Ah, ok! I knew it had something to do with reducing hits or damage or something, just wasn't sure what it was.DR or Damage Resistance essentially absorbs damage. Sort of like magic resistance, but with physical damage and not percentile based. For instance, if you have DR 5, then any attack does 5 less damage. So an attack that deals 10 damage only does 5. An attack that deals 3 damage does 0. And so on.
I see your point about how 1E could be convoluted and hard to understand at times. I agree. But again, I'd prefer to have writing that takes some thought to truly understand than something like:Eh, just because you can figure something out doesn't mean it can't be made easier to understand. I can understand Yoda's speech patterns, but it takes a few seconds more than if he just talked like a normal person. That doesn't mean I'm stupid or that Yoda is just too smart for me. It just means it's not as intuitive.
"In order to do damage, one must first score a hit" (duh!)
...or things like that.
Or the excessive, hysterical "warnings" about the imminent, campaign destroying effects of ignoring nonsense like humano-centric worlds and demi-human level limits.
It just came off as condescending.True, people tend to like or prefer the game they started with. And sometimes a game or edition comes along that they find better. But if it was the case that most people transfer to the new editions, there wouldn't be so many forums like here, BIP, DF, etc., dedicated to 1E and 2E (exclusively or mainly so). Out of all the old players I've been in touch with over the years since 3E came out, not one of them went for 3E. Not one.3E gamers were so pissed when 4E was released, they went and created an entirely new game called Pathfinder just so they could continue playing the version they wanted.
There are always people upset about a new edition. Always. But they are always a minority. As many people who refused to switch to 2E as there were, there were far more people who did switch. And same with 2E to 3E and 3E to 4E and 4E to 5E.
But there really weren't random critical hits in 1E or 2E. Not until the Player's Options nonsense came out. All the epic level superhero nonsense really got its roots in Player's Options, then bloomed to full fruition in 3E, where it became part and parcel of the game. 3E was really a turning point. 1E and 2E were more about playing a character, roleplaying the development of that character, and (especially in early 1E) testing the gaming skills of the player. With 3E there was a massive emphasis on powers and skills and feats. Everything was about power and points. It read like a card game, it felt like a card game, and it played like a card game. When I sold off my 3E junk and went into gaming stores, I was shocked by what I saw. Had I not recognized a few game terms borrowed from AD&D, I would not have guessed that those people were playing a D&D-based game. I'd have thought it was a card game. There was virtually no actual roleplaying going on. It was really just players calling out numbers and scores and declaring which feat they were using. Aside from similar terminology, I saw no relation to any D&D game I ever played.I'd agree, compared to older editions. But this was largely because of roleplaying. It's hard to get invested in a character who has a high chance of dying to a random critical hit. Why bother putting in the effort of coming up with an elaborate backstory and deep, nuanced personality then?
In my experience, players back then thought up a general, simple background for their character and then developed it from there. As the character leveled up, his "story" grew.
I would too! Yeah, a few of my players once wanted to try the Players Options rules. They thought it would be cool to cut off the arms of the villains, break their legs, etc. Until they realized the rules applied to them too. Not much fun when your barbarian is limping around on crutches from having broken legs after the dragon dropped him out of the sky (an actual occurrence). Well...not for the players, at least...Same with level draining and other permanent injuries. I once played a game where the DM came up with a special critical hit table that dealt permanent, maiming injuries. My character got hit with two crits and lost an arm. As he was a fighter who used a two-handed weapon, this basically made him useless. We were low level, so regeneration wasn't possible. I lost all interest in the game after that.
They asked for it.
I could swear they got multiple attacks much earlier. Do you know the actual number of attacks per level (or does anyone else)? I know they all get more. In AD&D, clerics, thieves, druids, wizards and others never get more than 1 attack per round. Only fighter classes. But again, regardless of the number of attacks, why would the wizard not haste the entire party in every combat? I would! Short on time while climbing the mountain or running out of the dungeon? Just use haste!Yeah, by like, 20th level. A 2E party at that level is pretty unstoppable, too.
No, they were the majority who raised their voices and were heard. If I use my experience as any guide, for every 1 person who ever whined about needing a system shock roll or resurrection survival roll when hasted or polymorphed or what not, there were 50 who didn't whine. Same for the difficulty of getting a resurrection, or having just 1 hp when raised from the dead and needing days of bed rest. I rarely ever heard complaints. Granted, nobody likes level drains. My players were generally pretty mature about it, but they hated it. Who doesn't? But I have to admit, level drains certainly made for some amazing tension and excitement in the game! I think this goes back to Garhkal's points about video games. The less mature people wanted to turn AD&D into D&D - The Video Game Edition, where all you needed to do if something bad happened was reboot the game or press restart. The instant, quick fix mentality came over from video games. But that's not what the spirit of AD&D is about.Enough people to get them changed in later editions. They were the majority, you just don't seem to want to see that.
Sure, in the earliest days it was more about testing the player. As you mentioned, the game originated from war-gaming roots. So those early games were more about testing the player, with the character being more a chess piece with a back-story and future goals. Later in 1E and much more so in 2E, there was more emphasis on character development. But there's no reason both can't exist in the same game. Our games were always like that. The main goal, obviously, was to survive. And surviving meant you could continue to develop your character and his "story". One feeds off the other. That was really how later 1E and 2E were - a mix of testing the player and developing the character.Exactly. The purpose was not to create a shared story, it was to survive. To live long enough to reach the higher levels. I don't condemn that sort of playstyle, but it's just not as popular anymore. There's a reason there is no equivalent to Tomb of Horrors in later editions. It's just a grind-fest to see who lives the longest.
Oh dear god, I cannot imagine 3E+ players playing Tomb of Horrors! Their heads would explode from crying!
I'm not really complaining about it per se, as it doesn't affect my gaming. I'm simply ripping on it because, well...it's fun to rip on it because it sucked so much.I don't get why you care so much. You understand 3E is a dead edition, right? In fact, the edition that replaced it is also a dead edition. Like, seriously, 3E has been dead for 10 years now. You're complaining about something that the rest of the world has largely moved on from. Hell, most kids today think of 3E as being 'old school' now.
Same for 3.5E and so on. If 1E was the wheel and 2E was an improved tire, then 3E was a square wooden wheel. It was de-evolution. It killed the spirit of what AD&D was. Again, not that I care. I bought the original 3E DMG and PHB, then sold it for the same price I paid for it. No loss there. I have more 1E and 2E material than I can ever use. Like I said, it's just fun to compare AD&D to 3E, 3.5E, 4E, 5E (that's a lot of editions in a little time!) and how it changed totally for the worse. I think that was from someone else's post, but I would say most 3E DMs allowed it. The analogy doesn't work for me though, because it is assumed that a mage studies spells while resting, in between adventures, etc. Same for a fighter training with new weapons. But for a 3E character to "take a level" of ranger, or druid, etc....that's like going to school for a law degree, then after getting a job as a lawyer saying "I think I'll dabble in dentistry this month, and then next month try my hand at the NFL...".You only instantly level up if the DM allows you to. Even in the older editions, there were optional rules for training.
You could make the same argument that it doesn't make sense for a fighter to just learn a new weapon proficiency or for a mage to just suddenly know third level spells.
Oh, I'd say you're both right. It was a two-way street. Video games grabbed onto the D&D phenomenon (I remember the original Atari D&D video game!). Then, over time, the mentality of the video game crept back into D&D as computers and video games became more affordable and available to more people. At some point, 3E decided to cater to the video game style of gaming, which is why it plays so much like a video game.Honestly, I think you all have it backwards. Video games were influenced by D&D, not the other way around. Just look at the Elder Scrolls or Dragon Age. Very obviously D&D inspired.
, it's because the game was designed to be flexible and the rules worked! And I had players do just that - create pirates and what not using the rules and classes available. It as all about the roleplaying, not the feats and kewl powerz.
