D&D 1E 5e Play, 1e Play, and the Immersive Experience

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, and no.

I mostly agree, in the sense that a lot of this has been filled out; I don't think that it needed to, or should have been (pretty much everything post 1985 that is Greyhawk is, IMO, garbage, but that's okay). So to the extent that prior references were truly unexplored, whereas 5e references are more like "fan service" in a Marvel movie, yes.

I can understand the preference for things to be only hints, and leaving it up to the readers/players to decide.

But to a 10 year old kid picking up the PHB for the first time, is the description of the fall of the drow "fan service"? Is it there to make you and I go "right, right" or is it there to inspire players?

It's hard to know. I suppose the only real answer is that it's a mixture of both those things.

OTOH, there was something truly bizarre and subversive about the original core books, partly because they were so very idiosyncratic. While some things did not age well (the random harlot's table) other things did (the bizarre side excursion into tariffs after government types, for example). The mix of history (real history, albeit combined from multiple sources) with fantastical lore (like the artifact descriptions) to the ... well, strange authorial advice (hey- the bad of beans requires imagination and judgment) and verbiage (pretty sure that the only reason antipathy has any currency today is because of ex-D&D players).

Those books were certainly original in that sense. I often get the impression they were the way they were because that's how things made sense for Gygax. Like, if there was a rule that was really more class related than anything, but it had only come up in play in a discussion about alignment, then it would be found in the alignment section. It likely made sense in a way, if you were designing the rules as you went.

Do you think Gygax was torn about implying a world or not? That's the impression I get. It seemed like he expected that everyone would come up with their own world, so his is only mentioned when examples are needed, or for flavor for some of the artifacts. I feel like he could have committed more or left it out altogether, but instead he went with a middle road.

I wonder if the books would have been so immersive if he'd come right out and detailed the world.

 

[Wiseblood]

I got partially through the thread and something occurred to me that I feel I must share.

I remember playing the 1e, BEMCI, 2e and then 3e and 4e and now to 5e. Most time spent on 2e, 3e(&.5 and PF) and now 5e.

Now for my insight. ( if there is such a thing)

D&D through the end of 2e seems to be written with the expectation that you shall (not may) reference charts during play.

3e through 5e seems to be written with the expectation that you have pages of character sheet to reference. Almost to the point where checking the books during play is a failure of the rules or some kind of sin.

Thanks to Lowkey13 for the thread. My IPhone doesn’t want to let me give XP any ideas how to make it happen?

 

[Rhenny]

when I first started playing D&D in the 70s with Basic and 1e, immersion was so much easier because the entire experience was mind-blowingly new and frankly, the rules were too random and unorganized to truly understand on ones own. As a result, my friends and Iread, studied and oogled over the rule books for fun, but when we played we just interpreted the rules the way we wanted to so that the game was fun, exciting and focused mostly on exploration and combat in a fantasy world.

As we played more, and we became more and more rules conscious, we thought more in terms of rules and arguments about rules and how to make rules work better, and it was harder to gain immersion. Truth be told, this also corresponded with us turning from young teens into older teens and eventually young adults along with the advent of 2nd and later (as true adults) 3rd edition.

Currently, I’m finding that I have a much easier time getting into an immersive state while playing and DMing 5e. Maybe because I’m older and have gone through my ultra focus on rules stage and now when I play or DM now, I just like to focus on the story, the exploration and the character building within a campaign. 5e works well for that. Sure people could still do that with other versions of the game, but to me it is so much easier now because the core rules are pretty simple and most game decisions just call for a DC and a d20 roll or no roll if there is no chance of error and an action seems as if a PC should be able to pull it off.

One thing that always blocked immersion for me was having to look up rules and results and it was especially difficult to DM when different actions or different mechanics had different rules or tables. I could run 1e by ignoring a lot of the crazy rules Gygax had, but there really wasn’t a good action resolution mechanism back then so we all tended to wing it. Now with 5e the action resolution mechanism is pretty simple and universal so I can use it and still wing it. (By wing it, I mean that I can focus less on rules more on keeping the story and the action moving without getting bogged down by the rules).

 

[Bawylie]

Hm.

I can tell I’m running an immersive game when the phones don’t come out, when there’s quite a bit of time between smoke breaks, when we’re not still half-thinking about the trouble at work or wherever.

