D&D 1E Mearls on AD&D 1E

[ExploderWizard]

I found the preceding paragraph relevant as well.

I'm still processing what's happening in the group. The group is often engaged, but not at the level I'm accustomed to with Burning Wheel. Interactions with the system are simple and brief. Either a die roll or two, or the selection of an expendable resource. The engagement via the caller and mapper is also very high. There's a little character play, but nothing as intense as what I'm used to. But the decisions are so fraught with peril, I have nightmares later that night (as does another one of the players). We call it PTSD&D.

Poor Luke. Always engaging the system instead of the game world. Never his mind on where he was, what he was doing. Failed AD&D he has.

 

[pogre]

Having played and run some 1e recently, Mearl's observations rang true to me. The system does matter, but it is a style of play too. I do think the various editions absolutely lend themselves to a given style of play. That does not mean you cannot do other things with the system(s), but Mearl's fairly well described our playstyle when it comes to early edition D&D.

 

[ccs]

Hardly... it's a couple of pages, so a little more significant than a random encounter. Plus I gave it some story significance in terms of linking the various modules...

Maybe I'm thinking of the random swamp chart in U3.

 

[mightybrain]

Reading this thread sent me searching for more from Luke Gygax. This video is a very interesting watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD6FHnf1Xyc

In it, Luke (who's played the game since he was 4 years old) talks a bit about his DM-ing style and how to keep a sense of wonder even when you're playing with the guy who wrote the rulebook. It seems that he likes to challenge his players no matter how experienced they might be, and I'm guessing that's what Mike is waxing lyrical about.

 

[KenNYC]

Hi, just a lurker here. As an old grognard, I would say the difference is with 1e you the person will have to be engaged (as in put the character sheet down and think of the solution) whereas in modern style the default reaction to everything is look at your sheet and find the stat to solve the problem. 1e you can get creeped out because you are in the moment, 5e and other Es not so much because the moment you go to your sheet you are out of the moment and not immersed. I have DMed some old D&D and AD&D advs in 5e for 5e players, and up and down the line the first thing every player does is go to their sheet to solve the puzzle: "Can I make an Arcana check?", when the puzzle would make more of a mark if the player would forget their stats and just try to solve the puzzle..or figure out the tactic that will beat the seemingly unbeatable. Just soak it in and not have an internal debate about whether you should try an acrobatics attempt or an athletics attempt because one gives you an extra plus on your roll.

 

[darjr]

Hi, just a lurker here. As an old grognard, I would say the difference is with 1e you the person will have to be engaged (as in put the character sheet down and think of the solution) whereas in modern style the default reaction to everything is look at your sheet and find the stat to solve the problem. 1e you can get creeped out because you are in the moment, 5e and other Es not so much because the moment you go to your sheet you are out of the moment and not immersed. I have DMed some old D&D and AD&D advs in 5e for 5e players, and up and down the line the first thing every player does is go to their sheet to solve the puzzle: "Can I make an Arcana check?", when the puzzle would make more of a mark if the player would forget their stats and just try to solve the puzzle..or figure out the tactic that will beat the seemingly unbeatable. Just soak it in and not have an internal debate about whether you should try an acrobatics attempt or an athletics attempt because one gives you an extra plus on your roll.

You can run 5e that way if you wan't. I ask the players "What do you do?" with the check only a fallback, just in case. Older D&D had stat checks as well.

 

[the_redbeard]

You can run 5e that way if you wan't. I ask the players "What do you do?" with the check only a fallback, just in case. Older D&D had stat checks as well.

Not 1e nor OD&D. Many might have used something as a house rule, but most old school versions did not actually have stat checks.

There's also a HUGE difference between a tool for the DM adjudication (the ability to call for a stat check) and the player expectation of using an ability on a skill check.

Players engage the environment as they, the players, are tested in the ideal 1e. The post 3.x expectation is a test of a _character_ ability so players are drawn to engage with their character sheet instead of the imagined environment.

 

[superstition]

AD&D worked in part because the entire game is one, giant puzzle. Everything is just out of conceptual reach.

Wrong.

AD&D is chock full of quite specific rules.

There is a lot of nebulous rhetoric in that opening excerpt.

I like 1e a lot but I also think it is far from perfect. I thought edition warring is frowned upon here? The opening excerpt seems like an invitation for it, with its overblown imprecise language.

I am reminded of audiophile product reviews.

 

[Azzy]

Not 1e nor OD&D. Many might have used something as a house rule, but most old school versions did not actually have stat checks.

Not quite true. Ability checks first (as far as I know) appeared in Moldvay's D&D Basic Set (1980). And, while 1e AD&D didn't originally have such a rule to begin with, it did appear in publication (outside of The Dragon magazine or 3PP) as early as 1984 in the Dragonlance module DL2 Dragons of Flame (it may have appeared earlier elsewhere, but I can't attest to it). From there, Nonweapon Proficiencies appeared in Oriental Adventures (1985), Dungeoneer's Survival Guide (1986), and Wilderness Survival Guide (1986).

 

[mightybrain]

"Can I make an Arcana check?"

I think that's a faux pas in any edition of the game. A player might well ask if his character knows anything about this puzzle given her background as a scribe in Candlekeep. The DM might then decide yes, or ask for a Intelligence (Arcana) check to get a clue. But (as far as I'm aware) it's only the DM that may ask for an ability check in any edition of the game. It seems like a small thing, but the cumulative effect on a player of letting their character sheet run things could well break the spell of the game.

As a DM, I think the recommended response when a player asks to make a check like this, is "what is your intent?" If you're consistent, the issue should go away over time.