PDA

View Full Version : Who still plays the old versions?



Lvl45DM!
2009-09-24, 09:05 PM
I've never played 3 or 3.5 but ive used enough of their sourcebooks as aids to get the basic mechanics of the rules
But my heart will always lie with 1E and its ridiculous structure for dual classing or becoming a bard
Who else plays 1/2 E?

Korivan
2009-09-24, 09:21 PM
My group consists of about 15 people on average, not all that converted from 2nd edition to 3rd edition. So we still play 2nd when those few get together with us and play. But otherwise, most of us just love how much more options 3rd gives.

kpenguin
2009-09-24, 09:22 PM
I believe Matthew is the most prominent player of the older editions on the boards.

Mushroom Ninja
2009-09-24, 09:25 PM
AD&D was the first system I played. I occasionally pull out the old books. I was involved in a pbp AD&D game on these boards for a little while, but everyone but Me and the DM vanished, and the game died.

Felirc
2009-09-24, 09:26 PM
I'm actually looking to get a group of friends together for a 2ed FR game (it'll be my first time DMing =D). I technically started my RP with 3rd edition, but 2nd was what made me want to get into the hobby to begin with.

I also use 2nd edition revised of BESM, mostly because I got it new for $7 (best seven bucks I've ever spent on gaming. =P) and I have no intention of dropping the $100+ on the latest version. I did also recently purchase 2nd edition of V:tM, I was very sad at how little of a difference there is in the core book compared to Requiem. =\

-Felirc-

Bigbrother87
2009-09-24, 10:20 PM
*raises hand* Primarily because DM had access to all the 2e books, thus...

We're a group of four guys, four girls, plus the DM, with the age range being from 21 to 45. I've read and have the 4e books, and now the DM has the 3.5e books, but I really like the more narrative heavy 2e to what I know and have seen of 3.5/4e. I'm also keeping the game log, but I'm lagging behind because of life...

quillbreaker
2009-09-24, 10:21 PM
I'm playing 2nd edition now.

Sophismata
2009-09-24, 10:51 PM
I miss AD&D multiclassing.

taltamir
2009-09-25, 12:23 AM
heh, from the title i thought you were gonna ask asking who still plays 3.5 when 4 is out... not who plays 1 and 2...

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-25, 12:42 AM
Oh, how I wish I could still be playing 1e. :smallfrown: Unfortunately, (A) the folks in my group now are evenly split between "started with 3e" and "never played before," so teaching 6 people 3e was easier than teaching 12 people 1e/2e, and (B) I've forgotten most of the rules by now because my 1e group back home hasn't been able to get together in over a year.

Starscream
2009-09-25, 12:45 AM
Got my start with 2nd edition in the early 90s. Every now and then I'll go back and play it again, just because I have such fond memories. I also have a cousin who still has a ton of 2E sourcebooks, and whenever I visit we try to get a game going.

taltamir
2009-09-25, 12:52 AM
Oh, how I wish I could still be playing 1e. :smallfrown: Unfortunately, (A) the folks in my group now are evenly split between "started with 3e" and "never played before," so teaching 6 people 3e was easier than teaching 12 people 1e/2e, and (B) I've forgotten most of the rules by now because my 1e group back home hasn't been able to get together in over a year.

from what i have read, 1e didn't take itself seriously. for example, casting grease required the player AND wizard to do pouring motion (wizard pours some grease) and say "whoops". Casting light required you to wave your thumb and say "zippo". etc.
While in terms of gameplay, classes were horribly imbalanced, and only humans could go beyond a certain level. The "better" classes were "balanced' in that you had to:
1. roll insane attributes to play them well (but if you did, you got a lot)
2. they required more XP per level to level.

and the whole negative AC and other weird choices were just plain dumb.

having started with 3e, then learned 3.5, than 1/2, then 4e. I gotta say I like 4e the best, followed by 3.5. and I wouldn't even play anything lower. and frankly, from reading only (haven't had a change to play it yet) Gurps sounds better than all of those.

kwanzaabot
2009-09-25, 01:06 AM
The only second edition I play are the Baldur's Gate PC games.

"Go for the eyes, Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!!!" :smallbiggrin:

Zaydos
2009-09-25, 01:08 AM
I started with the Red Box, but I haven't played 1/2e in a long time. Earlier today, though, I got talking about it with my group because of having randomly brought up THAC0. I actually miss it in some ways, it's less mechanic heavy than 3e and later editions with a greater emphasis on narrative... then again I like optimizing and I like mechanics heavy play.

As for strange motions with spells, I can't remember any of that and even checking both the Red Box and the AD&D Player's Handbook I didn't find any such mention with Light, although I failed to find the Grease spell at all (it might have been in the Blue Box). I can say I've never seen it played that way, except maybe by people who enjoyed doing such (I started at 6 I might have waved something and said "zippo" for a light spell but that's being a little kid and not something inherent to the edition). As for the "better" classes and balance. Well if you were playing the basic rolling system (3d6 6 times in order) then you weren't going to get one of the "better" classes unless you were a Red Box elf. Even using one of the better ability score determining systems the increased XP cost worked fairly well... except for the time period in which fighters require more XP than wizards, although that only lasts a few levels as wizards are still doubling and fighters have already ceased that. Do like GURPS but haven't played it much, whether it's better or not I can't say.

I'd love to play one of them again. A rule light game, no kits, no Player's Option series maybe Tome of Magic and Legends and Lore and the core books :)

arguskos
2009-09-25, 01:11 AM
HAH! About once a year I actually manage to convince my group to give the ancient white box OD&D stuff a go. It's good times too. :smallcool:

taltamir
2009-09-25, 01:20 AM
The only second edition I play are the Baldur's Gate PC games.

"Go for the eyes, Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!!!" :smallbiggrin:

that is a classic, that got me reading 2e in the first place (because there was no good in game explanation of how things worked). I learned enough to play baldur gate, but thats about it... TuTu ftw.

Bang
2009-09-25, 02:18 AM
I started playing 3rd edition, as did most of the circle I gamed with. The only two members of that group who'd played the longest had learned a general idea of the rules from a battered AD&D monster manual and had run the game for years based on rules jotted in notebooks and extrapolated from that one book.

As 3rd edition and its progressed into more and more gamist* territory (encounter-based mechanics were especially visible), I was initially ecstatic. I'd been on various forums under various names advocating various "fixes" for a broken 3.5 system. The changes I'd proposed and supported looked very much like 4E was described in its hype and preview material.

I was more than a little excited about 4E. When it came out, I grabbed a copy of the PHB as soon as I could -- a few weeks past its release. When I looked through the rules, they were everything I'd wanted them to be. But somehow I felt something was wrong. The game just felt hollow.

Most of the people I played with disagreed. They loved it. The two players who'd grown up on AD&D, though, knew what I meant. There were just too many rules. The rules had taken over. The outcomes of combat were decided by battlefield tactics more than freeform ingenuity or cinematic ambitions. Social interactions were reduced to die rolls. With 4E, the three of us felt the rules were actively interfering with the game we wanted to play -- a game much closer to freeform than anything.

These flaws we saw applied to 3rd edition as well. That was when we cracked that old AD&D monster manual open for the first time in years and I gave that system its first shot.

I loved it.

True: the rules aren't for the nearly-freeform games I'd idealized, but the style of gameplay that fits between AD&D's splotchy mechanics is very much what I'd wanted to see. No more fiddling with laminated grids, no more scouring books for a way to use a whip like Indiana Jones: the rules are empty enough that the play defaults to the assumption that any character can try, no feats or Utilities needed.

At the end of the summer 4E was released, I left for grad school. Since then I haven't done much roleplaying, but when I have it's been AD&D. It's gone over well each time: the focus on combat seems to be reduced, "I attack/trip it again" syndrome is more or less nonexistant and the hours of pre-play character building have disappeared.

