With Furthermoor on hiatus, I recently started playing in a game, and the DM is using 2nd edition AD&D. Outside of how long it takes to make a character, it got me thinking a bit more about the differences between B/X and AD&D. First, this post has nothing to do with the AD&D game I was playing in, but something that came to mind while looking through the 2nd edition PDF.
Video Games and AD&D
While I can enjoy a video game like Skyrim for what it is--knowing I will never actually finish it or care that much about the story--it's simply the video game equivalent to AD&D. In other words, while folks playing AD&D when it first came out could enjoy a game of Zork on their Radio Shack computer, Skyrim (I'm using Skyrim as the all-encompassing example here) brings AD&D to the video game console in a modern way that works, though the game is the same for everybody, and let's face it, like many video games today, it looks extremely realistic (versus, say Minecraft, which is also obviously heavily influenced by D&D), even if it's in a fantasy world. Though Skyrim looks realistic, however, a player can technically walk for days without sleep, can walk for days without eating food (even if they have tons of it), etc....
If food and sleep don't matter much to Skyrim, why include them? Perhaps for the budding chef gamer who prefers to play Skyrim to collect food items and cook up interesting stuff? Why not? For me at least, none of these realistic elements really make the game any more fun, in fact, these tend to be the parts of the game that seem most like real life and work (no, I am not a chef, but just sayin'), exactly what one is generally distancing themselves from when playing a game. This is why I prefer B/X (I'm using B/X as the consensus here, despite the fact that on this blog I'm generally focused on a weird mash-up of Holmes/Mentzer) when I'm DM, versus anything too much more complex. From my experience, at least, complex tends to mean more realistic, and while I can love realistic in say a hex-and-counter Mexican War game, it isn't what I enjoy about D&D at all, in fact, I find that the more complex D&D gets, for both the players and the DM, the expense is the fun, and the spontaneous nature that the game originally came from.
Water and Wineskins
Take a look at the wineskin. In Holmes, the equipment list takes up the bottom third of a page in the back of the book. There's a "Water/Wine Skin" that goes for 1 gp. A quart of wine is the same price. Furthermore, standard rations cost 5 gp for one adventurer for a week.
It's only with regard to encumbrance, that wine and water are mentioned elsewhere in Holmes, and it's during discussion of where things are on a character's body, however, this appears to simply highlight editing to Holmes with regard to the imminence of AD&D ("1 quart wine (in pack)... 1 water skin, shoulder slung, right side,"), for the whole of this encumbrance section is missing from Holmes's original manuscript.
This seems telling with regard to various playing styles of D&D. Holmes, an early admirer and passionate player of the game, respected the players themselves to come up with the game that suited them, but then the published rule shift into more complexity, which meant more realism. In Holmes there are no rules for water consumption, ration consumption, etc. It's left up to the DM. One can assume a beginning character will buy a week's worth of rations, but what if they don't? Does it really matter? It could... What if the DM knows the character/group doesn't have water, they've been delving for a while, and they may soon enter a room of pools (B1: In Search of the Unknown came within the initial Holmes boxed set)? If they are thirsty, and told they may die because they have no water, this room of pools could be super interesting, and a highlight, especially given they therefore have a solid reason to test more than one of the pools. Though the rules say nothing of this deeper angle to the puzzle, that is the way of the Basic... This is a wonderful example of how thirst/lack of water, while yes realistic, is interesting simply because of the possible repercussions gamewise.
Take a look at Mentzer, specifically the section of sample characters in the Players Manual which stresses their use in "group adventures": a cleric equipped with 2 full waterskins; a dwarf with 1 full wineskin; a magic-user with 1 waterskin and 1 wineskin, both full; an elf with neither; a thief with neither; and then a halfling with 1 wineskin and 1 waterskin, both full. While it may be assumed that the elf and the thief would be members of a party with a water or wineskin, who knows... Furthermore, similar to Holmes, with no other rules present, the rations and water/wine options end up more for the DM to play on versus the deepening of character realism. It should also be noted that Mentzer suggests the possible use of water and/or wine in disarming some types of traps.
In other words, what makes dealing with rations/water/wine fun, and somewhat interesting, is not realism. It's because a thoughtful DM perhaps has certain puzzle pieces in their game that could possibly fit in with those factors. Otherwise, it's a pointless wash...
