My guys gave up playing with the charts of modifiers, since it bogged the game down so much. The current system is much cleaner, and easier to play.
One of the major concessions even most of the more hardcore OSR games make these days is to use ascending AC with the to hit # being the AC #.
Basically, they flip it. AC 10 is still "cloth/unarmored", but instead of going down to 0 and needing a 20 to hit that, they just go up from 10 to 20, and instead of "-10" being the best armor anyone could have, it just goes up to 30.
Similarly you can use something like the level based "proficiency bonus" to mimic going "up the table" from left to right, since it did kind of the same thing in AD&D.
Just those 2 things allow you to cut out like 3 pages of tables.
I guess the real truth is that Old School was not perfect, and some of the current game mechanics are better. But the current theme of "everyone gets a participation ribbon, everyone is special, no one should ever die" is awful.
I agree that a gritty, low fantasy game could be very good fun, imagine someone blows up has the planet with a fireball and that's SPECIAL.
I have only played 5e, what's THACO, the ability scores?, like MSH's FASERIP?
I am trying to figure out how you actually know FASERIP but not THAC0. Both RPGs were published around the same time(ish). I am impressed. We played a lot of MSH back in the day before we moved to 2E D&D.
I have only played 5e, what's THACO, the ability scores?, like MSH's FASERIP?
I am trying to figure out how you actually know FASERIP but not THAC0. Both RPGs were published around the same time(ish). I am impressed. We played a lot of MSH back in the day before we moved to 2E D&D.
LOL, a close relative introduced me to MSH, like, three years ago and I played for a while, but Dungeons and Dragons caught my fancy and here I am now.
I enjoyed it's simplicity, and ability system, but wished magic was a bit more sophisticated, but overall a very solid system.
I have only played 5e, what's THACO, the ability scores?, like MSH's FASERIP?
I am trying to figure out how you actually know FASERIP but not THAC0. Both RPGs were published around the same time(ish). I am impressed. We played a lot of MSH back in the day before we moved to 2E D&D.
LOL, a close relative introduced me to MSH, like, three years ago and I played for a while, but Dungeons and Dragons caught my fancy and here I am now.
I enjoyed it's simplicity, and ability system, but wished magic was a bit more sophisticated, but overall a very solid system.
In AD&D, a low armor class was good. Plate mail(I think) gave you an AC of zero and was the base. Your THAC0(To Hit Armor Class 0) scaled(Weirdly) based on your class, level, and strength score.
One of the big differences with the older games is where your character advanced from (the way XP was mostly earned).
With B/X, BECMI, AD&D/2nd and their ilk, the lions share of XP (advancement) actually came from the loot and task completion (quests, deeds, or whatever), while you got bonuses based on what your class did well (fighters killing, casters making magic, thieves doing thiefy stuff) and killing enemies. Don't get me wrong you still got xp for killing monsters and it was often seen as that was the main way (playing OSR games really made that variance hit home for me), though it turns out it wasn't.
I think it may have been around 3ed ed (I could be wrong as I was playing 2nd ed mostly then, or maybe due to cRPGs) that core notion of loot/tasks giving majority of the XP, changed to be more about XP from killing/defeating things being the majority of XP. (could of been just the way many people played too). With that gradual change it seems came the notion that character's needed to not up and die as much (aside from the 'save or die' situations we lived with) as you needed to not die in battles to advance, where previously you could try and avoid combat and not hinder your XP gains all that much.
With B/X, BECMI, AD&D/2nd and their ilk, the lions share of XP (advancement) actually came from the loot and task completion (quests, deeds, or whatever), while you got bonuses based on what your class did well (fighters killing, casters making magic, thieves doing thiefy stuff) and killing enemies. Don't get me wrong you still got xp for killing monsters and it was often seen as that was the main way (playing OSR games really made that variance hit home for me), though it turns out it wasn't.
Where do you get this idea?
The 1st edition AD&D DMG, on page 84-86, lists exactly two items for which the DM is to ward XP - Killing monsters and gaining treasure. The very opening sentence of the section on "Experience" (p. 84, col. 2, 2nd to last paragraph, first line) is, and I quote, "The judgment factor is inescapable with respect to weighting experience for the points gained from slaying monsters and/or gaining treasure." This sentence lists two ways of gaining XP: "Slaying monsters" and/or "gaining treasure." That's it. Nothing else is suggested here or anywhere else in this section.