So yeah, I play.

*I know GNS is a hot topic here and this has a technical definition in the theory's jargon. I use the term to mean artificial compromises of an immersive world for the sake of tactical depth.

Blacky the Blackball
2009-09-25, 02:46 AM
I still play the BECMI (Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal) version, does that count?


I started playing at a friend's house using the Holmes (Blue Box) Basic D&D in 1981.

By the time I got my own copy, the game had moved onto Moldvay (Purple Box) Basic and Marsh/Cook Expert, so that's what I got.

After a while, I moved over to AD&D 1e.

I skipped AD&D 2e, and switched back to classic using the Allston Rules Cyclopedia when it came out, which was mostly a reprint of the B/E/C/M parts of the classic Mentzer (BECMI) version in a single hardback book, with just a few minor changes, and also used Wrath of the Immortals, which was an Allston rewrite of the I part of the Mentzer BECMI version with much more substantial changes.

Despite having then moved on to 3e, 3.5 and 4e, the Rules Cyclopedia + WotI remains my favourite version.

taltamir
2009-09-25, 04:35 AM
you know, you can always just RP certain things without rules. The rules are there for those who want them. just play 4E with social interaction being 100% with 0 rules. Besides, 3e also has a bunch of rules for social interaction...

Khatoblepas
2009-09-25, 04:42 AM
I still love 2e, with all it's quirks and stuff.

If someone converted the 3.5 psionics/Incarnum/ToM stuff to 2e, I'd go there and never, ever look back. It's a shame that the people that like AD&D don't speak of 3.5, though. It's a barrier which I don't really get.

Matthew
2009-09-25, 05:10 AM
Indeed, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons remains my edition of choice. There is a very active (if sometimes a bit grouchy) community over at Dragonsfoot (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/index.php), which is pretty much the biggest AD&D forum around, and various smaller splinter communities, such as at Knights & Knaves (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/index.php). The general motto is "that is not a bug, 'tis a feature!"

FunnyMattress
2009-09-25, 05:18 AM
I still play Basic/ Expert from time to time. I learned how to play RPGs with that system, thanks to my dad. So many great memories. Plus, I'm starting up a game soon with some of my friends, running the Lost City module (B4, you remember. The late, great Mr. Moldvay was a genius at sandboxes!). I might even start one up on Myth-Weavers.

Blacky the Blackball
2009-09-25, 06:14 AM
Indeed, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons remains my edition of choice. There is a very active (if sometimes a bit grouchy) community over at Dragonsfoot (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/index.php), which is pretty much the biggest AD&D forum around, and various smaller splinter communities, such as at Knights & Knaves (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/index.php). The general motto is "that is not a bug, 'tis a feature!"

A good community for people interested in old editions (and old D&D settings) in general - rather than concentrating solely on any one specific edition - is The Piazza (http://www.thepiazza.org.uk/bb/index.php).

oxybe
2009-09-25, 06:29 AM
i started in 2nd ed personally and my group will play the pre-3rd editions every now and then as a one-shot or something, but our two main campaigns are 3rd ed & 4th ed.

Kaiyanwang
2009-09-25, 06:35 AM
I stopped play AD&D, but most for the lack of sourcebooks (when I played, the books weren't of my property!).

The only exception is 2ED Ravenloft campaign setting. I keep it as a great resoruce, because I appreciate the mindset behind it and I want to keep it in my 3rd edition games.

I manage to keep the feel of AD&D in my 3rd edition games in a lot of things.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-25, 11:07 AM
from what i have read, 1e didn't take itself seriously. for example, casting grease required the player AND wizard to do pouring motion (wizard pours some grease) and say "whoops". Casting light required you to wave your thumb and say "zippo". etc.

The same thing exists in 3e; all material components are jokes like that. Fireball requires bat guano and sulfur--i.e., gunpowder--lightning bolt requires rubbing glass to make a spark, and so on.


While in terms of gameplay, classes were horribly imbalanced, and only humans could go beyond a certain level. The "better" classes were "balanced' in that you had to:
1. roll insane attributes to play them well (but if you did, you got a lot)
2. they required more XP per level to level.

and the whole negative AC and other weird choices were just plain dumb.

1) Balance isn't the most important thing in the world, yet 1e/2e were in many cases more balanced than 3e. Martial characters kept up very well, casters didn't overpower everything at lower levels, and almost all the broken spells in 3e were reined in with penalties in 1e/2e.

2) Negative AC isn't "just plain dumb," it's just as intuitive as positive AC--"first class" is better than "second class," so why shouldn't "armor class 1" be better than "armor class 2"?

sadi
2009-09-25, 11:35 AM
from what i have read, 1e didn't take itself seriously. for example, casting grease required the player AND wizard to do pouring motion (wizard pours some grease) and say "whoops". Casting light required you to wave your thumb and say "zippo". etc.
While in terms of gameplay, classes were horribly imbalanced, and only humans could go beyond a certain level. The "better" classes were "balanced' in that you had to:
1. roll insane attributes to play them well (but if you did, you got a lot)
2. they required more XP per level to level.

and the whole negative AC and other weird choices were just plain dumb.

having started with 3e, then learned 3.5, than 1/2, then 4e. I gotta say I like 4e the best, followed by 3.5. and I wouldn't even play anything lower. and frankly, from reading only (haven't had a change to play it yet) Gurps sounds better than all of those.


Only for people who LARP did you have to make stupid sounds when you cast stuff. And different xp made sense since classes were not, and still were not balanced in 3/3.5. Why not take more experience to level as a magic user than a thief? Unless you're saying that a high level thief/rogue is as powerful as a high level wizard. That's my whole problem with the 3.0/3.5, the game is desigend to be balanced at low levels, and that balance disappears later.

As for level maxes with the unearthed arcana if you were non human and could multiclass but chose not to you got +2 to your max level which would normally put you in the 9-11 range depending on stats and class. Most campaigns I ever played in 1st were done around that level.

I do agree with the ac 10 to -10 and the combat matrix were bad to say the least.

Matthew
2009-09-25, 11:38 AM
I recommend the old Why THAC0? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113845) thread for discussion of the reasoning behind the descending armour class system, as well as the merits and flaws thereof. The subject has a tendency to overwhelm otherwise innocent threads with some rapidity.

t_catt11
2009-09-25, 11:41 AM
I still play 2e faithfully - though I admit that what i play/DM is a pretty heavily houseruled version.

D20 is fine by me, but I love 2e. D&D tactics...er, 4e... is fine and all, but just doens't feel right to me.

I am an old codger.

valadil
2009-09-25, 11:50 AM
I originally played 1e with some 2e material backported into the game. When 3rd ed came out, I never looked back. The only older game that I reminesce about as "the good old days" would be MERP.

I should point out that when we did play DnD before 3rd ed, only the GM knew what was going on. We all had vague clues about our characters but no real ideas of what was actually going on. Because of that, I don't have a lot to be nostalgic about. If I wanted to recreate that experience, I could go play any game I'm unfamiliar with.

Akal Saris
2009-09-25, 12:06 PM
I still play in a 2E game (and in about 4 games that are 3.5, a PF game, and 2 4E games).

I like the simplicity of combat in 2E (OK, except for THAC0 calculations), and I prefer the older art styles in the various MMs for it, as well as the stronger focus on interesting campaign settings like Birthright and Planescape.

I'd like to try a 1st ed game someday, but I haven't really gotten an opportunity, and I don't want to join a PBP game and have to learn all the rules for it without other live PCs to help out.

t_catt11
2009-09-25, 12:32 PM
I never understood why THAC0s were considered complicated. Chance to hit = THAC0 - AC.

