Quote from: Conanist on March 01, 2021, 05:59:28 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2021, 02:34:30 PMOld versions of D&D can be criticized for many things, but unconsidered design and a lack of playtesting are not among them.

All right. Why is a THAC0 chart and descending AC better than (or equal to) ascending AC and a flat bonus to hit, using the exact same numbers but presenting them in a different way?

How long did it take for you to figure out how those numbers work and stop using the chart? Why didn't they?

Do you play cards? What is your opinion of Texas Hold Em? Just a modern preference or an improvement on the game?

I'm not trying to rip into GG or anyone, I just think its natural for any idea to be improved upon over time.

THAC0 was perfectly comprehensible and followed a simple pattern.  No one I played with ever looked at a chart.  And the presentation may or may not be a good thing. 

Texas Hold-Em as a game offers more rounds of betting per hand, which leads to big pots and more drama.  It also leads to quick exits.  This is great for a casino or TV.  Five card stud or draw was much lower stakes, so it was much better for people who were playing the game to pass the time.  Neither is an "improvement" over the other.  They serve different purposes.

Ideas may or may not be "improved" when the change.  Often they change because of changed purpose or circumstance.  As an adult with a job, I don't have as much time for worldbuilding as I did as a teenager, so I use more prepared modules and purchased material.  Is that an "improvement"?  Doubtful.  But it is a change in the hobby driven by changing circumstance.

The fallacy of "progressivism" (and it's precursor "Whig history") is humorous as best, and dangerous at worst, when it prompts people to assume that all change is good.  A wise man once suggested the people understand the purpose of a fence before they tear it down.  We have far too many fools in the modern world who can't even by bothered to try to understand...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 01, 2021, 06:23:23 PM
THAC0 was perfectly comprehensible and followed a simple pattern.  No one I played with ever looked at a chart.

I cannot fathom the levels of stupidity necessary to not be able to understand ThAC0 - AC = Target Number.

People these days talk about ThAC0 as if it's a fucking integral equation. Oh my God, you need to deal with negative numbers on occasion? The horror...the horror...

Quote from: Conanist on March 01, 2021, 05:59:28 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2021, 02:34:30 PMOld versions of D&D can be criticized for many things, but unconsidered design and a lack of playtesting are not among them.

All right. Why is a THAC0 chart and descending AC better than (or equal to) ascending AC and a flat bonus to hit, using the exact same numbers but presenting them in a different way?

How long did it take for you to figure out how those numbers work and stop using the chart? Why didn't they?

Do you play cards? What is your opinion of Texas Hold Em? Just a modern preference or an improvement on the game?

I'm not trying to rip into GG or anyone, I just think its natural for any idea to be improved upon over time.

I played a lot of war games when I was a kid so a chart just seemed obvious. I mean AD&D was downright simplistic compared to Starfleet Battles, so it never occurred to me that the chart or THAC0 was sub-optimal. Then again, optimal is sort of a misnomer; subtracting isn't any harder than adding unless you're just lazy, and the chart requires absolutely zero math and allows for extreme edge cases that d20 doesn't. d20 is probably easier I'd say, but you lose something that the chart provides. It's a trade off.

EDIT: I'll also point out using a chart results in stuff like Arms Law, and my junior high self thought that was the most badass thing ever to incorporate into my D&D game. You're not going to get that sort of coolness with d20 without a lot of kludges.

It's not that it's a horror; it's just inefficient compared to the d20+mod vs. TN approach.

My experience with THAC0 was not THACO - AC = TN; because that would require you to KNOW the AC ahead of time. It also discounts various modifiers to the roll.

Rather the way it was always used in my experience was THAC0 - (roll+modifiers) = AC hit. It's subtle, but the main difference is that the player has to due the subtraction and addition operations every time until the AC is determined rather than only once.

That's basically the same as Roll + modifier = AC hit... except that pretty much everyone adds faster than they subtract.

