What have 1st level wizards ever done for us?

[Digitalelf]

It's really quite interesting the read the original rulebooks end to end again. In particular the Expert Set and the Isle of Dread module that it included have quite a lot to say about campaign design. And it doesn't promote dungeon clearing and hexcrawling at all.
I think it's probably a lot of people not understanding the books when they first started playing and then sticking to the way they have always played, assuming it's the default way.

To be fair, while B/X are adaptations of the original 1974 rules, they are not themselves, the "original rulebooks".

[Yora]

For this purpose, I consider all TSR books to be "original rulebooks". In contrast to peoples headcanon and retroclones with various "improvements".

[DDogwood]

To be fair, while B/X are adaptations of the original 1974 rules, they are not themselves, the "original rulebooks".

To be fair, most people do not have access to, nor have ever read, the "original rulebooks". This is probably part of the reason there is so much misinformation about them on forums.

I happen to have the original rules (actually, the fancy WotC reprints in the wood box, but the contents are the same as the originals). In the first three rules booklets, there are rules for designing dungeons, for exploring the wilderness, for setting up fortifications and gaining control of wilderness, for maintaining the morale of one's subjects and preventing peasant uprisings, and so on. The perception that OD&D was ONLY about exploring random dungeons is simply wrong.

That said, the game was explicitly designed to be a game about exploring weird underground labyrinths to search for treasure, so it's fair to say that the focus of the game was on dungeon crawling. OD&D was designed as a supplement to the Chainmail wargame rules, and the combat system that became standard in other versions of D&D was based on the "variant" combat system presented for those who didn't want to use the Chainmail rules.

Claiming that the dungeons didn't exist in the context of a world, setting or culture is wrong. The game didn't present a specific setting, but the assumption was that the referee would create his own setting and make any modifications to the rules he deemed suitable. I know that plenty of people played it as wandering through random labyrinths, gathering treasure, but there's a difference between saying "people often played this way" and "the game was designed this way".

What I love about old-school play is that a lot of details about the setting, the characters, and the plot are emergent rather than predetermined. In the game I ran for my students, random wandering monster results eventually showed us that there was a nearby clan of dwarves who were exploring the dungeon with an eye to reclaiming it eventually. A crippled former adventurer became a hireling of the party, running a smithy they owned and repairing and maintaining the party's equipment. Some of the Chaotic PCs started working for a slaver's guild, assassinating people for the slavers without asking any questions. I started that campaign with nothing more than a rulebook and module B2, and before any PCs hit level 2 I had enough plot seeds and ideas from the players to keep the campaign going for months.

I would argue that the whole POINT of old-school play is the emergent stuff. It might not always be as refined or consistent as a pre-plotted campaign designed by a skilled GM, but it belongs equally to the GM and all of the players, and in my experience the players find it far more engaging.

[cucchulainnn]

It's really quite interesting the read the original rulebooks end to end again. In particular the Expert Set and the Isle of Dread module that it included have quite a lot to say about campaign design. And it doesn't promote dungeon clearing and hexcrawling at all.
I think it's probably a lot of people not understanding the books when they first started playing and then sticking to the way they have always played, assuming it's the default way.

that makes a lot of sense, where i grew up, well i started playing around 79-80. we started with the red basic book. played that for a while then moved up to Ad&d cause that is what the big kids played. while i am pretty sure many of us had a copy of expert rules, i don't remember anyone using it much less actually reading it. yea, it was common to use tables (out of the DMs guide) to roll for content while playing. we did that when every no one had any thing specific set up. which was fairly common.

when i say we moved to Ad&d at the time i had thought we where playing Ad&d, but looking back i can say definitively we where playing basic with the players handbook and monster manual bolted on. i don't remember us using much out of the DMs guide. except for the random tables in the back. this seemed to be extremely common for most of the 80s up until when i stopped playing around the early to mid 90s.

[Thrudd]

To be fair, most people do not have access to, nor have ever read, the "original rulebooks". This is probably part of the reason there is so much misinformation about them on forums.

I happen to have the original rules (actually, the fancy WotC reprints in the wood box, but the contents are the same as the originals). In the first three rules booklets, there are rules for designing dungeons, for exploring the wilderness, for setting up fortifications and gaining control of wilderness, for maintaining the morale of one's subjects and preventing peasant uprisings, and so on. The perception that OD&D was ONLY about exploring random dungeons is simply wrong.

