OD&D 4E and its effect on 1E/OD&D

[SSquirrel]

I agree, on my part this is wishful thinking. But so what?
One reason 3.5ers might like AD&D is the ability of not having so many options (across the board). Once everything seems to be like everything else (the MU with armor, the fighter with spells) a desire to get back to archetypes could occur, and AD&D D&D are better suited for this.
Options (or variations) relate more to personality in AD&D, something you slowly develop as your character advances.

Right so completely random restrictions to race/class choices, forcing a character to stay at 8th level while their friends can go up to whatever level they want, these are all good ideas? Lack of options itself is less complex, until you look at most of the actual sub-systems in this case, but not satisfying to all (maybe even most). I LIKE the lack of level limits in 3E. I LIKE the chance to make a Half-Orc Wizard. He might not be the best wizard ever, but he could be quite a personality.

I don't need to level to have personality, I have plenty of my own and infuse my characters w/their own from the start. Even if your character is level one, they are their own person and may be as bookish or flamboyant as you can imagine. Just b/c you show off your feathers and maybe cow some who may be higher level than you doesn't mean you really CAN kick their butt, but you can maybe pull it off so they think you can and leave you alone

I'll start with options and dial it back as needed instead of having to create all my options whole cloth. I havea 2 year old daughter, I don't have nearly as much time to obsess over D&D as I did in middle school

Just because you ONLY like customization, and wouldn't consider archetypes, doesn't mean other 3.5ers wouldn't (esp. those that haven't been to this board (the vast majority of 3E players) and aren't so jaded from past conflict.

Actually, in 1E I ran into problems of some DMs would let me do the things I was describing b/c they fit the idea of my character (sometimes even the pure archetype) and other DMs wouldn't allow any of it. It was all completely up to the DM's discretion and no one else. In 3E the PHB has things like feats so if you want to be able to do X, take the Y and Z feats and you can pull that off every combat if you like. Nifty.

Now, I'm sure someone will comment about how 3E either a)removes all power from the DM or b)codifies things that don't need codified or c)goes overboard completely, but a)Rule Zero exists, b)obviously they did need codified as 3E was the result of thousands of player input and people appear to have mentioned it a decent bit and c)well maybe so, esp as the supplements kept piling on. 2E was awful about this with the class books too tho. 1E just kept tacking on new rules in the DSG, WSG, UA, etc. A model still sued to this day in fact.

Also Valiant, some of us aren't very likely to go back to earlier editions and we're in your thread, but I'm here b/c I find the topic interesting and I enjoy discussions like this. Maybe someone can make me re-examine the earlier stuff, but I doubt it as I enjoy options far too much. I don't mind if I'm playing 3E and the DM says "Hey in my world there are no elves and no one is a Paladin" b/c that is the guys world. If i had my heart dead set on an Elven Paladin or nothing else, then I'd probly be playing something by myself while my friends were busy playing D&D. Or just pick something else b/c it's a different game and some thing different to try.

 

[SSquirrel]

Not to distract from the thread here, but who cares if the stick of butter is covered by the rules or not? Surely nobody's wizard is casting fireball as a means of cooking for the adventuring party? And even if they were, do we really need the rules to cover that eventuality? And even if we do, wouldn't the Profession (cook) or Craft (sumpteous meals) or something like that cover it better anyway?

Fizban the Fabulous would have!!

 

[Harmon]

With 4E coming out, I wonder if we'll see more 3.5 players start looking at 1E and OSRIC/C&C (and other new 1E support material). To some extent I think 4E is a response to public awareness of these 2 systems (a return to simplicity). Certainly, they're promo tries to play off of the evolution of 1E (grounding it in the games roots). Why not get people to actually take a look at the original game.

With the coming of 4e I would say that there is a better chance of me switching to 4e then there is of me going backwards to 1e, but only slightly.

I see no reason (other then playing in a game with the original designer of the game) to head in what I would think of as a negative direction (that would be back to 1e).

1e is like the very first car, it started the revolution and it got me started, but the suspension is better in my new car, and rides fine. Do I want to ride in the Lizzy? A five minute ride with the living designers might be fun, but....

4e was created to take money from my pocket and put it into someone else's pocket, and I have no intention of doing that willingly.

 

[Valiant]

SSQ, when I say in 1E the PC develops personality as the game advances, what I mean is that the PC might be played differently to reflect the mood of the player, or perhaps to reflect different attributes (say a fighter with an 18 dex and a 9 str. vs another with an 18 str. vs. a 9 dex) or magical items that alter behavior. Its still your own personality brought into the game, but actions and behavior changes to your PCs situation.

As for the 1E rules. Those rules deliver a unique feel; without them it wouldn't be AD&D. Level limits are easily house ruled out BTW.

 

[The_Gneech]

I like the old modules, I like the old books, I hate the old game system. I would go back to HERO with a song in my heart before I did anything with pre-3E D&D. As it is, 3E still has a bunch of baggage that I'm hoping 4E will rid it of (although it's looking like it's going to pile on new baggage of its own, alas).

-The Gneech

 

[Desdichado]

Hobo, please chill out. No reason to be so angry. Its just a game for goodness sakes.

uhhh.... what? What are you talking about? I'm not angry in the slightest. I disagree with you fundamentally... I think your hypothesis and the reasons for it are based on wishful thinking and are completely contrary to whatever understanding I have of the RPG market (not that my understanding is anything special; it's just my opinion too, but at least I've bothered to read stuff such as Ryan Dancey's old posts about WotC market research.) But disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm angry at you. I'm honestly baffled that you would think so.

