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

[Manbearcat]

I think different people will have different definitions.

I define it as "I share the same emotional experience as my character." When my character would be confused/scared/surprised/relieved/fooled/amazed", so am I. Not in the exact same way or to the same degree, of course, but the moreso the better. Or it might even be an aesthetic feeling of the setting or genre, and not a specific emotion.

(This is why I don't feel that everybody pretending they don't know about trolls regenerating is immersive. Nobody is actually experiencing the fear/confusion/surprise that their characters supposedly are.).

So I agree that people will have different definitions (often vastly so).

Personally, although I've run games rather than played them, I've always agreed with Elfcrusher's take here.

My first D&D rules were the famous Red Box, which I got when I was nine years old. Even then, I hated the rules; their idiosyncrasies, their inconsistencies, and mostly, the way they did not conform to any genre of fantasy story-telling that I had ever encountered or wanted to think about. Just to call out one famous example, what happens when someone who's not a thief tries to sneak or hide? Had it never occurred to anyone that this might be a fairly common strategy in a world of soul-sucking monsters? And that was just the tip of the iceberg. Why do elves spot secret doors by rolling a 1d6? Like, all elves are equally good at spotting all secret doors? What about other secret things, can elves spot them, too? What about a secret cabinet door, or the lid of a secret treasure chest? Why is read magic a spell I need to cast and not just a thing I can do because I'm a super smart wizard? For that matter, why does my wizard forget his @#$% spells after he casts them?!?!?

If a 9-year-old with no experience in game design whatsoever could pick apart these rules, then they were not good. And they certainly weren't helping my immersion.

I'm quoting this as a bridge for my next point.

I think D&D 4e finds its D&D heritage very much in Moldvay Basic, not in tropes, but in its tight systemization around a focused play premise.

I suspect there is a lot of overlap between the sorts of thoughts that a certain group of people had about Moldvay Basic and 4e; the rules are so...rules-ey. Or, "this reads more like a textbook or engineering manual than it does an RPG."

I have a couple thoughts on this:

1) I think, broadly but not universally, that longtime D&D players who have played almost solely D&D (or games that harken to it in terms of cultural expectations, table authority, or rules paradigm) have a hard-earned, and heavily-invested mental framework (and cognitive blindspot) when it comes to "what an RPG is/looks like" and "what makes for immersion in RPGing (all in reading texts/prep, in the conversation of play, in table authority, and in systemization...or lacktherof)."

D&D operant conditioning coupled with nostalgia for the romances of youth.

2) Unrelated to (1) (people smuggling in cognitive biases that they aren't aware of), people learn, perceive, and are provoked/inspired very differently. I think due to this fact alone, if we could re-run the 80's RPG experiment as follows:

a) Remove the cultural zeitgeist of the 80s (sub out D&D as the nearly exclusive entry point into the hobby).

+

b) Let all the unbelievable diversity of brilliant games that are available today battle out for market share/piece of the cultural zeitgeist pie...

...if we could do that, my hypothesis is that we would see people talking about RPGs differently than they do today and the diversity of inclinations that people hold toward very different things (immersion being a big one) would shine through (rather than the sort of "D&D through-line" that dominates cultural thought and emotional investment).

And my follow-on to that is that we would be a more healthy and happy community as a result. D&D would still be awesome and our conversations would be less entrenched and acrimonious while our thoughts (collectively and individually) would be more well-tempered, well-considered, and well-developed.

Some folks would love Gygaxian prose + rulesystems as discrete and modular, non-integrated, toolkits for immersive, challenging, creative play.

Some people would love tight maths and engineering-manual-like rules text that frees their mental overhead from thinking about rules adjudication/interaction so they could better imbue their play with immersion, challenge, and creativity.

Some people would like deeply granular rules underwritten intensively by causal chains from one phenomenon to the next because it lets them explore things in the granular way that immerses them in an imaginary space and doesn't jar their sense of "how stuff should work."

Some people would like a tight play premise and simple action resolution mechanics that uses pathos/connection as a primary input when attempting to change the gamestate and introduce content into the imaginary space because that stokes their creativity and helps them inhabit the character's cares/hopes and sense of excitement/loss.