Gygax says in the next paragraph that "Tricking or outwitting monsters or overcoming tricks and/or traps placed to guard treasure must be determined subjectively, with level of experience balanced against the degree of difficulty..." but as no formula is given (he says right here to do it "subjectively") many DMs simply did not award for this, or else awarded the XP "as if the monsters had been killed" if you tricked or bypassed them. These methods of XP awards are exceptions or variants (options, as it were) and are not the default, which was listed in the first sentence above - killing and looting.
Gygax then provides, at the top of pg. 85, the step-by-step method of calculating monster XP. Step 1 is to total up the XP values of all the "slain monsters" -- slain, not tricked, defeated, quests completed for. SLAIN.
The next section discusses value of treasure as XP, instructing the DM to convert all items except in-use magic items retained by the party into GP and then awarding 1 XP per 1 GP of value (magic items being used in adventuring were not supposed to be used for XP purposes, as "their value is in their usage"). So if you sell a sword +1 without using it much, you get XP for the GP value of it -- but if you keep the same sword +1 and use it for a while in combat, then you don't get the XP for it because you already got the benefit of it as a usable item.
I can find nowhere in the AD&D DMG 1st edition where Gygax states you could get experience for quests, deeds, or tasks. Furthermore, in terms of how well you did your class role, this was evaluated by the DM from Excellent to Poor and used as a multiplication factor to see how long training took. It did not (directly) affect the awarding of experience points.
Therefore, it is with good reason that the OSR folks and old-schoolers primarily award(ed) experience based on killing and looting -- because that is what Gygax told DMs to do. Literally. He even has a paragraph defending it on pg. 85, as regards to how the GP = XP formula is an abstraction meant for ease of use.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Honestly, no. I remember my AD&D days very fondly, but I definitely have no interest whatsoever in returning to the rulesets of yore. The adventures (well, some of them anyway), the settings, everything around the rules, I'd be happy to revisit those things - but not the rules.
I feel the same way. I grew up playing 1e and early 2e when I quit.. because life. Didn't play again until 2015 and immediately liked 5e. I miss a lot of my 1e days, but I think the game is on better footing with the 5e ruleset.
I'd love WotC to update all of the original modules for 5e/forgotten realms and re-release them. I'd buy every single one. Incidentally, I think WotC focuses entirely too much on the Sword Coast region and needs to develop other regions.
Incidentally, I think WotC focuses entirely too much on the Sword Coast region and needs to develop other regions.
Well, the Van Richten's Guide has been annnounced and there are two other "classic" settings (one of which must be Dragonlance) being worked on. I don't think a dearth of settings is much of a concern. More FR regions, that seems to be delegated to adventure supplements.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Incidentally, I think WotC focuses entirely too much on the Sword Coast region and needs to develop other regions.
Well, the Van Richten's Guide has been annnounced and there are two other "classic" settings (one of which must be Dragonlance) being worked on. I don't think a dearth of settings is much of a concern. More FR regions, that seems to be delegated to adventure supplements.
I'm not referring to settings. I'm referring to regions. WotC has almost exclusively focused on the Sword Coast region within the Forgotten Realm setting. And while I can understand why a strong focus might be given to it, Toril is a much larger place. I'd like to see WotC focus more attention in developing other regions within Faerun, and Toril. Flush out the history. Flush out the people. Flush out the adventure!
With regard to other settings, I'm happy to see more attention paid to those as well. The more the merrier, in my opinion. But I'm mainly focused on Forgotten Realms.
Incidentally, I think WotC focuses entirely too much on the Sword Coast region and needs to develop other regions.
Well, the Van Richten's Guide has been annnounced and there are two other "classic" settings (one of which must be Dragonlance) being worked on. I don't think a dearth of settings is much of a concern. More FR regions, that seems to be delegated to adventure supplements.
I'm not referring to settings. I'm referring to regions. WotC has almost exclusively focused on the Sword Coast region within the Forgotten Realm setting. And while I can understand why a strong focus might be given to it, Toril is a much larger place. I'd like to see WotC focus more attention in developing other regions within Faerun, and Toril. Flush out the history. Flush out the people. Flush out the adventure!
With regard to other settings, I'm happy to see more attention paid to those as well. The more the merrier, in my opinion. But I'm mainly focused on Forgotten Realms.
