On my mind today.

I recently bought the compilation volume of the first three issues of Knockspell. I was a bit surprised to see that many of the things that I have pontificated about, either in person or in my blogging, are the same issues they were writing about before I joined in on the whole OSR movement; in effect, I have been restating things that were said years before I joined the movement.

This reminds me that I have frequently had the same idea myself and posted about it, as though it were new to me, over and over. Alignment as a faction. Weapon damage by class. There are myriad things that I keep thinking are new ideas I have had that I blog about only to realize that I had had the same exact revelation and spoken or blogged about it, in some cases, years before.

So that's one thing. I also re-fight the same battles in my head over which D&D I prefer. I started with Holmes Basic, which is the last “original” or “0e (zero edition) product, or a separate and singular edition, depending on your point of view. Although I bought, and used, the Cook/Marsh Expert set (The X part of the B/X edition), I had really, concurrently, started playing 1^st edition AD&D. I default to AD&D a lot, despite it's warts (or maybe, in part at least, because of them), so it tends to be my “go-to” version of D&D, or even RPG. I understand that the B/X or BECMI/Cyclopedia versions are tighter, arguably better, versions of D&D and so too is 2^nd edition AD&D, for that matter, but my formative gaming years were spent learning the intricacies of 1^st edition AD&D, so I tend to “go home” when I need to make a snap judgment or consider creating something new. I do this to the point where I had to deliberately set my mind to it when I tried to run a Swords & Wizardry (with Delving Deeper) campaign, so I could try and replicate, to understand fully, the earliest version(s) of the game.

Intellectually, I prefer the simpler, rules-lite versions of D&D. Tim Kask wrote that AD&D changed everything, and he's right, but for more reasons than just rules-lawyers sucking the fun out it. The power level of PCs creeps up, making them more likely to be heroes right off the bat. I can't not think of the AC system running from 10 to -10, rather than 9 to 1 (or 0 maybe? I know “standard” D&D doesn't have negative ACs), for instance.

So I come to the conclusion that AD&D is where my home is, and I just accept it with it's mish-mash of unrelated sub-systems and other idiosyncrasies. I might prefer a bit more “gonzo” a game, genre mixing sci-fi, fantasy and Cthulhu mythos, and that's easier to do with OD&D and it's retro-clones probably, just like it's easier to write publishable adventures for OD&D, but I can make it work with AD&D. I also find that I like more Sword & Sorcery style settings, usually with a historical veneer, and that's not “standard” AD&D either. I guess it was 2^nd edition that taught us AD&D could be used as a toolkit for any genre with it's varied official settings.

So here are the things I prefer in D&D to AD&D:

The 3 point alignment system, simple Law vs. Chaos, and it is really coming from a faction system, good and evil are less relevant (although it can be argued that Law=Good and Chaos=Evil).

Original D&D included, as standard, Robots and Androids, it has extra sci-fi in it's DNA.

Weaker characters, originally everyone used a d6 for hit points, +/- 1 based on class and +/- 1 (maybe) adjusted for Constitution. Later on, I assume with the advent of polyhedral dice, this was re-codified to the -1 classes dropping to a d4, and the +1 classes moving up to a d8 for hit points.

Fewer absolutes because of fewer rules, and that ties in to the belief that the DM is in control. I believe the DM should be an impartial referee, but I also believe that the players should recognize his absolute authority. We played AD&D this way anyway, when I was young, but it's starting to look like a lost art. I think that this comes from the rules heavy nature of later iterations of D&D.

I'll still take AD&D over d20 D&D or later, because, even though the PCs are substantially stronger from the get go than their D&D counterparts, they still don't have the expectation of victory in every encounter. Pre-d20 D&D is lethal, it rewards common sense and good tactics, it punishes those that fail to heed warnings or try to push their luck too far. In my opinion this is better for long term play, and it gives the players a deserved sense of accomplishment.

I took last week off from doing anything RPG related and played Civilization V, as I have not done so in some time. That, in turn, led to me spending a lot of time with modding my Civ game, as is my way. I don't create content for Civ V (yet), there are many talented modders in it's community. I used to mod Civ 4 though, although I foolishly deleted all of my work when I migrated to Civ V. I also mod The Sims 2, mostly flavor stuff, like start up text, or names for NPCs. I have created specifically Norse, Scottish and Roman content to date.

I also recently started playing Panzer Corps, a Panzer General clone, with my brother.