Knights & Knaves Alehouse

In another thread, the topic came up of what it is that define the 1E AD&D experiance. So my question is to you: what do you think are the bare minimum things that you must include in your 1E game to be considered playing 1E AD&D (pre-UA). I have my opinion but want to see what others say first.

Attribute Tables (I do not use these)
Races - Human (at least)
Classes - Fighter, Magician, Cleric, Thief
Armour Classes: 10 to −10

Lots of other things, now I think about it. Easier to say "what can you lose?"

Stuff you can drop, I reckon...

Psionics
Unarmed Combat Rules
Weapon Type versus Armour Class rules
Demi-Humans as a player character race
Rangers, Illusionists, Paladins, Druids, Assassins, Bards
Dual Classing

Technically, you could excise the Monster Manual, Treasure Appendices, and Spell Appendices, and replace them with alternatives of your own devising, but not the format they take. That would be problematic in practice, though.

AxeMental wrote:In another thread, the topic came up of what it is that define the 1E AD&D experiance. So my question is to you: what do you think are the bare minimum things that you must include in your 1E game to be considered playing 1E AD&D (pre-UA). I have my opinion but want to see what others say first.

To me, as long as this is the book in front of your players, you can add and subtract classes, races, ability scores, spells, heck, do whatever you want and it’s still 1e AD&D by me. I don’t subscribe to the whole “no, you’re playing D&D using the AD&D books” thing. If Men & Magic is in front of your players, then it’s D&D. All other distinctions are too heady for me.

To me, as long as this is the book in front of your players, you can add and subtract classes, races, ability scores, spells, heck, do whatever you want and it’s still 1e AD&D by me. I don’t subscribe to the whole “no, you’re playing D&D using the AD&D books” thing. If Men & Magic is in front of your players, then it’s D&D. All other distinctions are too heady for me.

I agree. I once ran a campaign where the halfling & gnome races did not exist and dwarves as well as elves were considered to be evil alot like norse myth, but we still considered it AD&D because those were the books in front of us.

I'll see what Falconer played and raise a



It's kind of a funny question, and I'd think the answer would be obvious. Use the race & class rules of the PHB, and the combat & saving throw tables in the DMG.

I'm inclined to agree with Falconer and TRP. At a bare minimum, two of the three hardbacks so that you actually have the hit tables, saving throws, monsters, and treasures (along with those awesome appendicies in the DMG).

You don't actually need the MM, given that the DMG has that table of monsters along with the encounter tables.

[quote= Flambeaux]You don't actually need the MM, given that the DMG has that table of monsters along with the encounter tables.[/quote]

I like the pictures though.

I'd say in order to claim you're "playing AD&D" you need to be using the following sections of the rules: PH pp. 9-13, 19-28 (noting that the druid, paladin, ranger, and illusionist are all optional), and 37, and DMG pp. 74-75, 79, and 85. If you're using all of this stuff, even if you change everything else, it's still AD&D (though perhaps just barely -- I'd say to be "solidly AD&D" you should probably also use at least most of PH pp. 40-94 and DMG pp. 121-169). But if you significantly change any of these, then IMO you've left "AD&D" behind and are playing a variant game.

Treasure tables and definitions of monsters to base new monsters on is hardly some thing I would dismiss. I need the 3 books or I feel handicapped.

It's like porn. I know it when I see it.
No, really. It is.

The AD&D rules. I mean ultimately it is "just like that". As to what constitutes the AD&D rules...well, on discussion with Gary, anything from the UA backwards are the AD&D rules. He's stated (to me) that OA, MotP, WSG and DSG are all 2e-books-in-sheep's-clothing and that's all the authority on the matter I need.

(now how much of Unearthed Arcana I do or do not use...well that's a different matter entirely).

I tend to think of AD&D as a real wide-open experience.

LOTS of classes, spells, magic items, equipment, settings, etc etc etc.

I would definitely say you need two of the three core AD&D books but how far you go beyond that, well, I think you can add a TON to the cores and still be AD&D.

I think that's the source of a lot of my affection. I like "big tent games".

thedungeondelver wrote:well, on discussion with Gary, anything from the UA backwards are the AD&D rules. He's stated (to me) that OA, MotP, WSG and DSG are all 2e-books-in-sheep's-clothing and that's all the authority on the matter I need.

I wish I had a conversation about OA with Gary Gygax when OA came out! I just remember the grief on trying to figure what to with it. I had everything for Kara-Tur and it just didn't say squat to me. And I'm a major fan of samurai and Asian concepts. (I just hate anime with a passion.) What they did to the Orient was turn it into National Geographic and "authentic" where as the Occident... (to say it like George Carlin)...WAS NOT!

I'm also very attached to the original AD&D screen I've had that at the table like its a lucky rabbit's foot since I got it from my uncle's stack of "this D&D stuff do you know how to play it? Its yours!" in 1982.

These type of minis from the Grenadier official AD&D line are always an inspiration that put me in the mood.:



Its hard to just write them off. I'm going to dig out all the Grenadier ones I have for a picture to show you exactly what I mean but not today!