Thank the gods for Labyrinth Lord!

[elf23]

I just played my first ever session of 1st edition AD&D last night, and, while it was of course a lot of fun, I was rather surprised at just how complicated the rules are! LL + AEC really is a perfect balance for me personally.

I also noticed how streamlined AD&D 2e was, which I've played a lot of in the past, and always thought was pretty much the same as the 1st edition.

[Wizardawn]

:D

I just played my first ever session of 1st edition AD&D last night, and, while it was of course a lot of fun, I was rather surprised at just how complicated the rules are! LL + AEC really is a perfect balance for me personally.

I also noticed how streamlined AD&D 2e was, which I've played a lot of in the past, and always thought was pretty much the same as the 1st edition.

I agree that LL+AEC is much easier. I myself play AD&D 1e but I grew up on those rules and I stripped so much stuff out over the years that it plays mostly like LL+AEC. In fact, my combat system is a bit easier/quicker than LL. My point is that some of these older games are as complicated as you want them to be. If you do everything by the book, AD&D is quite cumbersome.

What happened to me (like many others back then) was that I had a Moldvay red box to start my gaming life. We played that for a bit and then I could finally find/afford a Players Handbook. We used the rules out of that book for our character development, but still used the Basic rules to actually play (monsters, hit tables, game rules, etc). We needed to do this because we did not have a Dungeon Masters Guide yet or Monster Manual. Once I got those books, we used the Monster Manual in full. I read over the Dungeon Masters Guide and would just say, "Ugh!" I didn't use very much of it because I thought that the red box rules were fine. We ended up just using the TO HIT tables, saving throws, and magic items out of it.

[finarvyn]

AD&D was written more from a "let's keep the rules standard for tournament play" perspective, so it has a lot of material designed to close up loopholes in play and foil those pesky rules lawyers. LL isn't constrained by the same design goals and as such can read smoother and more relaxed.

[elf23]

Yeah one always hears that a lot of the AD&D rules were commonly ignored in play... Our DM told us to ignore the infamous weapon vs AC charts, for example. We are, however, using segments and individual initiative, which is a lot more crunchy than I'm used to with LL! I mean, it does add some extra time and complexity to combat, but I think it works well if you have a DM who's on the ball, up for tracking who goes in what order, and has a good system for doing so. Our DM apparently does. I would never have the patience for it though personally!

Djeryv, interesting to hear that you had the exact experience Dan describes with the AEC -- using the basic rules as the base then adding bits & pieces from the AD&D books on top. I just played basic D&D until AD&D 2e came along, then switched to that, without any kind of cross-pollination phase.

By the way this isn't intended as a bash against AD&D -- I love it! I just mean to say that, as far as running a game goes, I'm very pleased to have chosen LL

[Wizardawn]

Djeryv, interesting to hear that you had the exact experience Dan describes with the AEC -- using the basic rules as the base then adding bits & pieces from the AD&D books on top. I just played basic D&D until AD&D 2e came along, then switched to that, without any kind of cross-pollination phase.

Alot of us did that back then. There was a period in time when people "had" to do what I described (before I was gaming...I was 4 years old at the time). People had the basic "blue box" by Holmes and they only released the Monster Manual and Players Handbook for AD&D (the DM Guide wasn't even released yet). If you wanted to even attempt to play AD&D, you had to use that blue box for experience and hit tables because they were gonna be in the DM Guide one day.

By the way this isn't intended as a bash against AD&D -- I love it! I just mean to say that, as far as running a game goes, I'm very pleased to have chosen LL

I think that some people who play LL+AEC know how dense a system AD&D is and wanted something lighter. I bought hardcovers of LL and AEC for my son because as he gets into making his own games, I didn't want him to sift through the many AD&D books like I once did. Those two books can pretty much be used in full and I have to admit that the art and font sizes are sooooo appealing. It is just an easy read.

[Goblinoid Games]

I actually started with basic D&D, and then I bought a 1e player's handbook and used it with the basic game, not even realizing they were different games. I was probably 12 years old or something. By the time I started to realize what was going on 2e was out, and I played a lot of that all through high school. Later I went back to 1e, and after that to the Moldvay/Cook books. So all of that I think gave me a certain perspective by the time I started publishing. Even as I was writing Labyrinth Lord in the winter of 2007 (almost 5 years ago...wow time flies!) I was thinking about how to incorporate 1e elements without changing the core complexity. Since the basic rules are essentially identical to the old three OD&D booklets, and AD&D is built on that, the main differences in the rules are in the ways AD&D was elaborated. Anyway, glad to hear you guys are enjoying LL/AEC.

[mystaros]

When telling people about the game, if they used to play back in the day, I describe LL + AEC as essentially "Moldvay/Cook with all the good bits from Greyhawk, Blackmoor, and Eldritch Wizardry, and without all the fiddly bits from AD&D."

Which, of course, is really what it is. Sort of like the "good parts" version of "Princess Bride" of clones...

[elf23]

I had a similar D&D "upbringing" to Dan actually... started with basic D&D, bought a couple of the AD&D books (the MM, which I loved, though strangely never used, and the DMG, which I found completely mystifying!), then AD&D 2e came out and I got into that.

[YHWH]

I guess I'm in the minority then; we started with AD&D 1st directly.

Funny thing is, even without starting with Basic it wasn't that different in practice. I'm certain we didn't use segments, casting time or weapon vs ac.

It's like Gygax stapled on some extra rules that didn't pan out in practice for most, so everybody is basically playing the same game unless you insist on playing very by-the-book.

[rredmond]

I guess I'm in the minority then; we started with AD&D 1st directly.

Funny thing is, even without starting with Basic it wasn't that different in practice. I'm certain we didn't use segments, casting time or weapon vs ac.

It's like Gygax stapled on some extra rules that didn't pan out in practice for most, so everybody is basically playing the same game unless you insist on playing very by-the-book.

Heh, funny my experience was exactly the same.