Back in the previous century that would have been a bigger issue for me, but the FR have been extensively covered and explored for several decades and all that info is available on meticulously organized and maintained public wikis. I appreciate that's not the same as having a book, but still.
I was (and am) a big fan of THACO. To me it's a great way (in the AD&D system) to hand over some of the work to the players and simplify the real-time mechanics of combat. They would have THACO's for various scenarios on their Character sheet eg different weapons they might use like THACO for using +2 Sword which included Strength modifiers etc, THACO for using Short bow which included Dex modifiers etc.. On a roll they would say what AC they hit and I would let them know if that's a hit or not... Which, as you pointed out, avoided a lot of complicated table/modifier work. But it's interesting you found the table approach easier - but that's the thing about the game; there are always options for finding what works best for each DM and set of players.
Haha! I never knew that! I love and still use the weapon speed factor. You're right though that there have always been modifications. We made sense of weapon speed factor etc with a d10 initiative roll: d10 + weapon speed (or spell casting time in segs) +/- Dex (react/attack adj).
I'm currently a DM for a group via Discord. The game is pure AD&D 1st edition, I make full use of weapon vs armour, speed factors, and even the weaponless combat system.
Using the original Character Record Sheets is a good start - all that data on one place. I upload the character sheets in PDF to each of the players and update them.
We've been playing since December, the group is on their 2nd mission; and every combat is deadly.
The highest level is 3rd. Everyone's having a blast.
One of the guys is bit younger, and in the discord group there are even people in their 20s working their way through 1st edition AD&D.
There was a permission to be creative in 1e, we had to be, there wasn't much else around.
Nothing wrong with a bit of nostalgia. I like The Maltese Falcon, but that doesn't stop me from watching John Wick.
I have played and ran at least one adventure from 2E to 5E. OK, several Campaigns for 2E, 3/3.5E and 5E and only one adventure for 4E. And while I have a lot of books for first, I have never played or run a game of it. Every so often, I think about running a one shot I6 Ravenloft game in 1st to say I've done it, but never been able to pull the trigger on that. But I have my 1st edition PHP, MM, DMG and Unearthed Arcana signed by Gygax.
Its a unique experience, for some people it is a revelation of truth, for others, its being annoyed by THAC0 and 4hp Magic-Users.
4 hp (if they were lucky) Magic Users who could cast "sleep" once and then have to spend the rest of the session cowering and hoping that a goblin wouldn't breath on them too hard.
I agree that they have given magic to too many classes and subclasses. Although when you look at it, they have only added a subclass for Thieves (Rogues) and for Fighters. They dropped the level where Paladins and Rangers begin using magic. But they have also loosened the multi-classing rules so much that almost any player can build a class that has spell casting abilities. I think that is one of the flavor changes they have made to D&D that is too far for my tastes.
5e, overall, is a better system than 1e, but they have taken something from the game that I think is missing now. I think part of it is that everyone I play with acts like leveling up to fourth tier is just something that will happen if the group stays together long enough. But back in my day of 1e, our group wondered if they could just get to double digits, build a keep or wizard's tower and retire.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I agree that they have given magic to too many classes and subclasses. Although when you look at it, they have only added a subclass for Thieves (Rogues) and for Fighters. They dropped the level where Paladins and Rangers begin using magic. But they have also loosened the multi-classing rules so much that almost any player can build a class that has spell casting abilities. I think that is one of the flavor changes they have made to D&D that is too far for my tastes.
5e, overall, is a better system than 1e, but they have taken something from the game that I think is missing now. I think part of it is that everyone I play with acts like leveling up to fourth tier is just something that will happen if the group stays together long enough. But back in my day of 1e, our group wondered if they could just get to double digits, build a keep or wizard's tower and retire.
Pardon? In 1e, Elves could multiclass and thus add Magic User levels. Humans could dual class, which meant they could add Magic User levels as well, just a different process.
And 0e included this paragraph:
"Other Character Types There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Dragon would have to begin as let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee."
In other words, it was originally RAW to be allowed to play anything, even a Dragon, with the onus on the DM to make it work.