Also superior is using the same Roll+Mod vs. TN to determine skill use instead of Roll + Mod (where +s are bad and -s good) to get less than or equal to ability score with closest to without going over the winner in an opposed contest (i.e. another math operation vs. just "highest check result wins" in modern d20).

Old school saves are basically the d20 system resolution system (roll + mods vs. TN), but that just means that you used a d20 check in three very different ways in AD&D for no particular reason since they all ultimately worked out to the same flat increments of 5% that any d20 roll did.

Why not design skills and saves around the same THAC0 mechanic?

Frankly, d20+mod vs. TN as a universal system for attacks, saves and skills IS as close to an objective design improvement to a system as you'll ever find. One can argue the implementation of the numbers in 3e is bad relative to the results in AD&D, but as a basic system it's just flat out better and THAC0, skills and saves could all easily be adapted to it with the exact same odds, but clearer implementation.

Ex. Change the save chart to bonuses with a default TN of 20. If you needed a 14+ to save before it'd be +6 to save vs breath weapons. Instead of penalties to saves for certain creatures, the TN could just be changed (i.e. instead of "save vs breath with a -4 penalty" it's "save vs breath TN 24").

This has the same results in terms of odds, but because it's consistent across all actions that use a d20, it's easier to remember.

I won't go so far as to suggest that there would be zero difference between a 2-in-6 chance to detect secret doors and a d20 check. But I will point out that a +6 to detect secret doors vs. TN 20 will be within 2% of the 2-in-6 check result; not perfect, but close enough to see why a system might replace the 2-in-6 with a d20 check to streamline the system without losing much in the process.

Quote from: Conanist on March 01, 2021, 05:59:28 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2021, 02:34:30 PMOld versions of D&D can be criticized for many things, but unconsidered design and a lack of playtesting are not among them.

All right. Why is a THAC0 chart and descending AC better than (or equal to) ascending AC and a flat bonus to hit, using the exact same numbers but presenting them in a different way?

How long did it take for you to figure out how those numbers work and stop using the chart? Why didn't they?

Small numbers. Ascending AC uses two-digit numbers, which usability studies have shown are both harder to add and harder to compare than single digit numbers. Descending AC use single digit numbers, which are superior from a usability standpoint. The downside of THAC0 is it uses negative numbers, which are even harder to work with.

Except that's irrelevant, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, negative numbers almost never came up in the original game. It was the expansion of the game in the Supplements and into AD&D that cause it to become more frequent, and potentially more of a problem. Also, AC was armor class, not armor rating. As in 1st class, 2nd class, 3rd class, and so on. Ordinal, not cardinal. Not something you really added or subtracted, in the original game. But the bigger reason? No version of D&D used THAC0, until 2nd edition, so the tradeoffs of THAC0 are completely irrelevant. It's not the system used.

The method used in OD&D, Basic D&D, and AD&D1e is a chart lookup. The only math involved is a comparison, which is literally the easiest operation to perform. You skim the row, find the right column, roll. Was it higher? You hit. And you didn't even need to find the right row, most of the time, because it was trivial to copy the ACs from -4 to to 9 or 10 on character sheet, then write the number you need to hit below them. Then all you have to do is run your eye down a line, find the AC, and roll. The attempt to turn it into a formula, whether it was THAC0, the d20 system, or more modern variants like Target 20, was a step back in usability.

If you want to impugn a design, it helps to have a passing familiarity with it.

Quote from: Conanist on March 01, 2021, 05:59:28 PM
I'm not trying to rip into GG or anyone, I just think its natural for any idea to be improved upon over time.

How much have chess and go improved over the last 30 years? Someone compared game design to the dramatic arc of technological improvement, which is what I disputed.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 01, 2021, 07:50:51 PM
My experience with THAC0 was not THACO - AC = TN; because that would require you to KNOW the AC ahead of time. It also discounts various modifiers to the roll.

