What is DnD to do?


1st Edition DnD had hardly any rules.  Just hit vs THACO. Roll weapon damage.  100% DM arbitration. 
Players reponse:   It had so little guideline, players want more rules to do more stuff.

DnD responds:

2nd Edition to 3rd Edition:  Rules for many situations starts to appear.  What once was arbitrary decision made by the DM based on common sense, now is governed by rules to cover many situations.

Player's resonse:
Era of "Rules" begins.  Common Sense is out the door.  DM arbitration out the door.  Rules, rule and Players wants more rules to cover more situation.

DnD responds:

4th Edition:  More rules, rules and rules.   Rules are implimented even into combat with At-Will, Encounter, Utility, Daily powers to give players sense of choice yet bound by its own rules.  

DnD realizes evolution of player attitude; turning a game book into set of Law Books, always demanding clarification, more rules to cover ALL situations.  Dnd realizes this is not possible and realizes this dangerous trend, and repeatly writes in it's books, "It's a guideline".

DnD Responds:

5th Edition play test:  Less rules..., and more power to the DM.

Player Responds:  Game is retro.  Going backwards.

NO other table top role playing game has this problem.   Players doing stupid outrageous things if not governed by rules except in DnD.   And I played a lot of them.  I think it is intricately tied to DND players.    

What is DnD to do?

NO other table top role playing game has this problem.

What makes you think that they don't? Insufficient, unclear, or otherwise crappy rules is a reason why many other RPGs don't do well.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
There's no pleasing everyone I'm afraid
My two copper.
It's partially a product of D&D's unique position as the ur-rpg...and the one with the largest audience. For most rpg players, D&D simply *is* the hobby, so they feel (with some justification) a need to alter the game's landscape to fit with their notions of the 'right' game. Anyone who has wandered off the reservation to another game likely did so specifically in search of what that other game offers, so there's a lot less impetus to change it once they arrive.

Happily, I think DDN's model is going to be flexible enough to please at least a majority of the fans...*if* WotC can keep the core stripped down to bare essentials and resist the clamor of those edition warriors who want their particular sub-specialized fiddly bits gumming up the works.
NO other table top role playing game has this problem.   Players doing stupid outrageous things if not governed by rules except in DnD.   And I played a lot of them.  I think it is intricately tied to DND players.

As far as I can tell, any game that has been popular long enough to have a history and has more then one version has this problem to some degree. It is just worse for D&D because few games have changed as much over the editions and few games have as many players.

It isn't an easy problem, the designers are going to have balance a lot of different game attributes to find the best mix. Too simple and you lose the tactical and strategic gamers, too complex and you lose the storytellers and casual players. Too many optional rules and game balance falls apart, too few and the game can't cover different styles of play well.

The inherent problem with D&D is how much it has radically changed between editions, other games may add features clarify rules, but they don't make the huge shift D&D keeps making. This is horrible for the game and it really needs to stop. It is okay to do minor alterations in the game, but these mass lets change D&D completely every few years is going to be the downfall of the game.

Personaly I want complexity with storytelling. Call it the best of both worlds.  
DnD is not the only game to have this problem, because it was a shift across the RPG spectrum (as I saw it).

Legend of the Five Rings (AEG) switched to a massive Rules As Written philosophy when they made their 3rd edition. When they made a 4th edition, they switched to "L5R Your Way," which had similar rules complexity, but emphasised that the Rules were guidelines only, and the GM had final say. They even clarified rules on their Forums with "...was the intent, but use what works best for your group."
Complex enough to be strategic and simple enough to have Storytelling.  That be great balance.  

Wotc may also have a marketing reason for these constant huge editions.

I mean, that's the only way people will buy more books, and Wotc make more money.

If they were to make the perfect system that strikes the perfect balance of complexity and storytelling to satisfy all crowd, then no more editions are needed.  Only adventure modules and expansions.  Starting fresh every few years and forcing players to keep buying all the new books.  What a profit margin.

This is what other RPG gaming company haven't done.  MERP, GURP, Rolemasters, Spacemasters...  they tried to make the system perfect.  One time purchase.  Hence forth less profit.  Hence forth they get bought out by Wotc.  Hence forth Wotc rules.

I dont think DnD rules because of its superior system.  It's become a Microsoft of Table RPG.  Hard to compete agains that.
 
1st edition has a metric ton of rules, easily comparable to every latter edition save for the exception that it has far fewer splats than any other edition.  The shift is not one of increasing rules.  Rather, the shift is from rules primarily being in the DM's realm to rules primarily being in the player's realm. 
Hence forth Wotc rules.