Thats nice that you like customization, I do too (3.5 is great for this). But 3.5 and 1E are different games. Just because you ONLY like customization, and wouldn't consider archetypes, doesn't mean other 3.5ers wouldn't (esp. those that haven't been to this board (the vast majority of 3E players) and aren't so jaded from past conflict.

Well, now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that I only like customization. Although it's true that I do like it, I don't know if I've even said that here. I'm talking about what I believe the majority of players want. What I may or may not want is beside the point.

Remeber alot of 3Eers have never tried 1E. Personally I think alot of 3.5 players would love to read 1E if they had the books, and many would like to meet Gygax in person and game with him. You (and few others) I think are the exception.

I doubt I'm an exception there. IIRC, the market research done by Dancey et al. indicated that relatively speaking, RPGs are not picking up new people at any kind of astonishing rate; I think more 3.5 players also played 1e when it was current than not. But that's just speculation.

Also, just because I acknowledge my thoughts "might" be wishful thinking, doesn't mean I'm sure that they are. I could see people wanting to check out the roots of the game, sure (just as they check out the roots of Rock when there mostly into modern rock).

Heh. Which I don't see happening either. Yes, I'm sure you don't believe that your opinions are wishful thinking, I'm saying that my opinion of your opinion is that it's wishful thinking, because my opinion is different. Perhaps my opinion is the one that's wishful thinking. I doubt it, though, since my opinion is at least more in line with where WotC seems to be going. That indicates to me through highly specious and indirect evidence that they also believe as I do about the market. And since I know that they do (or at least have done) market research, I tend to think they know more about the market than some guy who wants 1e reprinted.

Hobo, please remember, ENworld comprises only a very small portion of the entire 3E and 3.5 population, and thus does not represent the typical 3E gamer. Do you understand this?

That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics. You don't need to poll every single person within a population to find out what the population is very likely to believe. You just need a representative sample. One may quibble about whether or not ENWorld is representative, but I don't see any reason to believe it's not. The only criteria that could potentially throw things off is that ENWorld self-selects for people who are less casual about gaming and want to speak about it.

The typical 3.5 player is younger then most here, and wasn't even born when 1E went out of existance; and they very likely have never seen the 1E books (let alone seeing it played the way it was meant to be). So to them, 1E would be something new.

Oh, yeah? I have no doubt that some 3.5 players are like that, but how do you figger that the "typical" 3.5 player is like that? Do you have some inside source of market research that I'm not aware of?

Anyhow the reason I posted this thread here under a 1E heading was to discourage people not interested (supportive) in 1E from reading it (for their own mental sanity). Please, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything. I really don't enjoy defending myself from your personal jibes, save them for someone else into that kind of thing.

What a bizarre statement! Personal jibes? Nothing nice to say?

So you want to make a frankly incredible statement that has no fact to back it up, and when someone says, "actually, I think you're wrong there" you take offense at it? Holy crap. This kind of nonsense is exactly why I don't post at ENWorld nearly as much as I used to. Look, I'm sorry if you hoped that all you were going to get was validation of your opinion in this thread, but honestly, I just think you're wrong here. I don't think folks in general want what you wish they would want.

Some few do, and hey! More power to all y'all. No problem to me. But if you're claiming that gamers everywhere would enjoy a return to a Gygaxian paradigm of the hobby, I think you're dead wrong.

 

[Dinkeldog]

i'm running an OD&D(1974) campaign currently. i plan to continue doing so.

and i'm always open to getting more volunteers.

If the virtual game table works as well as I hope (and I know I'm an optimist), you might even be able to find more people.

 

[phadeout]

If you own a 2007 Saturn car, and they roll out the new 2008 models, do you start thinking, "Well, gee, maybe I ought to buy a car built in 2003!" The natural question is "Move forward or stand pat?" Retrospection is probably not something you should expect.

Wow, it's been almost 2 years I think since I posted on this forum, I normally just browse, but I need to reply to this since no one has looked closer at this comment in relation to 4E and "going back".

Let's try this example instead: In 2001-02, Chrysler/Dodge announced the "New Hemi", to be available in 2003. You know what happened after that? People said to themselves; "Hey, back in the late 60's early 70's, the Hemi was a legend... I -Forgot- all about that!?" By 2003, guess what, every 426 Hemi or even 392 Hemi big block car over Tripled in value if not more! I had a friend with a 1971 Hemi Cuda (most valued Hemi vehicle today), and he sold it in 1999 for about 25k. Right now in 2007 he could have sold it 100k or more! Why? Because people "all of a sudden" remembered. It wasn't coincidence.

Now, you can make the argument about 4E. It is quite possible that there will be a surge of older gamers (not likely those that started with 3E, but those that played the older versions) to suddenly go "Yeah, I miss the old stuff, I miss the feel, I miss the arch-types and old campaign worlds."

The Car analogy does work, quite well, you just have to use a better example of Old vs New. It won't effect everyone, but it's going to cause an effect for those people that have a "soft spot" for Classics.

 

[maddman75]

No, I don't think people uninterested in 4e would go back to 1e. I myself became disenchanted with 3e because of the workload and tactical rules. My response was not to look at old versions of D&D, but different games altogether. That way I can have simpler rulesets with more modern mechanics like unified systems and metagame points. I'll treat 4e like any other game - if it looks cool I'll get it, if not I'll play something else. I'm disappointed that they're keeping the archaic three book system that no one else does, so it'll have to be extremely cool for me to get into it.

 

[Desdichado]

What? What? No Unisystem plug? You're slipping, Maddman!