That said, the game was explicitly designed to be a game about exploring weird underground labyrinths to search for treasure, so it's fair to say that the focus of the game was on dungeon crawling. OD&D was designed as a supplement to the Chainmail wargame rules, and the combat system that became standard in other versions of D&D was based on the "variant" combat system presented for those who didn't want to use the Chainmail rules.

Claiming that the dungeons didn't exist in the context of a world, setting or culture is wrong. The game didn't present a specific setting, but the assumption was that the referee would create his own setting and make any modifications to the rules he deemed suitable. I know that plenty of people played it as wandering through random labyrinths, gathering treasure, but there's a difference between saying "people often played this way" and "the game was designed this way".

What I love about old-school play is that a lot of details about the setting, the characters, and the plot are emergent rather than predetermined. In the game I ran for my students, random wandering monster results eventually showed us that there was a nearby clan of dwarves who were exploring the dungeon with an eye to reclaiming it eventually. A crippled former adventurer became a hireling of the party, running a smithy they owned and repairing and maintaining the party's equipment. Some of the Chaotic PCs started working for a slaver's guild, assassinating people for the slavers without asking any questions. I started that campaign with nothing more than a rulebook and module B2, and before any PCs hit level 2 I had enough plot seeds and ideas from the players to keep the campaign going for months.

I would argue that the whole POINT of old-school play is the emergent stuff. It might not always be as refined or consistent as a pre-plotted campaign designed by a skilled GM, but it belongs equally to the GM and all of the players, and in my experience the players find it far more engaging.

That's very similar to my experience, also starting with B2. The world emerged as we played, refinement came gradually as I expanded the setting based on where the game and the players went.

[Yora]

that makes a lot of sense, where i grew up, well i started playing around 79-80. we started with the red basic book. played that for a while then moved up to Ad&d cause that is what the big kids played. while i am pretty sure many of us had a copy of expert rules, i don't remember anyone using it much less actually reading it. yea, it was common to use tables (out of the DMs guide) to roll for content while playing.

Now the 3rd edition and AD&D books are a lot bigger beasts than the Basic and Expert rules (and AD&D close to incomprehensible), but I know that of about 20 people I introduced to the game and I explained the rules, not a single one actually sat down at any point to read the whole 3rd ed. PHB
front to back. They look up feats and spells, and that's it. What they think the actual rules are is really what I told them the rules are. And given that OD&D spread basically by telephone game, I am sure there were huge amounts of completely wrong rules interpretations in circulation. Not that at the time many people seem to have been much concerned about how it was originally meant to work. Not even the guy who wrote those rules.
But 12 year old boys tend to have very different requirements for their entertainment than men in their 30s to 50s.

[thirdkingdom]

That's very similar to my experience, also starting with B2. The world emerged as we played, refinement came gradually as I expanded the setting based on where the game and the players went.

That's why I like the randomized nature of older games: the dice produce a far better story than I could ever purposefully plot out.

[Digitalelf]

I am sure there were huge amounts of completely wrong rules interpretations in circulation. Not that at the time many people seem to have been much concerned about how it was originally meant to work. Not even the guy who wrote those rules.

Actually, he did care; which is one of the (many) reasons why he created AD&D in the first place:

This is an excerpt from an article by him in issue #12 of The Dragon...

While (Original) D&D campaigns can be those which feature comic book spells, 43rd level balrogs as player characters, and include a plethora of trash from various and sundry sources, AD&D cannot be so composed. Either a DM runs an AD&D campaign, or else it is something else. This is clearly stated within the work, and it is a mandate which will be unchanging, even if AD&D undergoes change at some future date. While DMs are free to allow many unique features to become a part of their campaign—special magic items, new monsters, different spells, unusual settings—and while they can have free rein in devising the features and facts pertaining to the various planes which surround the Prime Material, it is understood they must adhere to the form of AD&D. Otherwise what they referee is a variant adventure game. DMs still create an entire milieu, populate it and give it history and meaning. Players still develop personae and adventure in realms of the strange and fantastic, performing deeds of derring-do, but this all follows a master plan.