Rather the way it was always used in my experience was THAC0 - (roll+modifiers) = AC hit. It's subtle, but the main difference is that the player has to due the subtraction and addition operations every time until the AC is determined rather than only once.

That's basically the same as Roll + modifier = AC hit... except that pretty much everyone adds faster than they subtract.

I will say that the way THAC0 was explained in the 2nd edition Player's Handbook was terrible. They never clearly stated the operation to be performed, instead they just assumed you knew the right way to combine the numbers. Which led to a lot of confusion because a lot of people were never sure when they should add, and when they should subtract, and a clearer set of rules probably would have reduced (though not eliminated) that. Perhaps more interestingly, different tables ended up using slightly different but equivalent operations. Do you subtract from THAC0, or add to the roll? The advantage of subtracting is you can precalculate a lot more, but adding is more intuitive for more people. Another is the one you just described: I.e. whether the DM called out the AC (the method we used), or whether the player rolled and said the best AC they could hit. I've seen a lot of discussion propounding the merits of keeping AC hidden, but I don't think it's very important -- if you're paying attention, after an encounter or two, you should have a good idea of a monster's AC anyway.

There were dozens of game systems that didn't use THACO in 1983.  People didn't need to wait for Jonathon Tweet on that score.

Quote from: EOTB on March 01, 2021, 10:26:01 PM
There were dozens of game systems that didn't use THACO in 1983.  People didn't need to wait for Jonathon Tweet on that score.

Thats true, I personally invented BaB years before Mr Tweet took my idea and ran with it.

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2021, 07:53:06 PM
How much have chess and go improved over the last 30 years? Someone compared game design to the dramatic arc of technological improvement, which is what I disputed.

They haven't! Chess has been around quite a bit longer than AD&D has, and has changed quite a bit in that time. You might say it improved over time, or you might prefer an older version where the bishop moves differently. Maybe the perfect RPG will evolve in a few thousand years and reach a similar status.

I've played  and ran hundreds of games of AD&D and understand it perfectly. But its still just a fun game I played as a teen, and now there are other games. Its not a religious text to me or a part of my identity. Mildly suggesting that the combat resolution is easier with the same results using a different method is not what I'd call impugning the system.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 01, 2021, 06:23:23 PM

The fallacy of "progressivism" (and it's precursor "Whig history") is humorous as best, and dangerous at worst, when it prompts people to assume that all change is good.  A wise man once suggested the people understand the purpose of a fence before they tear it down.  We have far too many fools in the modern world who can't even by bothered to try to understand...

Is this a joke? Stars Without Number and Dungeon Crawl Classics use the roll+bonus vs ascending AC method. Are the creators also "dangerous progressives?"

Quote from: Conanist on March 01, 2021, 10:36:33 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2021, 07:53:06 PM
How much have chess and go improved over the last 30 years? Someone compared game design to the dramatic arc of technological improvement, which is what I disputed.

They haven't! Chess has been around quite a bit longer than AD&D has, and has changed quite a bit in that time. You might say it improved over time, or you might prefer an older version where the bishop moves differently. Maybe the perfect RPG will evolve in a few thousand years and reach a similar status.

I've played  and ran hundreds of games of AD&D and understand it perfectly. But its still just a fun game I played as a teen, and now there are other games. Its not a religious text to me or a part of my identity. Mildly suggesting that the combat resolution is easier with the same results using a different method is not what I'd call impugning the system.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 01, 2021, 06:23:23 PM

The fallacy of "progressivism" (and it's precursor "Whig history") is humorous as best, and dangerous at worst, when it prompts people to assume that all change is good.  A wise man once suggested the people understand the purpose of a fence before they tear it down.  We have far too many fools in the modern world who can't even by bothered to try to understand...

Is this a joke? Stars Without Number and Dungeon Crawl Classics use the roll+bonus vs ascending AC method. Are the creators also "dangerous progressives?"