I dont think DnD rules because of its superior system.
 



Paizo's Pathfinder RPG is the #1 RPG right now.  So they've done it by sticking with the older edition and not 4e.

DnD doesn't rule anymore, not if you mean that they're the top RPG in the market that is.

Hence forth Wotc rules.

I dont think DnD rules because of its superior system.
 



Paizo's Pathfinder RPG is the #1 RPG right now.  So they've done it by sticking with the older edition and not 4e.

DnD doesn't rule anymore, not if you mean that they're the top RPG in the market that is.




Oh my goodness.  I went to the website for it.  I am so interested in the core book.  I am DnD fan, not for the system but for the world setting.  If I can use a better system for same world setting, i'm so sold.  Thank you! gonna check this bad boy out.
DnD is not the only game to have this problem, because it was a shift across the RPG spectrum (as I saw it).

Legend of the Five Rings (AEG) switched to a massive Rules As Written philosophy when they made their 3rd edition. When they made a 4th edition, they switched to "L5R Your Way," which had similar rules complexity, but emphasised that the Rules were guidelines only, and the GM had final say. They even clarified rules on their Forums with "...was the intent, but use what works best for your group."



What? How dare they...


How could they possibly communicate with their fans on their own forums instead of heading over to EnWorld?Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Instead of starting over with the core rules and rebuilding, here is the change I would like to see to existing 4th edition.  At Will, Encounter, Daily, Utility abilities are awesome.  It lets player make choices in combat, bound by concrete rules laid out in the power.  Call it 5th edition for all I care.

Scale down Health Pool for Progression (both PC and NPC) and/or Scale up damage (both PC and NPC).  Well, fights not gonna be as epic if everything dies faster.

To counter that, Scale up healing abilities.  

IMO Health pool progression, Damage progression, Healing progression don't scale properly as PC and NPC gets higher.

As it stands IMO the problem is the Monster Manuel.  Weapon damage increase don't scale correctly with the Health Pool for both PC & NPC.  I mean 20+ elite monsters doing attacks of 1D12 + 12 per round while 4 players are sitting on 120+ health?  How can each round feel fun & meaningful? Equally player's doing similar type of damage while monster is sitting on 300+ health?  This is all fine and dandy if rounds didn't take so long.  But reality is, rounds take time.

Players response to fix this has been, designing highest damage per round charactors, to fix this imbalance and make each round meaningful.  Players shouldn't have to resort to that.  That's design flaw.

Rounds taking 10 min each depending how many players and how fast they play... who has fun spending over an hour just hacking down health pool because it's not scaled properly? Or feel no risk because NPC damage isn't scaled properly.

IMO Time spent on Combat Rounds shouldn't take longer as PC progresses.  PC should have more "choices" as they progress due to higher skills and available powers but it should'n't change the combat into meaningless rounds just hacking down health pools.  

Make encounters just as deadly for low levels and high levels for both sides through out progression.  But give players options to counter that with equally affective healing powers (should they choose such feats and class).

Due to this imbalance, playing a low level charactor is more exciting because it's risky business, yet less fun because of lack of choices.  Playing higher level is more fun due to more choices, yet not exciting because it aint risky no more...just time consuming.

Redo monster manuel, weapon damage progression, healing power progression. I think it'll make a huge difference in game play.  IMHO
I think it would be a great help to everyone if you stop talking sense. Surprised
While I wish the OP wouldn't say things like "common sense is out the door" and other baiting phrases, he does frame an interesting point.
Many people play d&d and want different things. It's hard to make rules that will work for everyone and match everyone's expectations. More than anything, d&d struggles against its own success as fans all want different things.
Ah sorry about that MeCorva. I will refrain from using those words. It's just pant up frustration slipping out after so many years of trying to love the system.  My players in my game probably have something to do with it too. [:D]
Since i'm playing from 1st edition (though can't remember it a lot cause i was too young and we moved to 2nd )and now tried 4th I agree that they added more rules but also they made the game more simple so new gamers join.My party and me left 4th edition cause it limited our imagination a lot since everything was so simple and battle based.Now we are playing 3.5 with some things from 4th and some other from 2nd and it s running real well .The thing is that younger people are used to pcs rpgs and dnd tried win those new customers.I didn't say 4th edition wasn't good I'm just saying wasn't for older players like me and my party.
It is less of a more rules issue as it is a style of play issue.

Because of the amount of D&D fans, there are many types of games. Structured games which require in depth rules to preserve fairness. Guideline came that require brilliant DMs who can adjust the game on the fly while preserving balance. And Free Form Games that require a strong social contract which all DMs and players both understood and agreed too.