The advantages of such a game are obvious. Because the integral features are known and immutable, there can be no debate as to what is correct. A meaningful dialog can be carried on between DMs, regardless of what region they play in. Players can move from one AD&D campaign to another and know at the very least the basic precepts of the game—that magic-users will not wield swords, that fighters don’t have instant death to give or take with critical hits or double damage, that strange classes of characters do not rule the campaign, that the various deities will not be constantly popping in and out of the game at the beck and call of player characters, etc. AD&D will suffer no such abuses, and DMs who allow them must realize this up front. The best feature of a game which offers real form, however, is that it will more readily lend itself to actual improvement—not change, but true improvement Once everybody is actually playing a game which is basically the same from campaign to campaign, any flaws or shortcomings of the basic systems and/or rules will become apparent. With (original) D&D, arguments regarding some rule are lost due to the differences in play and the wide variety of solutions proposed—most of which reflect the propensities of local groups reacting to some variant system which their DM uses in his or her campaign in the first place. With AD&D, such aberrations will be excluded, and a broad base can be used to determine what is actually needed and desired.

[cucchulainnn]

Now the 3rd edition and AD&D books are a lot bigger beasts than the Basic and Expert rules (and AD&D close to incomprehensible), but I know that of about 20 people I introduced to the game and I explained the rules, not a single one actually sat down at any point to read the whole 3rd ed. PHB
front to back. They look up feats and spells, and that's it. What they think the actual rules are is really what I told them the rules are. And given that OD&D spread basically by telephone game, I am sure there were huge amounts of completely wrong rules interpretations in circulation. Not that at the time many people seem to have been much concerned about how it was originally meant to work. Not even the guy who wrote those rules.
But 12 year old boys tend to have very different requirements for their entertainment than men in their 30s to 50s.

no doubt about that.
when i started out there wasn't many parents playing, or even adults that i knew of. i started some time during junior high. the older crowd that played where mostly the high school kids. there were also a few counselors that DMed at the local boys club. they way it basically went down was, most of us either had a copy of the red book and we played that for a while. then some one got the players hand book so we subbed the classes and folded it into what we where already doing then got the monster manual. the last thing we go was the DMs guide but by that time we where already set in our ways. this was also about the same time that a lot of us where getting into high school and started playing with the older kids. seemed that they when through the same process.

game would brake out all over the place. on the bus going to or from school, in the school yard or library during recess, walking into a game at the boys club. i remember once playing while waiting on line for a movie, we didn't have dice so we flipped coins. of course by that time we all knew the rules we felt where important and could play from memory. for the most part if it was later found out that a rule was miss used no one really cared that much.

with all that said the it was mostly the older kids that taught a lot of us how to run campaigns and such. which was basically the world would generate as we played from the events that either current players are doing or previous player did or even possibly other player in the same DMs world are doing while they play at different times.

[Corey]

So sure...the MU got one spell. As already stated...usually SLEEP...but never underestimate the power of COLOR SPRAY or GREASE.. And as already stated, there were quite a few "non-combat" spells you could cast, and if you were clever enough, you could find combat applications for a lot of those as well.

I never used Grease. Sleep, Color Spray or Silent Image were more likely to turn the whole encounter, it seemed.

But I don't go back further than AD&D.

[MeeposFire]

As stated earlier, everybody kind of sucked at 1st level...not just the MU. "Modern" (3.x +) gamers seem to have this "burn everything down and loot the ashes" mentality...every encounter (with a monster) has to be combat, and it must be nuked.

In the "old days", the were just as many (some times, more) traps and puzzles to figure out as monsters...and you didn't always have (or want) to fight them. There was more to it than "I hit it with my sword" You had to use strategy, not just tactics (if you don't know the difference, there's part of your problem right there).

So sure...the MU got one spell. As already stated...usually SLEEP...but never underestimate the power of COLOR SPRAY or GREASE.. And as already stated, there were quite a few "non-combat" spells you could cast, and if you were clever enough, you could find combat applications for a lot of those as well.

If for some reason you just wanted your MU to be a pack mule... Tenser's Floating Disk was a lot better than having the guy actually carry stuff.



Well, "back in the day" there really was only one RPG, and it would take decades before it or its copy-cats got the idea to include anything like skills. Which meant, yes, there was a lot of "My character does X. Does it work?" But mostly because there wasn't a set rule for doing X....the DM had to make it up as he went along.

Oddly enough, some times it seems adding the skills (and later, Feats) seems to have curbed creative play some what, as players tend to think of ideas that are only covered by their skill list....





You guys do remember that there were two versions of Traveller, right?

Adding skills did not make players less creative though what it does do is that it makes many creative actions unlikely to have success unless you have that certain skill and the players will know it before hand. In previous editions you either gave them no idea so it was a complete gamble, you would tell them their relative chances depending on what factors you think count, or you would tell them to make an ability check (in older D&D) which tended to have at least a fair chance of success assuming you were decent in the ability score. This results in them asking you about these actions which is the key difference. In more modern versions of D&D they already know their chances most of the time and so there is little point of asking unless they know it will work but in older versions you had to ask to find out so the creativity was brought to your attention.