No, because I've never heard them saying their products are inherently better because they are newer.  Which was the explicit argument above, and the basis of my objection.  Apparently "newer" forms of reading comprehension are not superior to the old kind...

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2021, 07:53:06 PM

Small numbers. Ascending AC uses two-digit numbers, which usability studies have shown are both harder to add and harder to compare than single digit numbers. Descending AC use single digit numbers, which are superior from a usability standpoint. The downside of THAC0 is it uses negative numbers, which are even harder to work with.

Except that's irrelevant, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, negative numbers almost never came up in the original game. It was the expansion of the game in the Supplements and into AD&D that cause it to become more frequent, and potentially more of a problem. Also, AC was armor class, not armor rating. As in 1st class, 2nd class, 3rd class, and so on. Ordinal, not cardinal. Not something you really added or subtracted, in the original game. But the bigger reason? No version of D&D used THAC0, until 2nd edition, so the tradeoffs of THAC0 are completely irrelevant. It's not the system used.

The method used in OD&D, Basic D&D, and AD&D1e is a chart lookup. The only math involved is a comparison, which is literally the easiest operation to perform. You skim the row, find the right column, roll. Was it higher? You hit. And you didn't even need to find the right row, most of the time, because it was trivial to copy the ACs from -4 to to 9 or 10 on character sheet, then write the number you need to hit below them. Then all you have to do is run your eye down a line, find the AC, and roll. The attempt to turn it into a formula, whether it was THAC0, the d20 system, or more modern variants like Target 20, was a step back in usability.

If you want to impugn a design, it helps to have a passing familiarity with it.

The 1e DMG has a "To hit A.C. 0" column for all of the monster listings - Appendix E. starting on page 196. So, it's been there since 1979.

I like THAC0 - and the combat charts a lot. Smaller numbers. Charts if you prefer it. If I don't want to tell the players a monsters AC -- they just tell me what they rolled and I check to see if they hit, which is very fast. Player's not knowing is actually the standard assumption in the rules.
Typically though, I'll just tell players the AC, and they can subtract a small number from their THAC0 and know what they need to roll for the rest of the fight: You run into a group of 6 gnolls, their AC is 5. Player - I have a THAC0 of 17, so 17-5 = 12, I need a 12 to hit during this fight.
Done.

Quote from: Conanist on March 01, 2021, 10:36:33 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2021, 07:53:06 PM
How much have chess and go improved over the last 30 years? Someone compared game design to the dramatic arc of technological improvement, which is what I disputed.

They haven't! Chess has been around quite a bit longer than AD&D has, and has changed quite a bit in that time. You might say it improved over time, or you might prefer an older version where the bishop moves differently. Maybe the perfect RPG will evolve in a few thousand years and reach a similar status.

I've played  and ran hundreds of games of AD&D and understand it perfectly. But its still just a fun game I played as a teen, and now there are other games. Its not a religious text to me or a part of my identity. Mildly suggesting that the combat resolution is easier with the same results using a different method is not what I'd call impugning the system.

You can't have both. Is chess a game where styles have changed over time and both new and old versions are valid, or is it a clear example of pseudo-technological progress, which has advanced into a perfect form?

I think the latter argument is absurd. Eirikrautha provided another good counter example, responding to your question about Texas Hold 'Em by pointing out that the new versions are adapted specifically to a new environment, rather than being objectively better or worse. As styles and preferences change, so do the games we like to play. There may be better and worse games, but assuming there's a steady upward progress and all that's old is outdated and all that's new is more advanced is simply not how it works. Games are fads or fashions, not a steady progression into ever better forms.

And regardless of your gaming history, you made a post full of mistaken assumptions. It's the same kind of superficial dismissal that comes up a lot, so it's better to correct it quickly. It's more interesting to talk about actual features.