Then it could be split into the 3 pillars of Combat, Exploration, and Social.

Or into Day based, Encounter based, or Adventure based.

The issue was that a rule set that caters to different groups has to be build that way at the start. NONE of the editions were built for even 25% of the current playstyles.

I've been in over a dozen groups and none of them played the same.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

seems that one of the strategies they're employing is what Mearls said about a basic, intermediate and advanced rules set. Another marker that's developed is campaign setting.


By breaking up the rules into groupings that roughly mark how much the rules account for in specific terms and then designing campaign settings to work primarily with certain options within the game you allow for a pretty broad range of playstyles.


I hope they pull this off 'cause it could be exactly what the game needs.

Personally I'm not a fan of "DM fiat" being the sole way to interact with the world. This is from a Player AND DM standpoint. From a player standpoint, having any interesting action require approval just isn't very dynamic for me. In addition, having to rely on the DM (someone who can make mistakes) means a more floppy game and has less stability. 

From a DM perspective, it means I have less to worry about on a round-by-round basis. I have less rules to memorize (I generally make my players memorize intricate aspects for their character like Grappling rules of 3E or Tripping or whatever), and I have a less chance of making mistakes as far as implementing rules goes. Were I to adjudicate every single question or request I'd then have to write that down because that sets a precident. For example, were I to allow the Fighter to jump for a ledge 8-ft above his head to avoid a pit trap, it would be pretty moronic to then say NO when they attempt the same action to get to the enemy bad-guy on a balcony.

This is why 3E and 4E appeal my my senses of gaming. They provide concrete aspects in way that interact with the world. I see them as IN ADDITION TO the apsects a players brings, not in replace of (people can't seem to understand that). What this also means is that it places more equality for those players who have natural talent (in the RP/imagination sense) when compared to more linear thinkers (codified rules = what I can/can't do). So, for another example; having a player role-play the sequence of a Rogue bating a monster into charging them which appeals to the DM and gets him the action he wants VS. someone who just isn't that savvy having a codified power  that does the same.
Scale down Health Pool for Progression (both PC and NPC) and/or Scale up damage (both PC and NPC).  Well, fights not gonna be as epic if everything dies faster.

To counter that, Scale up healing abilities.

Your right about health getting too high in 4e, but your side comment is wrong and scaling up healing is terribly misguided. Healing in 4e is already too good, with multiple healers in the party it isn't unusual for character to go from negative HP to full HP in a single round without anybody using a daily power. As a DM, essentially it is impossible for me to threaten anybody in the party with normal combat until healing is used up, and that is problem.

Players response to fix this has been, designing highest damage per round charactors, to fix this imbalance and make each round meaningful.  Players shouldn't have to resort to that.  That's design flaw.

Players do that as a matter of habit. 4e has probably driven them to focus on it more, but few players are going to focus on non-combat abilities at the expense of combat abilities.

As to your general suggestions though, to a certain extend 4e has already done this. If you compare the MM1 with MM3, the MM3 monsters have better attacks and fewer HP.

DDN, was to me a hope of returning to the the first 2 editons with minor refinements and away from the confusion of 3e and 4e.  No at wills, no powers, fighters being fighters and spell casters being magical.  Just players thinking for unique ways to get things done with thier imagination not a rule book. 

1st Edition DnD had hardly any rules.

ROTFLMAO!

Just hit vs THACO. Roll weapon damage.  100% DM arbitration.

THACO was 2e.  AD&D used two facing pages of attack tables.  Though, you could derive the underlying formula:  to start with, Fighters hit AC 10 on a 10, and everyone else on an 11.  From there, a fighter's attack matrix improves by 2 for every two levels (or, optionally, 1 per level), while clerics improve at 1/3, Rogues at 1/4, and Wizards at 1/5.  Monsters have their own progression.   For ACs lower than 10, the target goes up 1/1, until you reach a target of 20, in which case the next 4 ACs are also hit on a 20, but only a natural 20, ACs even higher require a natural 20 and a minimum of a +1 bonus to hit.

That's not simple compared to THACO.  It's effing rocket surgery compared to d20 + bonuses vs DC.

And that's not even the tip of the iceberg.  AD&D had rules for things you would never even want to know about, like what Fruedian mental disorders your henchmen might suffer from...


Seriously, the re-prints are available, buy a set and read through 'em (if you can stand it!) before you post something that absurd.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

1st ed had some really weird stuff in it. THey got away with it back then because it had no competition. There is a certain charm to it in some ways but I think one would be better off trying to evoke the feel of 1st ed rather than use it as a templae to design a new syste. Simplicity, quick to run, compact rules 1st ed had that (160 page PHB).