Those rules make asking less necessary and sadly in many cases make many creative answers less than effective.

[Knaight]

Adding skills did not make players less creative though what it does do is that it makes many creative actions unlikely to have success unless you have that certain skill and the players will know it before hand. In previous editions you either gave them no idea so it was a complete gamble, you would tell them their relative chances depending on what factors you think count, or you would tell them to make an ability check (in older D&D) which tended to have at least a fair chance of success assuming you were decent in the ability score. This results in them asking you about these actions which is the key difference. In more modern versions of D&D they already know their chances most of the time and so there is little point of asking unless they know it will work but in older versions you had to ask to find out so the creativity was brought to your attention.

Hardly. Certain creative uses that correspond to skills that the character is actually good at are vastly more accessible than they were prior to the implementation of skill systems, and while creative strategies that depend on characters doing something they suck at tend not to work so well, that has always been true, it just used to be based on an attribute.

I'm not a proponent of any of the later D&D skill systems, but skills in general have been in games for a good long time. GURPS is not exactly new, to pick one example. Creative problem solving taking into account character abilities has managed to remain just fine in plenty of modern systems.

[MeeposFire]

Hardly. Certain creative uses that correspond to skills that the character is actually good at are vastly more accessible than they were prior to the implementation of skill systems, and while creative strategies that depend on characters doing something they suck at tend not to work so well, that has always been true, it just used to be based on an attribute.

I'm not a proponent of any of the later D&D skill systems, but skills in general have been in games for a good long time. GURPS is not exactly new, to pick one example. Creative problem solving taking into account character abilities has managed to remain just fine in plenty of modern systems.

The difference between success and failure with ability checks was around that sweet point where people felt like they had a reasonable chance at success especially since the DM got to choose how to modify the roll to enhance failure and success. This meant that people were potentially enticed to try it. If you have a skill system the system has to reward those with the skill and punish those without. That means trying random actions that you did not specifically take have much lower chances of success (especially the farther you go into the game) or are not allowed at all. Players that know that their chances are really terrible are not going to try the action and eventually will stop asking unless they are skilled in that area.

This can be seen by some as a good thing rewarding those who take skills that fit what they want their characters do however if you are the type that wants players to try actions and all actions skills will make that harder because they will then tend towards actions that they can succeed with.

As an example pre 3e many fighters could be the party face. The idea of being a noble warrior and thus would lead a platoon seemed to make a lot of sense. Depending on the DM ablity checks may not be required to talk to NPCs which would let anybody participate in a conversation and puts emphasis on what the players say (of course this can be seen as devaluing what the character could have said which is what a skill could represent). In 3e they lacked the skill to effectively speak to NPCs effectively which is why mid to late game any class without those skills would want those players to not talk in any situation where a skill check could come up because they could have a very difficult time making the check. Even if the player has a good idea it may be better to not say it because the player knows that success is not likely at that point. You can of course see the other side where some people like the idea that if a character is supposed to be a diplomat then he should have the skills to back that up mechanically (the other side would say that the DM could show that by keeping that in mind when deciding success).


Skills can open up certain avenues of creativity but it also closes others really you hve to decide what sort of things you want to be able to happen in your game heck that is why many AD&D games still do not use NWPs but many others do.

[Thrudd]

I'm fine with skills or NWP representing things that require specialized training or professions, like rope making or fletching arrows, juggling or playing an instrument. General activities which all people should be able to attempt don't need skills or rolls normally, beyond reaction rolls and things specified by the abilities. Anyone could be a diplomat, enough charisma for a reaction bonus helps. Anyone can swim or jump or or hide behind a tree, and they shouldn't hesitate to do those things.

[Knaight]

TAs an example pre 3e many fighters could be the party face. The idea of being a noble warrior and thus would lead a platoon seemed to make a lot of sense. Depending on the DM ablity checks may not be required to talk to NPCs which would let anybody participate in a conversation and puts emphasis on what the players say (of course this can be seen as devaluing what the character could have said which is what a skill could represent). In 3e they lacked the skill to effectively speak to NPCs effectively which is why mid to late game any class without those skills would want those players to not talk in any situation where a skill check could come up because they could have a very difficult time making the check.