Quote from: Thondor on March 01, 2021, 11:48:13 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2021, 07:53:06 PM

Small numbers. Ascending AC uses two-digit numbers, which usability studies have shown are both harder to add and harder to compare than single digit numbers. Descending AC use single digit numbers, which are superior from a usability standpoint. The downside of THAC0 is it uses negative numbers, which are even harder to work with.

Except that's irrelevant, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, negative numbers almost never came up in the original game. It was the expansion of the game in the Supplements and into AD&D that cause it to become more frequent, and potentially more of a problem. Also, AC was armor class, not armor rating. As in 1st class, 2nd class, 3rd class, and so on. Ordinal, not cardinal. Not something you really added or subtracted, in the original game. But the bigger reason? No version of D&D used THAC0, until 2nd edition, so the tradeoffs of THAC0 are completely irrelevant. It's not the system used.

The method used in OD&D, Basic D&D, and AD&D1e is a chart lookup. The only math involved is a comparison, which is literally the easiest operation to perform. You skim the row, find the right column, roll. Was it higher? You hit. And you didn't even need to find the right row, most of the time, because it was trivial to copy the ACs from -4 to to 9 or 10 on character sheet, then write the number you need to hit below them. Then all you have to do is run your eye down a line, find the AC, and roll. The attempt to turn it into a formula, whether it was THAC0, the d20 system, or more modern variants like Target 20, was a step back in usability.

If you want to impugn a design, it helps to have a passing familiarity with it.

The 1e DMG has a "To hit A.C. 0" column for all of the monster listings - Appendix E. starting on page 196. So, it's been there since 1979.

That's an interesting precursor, but it's just a column title, not a system. The combat resolution system called THAC0 wasn't described until second edition. The first major place it appeared was the 2e Player's Handbook, though it's possible a preview might have appeared in a module during the 1e/2e transition period (I don't remember).

Quote from: Thondor on March 01, 2021, 11:48:13 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2021, 07:53:06 PM

Small numbers. Ascending AC uses two-digit numbers, which usability studies have shown are both harder to add and harder to compare than single digit numbers. Descending AC use single digit numbers, which are superior from a usability standpoint. The downside of THAC0 is it uses negative numbers, which are even harder to work with.

Except that's irrelevant, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, negative numbers almost never came up in the original game. It was the expansion of the game in the Supplements and into AD&D that cause it to become more frequent, and potentially more of a problem. Also, AC was armor class, not armor rating. As in 1st class, 2nd class, 3rd class, and so on. Ordinal, not cardinal. Not something you really added or subtracted, in the original game. But the bigger reason? No version of D&D used THAC0, until 2nd edition, so the tradeoffs of THAC0 are completely irrelevant. It's not the system used.

The method used in OD&D, Basic D&D, and AD&D1e is a chart lookup. The only math involved is a comparison, which is literally the easiest operation to perform. You skim the row, find the right column, roll. Was it higher? You hit. And you didn't even need to find the right row, most of the time, because it was trivial to copy the ACs from -4 to to 9 or 10 on character sheet, then write the number you need to hit below them. Then all you have to do is run your eye down a line, find the AC, and roll. The attempt to turn it into a formula, whether it was THAC0, the d20 system, or more modern variants like Target 20, was a step back in usability.

If you want to impugn a design, it helps to have a passing familiarity with it.

The 1e DMG has a "To hit A.C. 0" column for all of the monster listings - Appendix E. starting on page 196. So, it's been there since 1979.

I like THAC0 - and the combat charts a lot. Smaller numbers. Charts if you prefer it. If I don't want to tell the players a monsters AC -- they just tell me what they rolled and I check to see if they hit, which is very fast. Player's not knowing is actually the standard assumption in the rules.
Typically though, I'll just tell players the AC, and they can subtract a small number from their THAC0 and know what they need to roll for the rest of the fight: You run into a group of 6 gnolls, their AC is 5. Player - I have a THAC0 of 17, so 17-5 = 12, I need a 12 to hit during this fight.
Done.