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

@Tony_Vargas

I love your comment!

I would also like to add the rules for substance abuse, the stronghold building and seige warfare rules, and the rules for demi-human armies (i.e. you need to maintain a proper balance of orcs and goblins and watch them like a hawk or they'll all kill each other). The 1e DMG also had extensive random outdoor encounter tables. The henchmen rules were in general pretty complicated, now that I think about it. 
You can't discuss 1E rules without mentioning the random harlot table.
...whatever

I don't remember that from the 1e DMG, maybe it was in a later book. Regardless, I'm not surprised they had one.


I wonder if a lot of the 80's backlash against DnD was due more to that type of stuff than the game in general?


 

The random harlot table was in the appendixes at the end of the DMG, in the random town encounter section I believe.
...whatever
D&D needs to pick a set of rules and stick with it at this point. Next is coming out way too soon, and for it to be successful, they need to pick one singular set of rules and simply update them fron this point forward to clarify them.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

D&D needs to pick a set of rules and stick with it at this point. Next is coming out way too soon, and for it to be successful, they need to pick one singular set of rules and simply update them fron this point forward to clarify them.

This is very true. It is going to hard for D&D to survive Next coming out so soon as it is. No matter if Next is really successful or not, they need to hold with it for a long while before producing a new edition.

THACO was 2e.  AD&D used two facing pages of attack tables.  



2e used Thac0 (To Hit Armor Class 0) as a fundamental mechanic and is most known there.
1e also used Thac0.  It was in the DMG Appendix under the monster heading.  It was also appropriated in other publications trying to account for the complication of the chart system.

Honestly, I hated Thac0 when I first started to try and play the game.  Then I grew to love it.  I think the problem with Thac0 has less to do with the system and more with how TSR presented it.  Which was awful.  The explaination of the core mechanic of it if I remember correctly, was detailed right before the equipment section.  It was a small paragraph on a page that I overlooked and for weeks (I was very young) I had no idea what it did.  Only until another friend pointed it out to me, did I finally get it.

If one thing from 2e could be incorporated into Next, I would want it to be Thac0.  I know I'm in the vast minority in that, but I still miss it.
thac0 and BAB are the same thing, with the signs flipped round.
2nd to-4th ed all more or less used the same tweaked system to base attacks off.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Bounded accuracy might look good on paper in a mechanical sense, but thac0/BAB/+1 per two levels gave a feeling of progression that is very important, and 5E hasn't entirely replaced.

A lot of the fun in D&D's class/level system has been that feeling of progression, becoming more powerful over time. D&D has historically delivered this better than most any other RPG, and bounded accuracy takes away from this.
...whatever
thac0 and BAB are the same thing, with the signs flipped round.



Yes and no.  Monster challenge was also tied to AC rating and allowed for more controlled encounters back then.  You knew what you were getting when you chose an AC of 0 or 8 or -5 to confront your players.  The HD also matched the AC score.

With BAB it's a little more complicated because the weight of challenge is more about what the player can do.  Not saying that's a bad thing, but BAB and Thac0 systems aren't interchangable and there is variance in design set up.
 

1st Edition DnD had hardly any rules.  Just hit vs THACO. Roll weapon damage.  100% DM arbitration. 
Players reponse:   It had so little guideline, players want more rules to do more stuff.

DnD responds:

2nd Edition to 3rd Edition:  Rules for many situations starts to appear.  What once was arbitrary decision made by the DM based on common sense, now is governed by rules to cover many situations.

Player's resonse:
Era of "Rules" begins.  Common Sense is out the door.  DM arbitration out the door.  Rules, rule and Players wants more rules to cover more situation.

DnD responds:

4th Edition:  More rules, rules and rules.   Rules are implimented even into combat with At-Will, Encounter, Utility, Daily powers to give players sense of choice yet bound by its own rules.  

DnD realizes evolution of player attitude; turning a game book into set of Law Books, always demanding clarification, more rules to cover ALL situations.  Dnd realizes this is not possible and realizes this dangerous trend, and repeatly writes in it's books, "It's a guideline".

DnD Responds:

5th Edition play test:  Less rules..., and more power to the DM.

Player Responds:  Game is retro.  Going backwards.

NO other table top role playing game has this problem.   Players doing stupid outrageous things if not governed by rules except in DnD.   And I played a lot of them.  I think it is intricately tied to DND players.    

What is DnD to do?