I guess that you had to check the chart for everyone but warrior types to know your base THAC0... but don't you have to look up BAB, as well?

LibraryOgre
2009-09-25, 12:47 PM
I would, but can't find a group for it, and don't feel like running things right now.

Yora
2009-09-25, 01:06 PM
I never understood why THAC0s were considered complicated. Chance to hit = THAC0 - AC.

I guess that you had to check the chart for everyone but warrior types to know your base THAC0... but don't you have to look up BAB, as well?

If you care to figue ir out once, it's probably really not hard to use after that. But it's so needless and counter-intuitive. If you can have
"Is my roll plus my AB equal or greater than his AC?"
(d20 + AB =/> AC)
then why bother with
"Is my roll equal or lower than my THAC0 minus his AC?"
(d20 =/< THAC0-AC)

"Mine against his" is easier than "Mine against mine minus his". And then you get a sword with +1 to attack. So, is that good or bad? I think bad, but I could be completely wrong here. And why would an increase to my abilities mean I got worse? Intuition says that plus means more and minus means less. Chance to hit for example.
But that wouldn't distract me from playing AD&D. Just take THAC0 minus 20 and remove the minus in front to get BAB. Remove the minus from the armor bonus of armor. And that's it. using exactly the same progressions and chances, with simple additions.

Matthew
2009-09-25, 01:24 PM
And so it begins. Seriously, debates about THAC0 need to be corralled in their own thread. The discussion revolves around all kinds of misunderstandings and misinformation.

arguskos
2009-09-25, 01:25 PM
And so it begins. Seriously, debates about THAC0 need to be corralled in their own thread. It is not a debate that anybody is likely to win.
All I can say is... Lol THAC0. It could be the ancient matrices of OD&D (thank all the gods it's not!).

Matthew
2009-09-25, 01:30 PM
All I can say is... Lol THAC0. It could be the ancient matrices of OD&D (thank all the gods it's not!).

Well, with the OD&D matrices you can see why it was done the way it was and how THAC0 came about, but most people just misunderstand it as evidence of the game evolving from "bad" to "good". The weight of evidence is certainly that most people have no idea why the descending armour class system was used.

taltamir
2009-09-25, 02:01 PM
I never understood why THAC0s were considered complicated. Chance to hit = THAC0 - AC.

I guess that you had to check the chart for everyone but warrior types to know your base THAC0... but don't you have to look up BAB, as well?

thac0 isn't overwhelmingly complicated, it is just stupid and unintuitive.

oxybe
2009-09-25, 02:01 PM
I never understood why THAC0s were considered complicated. Chance to hit = THAC0 - AC.

I guess that you had to check the chart for everyone but warrior types to know your base THAC0... but don't you have to look up BAB, as well?

thac0 was complicated because of the communication that was required and that it used unintuitive math.

let's say tom is playing Fighter McHacknslash with a ThAC0 of 16. he's got a decent str and a magic sword that give him a bonus of +4 in total. this +4 reduces his effective ThAC0 to 12.

GM: Uh-Oh Tom... looks like those 3 guys have a bone to pick with your character's dad the Old Man McHacknslash
Tom: Grrrrr... Fighter McHacknslash hates talking, so he goes into combat mode.
GM: 'aight.

2 of the guys are Joe and Steve McGoon, unarmored schmoes that hang out big bad John Bigbosson to make him look more intimidating. not that he needs it. the McGoon twins have an AC of 10 while John's heavy armor gives him an ac of 2.

now, on the surface it's pretty easy since at this point he only needs to compare numbers:
Joe & Steve = ThAC0 (12) - 10 = 2 or greater
John = ThAC0 (12) - 2 = 10 or greater

Kevin's theif, Swiper wants to help his meal ticket/meat sheild friend, and has a modified ThAC0 of 16
J&s = 16-10 = 6
J = 16-2 = 14

the problem is that the math is layed out so that to complete the equasion, the GM require information the player has (modified ThAC0) or the player requires information the GM has (the AC) to properly figure out if the roll is a hit or miss.

my custom character sheet for 2nd ed has an AC hit chart going from 10 to -10 effectively telling me what AC i hit based on my roll (my modified ThAC0-roll=AC hit, go down the line). I can just roll, check my attack chart and say " AC X or higher /is is AC lower then X, because that's what i hit ".

so if i already have this easy reference chart, why do i prefer the AC of 3rd & 4th ed?

my brain handles adding much more easily then substracting, and if i'm DMing unless each player is doing the math beforehand or using that AC hit chart, i'll have to do it in my head every time on every attack roll. this isn't hard, just tedious.

in 3rd & 4th ed it's that much more convenient for me. the number EVERYONE needs to reach is static, and the game suggests doing the math beforehand... they just tell me the end result number and i compare. in pre-3rd, the number everyone needs is different, and it's on the GM to figure it out individually (unless the player is kind enough to figure out the backend and say what AC he hits those players deserve candy and parades).

rant over.

taltamir
2009-09-25, 02:04 PM
2) Negative AC isn't "just plain dumb," it's just as intuitive as positive AC--"first class" is better than "second class," so why shouldn't "armor class 1" be better than "armor class 2"?

The problem comes from the wording... you "increase" your armor which "decreases" your armor values. Even the authors couldn't get it right, as the spell tenser transformation for example gave you a "max" armor of -10... so BETTER than -10 (if -10 is max, then -11 is less than -10). Of course you can see what they intended, usually, but it still gets pretty stupid. And there is absolutely no reason to do it that way.

Just like writing the date MM/DD/YY is stupid and unintuitive (and messes up any computer SORT functions), using "standard measurements" (aka, pound, ounce, etc) is stupid and unintuitive. Sure it is learn able, fairly easily too, but why bother?


my brain handles adding much more easily then substracting, and if i'm DMing unless each player is doing the math beforehand or using that AC hit chart, i'll have to do it in my head every time on every attack roll. this isn't hard, just tedious
Exactly.. like converting ounces to pounds... hard? no... tedious? hell yea.

arguskos
2009-09-25, 02:05 PM
Well, with the OD&D matrices you can see why it was done the way it was and how THAC0 came about, but most people just misunderstand it as evidence of the game evolving from "bad" to "good". The weight of evidence is certainly that most people have no idea why the descending armour class system was used.
As evidenced by the posts just beneath yours, I would wholeheartedly agree with that statement. :smallwink:

Personally, I liked THAC0. I personally prefer the 3.5 AC system, but that's not due to THAC0 being bad, but me preferring to add than subtract.

ken-do-nim
2009-09-25, 02:20 PM
Huge old edition player here! Honestly, I've never really met an edition I didn't like ... until 4E came around. I haven't given it a fair shake though, because I haven't gotten past some of the things I've read about it.

I'd just like to say one thing about the endless THAC0 debate. Just invert the ac if it bothers you that much and play it like you do 3E. If my players requested that I do that for them, I'd have no problem going along with that. It's no big deal either way, and it saddens me how often discussion of the old systems comes down to a non-issue.

LibraryOgre
2009-09-25, 02:23 PM
Huge old edition player here! Honestly, I've never really met an edition I didn't like ... until 4E came around. I haven't given it a fair shake though, because I haven't gotten past some of the things I've read about it.

I'd just like to say one thing about the endless THAC0 debate. Just invert the ac if it bothers you that much and play it like you do 3E. If my players requested that I do that for them, I'd have no problem going along with that. It's no big deal either way, and it saddens me how often discussion of the old systems comes down to a non-issue.

Quite true; heck, I ran A1 out of the book for C&C. The conversion consists of subtracting the written AC from 20.

cfalcon
2009-09-25, 03:06 PM
...We're a group of four guys, four girls, plus the DM...