I am not familiar with how things were presented in pre-AD&D days. My assertion about multi-classing is based on the fact that multi-classing was very limited in AD&D as compared to 5e. I think 5e has gone too far. As for playing as a dragon, I believe my brother, who did have some knowledge of the rules before AD&D, said the wider community discussion at the time steered away from developing that idea because it wasn't going to fit into the system. Consider how having a party member BE a dragon would alter the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree that a gritty, low fantasy game could be very good fun, imagine someone blows up has the planet with a fireball and that's SPECIAL.
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
I am trying to figure out how you actually know FASERIP but not THAC0. Both RPGs were published around the same time(ish). I am impressed. We played a lot of MSH back in the day before we moved to 2E D&D.
LOL, a close relative introduced me to MSH, like, three years ago and I played for a while, but Dungeons and Dragons caught my fancy and here I am now.
I enjoyed it's simplicity, and ability system, but wished magic was a bit more sophisticated, but overall a very solid system.
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
In AD&D, a low armor class was good. Plate mail(I think) gave you an AC of zero and was the base. Your THAC0(To Hit Armor Class 0) scaled(Weirdly) based on your class, level, and strength score.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
Plate mail was AC 3. Plate + shield was AC 2. The only way to go below 2 was with magic.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
One of the big differences with the older games is where your character advanced from (the way XP was mostly earned).
With B/X, BECMI, AD&D/2nd and their ilk, the lions share of XP (advancement) actually came from the loot and task completion (quests, deeds, or whatever), while you got bonuses based on what your class did well (fighters killing, casters making magic, thieves doing thiefy stuff) and killing enemies.
Don't get me wrong you still got xp for killing monsters and it was often seen as that was the main way (playing OSR games really made that variance hit home for me), though it turns out it wasn't.
I think it may have been around 3ed ed (I could be wrong as I was playing 2nd ed mostly then, or maybe due to cRPGs) that core notion of loot/tasks giving majority of the XP, changed to be more about XP from killing/defeating things being the majority of XP. (could of been just the way many people played too).
With that gradual change it seems came the notion that character's needed to not up and die as much (aside from the 'save or die' situations we lived with) as you needed to not die in battles to advance, where previously you could try and avoid combat and not hinder your XP gains all that much.
- Loswaith
Where do you get this idea?
The 1st edition AD&D DMG, on page 84-86, lists exactly two items for which the DM is to ward XP - Killing monsters and gaining treasure. The very opening sentence of the section on "Experience" (p. 84, col. 2, 2nd to last paragraph, first line) is, and I quote, "The judgment factor is inescapable with respect to weighting experience for the points gained from slaying monsters and/or gaining treasure." This sentence lists two ways of gaining XP: "Slaying monsters" and/or "gaining treasure." That's it. Nothing else is suggested here or anywhere else in this section.
Gygax says in the next paragraph that "Tricking or outwitting monsters or overcoming tricks and/or traps placed to guard treasure must be determined subjectively, with level of experience balanced against the degree of difficulty..." but as no formula is given (he says right here to do it "subjectively") many DMs simply did not award for this, or else awarded the XP "as if the monsters had been killed" if you tricked or bypassed them. These methods of XP awards are exceptions or variants (options, as it were) and are not the default, which was listed in the first sentence above - killing and looting.
Gygax then provides, at the top of pg. 85, the step-by-step method of calculating monster XP. Step 1 is to total up the XP values of all the "slain monsters" -- slain, not tricked, defeated, quests completed for. SLAIN.
The next section discusses value of treasure as XP, instructing the DM to convert all items except in-use magic items retained by the party into GP and then awarding 1 XP per 1 GP of value (magic items being used in adventuring were not supposed to be used for XP purposes, as "their value is in their usage"). So if you sell a sword +1 without using it much, you get XP for the GP value of it -- but if you keep the same sword +1 and use it for a while in combat, then you don't get the XP for it because you already got the benefit of it as a usable item.
I can find nowhere in the AD&D DMG 1st edition where Gygax states you could get experience for quests, deeds, or tasks. Furthermore, in terms of how well you did your class role, this was evaluated by the DM from Excellent to Poor and used as a multiplication factor to see how long training took. It did not (directly) affect the awarding of experience points.
Therefore, it is with good reason that the OSR folks and old-schoolers primarily award(ed) experience based on killing and looting -- because that is what Gygax told DMs to do. Literally. He even has a paragraph defending it on pg. 85, as regards to how the GP = XP formula is an abstraction meant for ease of use.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I feel the same way. I grew up playing 1e and early 2e when I quit.. because life. Didn't play again until 2015 and immediately liked 5e. I miss a lot of my 1e days, but I think the game is on better footing with the 5e ruleset.
