Knights & Knaves Alehouse

I knew I loved AD&D. Pre-UA, Gygax AD&D. I love OD&D too.

But you know what? After running the game for a while now, reading through the books, getting the DM juices running using this game and all... I can only come to a single conclusion. Despite my rating of AD&D as my favorite game with OD&D and Call of Cthulhu for years now, I must admit I have SERIOUSLY underestimated the amazing greatness of this game.

It truly is an amazing, game. I cannot BELIEVE the depth of this game. There is so much in there that just blows my mind when I'm reading it now. Stuff I never really, you know, really understood, and still makes me ponder, think about all sorts of different things as a DM now? This is a tool to make you think about what you're doing. This is a game that really doesn't take you for a moron.

I'm amazed, really. It is almost universally underestimated, but really, I'm blown away, once again, by the beauty that this game is.

So this is it. I fell in love again. I just felt like writing it.

Preach it brother!

- Wheggi

OMG, dungeondelver has hacked Odhanan's account!

T. Foster wrote:OMG, dungeondelver has hacked Odhanan's account!

LOL

It's true! No not the hacking, Trent! What I was talking about! I just keep getting my mind blown away by detail after detail, then reviewing the big picture of the game, and back and forth. That is just such a deep game, and yet, it's a game, if that makes any sense. There's really no game like it.

So what is it that is "blowing your mind" about it?

(Just curious if it is something specific or the game et al.)

More the game in general. Whenever I'm checking out some stuff in the rules books, especially the DMG, I just see something else I had not seen before, had wondered about, did not consider, or simply did not understand.

It's like those excellent flicks you keep watching over and over again, and each time, you see something different going on in the background, some little detail or another that just escaped your scrutiny, or an allusion you didn't grasp before and makes you go "wow - that movie is so awesome..." That kind of feeling.

Heh, heh. It is interesting that one of the chief attractive features of AD&D is what might be called "bad game design" in any other context, in that it requires study to understand, and even after considerable effort is expended hard and fast answers remain elusive. Of course, one of the chief aims of second edition was to break down this mystique, and this "dumbing down" of the text has remained a point of contention ever since. For what it is worth, I also really enjoy the process of "figuring out" the rules.

Matthew wrote:Heh, heh. It is interesting that one of the chief attractive features of AD&D is what might be called "bad game design" in any other context, in that it requires study to understand, and even after considerable effort is expended hard and fast answers remain elusive. Of course, one of the chief aims of second edition was to break down this mystique, and this "dumbing down" of the text has remained a point of contention ever since. For what it is worth, I also really enjoy the process of "figuring out" the rules.

But it's not as simple as that, because AD&D is perfectly playable even without a perfect understanding of the reasoning behind (or even correct functioning of) the rules. You don't need to study, or even read, the rules in order to play and even run the game in a manner that would satisfy all but the most humorless of rules-lawyers -- as proven by the millions of people who played it in the late 70s & 80s as "Holmes/Moldvay with extra bells & whistles." That AD&D can be played casually in that manner but also rewards careful study to such an extent that even people who've been playing for decades can discover new things is surely one of the keys to its immense and enduring appeal.

I've put a lot of oomph into expressing how AD&D has worked for me but there also were a lot of factors that helped preserve the "endless campaign" feel (one being that I play with a lot of knockaround tough types and they couldn't get into the flavors pumping out of Williams' era TSR) that said the consistency and at the same time wide scope of Gygax's AD&D just will not be beat. We had played 2e straight out of the book then we blindly went back in the 90's because it didn't feel right and I did that without a real investigation. Of course, the motivation to go back was just simple things I was used to. Like for example, "roll then say what you're going to do" versus the opposite for 2e as the standard. Then later when I was curious as to why it felt so different I found "to hit" shifts, treasure rearrangement, experience glossed, lack of support for our old character classes, loss of World of Greyhawk's character, etc. was what made me angry in retrospective in the late 90's and early 2000's.

T. Foster wrote: But it's not as simple as that, because AD&D is perfectly playable even without a perfect understanding of the reasoning behind (or even correct functioning of) the rules. You don't need to study, or even read, the rules in order to play and even run the game in a manner that would satisfy all but the most humorless of rules-lawyers -- as proven by the millions of people who played it in the late 70s & 80s as "Holmes/Moldvay with extra bells & whistles." That AD&D can be played casually in that manner but also rewards careful study to such an extent that even people who've been playing for decades can discover new things is surely one of the keys to its immense and enduring appeal.

Sure, in no way does understanding some of the more esoteric matter detract from the basic simplicity of the game, which is certainly itself of enduring appeal, nor do I imply above that this element is the whole story of its success. On the other hand, there are fundamental elements of AD&D that are evidently simply ignored by players trying to understand even the basic functions of the game, in order to come up with their own coherent reading of the rules. That is to say, the game system can be intuitively (perhaps has to be intuitively) comprehended and played, even if the result is at considerable variance with the actual rules as they appear. Nonetheless, because a good deal of flexibility and variability is expected, and the rules often presented as guidelines, it remains playable. Regardless, this lack of literal understanding does later drive interest in studying the rules for long time players, which frequently results in something of a voyage of discovery.