And all of it would be no more or less RPGing, no more or less immersive, than any other. It would just be people of different dispositions discussing gameplay outputs, being understanding of their differences in mental framework and priorities, and figuring out how to get there together.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think a lot of this depends on how much you embraced or were invested in a specific edition or version of the game.

I've been around for pretty much every edition of the game, but was too young to really grasp the difference between 1E AD&D and the BECMI stuff. We knew there were differences, but we didn't really care that much. And the transition from 1E to 2E just kind of happened for my group (we were using books from both editions in our game).

So I think at that point, we just thought of ourselves as "playing D&D" and not "playing this specific version of D&D". None of us got mad when 2e came out....the idea to even get mad about such a thing was lost on us.

Third Edition came along and that was the first edition that actually felt different enough to warrant our notice and to think of it as a different thing. We were also entering adulthood at this point, which is probably a big factor. It wasn't as backwards compatible as 2e was with 1e. It made some significant changes. It also was easier to understand. I have a couple of players who never really got into D&D until 3e came along and made more sense to them. Just simple things like streamlining the saving throws to ascending AC and actual skills and so on. As a result, my group really embraced this edition. It became "our edition" of D&D.

Then, sure enough, when 4e came along, my group really resisted it. It was "so different" than what we thought of as D&D that they just couldn't stick with it. We shifted over to Pathfinder, which was much more in line with what our group had come to expect. And I think this is largely because of how strongly we were invested in 3e more so than it had anything to do with 4e as an actual system.

Eventually, Pathfinder grew too cumbersome for our tastes, especially me as the primary DM. Luckily, 5e came along.

5e was recognizable as what we thought of as D&D. But unlike 3e, it was still manageable...the math and options and game elements were all kept relatively in check. So we happily took to 5E.

An old friend recently asked if we'd want to play some old school D&D. He shared a copy of the 1e PHB with me. Now, I have not kept my old books over the years....I generally get rid of most old books once I'm no longer using them....so I haven't actually seen the 1e PHB in probably 25 years.

I was amazed we were ever able to make sense of it.

It is poorly laid out, it's poorly organized, the language is needlessly dense and byzantine. Whole parts seem glued on (which they likely were). I suppose because we were kids and had all the time in the world to devote to the game, we were able to make it work. It also became very obvious to me that we did not play with all the rules as presented...we just ignored some stuff. Which is still the case, I suppose ('m looking at you, encumberance! ) But I told my friend that if he wanted to play, we should use the 5e rules...they're simply easier, and all the members of our group are comfortable and happy with them.

But....I can imagine that if I was a bit older....if 1e was my 3e, so to speak....then I might be incredibly invested in those rules and the books. Because we often times identify these things as part of "us". Especially if I had been playing the same edition of the game from the early 80s through today....that's a pretty powerful impetus to stick with it.
[MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] mentioned not finding any of the later edition books that captured his imagination the way the early books did. But why would they? Nothing will ever recapture the wonder of new discovery....and that's what was happening with those early books. There had been nothing quite like them before. I think that for anyone who was around for early edition material, expecting to be just as amazed when opening modern books is setting themselves up for disappointment. I think there's a lot more at play here than the content of the books or how they're laid out and so on.

Today's books, by contrast, while they may be the introduction of the hobby to many, benefit from having learned the mistakes of the past. That's why they're clear and presented in a sensible way and so on.

Does that mean they lose something? It's possible, I guess. I suppose that presenting different rules as they are needed and having examples does provide immersion when reading the books. But I imagine an 8 year old kid opening the PHB today largely feeling the same way I did as a kid. Is he as immersed as I was when reading the book in the 80s? There's no way to say. Am I as immersed when reading the 5e PHB in 2018 as 8 year old me was reading the 1e PHB in 1984? No, of course not....but I don't think it has all that much to do with the books themselves.

One of my buddies brought his 14 year old nephew to play with us one night....and he was amazed by D&D. Not by 5e or anything like that....just by D&D.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Manbearcat]

[MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION]

Continuing from my last post, I think its important to note a few quirks of a certain mental framework (and how it relates to 1e's "byzantine rules" and "Gygaxian prose"):

1) Some people are enthralled by mystery and puzzles. They provoke creativity for this particular audience. So sorting through the "byzantine rules" to make some sense of them is part of the machinery of stoking their creativity.