What I strive for, as Elfcrusher brought up earlier, is to evoke an emotion fitting the experience of play. I don’t always succeed at that, even though I aim at it.

System is thornier as a subject. Back before the internet, when my summer days were 45 hours long and I didn’t start back up at school for another year, looking up rules and poring over the spells was part of playing. So was drawing your adventurer, your maps, tracking encumbrance and ammunition, and poking every inch of a dungeon with an 11’ pole (I know some of you amateur adventurers used 10’ poles like chumps). Golly, even preparing a game took as long (or longer) as playing it.

Today, I have responsibilities and bills and Netflix. Today my engagement with the system of the game is necessarily minimal. In fact, the less I have to touch the system, the better. So a unified mechanic is good, insofar as it saves me time. In use, it must be accessible enough to facilitate play without inhibiting it - which is why I feel spells and casters are badly out of date. Each spell is effectively a special single-case rule, and they are not collected in a spell book for a player or easy to reference.

Monsters too, if I’m honest. Special packet of rules. Not well-collected for use at the table during play.

So I’ve bought spell cards and monster cards and any other darn thing that will save me time during play.

In the end, the system doesn’t matter at all, once we’re past the point that it’s an obstacle itself to navigate. I could run a game based on coin tosses as a system, provided the rest of the stuff was sufficiently at-hand and useful. I can’t say 1E was/is/isn’t more immersive than 5E. I play those in different contexts. F GURPS, though.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

For me - as a "Feel what my character feels" immersionist - The more details and consistent the rules are the more I immerse. The system that gives me best immersion is Hero 5th. No rule for the specifics of genre or particular setting - but knowing the system as well as I do, I don't ever have to consciously think mechanically - it's pretty much down to instinct. Which means all of my focus while playing is becoming my character.

In general I have a very difficult time immersing in 1st ed, because of all the different cases. I end up having to think mechanically about them, rather than feel what my character feels.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[DEFCON 1]

These kind of discussions never really impact me in any way because when it comes to "immersion" or "getting into the game" or "feeling what my character feels"... the game mechanics are never the main part of it. For me, it begins and ends at the same place.

The Game Master.

Any Game Master can take a brutal rule set and make a fantastic, immersive experience out of it because of their skill of creating a world that I can act in and react in. Conversely, even the greatest and most interesting rulebook and/or game mechanics in the world can be used to create a tedious, uninteresting, and downright irritating experience because the Game Master just cannot act in any way to make what they are saying compelling.

I've played AD&D games that have been thrill rides and others that have been slogs. I've played 7th Sea games that are some of the greatest gaming experiences of my life. I've had sucky Paranoia games and intricate and adventurous Star Trek games, and 4E games that have sometimes been like playing a board game and others that have been just as immersive as any 3E game I've played. All based upon who was Game Mastering and how well they can do this very labor intensive and creative job.

Proper rules and game mechanics that enhance a game's flavor and story are certainly preferable if given the choice... but I'd still take the better Game Master over those proper rules and mechanics every single time.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Truth. I’ve even gone back and run a 1e campaign in recent years, and while it was a blast, it wasn’t the same as back in the day. I like to think I’ve improved as a DM since then, but at the same time, that sense of newness, wonder, and discovery wasn’t there. Neither was the abundant free time.

I can’t say 1E was/is/isn’t more immersive than 5E. I play those in different contexts.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So, TSR (at that point, Gygax) famously refused to put out modules during the early years because the thought was that people were going to run their own games, and why would any DM run some canned adventure written by someone else?

Ahem. Anyway, they were quickly disabused of that notion. But you can see echoes of it in the early writings of Gygax, giving hints of his worlds and his ideas, without prescribing that they should be the basis for anyone else's campaign.

Heck, this carried through to the late publication of the GHreyhawk folio and Gygax's clear ambivalence about revealing his own campaign details, or, for that matter, the whole issue of Castle Greyhawk, which is another can of worms.

But I think the answer to your question is that he was not torn. You are absolutely correct when you write that he expected that everyone would come up with their own world, or, even if they based their world on something else (like GH) they would tell their own stories.

Right....but then the question is why give examples from his own game or setting? Why not use myth or simply create examples on the fly?

Not that I expect anyone to know....just curious to think about.