Great post, Ben. 30 years ago I was a kid with a Holmes set and a newly purchased AD&D DMG. With these two tools I ran my games for a long time, so I fall into the gamer type that Trent notes above. I remember one of the first things that grabbed my attention -- and I was quick to introduce such an adventure scenario in my campaign -- was underwater combat. The effects of spells, the weapons, everything. I was fascinated by how magic got a twist underwater, and it really opened my eyes to "ADVANCED" play. Of course, I was never able to wrap my young mind around initiative, so it was "roll a d6 to see which side goes first" and that was that.

T. Foster wrote:You don't need to study, or even read, the rules in order to play and even run the game in a manner that would satisfy all but the most humorless of rules-lawyers -- as proven by the millions of people who played it in the late 70s & 80s as "Holmes/Moldvay with extra bells & whistles." That AD&D can be played casually in that manner but also rewards careful study to such an extent that even people who've been playing for decades can discover new things is surely one of the keys to its immense and enduring appeal.

QFT. I started with a Holmes set and a MM, picking up the PHB a few months later, and the DMG soon thereafter. This was all my group needed for the longest time. I still keep a DMG handy for "study". It's great fun opening it to a random page and carefully reading some obscure passage, and having a moment of "I wonder why I never noticed that before?".

Matthew, if only 2E had been a restatement of the 1E rules (like OSRIC is), we might have all switched over. 2E redefined the game in a way most 1E players found distasteful (that door to change really opened with UA). The thing isn't that change is always bad, but that 1. it wasn't necessary and 2. it didn't improve anything, just the opposite.

As for complexity:

As Foster pointed out, 1E is playable without understanding the bulk of the rules (most of which are optional anyway). This is because using common since and any dice role can cover most situations. If there is someone present that is good at explaining rules, you can have a player playing the game in 5 minutes (just needing to read the description of his PC and race), and a DM in 30 (learning the tables, how to read monster stats, and understanding initiative).

Give that newbie DM an hour or two to create a dungeon and wilderness and be prepared to blown out of your freak'n socks with the originality and freshness they come up with (assuming they've got an imagination worth a damn). I'll bet the majority of us had someone to show us how to DM rather then reading it on our own. And I'll bet most of us read the DMG well after already knowing how to DM and run a good game.

That is the beauty of a game founded in make believe and common since. The rules can be complex and difficult to follow, but none of that matters as long as you have a handle on the basics (which can be explained in minutes).

AxeMental wrote: Matthew, if only 2E had been a restatement of the 1E rules (like OSRIC is), we might have all switched over. 2E redefined the game in a way most 1E players found distasteful (that door to change really opened with UA). The thing isn't that change is always bad, but that 1. it wasn't necessary and 2. it didn't improve anything, just the opposite.

You might have done, but you would have still lost the aesthetic qualities, both in terms of prose and art. Moreover, much is suggested by first edition that is simply lost in translation or restatement. Even OSRIC is by no means a preferable product, except perhaps in terms of clarity (though, to be fair, a lot of the art could stand side by side).

AxeMental wrote: As Foster pointed out, 1E is playable without understanding the bulk of the rules (most of which are optional anyway). This is because using common since and any dice role can cover most situations. If there is someone present that is good at explaining rules, you can have a player playing the game in 5 minutes (just needing to read the description of his PC and race), and a DM in 30 (learning the tables, how to read monster stats, and understanding initiative).

Give that newbie DM an hour or two to create a dungeon and wilderness and be prepared to blown out of your freak'n socks with the originality and freshness they come up with (assuming they've got an imagination worth a damn). I'll bet the majority of us had someone to show us how to DM rather then reading it on our own. And I'll bet most of us read the DMG well after already knowing how to DM and run a good game.

That is the beauty of a game founded in make believe and common since. The rules can be complex and difficult to follow, but none of that matters as long as you have a handle on the basics (which can be explained in minutes).

Sure, but what keeps us coming back to the text is its very lack of ease of comprehension. Obviously, though, this does not apply to everyone; for instance, if I recall correctly, you prefer to have your questions answered by intermediaries rather than to study the text for yourself. So, obviously, that element of the game is of limited appeal to you, and as I say I am far from suggesting it is anything like the whole story of the appeal of the game.

Matthew: "if I recall correctly, you prefer to have your questions answered by intermediaries rather than to study the text for yourself."

I prefer to answer questions myself of course. But I do appreciate other peoples readings on things espl. if I miss-read the meaning of a rule (or had some bad assumption). I also enjoy debating rules that are not clearly written.