Has it gotten so bad that the DMs don't get to have a gender anymore?

Talya
2009-09-25, 03:22 PM
Has it gotten so bad that the DMs don't get to have a gender anymore?


DM is its own gender!

taltamir
2009-09-25, 03:25 PM
Huge old edition player here! Honestly, I've never really met an edition I didn't like ... until 4E came around. I haven't given it a fair shake though, because I haven't gotten past some of the things I've read about it.

I'd just like to say one thing about the endless THAC0 debate. Just invert the ac if it bothers you that much and play it like you do 3E. If my players requested that I do that for them, I'd have no problem going along with that. It's no big deal either way, and it saddens me how often discussion of the old systems comes down to a non-issue.

true, and the same can be said about 4e "social rules".
but there are other problems with older editions besides the thac0.


DM is its own gender!

Adventurers don't have a gender... dating? marriage? being seduced? what are those?
A +2 str pink tutu? well give it here, my barbarian needs it!

t_catt11
2009-09-25, 03:25 PM
Heh, sorry folks. I did not mean to start a THAC0 sidetrack. I throw myself on your mercy!

(and I still don't see how it's any harder... but algebra makes sense to me, so that may not be a fair test)

taltamir
2009-09-25, 03:27 PM
Heh, sorry folks. I did not mean to start a THAC0 sidetrack. I throw myself on your mercy!

(and I still don't see how it's any harder... but algebra makes sense to me, so that may not be a fair test)

we explained, in depth, that algebra makes sense to all of us and we can easily do it, we just find it tedious and unnecessary. please don't insinuate that it is a lack of algebraic talent that is our problem.

Talya
2009-09-25, 03:32 PM
Adventurers don't have a gender... dating? marriage? being seduced? what are those?

You haven't seen my sorceress.

Matthew
2009-09-25, 03:34 PM
Heh, sorry folks. I did not mean to start a THAC0 sidetrack. I throw myself on your mercy!

(and I still don't see how it's any harder... but algebra makes sense to me, so that may not be a fair test)

Don't sweat it, this always happens. :smallbiggrin:



We explained, in depth, that algebra makes sense to all of us and we can easily do it, we just find it tedious and unnecessary. please don't insinuate that it is a lack of algebraic talent that is our problem.

Is it discomfort with subtraction, then? Same difference. Some people find smaller numbers and subtraction more intuitive than addition and large numbers. It is purely a matter of how their thought processes are arranged. I was as surprised as anyone to discover brand new players who found a descending armour class more intuitive than an ascending armour class, but there it is.

taltamir
2009-09-25, 03:38 PM
Is it discomfort with subtraction, then? Same difference. Some people find smaller numbers and subtraction more intuitive than addition and large numbers. It is purely a matter of how their thought processes are arranged. I was as surprised as anyone to discover brand new players who found a descending armour class more intuitive than an ascending armour class, but there it is.

no subtraction is easy... it is just adding negatives
it is this:

the number EVERYONE needs to reach is static, and the game suggests doing the math beforehand... they just tell me the end result number and i compare. in pre-3rd, the number everyone needs is different, and it's on the GM to figure it out individually (unless the player is kind enough to figure out the backend and say what AC he hits those players deserve candy and parades).

It is a matter of "how many operations I need". 3e couldn't be simpler.
Each creature has AC, it is a constant known number calculated once.
Each creature has to hit, it is a constant known number calculated once.
you just compared to hit + roll to AC and thats it.

if you need to take the thac0 - AC for each combination of "attacker" and "attackie" then you have to do more calculations which are unnecessary, and while easy, slow things down.

to give an example... a party of 4 encounters 4 enemy NPC (you had already had to calculate the AC and thac0 for each). 1/2e. "ok, I need the thac0 and AC of each one of you, then a few minutes to calculate the thac0 - AC for each possible combination of attacker and defender (4^2 = 16 combinations, assuming no attacking of party members). You basically have to CALCULATE the percent chance to hit for each possible combination, then you roll that percent chance on a d20.

with 3+e, you don't need to do all that. You had to already calculate the to hit and AC of each (just as much work as in 1/2e), but instead of calculating percentiles per combo you roll per attack and just ask "does a 16 hit", and vice versa.

oxybe
2009-09-25, 03:40 PM
Heh, sorry folks. I did not mean to start a THAC0 sidetrack. I throw myself on your mercy!

(and I still don't see how it's any harder... but algebra makes sense to me, so that may not be a fair test)

the long and short of it:
people can do algebra... they just don't want to if a more intuitive method exists.

personally, i do +'s faster then i do -'s. i can easily group together a bunch of d6's add the numbers and come to the conclusion that a Save or Die would have finished off the monster faster then my fireball's damage.

doing substractions in a system generally based off adding numbers kinda feels like you're suddenly throwing your car into reverse after a steady drive: it jerks a bit and takes a few seconds before it picks up speed again. i can handle it fine, it just throws me off my game for a bit.

most gamers i know feel that positive attack bonus + dice VS ascending AC feels more natural then the old method. neither is "better" though as they both arrive to the binary conclusion of hit or miss.

JadedDM
2009-09-25, 03:50 PM
I started playing 2E back in the early 90s, and I have stuck with it ever since then. I still run 2E games to this day.

cfalcon
2009-09-25, 03:56 PM
The new AC and Attack Bonus system is a huge improvement. AC is sort of a misnomer these days, sadly. The old system had better ties to reality with a reference to a class of armor at each point, and great tables that did a pretty decent job of trying to map weapons versus armor. Once we lost the tables, the system was kinda sticking out and waiting for a refresh.

I remember thinking it was a pretty big deal that the fighter types started out with basically a THAC0 of 19 under 3ed.

The advantage of the current system is that when you roll the die, you add your attack bonus to it, and then say, I hit AC blah. Whereas with the THAC0 system, you roll the die, then subtract the die roll from your THAC0 to get the AC you hit, which usually involves subtracting X from 15 or whatever. That's a bunch of negatives in there for no good reason, and of course the DM has to compare backwards too when checking. Most groups back in 2.x would tell the attacker the AC he was trying to hit so he could just do THAC0 - AC and look for that number or higher on the die. You can still do that too, but the way you are "supposed" to do it is easier now.

taltamir
2009-09-25, 03:59 PM
thats another thing, if you TELL the AC there is a huge metagamish thing going on.

Thane of Fife
2009-09-25, 04:17 PM
It is a matter of "how many operations I need". 3e couldn't be simpler.
Each creature has AC, it is a constant known number calculated once.
Each creature has to hit, it is a constant known number calculated once.
you just compared to hit + roll to AC and thats it.

3.x and newer: BAB---+ Roll >= Armor Class -> You Hit
Pre-3.x:-------THAC0 - Roll <= Armor Class -> You Hit

It's almost exactly the same thing.

Matthew
2009-09-25, 04:18 PM
no subtraction is easy... it is just adding negatives it is this:

It is a matter of "how many operations I need". 3e couldn't be simpler.
Each creature has AC, it is a constant known number calculated once.
Each creature has to hit, it is a constant known number calculated once.
you just compared to hit + roll to AC and thats it.

if you need to take the thac0 - AC for each combination of "attacker" and "attackie" then you have to do more calculations which are unnecessary, and while easy, slow things down.

to give an example... a party of 4 encounters 4 enemy NPC (you had already had to calculate the AC and thac0 for each). 1/2e. "ok, I need the thac0 and AC of each one of you, then a few minutes to calculate the thac0 - AC for each possible combination of attacker and defender (4^2 = 16 combinations, assuming no attacking of party members). You basically have to CALCULATE the percent chance to hit for each possible combination, then you roll that percent chance on a d20.

with 3+e, you don't need to do all that. You had to already calculate the to hit and AC of each (just as much work as in 1/2e), but instead of calculating percentiles per combo you roll per attack and just ask "does a 16 hit", and vice versa.