If you have a Bab of +3 and are attacking someone with an AC of 15 then you need to roll (15-3) a 12 to hit.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2021, 02:19:00 PM

Quote from: EOTB on February 28, 2021, 01:34:07 PMI would suggest reading the non-rules essays in the PHB and DMG

Which ones? Part of my frustrations with classic D&D is that there are like 6 different versions of it.
Im reading the premium version 1e and the verbiage is borderline chummy. Its like a pal talking to me. Its so...down to earth.

Regardless it very much seems like not my experience. It feels like something I can get better out of a videogame nowadays.

So I started in the late 70s with the Holmes edition of Basic D&D and transitioned to AD&D from when it was first released. I quickly gravitated to refereeing most of the time. In my neck of the woods, rural NW PA, I was known as the referee who let players trash his setting. I didn't have an issue with player trying to become kings,  and magnates. And I did enough wargaming and read enough history prior to starting playing D&D to make it interesting despite being a high school student.

I am also partially deaf and to help keep on top of trying to understand what a half dozen players liked to do I used miniatures.  Also because of this I was pretty a RAW referee when it came to mechanics. But only when it came to adjudicating specific things the players did.  Because of my focus on letting players "trash" my setting I had my own opinions on how the world around the PCs ought to operate or not operate. If wandering monsters appeared because it made sense in terms of the location not because the DMG said so for dungeons.

Eventually because many parts of AD&D combat where written in a incomprehensive manner I said fuck it to RAW as far how initiative and character actions worked in AD&D combat. Instead I said that character can do a half-move and attack (or cast a spell). You can sub in other things for either but you only get one attack action. Also because I used minis positioning mattered.

From 1979 (the release of the DMG) to 1985, I ran the Wilderlands of High Fantasy using AD&D 1e. When a campaign finished I used what the PCs did as part of the background for the next campaign. By the time I went to college I done this successfully about a half of dozen times. This continued for a bit with AD&D until I discovered Fantasy Hero. I switched not because there was anything particularly wrong with AD&D but rather when it came to doing things outside of combat Fantasy Hero with skills allowed character to be better at those things in a formal way compared to the adhoc methods I was using up to that time.

And doing things outside of combat and spellcasting were just as important because that what needed to make trashing the setting interesting and challenging.

For next two decades I played Fantasy Hero and then switched to GURPS. When I got into writing and publishing I wasn't particularly interested in writing my own D&D rules. Nor I was interested in playing around with D&D 3.0. Instead I was interesting writing fantasy setting material and opted for a stat-lite approach. Figuring that I write there was a troll in a locale that you plug whatever is a troll in your edition or system.

I also wrote about how I handled campaign. While I may have changed system I evolved how I ran things. The heart of what I do today can found in the campaigns I ran in 1980.

What is that? You can find the short version in my Blackmarsh setting.
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/blackmarsh_srd.zip
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adventuring Advice
This format is designed to make it easy to referee players as they explore the world.  With a list of locales, it is easy for the referee to determine what is over the next hill and what possible challenges the players might face.  In addition, since the players can largely be left to their own devices, this format allows the referee more time to focus on the core adventures in his campaign.

Not every hex location has a description, and the background information is only meant to be a loose framework.  Referees are encouraged to add material and make the setting unique to their campaigns.

It is suggested that to get maximum use of this setting that the referee look over the locales, then chose the ones that best suit the campaign.  Note the NPCs and their circumstances.  Develop a timeline of events if the characters are not involved.  Detail important locales and add new ones of your own design.  Do the same for the NPCs, and make notes on their motivations and personalities.

After each session of the campaign, review what the players did.  Look at your original timeline of events, see what impact their actions had, and make the needed changes.  Sometimes the players' actions will lead to a new and unexpected chain of events. 

The creativity of the referee comes by not forcing his players to follow a predetermined story, but to develop new and interesting consequences based on the players' actions.  Use the NPC's motivations and personalities to decide which consequences are the most likely and pick the most interesting.

The result is a campaign where the players feel they are forging their character's destiny within a living, breathing world.  It will not only be fun and adventurous, but also filled with surprises.  Consequences will accumulate and spin the campaign into unexpected directions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

But after my first couple of projects I found out that I really need to get back into playing D&D to make the most of what I was trying to do. It by far the biggest audience to share things with even when one stuck with the classic editions. Thinks to the folks writing about how they used the classic editions, the forums and the research into the origins of our hobby and D&D. I had a lot more to go on than I did as high schooler circa 1980.

So I picked up with the house rules I finished AD&D with. Applied them to OD&D, and then added somethings to reflect that fact that I am still letting players trash my setting and that doing things outside of combat and spellcasting will still important. That players like being better at some of these things as their character.

The result was basically my Majestic Wilderlands supplement and slightly later a complete set of rules. I wrote a free basic version here.
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Majestic%20Fantasy%20Basic%20RPG%20Rev%2010.pdf

Then recently did a complete version and published it.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/337515/The-Majestic-Fantasy-RPG-Basic-Rules

So what the trick? It not in how I did it, or EOTB or how anybody else recommend handling in this thread. It all of our suggestion and more.

The trick is to figure out what kind of campaign you want to run. What your focus, what important to have, and above all what fun.
Then after that figure out what rules you need to handle it.

Of course it confusing at first which is why I recommend pick any edition and run a short campaign with RAW. Then add something. Then run that. Keep looping through successive campaign picking a little of that and a little of this until you have something you like.

I started with OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry because I knew out of all the classic editions that it had the flattest power curve having played it RAW (more or less, with OD&D being what it is, you have to pick and choose what interpretations to use for specific sections.) From my experience with AD&D, having dealt with Unearthed Arcana when it was first released. The difference between the creatures in the Monster Manual versus the Monster Manual II. I had a sense the PC inflation that was caused by various additions to D&D starting with the Greyhawk supplement.

Added to this is the influence of Judges Guild namely that every character had a level. Level wasn't a mark of a hero but rather that of experience.
In my Majestic Fantasy Rules I talk about it.

QuoteExperience
A character's Class Level is representative of the character's life experience. In general, all characters have a class and level. In some cases, hit dice and notes on special abilities may act as a shorthand when the full details of class and level are not needed.

Levels 1 to 2 are considered to be trained apprentices. Characters are nominally capable of doing the job of their class or profession, but still have more to learn before being considered a veteran or fully trained.

Level 3 is where characters are considered professionals within their class or profession. In a guild, this is the point where a character becomes a journeyman and is allowed to take employment with any master willing to hire them. Burglars will now be respected enough to run their own heists. Clerics become full priests of their religion, allowed to officiate at services and ceremonies. Fighters receive their first minor command. Finally, Magic-Users are considered fully trained and ready to make their own way in the world.

Level 6 is where characters are considered to have mastered their profession and ready to assume various leadership roles. In guilds, the character would be considered a master of their profession. Burglars gain control over the jobs and heists done in a neighborhood. A Cleric becomes eligible to be a bishop, responsible for the flock of a small region or city. Fighters start to independently command troops as a captain. Finally, Magic-Users start to take on apprentices to train and to assist them in their expanding array of research.

and so on. And keep in mind that Hit Dice align in part with character level. It not exact but in general a HD 3 creature is as dangerous or tough as a level 3 character.  In my setting a HD 12 creature is something what a character with Olympic caliber of skill would be needed to take on. Which I consider to be roughly 12th level.

I talk about how to make rulings using the classic editions. Along with how I run campaigns and bring the world outside the dungeon to life.

If you like I will be glad to comp you a PDF copy. Just send me a PM. I think you will find the two chapters of advice useful regardless of what edition you settle on.

Hope this helps.