Moldvay/Cook D&D > 1e AD&D. And still going strong...

Quote from: Benoist;366818Races as classes for the win there.

On the one hand, race-as-class really bugs me because why would every combatant of a race be exactly the same?

On the other hand, that DOES lend a more alien feeling to the culture. I think it would be pretty cool if this concept was broadened a bit, though. Afterall, why would the different races share the same spellcasting and fighting traditions as humans?

I could see Dwarves having something like Runesmiths, instead of Mages or Clerics...or Deepwardens instead of Fighters or Rogues.

Elves could have Spellsingers instead of Mages, or Seekers (arcane archers) instead of Rangers, or Blade Dancers.

Quote from: Shazbot79;366905On the one hand, race-as-class really bugs me because why would every combatant of a race be exactly the same?

On the other hand, that DOES lend a more alien feeling to the culture. I think it would be pretty cool if this concept was broadened a bit, though. Afterall, why would the different races share the same spellcasting and fighting traditions as humans?

I could see Dwarves having something like Runesmiths, instead of Mages or Clerics...or Deepwardens instead of Fighters or Rogues.

Elves could have Spellsingers instead of Mages, or Seekers (arcane archers) instead of Rangers, or Blade Dancers.

There were a couple of ways to rationalize why they were all the same, but on the other hand, the world of Mystara wasn't really one that required much rationalization.   At least, the way we played, the NPCs of the campaign basically knew the rulebook. "Why, don't be silly.  Of course elves can't do clerical magic."  Maybe we were doing it wrong, but I seem to recall some or most modules written in this way.

Now, if I had to rationalize it to a newer modern D&D player, I'd probably draw a comparison to things like Racial Paragon classes or whatever they're called in 4e:  The Elf and Dwarf PCs are the exemplars of their race.  They have the adventurer spirit.  When elves adventure, they commonly practice both magic and swordplay.  Blah Blah Blah.  Of course, there are plenty of elves that don't leave home.  They're 0th level and spend their time weaving leaf bikinis.

Quote from: winkingbishop;366913Now, if I had to rationalize it to a newer modern D&D player, I'd probably draw a comparison to things like Racial Paragon classes or whatever they're called in 4e:  The Elf and Dwarf PCs are the exemplars of their race.  They have the adventurer spirit.  When elves adventure, they commonly practice both magic and swordplay.  Blah Blah Blah.  Of course, there are plenty of elves that don't leave home.  They're 0th level and spend their time weaving leaf bikinis.

Shhh...you had me at "leaf bikinis"

Quote from: winkingbishop;366913There were a couple of ways to rationalize why they were all the same, but on the other hand, the world of Mystara wasn't really one that required much rationalization.   At least, the way we played, the NPCs of the campaign basically knew the rulebook. "Why, don't be silly.  Of course elves can't do clerical magic."

That's the way we took it, too. Part of the implied setting.

Quote from: winkingbishop;366913Now, if I had to rationalize it to a newer modern D&D player, I'd probably draw a comparison to things like Racial Paragon classes or whatever they're called in 4e:  The Elf and Dwarf PCs are the exemplars of their race.  They have the adventurer spirit.  When elves adventure, they commonly practice both magic and swordplay.

Good answer.

Quote from: winkingbishop;366913Of course, there are plenty of elves that don't leave home.  They're 0th level and spend their time weaving leaf bikinis.

Oh gawds, now I'm picturing a pointy-eared Borat running through the forest.

Where's the brain-bleach?

Well, you're all wrong.

2e was a bleached out, strung out mess of a game.  The early iterations were so ... generic, so utterly without any of the verve and flow of Gygax's AD&D masterpiece that it might as well have been SJG's "GURPS AD&D".  I believe Benoist hit one out of the park or at least off the back wall with "politically correct" (anyone ever seen the TSR Standards and Practices from BITD?).  The attempts to apply some texture and give the game less of a manky feel resulted in the scrambled wreck that was (what some call) "2.5e", the late 90's re-release of the rules.  Innumerable (forgettable) campaign settings, utter political correctness, entirely forgettable generic fantasy art - these are all the hallmarks of 2e, and are why its bad.  Perhaps the most unforgivable sin of 2e is the fact that it ushered in 3e.

The Rules Compendium (and lets put Frank Mentzer's forgettable take on the Moldvay/Cook edit of Basic D&D in there, too), were bland pap.  There wasn't anything wondrous about them.  The RC is particularly guilty of sitting there and not doing anything.  Its as though they put the OD&D rules through a juicer and kept the rind.  What remains is flavorless, forgettable, and completely without a sense of life or urgency in the writing, the way the rules are set up - okay, there are clerics, but what of gods? what of demons?  Where's my Sphere of Annihilation?  Where's my Deck of Many Things?  Devils?  Demons?  The whole thing is the 80s/90s Toyota Camry of RPGs.  Reliable, conservative, and utterly, utterly boring, in art and layout, too.

I do appreciate Original D&D.  Its easy to pick up, has a real seat of the pants feel to it, and (with the exception of the trainwreck of rules in Supplement II: Blackmoor) flows very nicely.  Its worst sin isn't its own fault and that is that it is the sine non qua of the hipster "OSR", wherein vintage game tourists have a scrum over who has more tightly embraced ye auld schoole.  I swear its like watching two people claiming they visit Epcot for the cuisine and the architecture...  But again, not OD&D's fault.  No.  Original D&D is a great game.  Problematically, I want to include a lot of the stuff that's in Supplements I and III (and a little of II) and what's in back issues of The Strategic Review (and The Dragon)...and I find myself winding up playing AD&D but with far more frail and difficult to replace books...!  So it is my second favorite D&D (Moldvay/Cook basic are a distant - but still ranked! - 3rd).

So that leaves us with...AD&D.  Surprise!  AD&D has texture, it has a deep background in a lot of Gary's campaigns and Gary's house rules.  This infuses the game with a sense of wonder and mystery that is too strong a draw for me to ignore.  The flavor - poisons, gems and reputed properties, herbs, city encounters (sigh...you mongs know the table I mean) - it all combines to really make the game pop for me.  Is it flawless?  Certainly not.  Find me a great concert album without the occasional sour note, though.  The actual 1's and 0's, the mechanics themselves, are really no more complicated than OD&D's.  Yes, initiative is a bear under some circumstances.  Yes there's a point of confusion over magic armor/weapon weights.  So. What.  Doesn't make the rest of it not brilliant.  The rules are less parochial than they are an open letter from a DM (Gary) to us.  Of course, some grumblers and grousers may complain about the layout, and to a degree they're right.  But the Dungeon Masters Guide isn't meant to be Procedural.  Its object oriented.  Or, if I may put it more simply: use the fuckin' index and quit griping already.  AD&D's adventures were brutal and merciless to players who wanted things handed to them as a reward for mediocre play.  The modules are Spartan, and are meant to be fleshed out and integrated by the attentive and careful-minded DM, not open and played flat out.  The layout is stark and easy to read (honestly, I'd like to give repeated open-handed slaps to the moron who decided that those cockroach-wing-colored pages were a good idea for 3e's books), and most of the artwork rates a 10 of 10 (some of it is just flat ugly though, I will admit).

Oh, and Kellri?  I'm telling on you.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;366965Well, you're all wrong.

Well, no, not really, I'm not.

In terms of rules, Moldvay/Cook B/X D&D and OD&D are tied for first place, for me, with AD&D (1e) and RC D&D tied in second place.

In terms of flavour, 1e AD&D wins, hands down, with Moldvay/Cook B/X D&D in second.

Quote from: Akrasia;366989In terms of rules, Moldvay/Cook B/X D&D and OD&D are tied for first place, for me, with AD&D (1e) and RC D&D tied in second place.

In terms of flavour, 1e AD&D wins, hands down, with Moldvay/Cook B/X D&D in second.

Hey, hi there. Long time no see!

Quote from: thedungeondelver;366965Well, you're all wrong.

I was hoping to avoid that tone in this thread, gramps.  ;P

Rest of the post was well thought-out, though.

Thanks to everyone so far, it's been an interesting read.  The reason I had asked is I've been itching to run an old-school game for a while now, and wanted to get some general impressions from people who've actually played older editions.  Most of my friends started playing with 3rd edition, but a lot of them are familiar with older-style RPGs through rogue-likes (one of them doesn't play tabletop, but I have a feeling I could get him to if it was AD&D or something).

I've been leaning heavily towards the RC and AD&D, since I own both.  RC because it's simpler and well laid-out, AD&D because it's closer to what I like in D&D (in terms of races, classes, etc.).  Still deciding whether I would use AD&D BtB or something like Labyrinth Lord Advanced Edition, since it gets rid of the messier bits.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;366965Well, you're all wrong.

:rolleyes:

I love AD&D, and I love Basic D&D.

Basic was my introduction to the hobby, bought in an archaic cave called a "Waldenbooks".

My friends and I quickly exhausted the red box and I graduated to AD&D.

I love AD&D precisely for the reasons many folks hate it: the serious homebrewing that went on.

I loved sitting in on games and seeing how different they were from one another.

One of the reasons every game felt different was all the different things people were cooking in: variant classes (from Dragon, from Role Aids, from Complete series, from White Dwarf), mixing and matching settings and gods (Thieves World in Lankhmar, with the Cthulhu Mythos in play? sure!) even different games were cobbled together (I sat in on more than a few games using the Rolemaster crit tables).

It really had a "kitchen sink" vibe.

I am suprised that people get so beat up on 2e. My favourite eddition and the one I still play.
We had house ruled AD&D we just rolled all that into 2e but stuff was easier to find and for me 2e was the roleplayers' edition.
All the new stuff, kits, priestly spheres, schools of magic were ways to extend the roleplaying element. If you played a peasant hero kit , you didn't get extra feats and bonus attacks and super blah blah, you got a reaction bonus and a place to hide if you needed a helping hand. Priests and spheres actually limited clerics and made them more believable.

Yes things got a little tougher with specialisation and fighting styles but again a lot of that aided Role play as did theives skill specialisation.

Thei it was washed out and politically correct bollocks I just don't get. They took out demons, apparently, shit I didn't even notice cos i just used the old monster manual or made all the monsters up like I always did.

So for me 2e was all good up until Skills and Powers. I actually think that 3e should have taken the concept of skills and powers and done it properly but a comprehensive toolkit is never a good marketing plan as you give the players all the rules they will ever need in a single book so they don;t need you any more and most players are too lazy to be bothered anyway.

Quote from: winkingbishop;366913There were a couple of ways to rationalize why they were all the same, but on the other hand, the world of Mystara wasn't really one that required much rationalization.   At least, the way we played, the NPCs of the campaign basically knew the rulebook. "Why, don't be silly.  Of course elves can't do clerical magic."  Maybe we were doing it wrong, but I seem to recall some or most modules written in this way.

My take, and I don't claim it's correct, is of course elves had clerics and dwarves have thieves and magic users,  it's just that for thematic and game balance reasons these are simply not normally available as player characters, any more the centaurs and nymphs.

I mean if lowly kobolds can have both shamen and wokani, it's hard to imagine more advance races not having a crack at it?

Quote from: Soylent Green;367030My take, and I don't claim it's correct, is of course elves had clerics and dwarves have thieves and magic users,  it's just that for thematic and game balance reasons these are simply not normally available as player characters, any more the centaurs and nymphs.

I mean if lowly kobolds can have both shamen and wokani, it's hard to imagine more advance races not having a crack at it?

True enough.  And, no way, I don't think you're wrong.  I think the game left a lot open to interpretation.  And I loved it for that.