You are making it more complicated than it is. There is no mathematically demonstrable "proof" that one is inherently easier than the other, and some folks certainly find descending armour class easier; it is all a matter of what you are used to doing. The way second edition explains THAC0 is not very helpful, but the actual method is absolutely simple and intuitive. The issue is that it is all written from the attacker's point of view (or rather the modifiers to the D20 die roll), where negative numbers are always bad and positive numbers are always good [e.g. defensive fighting in D20/3e is −4 to hit, +2 to AC, whilst in AD&D it would be −4 to hit, −2 to be hit].

People just like to see their offence and defence expressed as two increasingly large numbers and easily work out what armour class they hit, which is to say:

Fighting Ability: +2
Armour Class: 17

rather than:

Fighting Ability: 18
Armour Class: 3

or whatever. The math is no problem at all, since in either case you are rolling 1D20 and adding a number to hit another number; the issue is perceptual knowledge, or the transparency of what is happening.

In the former case, the player rolls his die (say it turns up 16), adds his number (and any modifiers, let's say 0) and says "I got an 18, did I hit?" The game master compares that number to the creature's armour class.

In the latter case, the player rolls his die, adds his modifiers and says "I got 16, did I hit?" The game master adds the creature's armour class and compares it to the character's fighting ability.

The procedure is pretty much identical (the player adds one more thing in D20 and the game master adds one more thing in AD&D) but in the former case the player knows what armour class he hit, whilst in the latter case he has to do an additional sum to work that out.

Starscream
2009-09-25, 04:43 PM
A +2 str pink tutu? well give it here, my barbarian needs it!

Reminds me of a Darths and Droids strip. Qui Gon Jim's player wants to try on some of Queen Amidala's clothes under the theory that such ornate dresses must give good bonuses to your AC. The DM nixes the idea.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-09-25, 04:44 PM
I recently dug out my old books (including the complete Encyclopedia Magica set - a fine investment!) and it got me hankering for those earlier times. I've set about working up a campaign that suits the AD&D ethos (a City of Adventurers to replace MIA PCs on the edge of the mountainous Ruins of a Lost Civilization and an Enchanted Forest) but I'm still working on Players.

It suddenly occurs to me that you can totally run AD&D without the Players knowing most of the mechanics. It'll take a lot more prep work on my end, but it'll make it a lot easier to get my current Player Pool to pick it up.

Details below
I plan on using the following rules:
- 3d6 & Arrange character generation
- Weapon/Spell Speeds
- Variable AC by weapon type
- Group Initiative
- Encumbrance
- NWP
- Racial Level Limits

Now, my Players' character sheets would have the following mechanical information
- Ability Scores
- Current THAC0
- Current AC
- Current HP
- Character Saves
- Encumbrance Levels
- Total Spells Per Day (casters only)
- Current XP
- XP to next level(s)

Most of the numbers here are for show - the PCs wouldn't need to calculate their effective THAC0 for a given swing, for example; instead they would roll the D20, add enchantment and situation modifiers and tell me the amount. I would then look at their Base THAC0 (kept in my notes) and determine whether the attack hit or miss. Ditto for getting hit - they tell me what their base AC is (equipment-wise) and then I add in all the situational modifiers and such.

For equipment, I'd make an index card for each piece (mundane & magical) with the following information
- Name
- Brief Description
- Weapon Speed, Damage, and Special Rules (for weapons)
- Armor Class, AC Bonus, and Special Rules (for armor)
- Item Saves
- Encumbrance Score

I'd also make Spell Cards
- Name, Level, Page Number
- Brief Description of Spell (i.e. "You create a massive burst of fire with a radius of n feet" or "A thin layer of grease coats n square feet")
- Casting Time

Obviously I'd type up all of these in advance, print them out and stick 'em to card stock.

Thoughts on that gambit?

Talya
2009-09-25, 04:44 PM
I first played AD&D, and always found THAC0 to be convoluted and counterintuitive. I'm not saying it was complicated, but it required thinking backwards, and I still have to stop and think it through. It's like debits and credits in accounting, and what transaction does what for assets, liabilities and equity...it's very easy to think it through backwards and mess everything up, even though it's simple addition and subtraction.

There's no thinking required for 3e, just the ability to add. That's all. "Bigger number wins" is the human intuitive default. Bigger is always better. I don't know. Maybe golfers invented THAC0. It's still not that bad, and it doesn't make it a better system. As has been pointed out, it's still essentially the same thing.

hamishspence
2009-09-25, 04:48 PM
Astronomy runs under a similar system for magnitude- magintude 5 is faint star, magnitude 0 is quite bright star, magnitude -29 is Sun-bright.

Matthew
2009-09-25, 04:53 PM
Thoughts on that gambit?

That will probably work fine. An additional option is to replace "THAC0" with "Fighting Ability" (literally the character's equivalent fighter level). Then you add that to the attack roll with the target number as 21:

1D20 + FA + AC + Misc = 21

If you are using a lot of already pre-calculated THAC0s then it is easier to leave them be, as they have already done some of the math for you:

1D20 + AC + Misc = THAC0

But it is an option if you prefer the players to roll 1D20 and add modifiers.

I probably would not bother with proficiencies, but that is just personal taste.

Random832
2009-09-25, 05:01 PM
3.x and newer: BAB---+ Roll >= Armor Class -> You Hit
Pre-3.x:-------THAC0 - Roll <= Armor Class -> You Hit

It's almost exactly the same thing.

Right, except the way things are worded, they clearly wanted you to do:
Roll >= THAC0 - Armor Class -> You Hit

Which has the issue mentioned above, of having to calculate a new constant for each THAC0/AC combination (i.e. per opponent pair)

Matthew
2009-09-25, 05:06 PM
Right, except the way things are worded, they clearly wanted you to do:
Roll >= THAC0 - Armor Class -> You Hit

Which has the issue mentioned above, of having to calculate a new constant for each THAC0/AC combination (i.e. per opponent pair)

In second edition, yeah. In earlier iterations, no. Unfortunately, subsequent designers seem to have not understood why the system was set up the way that it was, and ended up straining against it. Not exempt from this is Gygax himself, who indicates in the AD&D DMG that he would have preferred to use an ascending system, but retained a descending system for the sake of continuity with OD&D. The descending armour class was an Arneson innovation; indeed, in Chain Mail armour class was ascending.

tcrudisi
2009-09-25, 05:08 PM
Who else plays 1/2 E?

I recently played 1E for the first time ever. One of the authors for Knights of the Dinner Table dropped in to run Tomb of Horrors for us. It only lasted three sessions, but it was a wonderful foray into old-school D&D. It reminded me of how much fun I used to have with 2nd edition.

And yes, I survived. ;-)

Surfing HalfOrc
2009-09-25, 05:14 PM
I play some "one-off" versions of older editions:

OSRIC: One-Off edition of AD&D. Using these rules for my character in a Play by Post game of The Desert of Desolation. I have the AD&D books, but they are currenly being shipped to me here in Korea.

Labyrinth Lord: One-Off edition of the Tom Moldvey/David Cook Basic/Expert rules. I have the B/X Rules, but the LL rules are in PDF format like the OSRIC rules, and are easy to pull up on my laptop.

Pathfinder: One-Off of the D&D 3.5 rules. Also a freebie PDF (I think... Did they pull the pdf when they released the hardback?), although you can buy the hardbound book. I'm trying to join another PbP game over at RPOL.net, but haven't received a reply from the GameMaster.

Random832
2009-09-25, 05:16 PM
In second edition, yeah. In earlier iterations, no. Unfortunately, subsequent designers seem to have not understood why the system was set up the way that it was, and ended up straining against it. Not exempt from this is Gygax himself, who indicates in the AD&D DMG that he would have preferred to use an ascending system, but retained a descending system for the sake of continuity with OD&D. The descending armour class was an Arneson innovation; indeed, in Chain Mail armour class was ascending.

The stat is called "to hit armor class zero" - I don't see any other possible meaning than that it is intended to be used as a basis to calculate your "to hit" number against other armor classes, which is then used as a simple comparison to a die roll.

It's not subtraction that is the problem. That's orthogonal to the real issue mentioned above. The whole concept of a "to hit number" in the first place is the problem. It seems clear to me that with ascending AC, the preferred calculation would have been
Roll >= Armor Class + still descending and now always negative THAC0.
Or maybe
Roll >= Armor Class - something like 3e BAB, now ascending.
But still "a calculation per attacker/defender pair that yields a target number to roll on an unmodified d20"

Matthew
2009-09-25, 05:24 PM
The stat is called "to hit armor class zero" - I don't see any other possible meaning than that it is intended to be used as a basis to calculate your "to hit" number against other armor classes, which is then used as a simple comparison to a die roll.

It's not subtraction that is the problem. That's orthogonal to the real issue mentioned above. The whole concept of a "to hit number" in the first place is the problem. It seems clear to me that with ascending AC, the preferred calculation would have been
Roll >= Armor Class + still descending and now always negative THAC0.
Or maybe
Roll >= Armor Class - something like 3e BAB.
But still "a calculation per attacker/defender pair that yields a target number to roll on an unmodified d20"

The "stat" was a second edition innovation (kind of, it does appear in the appendix to the first edition DMG), but regardless of whether it is or not:

1D20 + AC = THAC0
1D20 = THAC0 − AC

are the same equation rearranged, and get the same result. There is no need to work out the "to hit" number because once you know what he needs to hit AC 0 you can work out if he hit or not by adding AC to 1D20 and comparing to THAC0. 0 is a convenient reference point because it is at the locus of the negative/positive AC range.

Of course, you can choose instead to use the Fighting Ability of the character, which is occasionally referred to in the DMG and get:

1D20 + FA + AC = 21

...but prior to second edition all the math was already done in advance and you were expected to use the tables presented in the book or on the DM screen to determine hits. THAC0 is an unfortunate short cut methodology that became dominant in second edition because the designers did not understand the original purpose of having a descending armour class. That is to say, they worked backwards from pre-calculated and tabulated "to hit" numbers and came up with a wonky way of explaining the math.

ken-do-nim
2009-09-25, 05:56 PM
true, and the same can be said about 4e "social rules".
but there are other problems with older editions besides the thac0.


Someone already said it, but one person's problems are another person's feature. For instance, I think one of the outstanding things about 1st edition is the weapon vs armor class table. 2nd edition has it, but it was dumbed down a bit so it's not as good. For instance, hitting someone in plate mail with a quarterstaff or your first is supposed to be hard, whereas doing so with a mace or flail is easier. 1st edition is great with this, and makes weapon selection for the right opponent an important tactical decision. 2nd edition has some of this, but all blunt weapons are good against plate armor, even a quarterstaff. The Combat & Tactics book did improve this somewhat. Maces & flails became better against plate than a quarterstaff, but not as drastically as 1st edition.

But yet there are 1E diehard players who hate weapon vs armor class, because it requires an extra table lookup. To each his own.

taltamir
2009-09-25, 07:21 PM
The procedure is pretty much identical (the player adds one more thing in D20 and the game master adds one more thing in AD&D)
which is the crux of the problem. The player has ONE character. The game master has a many to look over. you are saving one simple calculation for each player, by forcing the DM to perform dozens of simple calculations


Someone already said it, but one person's problems are another person's feature. For instance, I think one of the outstanding things about 1st edition is the weapon vs armor class table. 2nd edition has it, but it was dumbed down a bit so it's not as good. For instance, hitting someone in plate mail with a quarterstaff or your first is supposed to be hard
I actually agree on that one. this is an advantage for 1e... overall better does not mean every single individual change has been an improvement.

Matthew
2009-09-25, 08:54 PM
Which is the crux of the problem. The player has ONE character. The game master has a many to look over. You are saving one simple calculation for each player, by forcing the DM to perform dozens of simple calculations

I think that you are exaggerating the extent of the burden, but if that is the problem then the player can subtract his "to hit roll" from his THAC0 to find what armour class he hit.

KellKheraptis
2009-09-25, 09:14 PM
I miss AD&D multiclassing.

I miss AD&D Bladesingers...not the ball of suck they have become in 3.0/3.5 (though the Swiftblade makes a more than suitable substitute).

Ledeas
2009-09-25, 09:39 PM
I learned to play on Basic D&D
started DMing it
Got AD&D 2nd ed.
Never looked back or forward.

I have played several 3rd/3.5 and they are ok. But I love my 2nd ed.

Love it.

Ozymandias9
2009-09-25, 11:01 PM
I still play 2nd every couple of months of so, but I'm mostly on 3.5. Every year or so, I get to sit at an OD&D table with the actual books for a couple days when my friend that owns a comic shop decides to get nostalgic and get them out of the plastic case.

Akal Saris
2009-09-26, 12:27 AM
I still play in a 2E game (and in about 4 games that are 3.5, a PF game, and 2 4E games).

I like the simplicity of combat in 2E (OK, except for THAC0 calculations), and I prefer the older art styles in the various MMs for it, as well as the stronger focus on interesting campaign settings like Birthright and Planescape.

I'd like to try a 1st ed game someday, but I haven't really gotten an opportunity, and I don't want to join a PBP game and have to learn all the rules for it without other live PCs to help out.

As soon as I wrote that, I noticed in the other page I had open that a 1E game of 'The Lost Caverns of Tosjcanth' needed a magic-user, and since I've run that game in 3.5, I figured it to be an omen of sorts. So now I need to figure out how to make Marcus, the 6th level magic-user =P

Oh, and Oracle-Hunter: I miss my old Encyclopedia Magica from 2E! I gave it away at a garage sale for a buck I think =(

Oracle_Hunter
2009-09-26, 04:08 PM
Oh, and Oracle-Hunter: I miss my old Encyclopedia Magica from 2E! I gave it away at a garage sale for a buck I think =(
I can honestly say it was one of the best TSR products I bought. Having access to all the random and joke items introduced in Dragon/Dungeon Magazine since the beginning is but one of its strong points.

The absolute best (which I lost :smallfrown:) was the Complete Guide to World Building - the thing was a gold mine. I also enjoyed the Book of Artifacts - though mainly for the fluff, since 2E Artifact mechanics were broken to hell.

Morty
2009-09-26, 04:19 PM
Some things about older editions are definetly interesting, especially magic and not coddling players when it comes to dangerous stuff. I have OSRIC rules somewhere on my computer, but it's apparently based on 1st edition D&D, while I'm more interested in AD&D on which the Infinity Engine games are based on. My group only remembers half of the rules for 3rd edition D&D or WFRP most of the time anyway, so the apparent randomness of AD&D rules wouldn't be a problem. The only things I'm wary about is that mages were complete pushovers on low levels back then and alignment was even worse than in 3ed.

Bang
2009-09-26, 04:30 PM
Is it discomfort with subtraction, then? Same difference.
I chuckled.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-09-26, 04:30 PM
The only things I'm wary about is that mages were complete pushovers on low levels back then and alignment was even worse than in 3ed.
If you don't like alignment, then AD&D isn't for you. Back then Rangers had alignment restrictions and there weren't no fancy spells to "atone" a fallen Paladin. I mean, I guess you could ignore alignment, but then you lose out on the Good vs. Evil theme inherent in Fantasy.