Sure, and in post 3e games that weren't D&D 3e the exact same dynamic exists. The problem wasn't adding skills, the problem was that 3e added skills poorly. Take GURPS, a game as skill based as they get - someone who is both a capable combatant and general party face makes plenty of sense and is easy to implement. It's also easy to implement someone who is a capable combatant, but who for whatever reason isn't great with leadership. Or you could have a capable combatant who isn't the party face for most things, but who are generally silver tongued and can work wonders in settings with tightly defined etiquette or that need lots of lying.

Like I said, I'm not a proponent of any edition of D&D's skill system. I've just seen enough skill based systems close absolutely no avenues of creativity that I don't buy that as a consequence of a well designed skill system.

[MeeposFire]

Sure, and in post 3e games that weren't D&D 3e the exact same dynamic exists. The problem wasn't adding skills, the problem was that 3e added skills poorly. Take GURPS, a game as skill based as they get - someone who is both a capable combatant and general party face makes plenty of sense and is easy to implement. It's also easy to implement someone who is a capable combatant, but who for whatever reason isn't great with leadership. Or you could have a capable combatant who isn't the party face for most things, but who are generally silver tongued and can work wonders in settings with tightly defined etiquette or that need lots of lying.

Like I said, I'm not a proponent of any edition of D&D's skill system. I've just seen enough skill based systems close absolutely no avenues of creativity that I don't buy that as a consequence of a well designed skill system.

I don't recall saying that skill systems mean that you have no creativity though what I did say is that the the types of creativity and how it is implemented will be affected by a skill system.

[runeghost]

However, the best way to survive is to stand in the back doing nothing.
The alternative is standing in the front with a dagger, and that means certain death.

Anyone here actually played a 1st level wizard? What did you do?

Carried the light source. Took cover, then threw daggers, darts or flaming oil. Saved my Sleep spell for the big fight, or used my Charm Person to get us extra muscle and info early in the adventure. Scouted with my familiar (who also buffed my hit points). Roleplayed the smart, knowledgeable guy who could figure out puzzles and talk to strange things. After the adventure, cast Detect Magic to help ID loot. (Identify generally wasn't viable at first level.)

I've played a lot of first level Magic-Users over the years.

And one last note. While 1st level MUs in AD&D could only memorize one spell per day, they started the game knowing four, including Read Magic.

[Slayn82]

In my gaming group we usually expanded a little the scope of non weapon proficiencies.

Herbalism and Alchemy skills meant your first level wizards could make poisons, or quite often hallucinogens and laxatives that with a little help from the party thief were almost as good for disposing enemies.
Specially if you also had cooking and brewing as skills, because most cheap and effective things often demanded being ingested.

Alchemy also allowed to gather some money by getting magically relevant parts from monsters.

Engineering was quite good too. Used to map building interiors, design secret compartments on chests, dismantle and loot disarmed traps.

Once we got the Cantrip non weapon proficiency from a Dragon Magazine article called "small wishes", things became way more interesting.

[Jay R]

Carried the light source. Took cover, ...

One or the other. Either carrying the lantern or taking cover. Not both at the same time.

[Lord Torath]

One or the other. Either carrying the lantern or taking cover. Not both at the same time.

Unless your light source is on the end of a pole...

[DDogwood]

Unless your light source is on the end of a pole...

Yeah, I can think of several ways to take cover while carrying a lantern. Hiding is a different matter, of course, unless you have a hooded lantern.

[Mutazoia]

Yeah, I can think of several ways to take cover while carrying a lantern. Hiding is a different matter, of course, unless you have a hooded lantern.

Now see....that's one of the great thing about the Grease spell. Not only does it force your opponents to make constant dex checks....but grease is flammable. Toss a torch, and those grease covered Kobolds become an excellent light source.....

[runeghost]

One or the other. Either carrying the lantern or taking cover. Not both at the same time.

I didn't throw darts, daggers AND flaming oil all at the same time either, but I absolutely did them throw them all as a first level MU at some point.

And, as other have pointed out, carrying a lantern attached to an 8' pole (10' poles are too unwieldy in most dungeons, unless they're collapsible), usually via a metal ring or hook, absolutely lets you provide light while still taking cover behind doors, chests, overturned tables (one of the more common sources of cover), other PCs, and the dead bodies of enemies (if there are enough dead PC bodies to provide cover, the 1st level MU is probably better off leveraging his 12" unencumbered move and running away - while following the map he's been keeping and has memorized - you did have the smart guy who doesn't do combat map, right?)

