or the Tomb of Horrors vs. having the PCs managing estates and building castles of their own? I've heard plenty of stories about the former and not so much about the latter.

That's a very good question.

Apparently when Robilar did the Tomb of Horrors, he took an army of orcs from the kingdom that he owned, and ran them through traps like a Knights of the Dinner Table comic. But aside from little anecdotes like that, we have no idea how much time they spent playing pretty princess dressup in the original campaigns.

Was there an actual 3.5 stronghold builder's guide, or just a 3.0 one?

Just 3e. It's one of the things that shows most clearly how 3.5 lost its way.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

If you're content with spending the rest of your life being a murdering hobo then you should spend your days in the mid-levels and do E6 or E12 or whatever. Because dungeon crawling and gushing over the marginal utility between a +4 and a +5 sword is mid-level crap.

One of the problems with high levels is that there isn't much you can call high-level flavor that's exclusive to high levels without moving past the paradigms of dungeon crawling. I mean by then it's quite possible for PCs to have already saved the world once or twice by then. And of course shoehorning high-level concepts like 'merge the positive energy plane with the negative energy plane to permanently kill off the undead' or 'lead a crusade against Hell where you MUST KILL ALL THE DEMONS' within the confines of a small-squad dungeon crawl gets increasingly contrived over time. I mean, honestly, how often can you stomach the plots of Keystone Armies and Unique Universe-Holding Together MacGuffins and Fisher Kings No You Don't Get To Be One? My personal answer is about 7-9 of them, which should be enough of a campaign to get you from the start to the end of the middle levels.

The biggest problem with 4E epic levels not actually feeling different is that the mechanics don't reflect a PC using epic-level goodies (for god's sake, you're still using heroic tier powers). But a close second is the fact that even if they did, dungeon crawling is a narrow application of what a high-powered hero could be doing. Characters like Superman and Green Lantern literally have the power to reshape entire countries, but since the comics demand that their adventures take place on foot more or less and in a confined locale their stories also tend to be really shallow. I mean we all know that Dr. Strange is an order of magnitude more powerful than Iron Man, but they don't actually do that much different things.

The more I think about it the more I think that a Stronghold and followers/subjects/students/whatever should be mandatory for people who want to get into the high levels. If you don't want that stuff then you shouldn't be playing high levels.