And if you wanted balance, well, AD&D isn't for you either. Life was nasty, brutish and short - but at least it made for good stories :smallbiggrin:

Besides, if you wanted to be a non-wimpy wizard, just be a Half-Elf; Fighter/Wizard is the way to go :smallbiggrin:

Volkov
2009-09-26, 04:33 PM
Astronomy runs under a similar system for magnitude- magintude 5 is faint star, magnitude 0 is quite bright star, magnitude -29 is Sun-bright.

And magnitude -841 is fry all life on earth bright.

Morty
2009-09-26, 04:36 PM
I mean, I guess you could ignore alignment, but then you lose out on the Good vs. Evil theme inherent in Fantasy.

I don't give much of a crap about the Good vs. Evil theme, it's just that ignoring alignment seems harder in AD&D than in 3rd edition. I especially mean the fact that "monstrous races" were simply "X Evil" in AD&D, without the "Usually" clause.


And if you wanted balance, well, AD&D isn't for you either. Life was nasty, brutish and short - but at least it made for good stories :smallbiggrin:

Good point. One thing that I find better in older editions is that PCs aren't superheroes right off the bat, after all. It's just that firing one or two spells and then using sling is too harsh.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-09-26, 04:56 PM
I don't give much of a crap about the Good vs. Evil theme, it's just that ignoring alignment seems harder in AD&D than in 3rd edition. I especially mean the fact that "monstrous races" were simply "X Evil" in AD&D, without the "Usually" clause.
It's just as easy to ignore alignment in AD&D as in any version of Dungeons & Dragons.

All you have to do is draw a line through "alignment" whenever it appears. Done.

I mean, you're basically just house-ruling alignments away, right? What more would you have to do?


Good point. One thing that I find better in older editions is that PCs aren't superheroes right off the bat, after all. It's just that firing one or two spells and then using sling is too harsh.
PCs are never superheroes in AD&D - at best they're regular ol' heroes, maybe Heroes of Legends if you are a caster and play up through 16th level. Remember, nobody but casters get super-powers in TSR D&D; at most, "epic level" characters could get supernatural tricks using an optional Skills & Powers book.

Besides, the smart wizard uses darts, not slings :smallwink:

Raum
2009-09-26, 05:11 PM
If you don't like alignment, then AD&D isn't for you. Back then Rangers had alignment restrictions and there weren't no fancy spells to "atone" a fallen Paladin. I mean, I guess you could ignore alignment, but then you lose out on the Good vs. Evil theme inherent in Fantasy.Bah. We ignored alignment more often than not. It never stopped us from running 'save the world' and other such clichéd campaigns.

-----
Talking about some of the old books, one I always wished they'd update was Aurora's Whole Realms Catalog. It had something for everyone. :)

Jerok
2009-09-26, 05:11 PM
I play 2nd edition D&D. The way we do THAC0 is we have our THAC0 listed next to each weapon we own, with all the modifiers added in already. Let's say a level 1 elf fighter with a +1 longsword and no strength.

20 base - (+1 from longsword, +1 from elf), which is 18. This is the only hard part of the calculation, and players do this before combat so it takes no time away. It can take from 2 seconds to 30 seconds depending on all the bonuses.

A player rolls D20, gets a 13. 18-13 is 5, and the player says "AC 5?" and the DM would say 'hit' or 'miss'.

People seem to think subtracting numbers is hard, like say if the THAC0 was 8, and the player rolls a 17. 8-17 is the same as the negative version of 17-8. And D&D players are notoriously good at math anyway lol.

But yeah, I prefer 2nd edition because it feels more... realistic? I can't describe it well, but 3rd edition feels more powergamey and optimizer friendly and 2nd edition feels more like an adventurer would really feel. 2nd edition has a much higher risk and you really have to be careful if you want to survive and I like the tension.

oxybe
2009-09-26, 05:19 PM
I play 2nd edition D&D. The way we do THAC0 is we have our THAC0 listed next to each weapon we own, with all the modifiers added in already. Let's say a level 1 elf fighter with a +1 longsword and no strength.

20 base - (+1 from longsword, +1 from elf), which is 18. This is the only hard part of the calculation, and players do this before combat so it takes no time away. It can take from 2 seconds to 30 seconds depending on all the bonuses.

A player rolls D20, gets a 13. 18-13 is 5, and the player says "AC 5?" and the DM would say 'hit' or 'miss'.

People seem to think subtracting numbers is hard, like say if the THAC0 was 8, and the player rolls a 17. 8-17 is the same as the negative version of 17-8. And D&D players are notoriously good at math anyway lol.

sigh. not hard. tedious and unintuitive.

i would expect D&D players to have good reading comprehension as it's been said several times over the thread :smalltongue: [/joking] also [/sarcasm]

Oracle_Hunter
2009-09-26, 05:29 PM
Bah. We ignored alignment more often than not. It never stopped us from running 'save the world' and other such clichéd campaigns.
There is a difference between "Save the World" and " Save the World From Evil."
In one there's a threat to the world, and you stop it. In the other there is the existential threat of Evil (often embodied by an entity) that certain characters (Paladins, Rangers, Clerics of Specific Mythois) were sworn to destroy.

In one, the call to adventure is either personal (vengeance) or monetary. In the other, it can be for a genuinely higher purpose. After all, anyone can go on a crusade for their god, but only if that god is objectively Good can you really claim to be fighting for the side of Good.

For me, alignment helped to sharpen the edges of the conflict. Characters did not just hang together for fun and treasure; they were often on a shared quest to destroy Evil wherever they could find it. Sure, not all adventurers were out for Good, but they had to be out for something - this is why True Neutral was phrased as it is, and WotC's Neutral was described as something only those of animal intelligence possessed.

Paladins were the apex of this system; they were insanely hard to roll, and because their rules were so strict, so prone to fall from grace. They were special; they fought for Good and nothing else. In a world where everyone has an alliance to some alignment (and alignments were hard to know), Paladins served as potent rallying points.
Admittedly, all of this may be a bit more philosophical than many people's D&D campaigns went; but for me it was one of the features of D&D that serve (even today) to keep it distinct from other systems.

Matthew
2009-09-26, 06:49 PM
I chuckled.

:smallbiggrin:



PCs are never superheroes in AD&D - at best they're regular ol' heroes...

According to the level titles...

Level 4 Fighter = Hero
Level 8 Fighter = Super Hero

:smallwink:



There is a difference between "Save the World" and " Save the World From Evil."
In one there's a threat to the world, and you stop it. In the other there is the existential threat of Evil (often embodied by an entity) that certain characters (Paladins, Rangers, Clerics of Specific Mythois) were sworn to destroy.

In one, the call to adventure is either personal (vengeance) or monetary. In the other, it can be for a genuinely higher purpose. After all, anyone can go on a crusade for their god, but only if that god is objectively Good can you really claim to be fighting for the side of Good.

For me, alignment helped to sharpen the edges of the conflict. Characters did not just hang together for fun and treasure; they were often on a shared quest to destroy Evil wherever they could find it. Sure, not all adventurers were out for Good, but they had to be out for something - this is why True Neutral was phrased as it is, and WotC's Neutral was described as something only those of animal intelligence possessed.

Paladins were the apex of this system; they were insanely hard to roll, and because their rules were so strict, so prone to fall from grace. They were special; they fought for Good and nothing else. In a world where everyone has an alliance to some alignment (and alignments were hard to know), Paladins served as potent rallying points.
Admittedly, all of this may be a bit more philosophical than many people's D&D campaigns went; but for me it was one of the features of D&D that serve (even today) to keep it distinct from other systems.