Because the mechanics are there doesn't mean we, as thinking human beings playing "pretend with some rules" need to use them above simple common sense.  A good DM allows a character to try anything he/she wants to do.  My favorite edition was 3.5 (though Next is looking pretty damned awesome.)

The point is, we all, as players or DM's, need to accept that the stories we build together are less about who wins and more about simply telling a good story.  I can't remember how many times in 2nd edition I'd try to use my tumbling skill to vault over an enemy, or roll around the battlefield.  Third edition gave me rules for that.  Next makes the rules even simpler than third did.

As DM's, we must adhere to mechanics, or there is no common ground where our players are willing to try anything new.  Dungeons and Dragons is suitable for both beginning and advanced role-playing-gamers.  That should not change.  I don't know what the guys who thought up 4E were smoking, but they came up with a few good ideas that are worthy of keeping in the rules.  (At-will spells, roguish tricks, fighter exploits, marking enemies...)

Instead of relying on cards and powers and such, it's our job as DM's to say, "What do you want to try to do?"  And if we have clear mechanics for, say, the halfling rogue who wants to run between the ogre's legs and stab him in the butt or achilles, we can do a better job of that.  The simpler those mechanics are, the better, in the interest of time.

I love computer games.  I play many of them.  Human beings and DM's are not computers.  The best of us only want to tell a good story, while being fair to everyone who wants to tell a part of that story. 
You knew what you were getting when you chose an AC of 0 or 8 or -5 to confront your players.

...which is functionally identical to AC 20 or 12 or 25 in a BAB system.
The HD also matched the AC score.

I don't recall anything in any edition having -5 HD


the stronghold building and seige warfare rules. 

I was intrigued by those.  But, the one time I got to really use them, the one time a fighter of mine made name level, they turned out to be nothing but a giant accounting exercise.   And, in return for hours of bean counting, all you got was a money pit and an achilles heel.  Strongholds and the followers they attracted were worse than useless at high level, not only could they do nothing to help you against the sorts of enemies you faced, but they were easily exploited by such enemies.
- Warlords! Join the 'Officer Country' Group! Join Grognards for 4e, the D&D that changed D&D.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Agreed about the stronghold. I once tallied up how much it would cost to build my ideal stronghold, but I never actually built one in-game. I was planning on building a stronghold in the NWN2 computer ame, but I could never (and I tried several times) get past the bug in that tavern in the first real city. I figured with the computer doing the math, it would be less tedious.

Anyway, I was just trying to point out all the myriad "stuff" in 1e and this is just the DMG!

To return to the OP

A lot of that "stuff" in 1e I never used. I just ignored it. I agree that both 3.xe and 4e have a bigger focus on specific rules and they are used more often.

What I would really like to know is what kind of feedback WotC is getting from the "non-forum" majority of the players. I don't personally know any DnD players currently (let alone the several dozen I would need for a good sampling), so I have no idea.

I agree that not all players, or potential players, will be happy. I fully expect to houserule a lot of things. However, I do think they will suceed in creating a system that a large number of people will want to use.

1st Edition DnD had hardly any rules. Just hit vs THACO. Roll weapon damage.  100% DM arbitration.

THACO was 2e.  AD&D used two facing pages of attack tables.  Though, you could derive the underlying formula....

2e used Thac0 (To Hit Armor Class 0) as a fundamental mechanic and is most known there.
1e also used Thac0.  It was in the DMG Appendix under the monster heading.

By "monster heading" do you mean Appendix C "Random Monster Encounters" (which includes thecasualoblivion's fondly-remembered random Harlot sub-table)?  Or Appendix E "Alphabetical Recapitulation of Monsters (With Experience Point Values)?"  Out of Appendixes A-P, only those two actually usse the word "Monster," some I'm guessing it's one of them, though I can't find it... (mine is the December, 1979 printing of the DMG, in case that makes a difference...)

ah... wait, so obvious I almost missed it, I was looking for actual THAC0 rules like in 2e, when what you're refering to is a just column heading - "To Hit A.C. 0" - which simply gives that number, from the monster's attack matrix, as part of the very abrieviated (one line per monster) statistics in Appendix E.

Appendix E was important, since it did have the only listing of monsters' exp value, but it hardly articulated anything like the THAC0 rule in 2e.  


The OP remains categorically incorrect, both in his mistaken belief that 1e used THAC0, and in his laughable, if all-too-common, assertion that it "had hardly any rules."  Not only was it overburdened   with actual rules, it had 16 Appendixes of additional rules it had no place for...

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

The Rules Cyclopedia has a section on mass combat that is chart heavy.

Whatever DnD does they should publish one version for two decades and stop splintering the fan base.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey