Contrasting Editions of D&D

I cut my teeth on Basic/Expert D&D back in 1982/83 in the Moldvay/Cook sets. This introduction had me immediately looking for more rules in the Advanced D&D hardcovers of 1st edition. This ruleset was used for several years until 2nd edition hit the stands in 1989 and we were hooked completely. 2EAD&D served me very well for many years to come.... until 2000. With the release of D&D 3E I felt that the game had changed a little too dramatically - some rules were better than anything I had seen before, and others.....well, let's just say that progress is not always beneficial. I jumped off the wagon when D&D 4.0 came along - it just wasn't D&D anymore.

My emphasis on 1E and 3E came about in 2000. This is when I started my long running AD&D 1E Mystara based campaign and my D&D 3.0/3.5 Greyhawk campaign. Of the two, the latter imploded and the former is still going strong after 13 years despite several health issues in the group. We tried to make these games work, but the input required by the DM for 3E became overwhelming for me and I had to quit one of the campaigns to save the other. So the 1E game continues.

I actually LIKE D&D 3.5. I find it to be a well-balanced ruleset with answers to most of the frequently asked questions. It's downfall is the same as it's strengths - it answers too many questions and tries to make everything integrated. Magic does not work well in a shoe-horned system of checks and balances. Some characters become insanely powerful too quickly and providing a challenge for them while maintaining a meaningful campaign becomes a nightmare. However, low-level adventuring is very enjoyable and I could see myself running adventures for a new campaign again.

AD&D, by contrast, is a dense work with rules scattered throughout the books, some contradictory and others inferred. I've spent about 25 years analyzing the rules in the DMG only to discover that they really don't make a whole lot of sense as written. The perils of a single author writing a volume of this size over a long period of time I suppose.

Things I like about 1st Edition AD&D:
- limited choices make the players think
- so many rules for so many circumstances that it's a challenge to use them all
- unlimited play styles accommodated in one set of rules
- can mix and match or house rule with impunity
- success depends upon the experience of the player or the character

Things I like about 3rd Edition D&D:
- same rules apply to all creatures in the game, PC, NPC, or Monster
- standardized rules for certain "skills" modified by abilities and race
- standardized ability scores and application to more circumstances (ability scores matter)
- easier multi-classing rules

2E AD&D suffered from "rule bloat" where more books were published than were needed to run a campaign and fewer adventures were published as a result. Players need to have options open to them and DMs need a break, so publishing quality adventures should be the FOCUS of any edition. DMs have enough to do - they don't need to assemble a campaign from scratch or prepare adventures on the fly to suit the whims of the players. 1st edition was fine for adlibbing adventures; 3E D&D was not. No edition produced so far has yet worked successfully with a "random dungeon" design. 3E D&D in the end suffered not only from "rule bloat" but also from reprint madness. In evolving the game to 3.5 D&D many of the books were reprinted with the amended rules causing people to re-buy all the material they already purchased. That's a sure sign that the end is near, and it happened with 4.0 D&D.

I am most comfortable running AD&D 1E. The feel is dark and dangerous, as opposed to the clinical and predictable combat of D&D 3.5. Combats in both editions can take a long time - in AD&D 1E the combat length depends on the number of participants (and party size is much larger) while in D&D 3.5 the combat options and rules require longer to get through with multiple steps. Large combats in both editions can be a tracking nightmare. Magic items and treasure in general are much more important in 1E while balancing encounters to the characters is more important in 3E. Training drains much of the wealth away in 1E while magic item creation drains only a minor amount from 3E characters. There seems to be an endgame in place in 1E where the characters eventually retire to become leaders of the land. The endgame in 3E is established by the DM with a soft cap of level 20 before moving on to Epic level adventures (which are ridiculously powerful in my opinion). High-level characters are very powerful in both editions for different reasons. In 1E the characters benefit from a multitude of magic items and spells against creatures written for an earlier version of the game (Monster Manual was written with 0E D&D in mind). In 3E the power creep syndrome keeps monsters and characters on an even keel for a while but eventually the players outnumber or outclass the creatures in some respect and mow them down. Spellcasters are much more powerful in 1E than in 3E despite the increase in number of spells, simply because most spells in 3E have a saving throw and there are limits placed on the power of the spells in 3E that are not there in 1E (e.g. magic missile, fireball, lightning bolt, haste, slow, turning undead, etc.). Survivability is much better in 3E, but the fear of death makes for a more exciting game in 1E. Characters creation in 1E takes a while but the choices presented in 3E make character creation a week-long endeavor!

Ideally, merging the two editions seems to be the way to go. By giving the creatures in AD&D 1E an update as they did in 3E would only enhance that edition. Providing limited choices for 3E characters and providing an established path to follow seems to be the route to enhance the 3E experience. I am still a proponent of making D&D fast and simple, but "Advanced" D&D implies complication. I actually prefer to be limited and make the character work despite the limitations. It makes for a more satisfying adventure - overcoming hardship in the face of impossible odds!