Interestingly, it is a lot harder to "fall" as a paladin in first edition because they have to "knowingly and willingly" commit an evil act. On the other hand, the DMG then cites Lycanthropy as a way to fall...

Oracle_Hunter
2009-09-26, 07:13 PM
Interestingly, it is a lot harder to "fall" as a paladin in first edition because they have to "knowingly and willingly" commit an evil act. On the other hand, the DMG then cites Lycanthropy as a way to fall...
True, though in 2E it did note that unwillingly committing an Evil act would cause a Fall that could be cured by a suitably epic quest. Without the benefit of your Paladin powers, of course - but that wasn't such a penalty back then.

The Paladin Fall is an interesting idea, but one not well suited for WotC D&D. Falling really was just another way to lose your character in TSR D&D - one of the many hazards of adventuring. I can't say I've ever had experience with declaring a Fallen Paladin (I was such a softie DM back then :smalltongue:) but I certainly see how it would fit with the rest of the themes.

Speaking of which, I'm really tempted to post some of the passages from the Black Book DMG (where did my original one get to :smallconfused:) concerning Magic Items and the "Supermarket Mentality" :smallbiggrin:

bosssmiley
2009-09-26, 07:13 PM
"So Mr THAC0, we meet again. Too long have you dogged my steps, obfuscated my games and derailed perfectly good threads..." :smallamused:

Playing a hacked version of B/X D&D (in the form of Labyrinth Lord) atm. Too busy having fun to argue about system. :smallcool:

Thane of Fife
2009-09-26, 09:25 PM
The Paladin Fall is an interesting idea, but one not well suited for WotC D&D. Falling really was just another way to lose your character in TSR D&D - one of the many hazards of adventuring. I can't say I've ever had experience with declaring a Fallen Paladin (I was such a softie DM back then :smalltongue:) but I certainly see how it would fit with the rest of the themes.

I don't know if I agree with that - your paladin falling just changes you to a fighter like any other - there aren't any major disadvantages. It's not like the fighter without bonus feats of 3.x.


"So Mr THAC0, we meet again. Too long have you dogged my steps, obfuscated my games and derailed perfectly good threads..."


http://bighugelabs.com/output/motivator905bf0d7dbd28b4504de1ea7be06672d49643798. jpg

SimperingToad
2009-09-26, 10:49 PM
Cut my teeth on Holmes Basic back in '78. Went to AD&D once that came out. Then went to AD&D 2E. Then to AD&D 2ES&P. Then to WotC's D&D 3.0 and 3.5.

Sold my 3E books last year when it no longer was fun for me. I didn't like feeling boxed in by the rules. Most of the AD&D 2E stuff went too.

The boyz and I have been having too much fun with AD&D to need anything else, though I have been quite tempted to start a Holmes campaign. The circle would then be complete, I suppose. :smallbiggrin:

Morty
2009-09-27, 10:55 AM
It's just as easy to ignore alignment in AD&D as in any version of Dungeons & Dragons.

All you have to do is draw a line through "alignment" whenever it appears. Done.

I mean, you're basically just house-ruling alignments away, right? What more would you have to do?

I suppose it won't be that hard. As I said, my main concern are the "monstrous" races.


PCs are never superheroes in AD&D - at best they're regular ol' heroes, maybe Heroes of Legends if you are a caster and play up through 16th level. Remember, nobody but casters get super-powers in TSR D&D; at most, "epic level" characters could get supernatural tricks using an optional Skills & Powers book.

Besides, the smart wizard uses darts, not slings :smallwink:

I like the sound of this, so I suppose it's worth my 1st level wizard being a wimp.

Dienekes
2009-09-27, 10:58 AM
Not DnD per se, but my group still plays Star Wars d6

Actually, I'm gonna be stuck GMing one next week.

Talya
2009-09-27, 11:09 AM
Not DnD per se, but my group still plays Star Wars d6


That was a good game. it was the second game system I ever tried. My first was the Palladium -- Robotec/Ninjas&Superspies/Rifts/etc. Star Wars D6 taught me how bad Palladium was. (No offense to Erick Wujcik, rest in peace...he just built a setting for Siembieda's awful game system.)

Mike_G
2009-09-27, 12:04 PM
I started with AD&D 1st edition back in the late 70's. We experimented with most iof the RPGs that came out during the 80's, never really played 2e, since we were playing homebrew or other systems by that point.

We picked up 3.0 when it came out. Since we're all AD&D veterans, we don't have the optimization bug or balance issues that most of this board talks about with 3e. We play healer Clerics, Blasty Wizards and Sword and Board fighters as God intended.

I really don't miss the inconsistencies and arbitrary rule of 1e, like the racial class limits, the odd muticlassing and dual classing rules and so on. I don't miss the flavor, since in our group, the flavor is the same, we play like we aways did but with nice, consistent rules.

In short, I don't play AD&D for the same reason I don't own a musket or carry a flashlight and shovel out to the woods to take a dump. The Good Old Days weren't always good.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-09-27, 12:17 PM
I suppose it won't be that hard. As I said, my main concern are the "monstrous" races.
And, as I said, all you have to do is cross out the alignment portion of their description and DM them however you'd like.

Of course, the 2E MM had rather elaborate entries for each monstrous race - depicting them as if they were of their alignment - but it's not exactly written in stone.

More like printed on paper.


I like the sound of this, so I suppose it's worth my 1st level wizard being a wimp.
Just remember to not wimp out on the rules. Play with random HP every level and no Death's Door - because negative HPs are for sissies :smalltongue:

Ah, the glory of the 1 HP Fighter :smallbiggrin:

Morty
2009-09-27, 12:25 PM
And, as I said, all you have to do is cross out the alignment portion of their description and DM them however you'd like.

Of course, the 2E MM had rather elaborate entries for each monstrous race - depicting them as if they were of their alignment - but it's not exactly written in stone.

More like printed on paper.

Yeah, I know how 2E MM describled the monstrous races. Still, it's indeed easy to ignore it.


Just remember to not wimp out on the rules. Play with random HP every level and no Death's Door - because negative HPs are for sissies :smalltongue:

Ah, the glory of the 1 HP Fighter :smallbiggrin:

Well, duh. They knew the risks when they took the job.

Dienekes
2009-09-27, 12:28 PM
That was a good game. it was the second game system I ever tried. My first was the Palladium -- Robotec/Ninjas&Superspies/Rifts/etc. Star Wars D6 taught me how bad Palladium was. (No offense to Erick Wujcik, rest in peace...he just built a setting for Siembieda's awful game system.)

Nice, it was the first one me and my group ever played (terrible GM though)

which is probably why we never decided to advance to more advanced systems for SW games, we just had too many good memories.

Ledeas
2009-09-27, 12:30 PM
Not DnD per se, but my group still plays Star Wars d6

Actually, I'm gonna be stuck GMing one next week.


Nothing like some West End to make the day better.

make a perception roll.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-27, 01:45 PM
Some things about older editions are definetly interesting, especially magic and not coddling players when it comes to dangerous stuff. I have OSRIC rules somewhere on my computer, but it's apparently based on 1st edition D&D, while I'm more interested in AD&D on which the Infinity Engine games are based on. My group only remembers half of the rules for 3rd edition D&D or WFRP most of the time anyway, so the apparent randomness of AD&D rules wouldn't be a problem. The only things I'm wary about is that mages were complete pushovers on low levels back then and alignment was even worse than in 3ed.
Yes, but looking at OSRIC, magic-users are pretty godly at high levels.

There's no damage cap on damage-dealing spells while the hit points of the classes actually level off. And there are number of no-save spells.

Mr Pants
2009-09-27, 02:01 PM
My group and I are about to start an Old WoD game with Mage, Werewolf and Vampire, if that counts. Come to think of it, I've actually never played New WoD.