[Hawkstar]

I am completely the opposite of that. As I see it, player characters are not average people but all exceptional.

In Old School, they weren't. Well, they were no more exceptional than any other homeless bum. Yeah, a 1st-level Fighter was a 'veteran' - but not the Hollywood Spec Ops Badass-type of veteran, and instead more the 'struggling to make ends meet after getting shafted by the incompetence of the VA"

You wouldn't write a book or make a movie about an average person with an average life. By deciding to make the book or movie about this person, you already determined that this person is going to have an experience worth telling about. If you set up and play in a campaign, I think it should also be about people who are somehow extraordinary. Why bother playing a group of people who might be one of the 1% who accomplish something big, but also might not.
Though that's indeed just one of several valid default assumption of what a fantasy adventure RPG is.

A lot of the best books and stories are about average or even below average people (at least to start) thrust into extraordinary circumstances.


The D&D you are familiar with is NOTHING like the D&D from the 70s and 80s. Now, you start with a character that can hold their own. Now, you are expected to have a background and personality for your character. And possibly most importantly, now you're entitled to a full 20-25% of the spotlight time (4-5 player characters). In OD&D... you were lucky if you were 5% of the game.

[Lord Torath]

(10' poles are too unwieldy in most dungeons, unless they're collapsible)

Actually, you can bring a 10’ pole into a 5’ wide dungeon and get it around corners without difficulty. Heck, you can get a 14’ pole around a 90-degree corner without even using three dimensions! And a 15’ pole around a similar corner if the tunnel height is at least 5’. If it's 10' tall, you can bring a 17' pole. So a 10' pole should not cause issues.

[hamlet]

Actually, you can bring a 10’ pole into a 5’ wide dungeon and get it around corners without difficulty. Heck, you can get a 14’ pole around a 90-degree corner without even using three dimensions! And a 15’ pole around a similar corner if the tunnel height is at least 5’. If it's 10' tall, you can bring a 17' pole. So a 10' pole should not cause issues.

And the proliferation of 10' poles caused the counter-proliferation of 11' diameter radius effect traps. MAD for sure.

Being exceptionally evil and angry at a particular player, as a DM, I invented a trap series by a rather clever magic-user from way back that were still used from time to time that were semi-smart: just smart enough to figure out if somebody was poking at it with their finger or a stick and react accordingly. Specifically, if with a finger, a standard 10' diameter effect. If with a pole, then the effect was actually from 11' - 20' diameter with a "clear zone" in the middle.

Basically, an old wizard who got cheesed off after one too many times being looted by adventuring thieves.

My players hated me the first time they encountered them. Now, they think they're just great fun and are trying to figure out ways around them.

[Lord Torath]

Being exceptionally evil and angry at a particular player, as a DM, I invented a trap series by a rather clever magic-user from way back that were still used from time to time that were semi-smart: just smart enough to figure out if somebody was poking at it with their finger or a stick and react accordingly. Specifically, if with a finger, a standard 10' diameter effect. If with a pole, then the effect was actually from 11' - 20' diameter with a "clear zone" in the middle.

So you're saying my halfling with the 5' pole would be just fine?

[hamlet]

So you're saying my halfling with the 5' pole would be just fine?

Yup. Just a bit of history fun really.

[Grimstaff]

The main question I have here is what people actually did do when they played 1st and 2nd level wizards. Did they do anything but being present in the room so that their character would get XP and eventually become relevant after 4 to 10 sessions?

Firstly, you're talking about an edition that was like 75% exploration and 25% combat. You were much more engaged as a Player than as a Character. Even xp came predominantly from treasure. Smart parties didn't fight at all or only when forced to - risking your lives against a few 10xp orcs just isn't worth it if you can talk or sneak past them and get ahold of that chest full of 1000xp worth of gold.

Secondly, while todays Wizards can be considered "blasters" pinging away with endless little shots, early edition casters were heavy artillery. Magic Missile was an auto-kill, Sleep was an instant encounter-ender, Fireball reduced hordes of 16hp ogres to clouds of fine ash, etc.

My favorite tactic as a 1st level MU was to cast charm on the first tough guy we met in the dungeon - saves against spells were next to impossible and charm lasts about a month. Instant meat shield. At 2nd level you pick up sleep to clear out a dozen goblins at once. By the time your pointy-hat 1E wizard is 6th or 7th level, everyone is in constant terror of him lol.

[Bulldog Psion]

Yes, they did their best to get rid of the heavy artillery bit. Not sure how well they succeeded, but ....