A Classic D&D Adventure

[Mr_Pleasington]

I'm a fairly active member over at dragonsfoot.org, a 1E/Basic D&D fan that provides a lot of great free stuff and some fun message boards (just stay out of Edition Wars if you have think skin).

Anyway, I wrote an introductory adventure for OD&D a while back and the DF team were kind enough to make it presentable and make it a PDF.  It's strictly old school, so don't expect much of a plot or narrative, but it's a fun little adventure with some unique enemies (had to mix it up a bit).

It could easily be adapted to 3E if needed.  So go check it out and tell me what you think!

http://www.dragonsfoot.org

[Spriggan]

wow they realy made it look like the real thing.  Was Basic D&D the one that came in the blue box?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Basic D&D was red, if I remember right. "Expert" was blue. All of this was the same system with just more rules added. They of course bore only superficial resemblance to Advanced D&D, despite the fact that you'd assume if they had a game with the same name preceded by "basic," "expert," and "advanced" there would be a progression through the three in complexity of rules, especially if this held true for for two of them. But then, TSR always did have a problem with consistency, which is why 3E is such a success.

[Mr_Pleasington]

Not to debate just why 3E is so successful, but it's not for lack of complexity.   Classic (BECM) and 1st and 2nd edition may not have had consistent systems, but they all ran fast and loose enough that you didn't have to worry about a lot of abstract rules.

One of the reasons I've put 3E to the side is because it has a rule for everything.  While some find this appealing, I think it is its greatest hindrance.  It's also really hard to house rule too excessively because it's so internally "balanced" now instead of balanced around classes.   I've found that if you fiddle much at all, it falls like a house of cards.  I'm not saying the old editions were perfect by any means, but I certainly think they're easier and more fun to run than 3E.  All are a blast to play.  Choose whichever you want and have fun, it makes no difference to me.

I think the reason for 3E's success lies in its marketing.  It plays a lot like a video game and its really become a powergamer's paradise.  

I played for 2 years and had fun, but I'll never run it again.  It's not worth the effort and preparation.  I can have more fun with a simpler and more flexible system like that in Classic (and less so in First Edition).

Didn't mean to get on my soapbox, but I was just talking to someone about this and it was on my mind.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

ok, i'll disagree and rephrase. The reason *I* like it is that it's consistant. High numbers are good, both for roles and for stats. It's that simple. Yes, it defines a lot of rules, but nearly all of those come down to an opposed roll. Nearly all the skills can be faked or untrained, and training just means your better at this. It encourages making up new skills and feats (which may lead to power creep but that's another issu -- and it makes the system more versatile).

I've fiddled with D&D rules quite a bit and not seen a major problem. I've made fundamental changes to the magic system, the rewards system, alignment, economics, and others, and it still holds. I guess I don't understand what fiddling you've done that's made it unworkable.

D&D (basic/expert) wasn't nearly complex enough for me. I wanted more substance because I wanted control over the world and setting. Elves as classes make little sense, and the alignment system makes me even more whiney than my other rant. But, as you say, too each his own. I'm not going to convert you, so why try?

[Mr_Pleasington]

How true!

It's obvious that you and I have a different taste in systems.  I like rules light games where a lot of decision is left to the DM.  I don't feel like a DM in 3E, I feel like a referee.  If you favor more crunchiness in your games, I can see how 3E maintains its appeal.

The things you mention fiddling with are fairly peripheral...alignment can be modified with little trouble and new skills and feats are easily added.  Magic can be difficult to change without messing it up too much, but its possible. But try messing with the classes...or changing the skill system.  I really don't like feat and its nigh impossible to run a game without them without dealing with some serious consequences (all of a sudden fighters suck).  The older editions were so slapped together that you could eradicate, add, or modify 99% of the rules without fear of hurting the gameplay.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Ok, that's true, removing feats makes some MAJOR changes to the system. But then, fighters ALWAYS sucked. You basically took fighters because you didn't have attributes that qualified for any other class. (at which point you re-roll, so what's the point?). Feats make the fighter, and any other class, much more customizable. So I like 'em.

And yes, it's hard to alter classes, but you can do it if you're careful.

But then, there's NO system that I like without any reservations. Even ones I've thought up I've had problems with. I think that no matter what, you're either going to run into a conflict with realism, playability, interesting stuff, or some combination of the three. <sigh>

Oh well, here's hoping that eventually we'll be able to find a perfect system everyone enjoys.
Then we can fight about whether we prefer action, politics, mystery and then move on to what's better, sf, supers, fantasy, horroror, etc.

[Mr_Pleasington]

Here, here!