I'd love WotC to update all of the original modules for 5e/forgotten realms and re-release them. I'd buy every single one. Incidentally, I think WotC focuses entirely too much on the Sword Coast region and needs to develop other regions.
Well, the Van Richten's Guide has been annnounced and there are two other "classic" settings (one of which must be Dragonlance) being worked on. I don't think a dearth of settings is much of a concern. More FR regions, that seems to be delegated to adventure supplements.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm not referring to settings. I'm referring to regions. WotC has almost exclusively focused on the Sword Coast region within the Forgotten Realm setting. And while I can understand why a strong focus might be given to it, Toril is a much larger place. I'd like to see WotC focus more attention in developing other regions within Faerun, and Toril. Flush out the history. Flush out the people. Flush out the adventure!
With regard to other settings, I'm happy to see more attention paid to those as well. The more the merrier, in my opinion. But I'm mainly focused on Forgotten Realms.
Back in the previous century that would have been a bigger issue for me, but the FR have been extensively covered and explored for several decades and all that info is available on meticulously organized and maintained public wikis. I appreciate that's not the same as having a book, but still.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Just throwing something out there that some older folks might get: plot twist, the villain's weakness is hostess fruit pies.
What do y'all think?
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
I prefer Girl Scout cookies, but only if they are made from real Girl Scouts.
Good explanation 👍🏻
I was (and am) a big fan of THACO. To me it's a great way (in the AD&D system) to hand over some of the work to the players and simplify the real-time mechanics of combat. They would have THACO's for various scenarios on their Character sheet eg different weapons they might use like THACO for using +2 Sword which included Strength modifiers etc, THACO for using Short bow which included Dex modifiers etc.. On a roll they would say what AC they hit and I would let them know if that's a hit or not... Which, as you pointed out, avoided a lot of complicated table/modifier work. But it's interesting you found the table approach easier - but that's the thing about the game; there are always options for finding what works best for each DM and set of players.
Haha! I never knew that! I love and still use the weapon speed factor. You're right though that there have always been modifications. We made sense of weapon speed factor etc with a d10 initiative roll: d10 + weapon speed (or spell casting time in segs) +/- Dex (react/attack adj).
I'm currently a DM for a group via Discord. The game is pure AD&D 1st edition, I make full use of weapon vs armour, speed factors, and even the weaponless combat system.
Using the original Character Record Sheets is a good start - all that data on one place. I upload the character sheets in PDF to each of the players and update them.
We've been playing since December, the group is on their 2nd mission; and every combat is deadly.
The highest level is 3rd. Everyone's having a blast.
One of the guys is bit younger, and in the discord group there are even people in their 20s working their way through 1st edition AD&D.
There was a permission to be creative in 1e, we had to be, there wasn't much else around.
Nothing wrong with a bit of nostalgia. I like The Maltese Falcon, but that doesn't stop me from watching John Wick.
4 hp (if they were lucky) Magic Users who could cast "sleep" once and then have to spend the rest of the session cowering and hoping that a goblin wouldn't breath on them too hard.
I agree that they have given magic to too many classes and subclasses. Although when you look at it, they have only added a subclass for Thieves (Rogues) and for Fighters. They dropped the level where Paladins and Rangers begin using magic. But they have also loosened the multi-classing rules so much that almost any player can build a class that has spell casting abilities. I think that is one of the flavor changes they have made to D&D that is too far for my tastes.
5e, overall, is a better system than 1e, but they have taken something from the game that I think is missing now. I think part of it is that everyone I play with acts like leveling up to fourth tier is just something that will happen if the group stays together long enough. But back in my day of 1e, our group wondered if they could just get to double digits, build a keep or wizard's tower and retire.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I am not familiar with how things were presented in pre-AD&D days. My assertion about multi-classing is based on the fact that multi-classing was very limited in AD&D as compared to 5e. I think 5e has gone too far. As for playing as a dragon, I believe my brother, who did have some knowledge of the rules before AD&D, said the wider community discussion at the time steered away from developing that idea because it wasn't going to fit into the system. Consider how having a party member BE a dragon would alter the game.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt