Playing AD&D 1st Ed: Some Questions

[ritt]

Shortly I'll be joining a campaign of AD&D 1. I played it (A lot) as a teen in the eighties, and I've since played and ran a lot of Labyrinth Lord with all the Advanced Edition trimmings (A sorta-retroclone of AD&D), so I'm not completely unfamiliar with the game, but some things are still vexing me...

First up, does it ever say anywhere in the PHB, the DMG, or UA how much damage a non-monk does with an unarmed strike? I seem to remember it being 1d2 but for the life of me I can't find it anywhere in the texts.

Thanks in advance for any info.

[bravewolf]

It is in the DMG and your estimate is about right. Unearthed Arcana gives three methods of unarmed fighting. Damage is comparable.

[ritt]

Thanks!

That will probably be only the first of many questions.

[Falconer]

I always used “System I” from p. 106 of Unearthed Arcana. It’s the sort of light OD&Dish method that I can wrap my head around. And internalize and freely adapt.

[Scott Anderson]

If Gary were here, he would ask you, "Well, how would you handle it?" And whatever you told him, he would probably say, "That sounds good. Go with that."

Before and after the commoditization of AD&D, Gary was all about house rules. You can be too!

[Falconer]

Sure, Scott Anderson, & I have no qualms with making a spot ruling, & Advanced D&D does encourage such. However, it is kind of nice to try & see what Uncle Gary wrote, & how the brotherhood of DMs tends to handle it. For some people, reinventing the wheel is part of their enjoyment of the hobby; for others, if it ain’t broke (as is often the case when a rule is borne of experience & consensus), we’ll be happy to agree to go with it, & save our creativity for other aspects of the hobby. Uniformity of rules from table to table certainly is not the most important thing in RPGs, but, where it exists it is a happy bonus, in my eyes.

[terrex]

Nevermind

[Gene M.]

Discussion of morale rules in another thread reminded me of a question I wanted to ask. I've never run AD&D, and I was thinking of giving it a try. One question about morale--the 1e rules seem pretty granular and fiddly. How do they work out in play? Or do most refs just make a call and get on with it?

[foster1941]

Do some sample/test calculations outside of play to get a feel for how the system works - how all the situational modifiers play out and what kind of effect they have. Once you’ve got an instinctive feeling for all of that, in practice you come up with an estimated morale value based on the circumstances and then roll against that to determine if the individuals hold, fall back, flee, or surrender.

[Gene M.]

I figured something like that--less about the specific modifiers than internalizing when/how to modify per circumstances. Thanks for the reply.

[Finarvyn]

Mar 10, 2018 12:01:03 GMT -6 Gene M. said:

Discussion of morale rules in another thread reminded me of a question I wanted to ask. I've never run AD&D, and I was thinking of giving it a try. One question about morale--the 1e rules seem pretty granular and fiddly. How do they work out in play? Or do most refs just make a call and get on with it?

Back in high school, when AD&D first came out, my group sort of fragmented into two schools of thought:
(1) The OD&D way was to "wing it"
(2) The AD&D way was to look it up in the book.

In other words, our AD&D players took the stance that the rulebook had been expanded and codified for a reason and that the answer to any question ought to be somehow in the book. Personally I've never subscribed to that thinking, but I can see where one might do so successfully. My take on this would be to use the AD&D rules as a guide, revel in the details of the rules as given, but don't let the rulebook slow the action during play. I think what turned me off to AD&D was the fact that my DM would stop action for 10-15 minutes while he frantically would search for a rule somewhere, and that's just not a good way to run a session. In a game make a ruling off the cuff and let the players know that later on you might contradict this ruling in the future if you unearth a rune on the matter, but keep the play going.

Just my two coppers on the topic.

[Gene M.]

Mar 11, 2018 7:02:48 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Mar 10, 2018 12:01:03 GMT -6 Gene M. said:

Discussion of morale rules in another thread reminded me of a question I wanted to ask. I've never run AD&D, and I was thinking of giving it a try. One question about morale--the 1e rules seem pretty granular and fiddly. How do they work out in play? Or do most refs just make a call and get on with it?

Back in high school, when AD&D first came out, my group sort of fragmented into two schools of thought:
(1) The OD&D way was to "wing it"
(2) The AD&D way was to look it up in the book.

In other words, our AD&D players took the stance that the rulebook had been expanded and codified for a reason and that the answer to any question ought to be somehow in the book. Personally I've never subscribed to that thinking, but I can see where one might do so successfully. My take on this would be to use the AD&D rules as a guide, revel in the details of the rules as given, but don't let the rulebook slow the action during play. I think what turned me off to AD&D was the fact that my DM would stop action for 10-15 minutes while he frantically would search for a rule somewhere, and that's just not a good way to run a session. In a game make a ruling off the cuff and let the players know that later on you might contradict this ruling in the future if you unearth a rune on the matter, but keep the play going.

Just my two coppers on the topic.

The OD&D way is pretty much my way in any game I referee, whether it's OD&D proper, Moldvay, 5th edition, Runequest, Paranoia (who even needs rules for that?) etc. With AD&D I know I could just run it the same way, in which case it would end up something like OD&D or Basic with more classes. I feel like if I'm going to play it to know what the fuss is all about I should at least start out trying to do it by the book. In other words I want to start by giving Gary the benefit of the doubt that his complicated systems might work.

However, I imagine if I got a campaign going I would probably end up refereeing it the way I do everything else--with an eye to simplicity, speed, and common sense ("getting on with it"). 

I wish more people played OD&D and learned its lessons. I'm a player in a Call of Cthulhu campaign and the referee in it is so concerned to play by the book that it can really slow down play. He's gotten better over time at just winging it but takes system mastery as a point of pride I think. OD&D has also made me think a lot about how we write rules for games. I think it would be better for a rulebook to teach principles of adjudication rather than having a rule for each situation.

[Finarvyn]

Mar 11, 2018 7:32:08 GMT -6 Gene M. said:

I think it would be better for a rulebook to teach principles of adjudication rather than having a rule for each situation.

Exactly! I tried to put a little of that into my S&W WB rules set, but the best way to learn it is to experience it. Many of my games involved "just pick up some die and roll it" moments where I really wasn't interested in the die type as much as a high/low result. Might as well have been a coin flip. The OD&D rulebooks are so slim compared to modern rulebooks, and that is a huge part of the influence in style of play. If a rulebook tells you how to do things, you sort of expect it to tell you how to do other things. Slippery slope.

[foster1941]

Gary Gygax absolutely intended and expected that AD&D would and should be run in what Fin describes as the OD&D style - the advice in the DMG all says to run it that way, and that’s certainly the way he ran it himself. All of the extra rules and details are there for three reasons:

Number one is to give the DM a more solid understanding of the hows and whys of the rules so that his or her judgment calls will likely be more in line with what other DMs with the same understanding would do in the same situation - so there’s lots of stuff about things like expected rate of advancement and what level of reward vs risk is appropriate and how spells are granted and what hit points represent and so on. All of that stuff is intended to get the DM into the mind space where they can make judgment calls and additions that are consistent with the spirit of the rules.

Number two is to make player characters more robust generally, and especially other PCs more robust compared to magic-users, but also to slow the pace of advancement in order to lengthen the default campaign. In OD&D a starting character fits on an index card and isn’t much different than any other starting character of the same class (and, if you’re not using the supplements, not even that much different than a starting character of a different class). It’s only at higher levels where characters begin to feel really differentiated and distinct but a lot of characters either (depending on the DM) never make it that far or alternatively are allowed to get there so quickly that big chunks of the rulebooks become almost irrelevant (I.e. if everybody hits “name” level within just a handful of sessions). AD&D adds a lot more detail and flavor to PCs to make them seem more distinctive and fully formed right from the beginning of play, and also to make them more redilient so that, at least as long as the player plays them well, they’re more likely to survive and not be undone by one or two bad rolls. This unquestionably makes the process of creating new characters take longer, and there’s a lot more stuff that needs to be rolled or calculated or chosen and the character details definitely won’t fit on an index card, but all of that was considered a reasonable trade-off, both because most of that calculation and look-up stuff only has to be done once, before play starts, so it doesn’t slow down play, and also because the idea of the “Advanced” game was that at least most of the players would have already experienced the original game and gotten a handle on the basic concepts there so they would be equipped to take on some more depth and detail. Which brings us to...

Number three is that AD&D deliberately added a lot of granular detail both to add flavor and to make the game more tactically complex for “Advanced” players who appreciate that sort of added detail and think it creates a deeper and richer experience. Weapons don’t just have a price and a damage rating, they also have length and speed values that can affect combat and that the players should consider when choosing them. Spells have defined material components that both add flavor (and are sometimes anachronistic jokes) but can also become a logistical concern and a factor in deciding which spells to memorize. Even the morale table demonstrates this - it doesn’t sent just determine whether morale holds or breaks but shows how it breaks - retreat, flee, or surrender - depending on how badly the roll failed. For experienced and advanced players, particularly those who’ve been playing the original game for a while and may have grown jaded or bored with it, this type of added detail and granularity can make the game seem more fresh and challenging and lead to a richer experience and longer campaigns. Yes it can also seem overwhelming, especially if you’re trying to internalize it all at once, and can seem unnecessarily overcomplicated, but the key there is that almost all of it is modular - that the simple OD&D framework is still there underneath and it’s totally within the scope and expected use of AD&D to mix and match which Advanced elements are actually used and which are glossed over, as well as to add more of the options gradually as everyone becomes more comfortable and added detail and granularity feels more attractive. The segment-based surprise rules in AD&D are complex and hard to understand by reading them without seeing a demonstration, and other sections of the rules don’t seem quite compatible with them, even. The game works fine if you just ignore all that and say surprise = one free round of action. But if you do understand it and apply all of the details, then the game becomes more tactical and how to take advantage of surprise becomes something that good players will be able to consider and work with and reap the benefits of, if that’s the flavor of game you want and you think your players will appreciate and enjoy it.

If OD&D can be thought of as more of an idea of a game than an actual game (that it presents a concept, but the DM inevitably ends up as a de-facto co-author by making judgment calls and filling in holes), then AD&D could similarly be thought of as more like a dream of a game - that reading all of the rules with their seemingly endless complexity creates an imaginary world where all of these intertwining parts connect and intertwine, and even though as a practical matter at the table you’re almost certainly not actually going to use all of that complexity, there’s always the dream that you will next time.

[Gene M.]

Foster, that was an excellent post and makes me feel confident about trying out AD&D without worrying too much that I am not quite capturing the flavor of it. Particularly as I can, if I need to, start simple and add complexity.

A couple months back I reread the PHB and DMG. I like the idea of segments, casting times, and the potential for spell interruption or getting off a spell just in time (although you can find ways of doing that in other D&D editions). For OD&D I use the weapon priority system from Judges Guild, and with Moldvay I just use the standard system, so having something a bit more detailed seemed like it might make for interesting combats. That's one reason I was thinking of trying it out, as well as 1. giving the players more class options as they seem to enjoy that, and 2. I've never run the classic AD&D modules using AD&D rules (instead just OD&D or Basic on the fly).

I've also been revisiting the Greyhawk folio and box. I've never used the Greyhawk setting (usually just homebrew it), and the idea of a ramble through Hommlet is appealing at the moment.

[sixdemonbag]

Ok, so confession time. I've only ever read (and own) the MM, MM2, and FF in PDF. I've never actually read the PHB or the DMG.

Would you all say that these would be worth checking out even if I have no plans on ever running 1E? For background, my first D&D was RC and 2E, and I've been running OD&D for the last year or so.

[foster1941]

The Players Handbook probably wouldn’t be that interesting, but I’d say the DMG is worth reading. Not for the rules content (of which there isn’t really that much) as for all the essays and anecdotes and lists and tables of random worldbuilding color.

[geoffrey]

I started with Holmes in 1980 and soon thereafter acquired Gary's AD&D tomes. We played AD&D for decades before switching to OD&D for many years. In recent years we've switched back to AD&D because of not wanting to keep reinventing the wheel. For example, all those real-world animals (both historic and pre-historic) in the Monster Manual. What was to be gained by making up my own stats for an elephant, a triceratops, a cave bear, and all the rest? Gary had already done it for me. I can and do play AD&D "OD&D style", simply having better organized books with additional stuff I can use or ignore, better art, and a higher Gygaxian language.

[Finarvyn]

Mar 11, 2018 12:35:22 GMT -6 sixdemonbag said:

Ok, so confession time. I've only ever read (and own) the MM, MM2, and FF in PDF. I've never actually read the PHB or the DMG.

Would you all say that these would be worth checking out even if I have no plans on ever running 1E? For background, my first D&D was RC and 2E, and I've been running OD&D for the last year or so.

The DMG for certain, but I'd read both. Gygax has a way with words that is a lot more fun to read than most modern RPG books.

[geoffrey]

Mar 11, 2018 13:55:20 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Gygax has a way with words...

Yep. I think he was at his highest Gygaxian in 1978-79. Some of the passages in modules D2 and D3 are the highest of High Gygaxian.

[Gene M.]

No matter what edition of D&D I'm running, I keep the DMG handy.

[oakesspalding]

Mar 11, 2018 14:34:11 GMT -6 Piper said:

Mar 11, 2018 14:29:45 GMT -6 Gene M. said:

No matter what edition of D&D I'm running, I keep the DMG handy.

JG’s Ready Ref Sheets are pretty handy, too!

The DMG is the most glorious tome in the history of the hobby. Glorious in that on the one-hand, some things in it are so insanely overly detailed, complicated and/or unplayable, and other things so clearly helped to lay the groundwork or continue it, for later "new-school" horribles. On the other hand, every time I spend an additional ten minutes flipping through it again, I discover yet another brilliant little gaming gem - often expressed in Gygax's inimitable prose - that I had forgotten about, or completely missed in the first place.

The Ready Ref sheets might just be the most glorious short play-aid in the history of the hobby. It gives you a ton of stuff in a few pages but still leaves you wanting more. In my view, that's, ironically, almost RPG play-aid perfection. You want more so . . . you make it.

[scottenkainen]

Mar 10, 2018 12:01:03 GMT -6 Gene M. said:

Discussion of morale rules in another thread reminded me of a question I wanted to ask. I've never run AD&D, and I was thinking of giving it a try. One question about morale--the 1e rules seem pretty granular and fiddly. How do they work out in play? Or do most refs just make a call and get on with it?

I love the AD&D morale rules.

Growing up with published modules, our group would often have monsters fight to the death unless the module said otherwise. It was not until much later that I realized that combat is really about forcing the other side to surrender or run. Back in the day, I might not have referred to the morale table until the combat was almost won. Now, I might start rolling for morale as soon as the first round of combat.

Of course, the results rolled have to fit the situation or they get ignored (like, if your opponents are cornered and the results say they run away, then they can't and don't.

[scottenkainen]

Mar 11, 2018 13:55:20 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

The DMG for certain, but I'd read both. Gygax has a way with words that is a lot more fun to read than most modern RPG books.

As I understand it, Gary wrote maybe half of the DMG, and the other half is all Judges Guild material by Bob Blake or submissions that Bob was compiling.

[Todd]

The DMG and the Ready Reference Sheets are both awesome. I like the PHB too but it’s less of a constantly used resource for me.

Re: monsters, it’s pretty trivial to convert them from AD&D to D&D— check the guidelines in the RC— so that was never a particular driver for me playing one over the other. I tend to prefer the simplicity of 0E but I appreciate the extra tactical detail in a lot of the added mechanics. I was just never sure I could integrate them well.

[foster1941]

Mar 16, 2018 9:20:24 GMT -6 scottenkainen said:

Mar 11, 2018 13:55:20 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

The DMG for certain, but I'd read both. Gygax has a way with words that is a lot more fun to read than most modern RPG books.

As I understand it, Gary wrote maybe half of the DMG, and the other half is all Judges Guild material by Bob Blake or submissions that Bob was compiling.

That’s very obviously not even remotely close to being true. Have you ever read the AD&D DMG? If so, what material in it do you think Bob Blake wrote?

[Zenopus]

Mar 16, 2018 14:31:47 GMT -6 foster1941 said:

Mar 16, 2018 9:20:24 GMT -6 scottenkainen said:

As I understand it, Gary wrote maybe half of the DMG, and the other half is all Judges Guild material by Bob Blake or submissions that Bob was compiling.

That’s very obviously not even remotely close to being true. Have you ever read the AD&D DMG? If so, what material in it do you think Bob Blake wrote?

Yeah, I've never heard that either. Bob Blake wrote all of two tournament modules for Judges Guild. Scott, you must mean Bob Bledsaw, co-founder of Judges Guild. He's credited generally in the Credits & Acknowledgments section of the DMG, with the "improvement of fantasy adventure gaming, making the undertaking easier and encouraging still more interest in the playing". It's a far step from that to writing half of the DMG, which is remarkably consistent in writing style for such a sprawling (topic-wise) tome. On what are you basing this assertion?

[scottenkainen]

You are correct; I meant Bledsaw, not Blake. Too many Bob's for me, apparently.

Remain skeptical while I try to recall my source.

[bravewolf]

Mar 16, 2018 22:02:10 GMT -6 scottenkainen said:

You are correct; I meant Bledsaw, not Blake. Too many Bob's for me, apparently.

Remain skeptical while I try to recall my source.

I am also skeptical - but very interested in what you have to say.

Mad props for the second line in the quoted text; sounds like a line from a cantankerous sage!

[scottenkainen]

Okay, I *think* my source wasn't online, but from a conversation with Harold Johnson. Does anyone know Harold well enough to ask him?