2) There is a "Magic the Gathering deck-building" aspect to all of this. A very large swath of D&D's user base loves the process of engineering their own masterpiece of discrete, evocative ("Gygaxian prose") parts. The same thing that incites 4e players to feverishly try to build a character with interesting, mechanically robust/interesting, and thematic synergies through all the discrete parts (that each have pithy MtG fluff text) is what draws a certain sort of GM to wade through Gygax's DMG and make the game their own ("deck" with Gygaxian's prose serving as the MtG fluff text).

 

[hawkeyefan]

So, two things- I am always seeing the continued ability of D&D to entrance a new generation. I am running yet another game for "the kids" this coming Friday- largely because of word of mouth and recruitment. There is nothing that makes me more happy than seeing them enjoy the game, and, eventually, go off and start running their own.

But what I think the quoted portion, discussing the bespoke (and byzantine) rules was getting at was something different. There is no equivalent sense of both serendipity and wonder that I can point at in the core rulebooks of 5e than you would find in seeing, for example, the listing of Fire Giants (!!) in the tunneling table of the DMG. Or the random government table. Or the thrill of the weird little vocabulary primer included in B2.

It was those little flourishes that existed that detracted from the books as purely rulebooks, but made them insanely more ... interesting. Put another way, I would take 5e any day if I was learning to play the game,* but I don't think I've ever referred to the 5e DMG since I purchased it (other than few spot checks), whereas I had multiple well-worn copies of the 1e DMG.


*In fact, I think it would be nearly impossible to play 1e without learning to play, at least some, from someone else. IIRC, most people either learned to play at another table, or started with B/X / OD&D and incorporated 1e, or both.

I don't have the old 1e DMG so I can't reference the bits you mention. But I think that stuff still largely exists, no? Perhaps not laid out the same....Gygax loved tables....but do you mean bits of lore or world-building that were found throughout the rules? Or how examples of rules hinted at the world?

And despite the title of the thread, I felt more like it was the content of the books that was being compared as immersive or not, and not the actual play. Or did I misunderstand?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[hawkeyefan]

[MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION]

Continuing from my last post, I think its important to note a few quirks of a certain mental framework (and how it relates to 1e's "byzantine rules" and "Gygaxian prose"):

1) Some people are enthralled by mystery and puzzles. They provoke creativity for this particular audience. So sorting through the "byzantine rules" to make some sense of them is part of the machinery of stoking their creativity.

2) There is a "Magic the Gathering deck-building" aspect to all of this. A very large swath of D&D's user base loves the process of engineering their own masterpiece of discrete, evocative ("Gygaxian prose") parts. The same thing that incites 4e players to feverishly try to build a character with interesting, mechanically robust/interesting, and thematic synergies through all the discrete parts (that each have pithy MtG fluff text) is what draws a certain sort of GM to wade through Gygax's DMG and make the game their own ("deck" with Gygaxian's prose serving as the MtG fluff text).

Sure, I'd agree with both of these points. I personally prefer instructions to be clear, but at the same time, I absolutely love the hints at lore of the kind lowkey is talking about. But I don't think these are mutually exclusive things.

For those that enjoy the mysterious aspect you mention, I would imagine that reading such a book would indeed be more immersive than one that was striving to be more clear. I don't know if that would necessarily carry over to play, but I suppose that's possible. Especially if that's the kind of stuff that appeals to the specific reader.

For others, I would expect that it would be a barrier to immersion.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So, maybe to move slightly afield (but also closer) to the point of conversation.

There is something to be said about rules that allow you the freedom to simply play.

On the other hand, one of the things that I loved about 1e (especially the rule books) was the extent to which they continually evoked ... more. The examples are manifold (including the ones that I have already listed) but just think of some of the brief stories regarding the artifacts; the short descriptions in the artifacts regarding Vecna and Kas alone gave rise to countless legends and stories in home campaigns!

Or the Ring of Gaxx ... what does alien origin even mean in the context of 1e? (Cue up Barrier Peaks, and so on).

Again, this is not a question of normative values (better or worse- I wouldn't teach kids 1e today) but simply an observation that it is very, very different than what we now; echoes of which I will sometimes hear in discussions I have with other regarding the best form of capaign setting source book (to which I think that the best style is the ur-setting, the GH folio, as it hints at the adventures for the DM to fill in and provides hooks instead of answers).

In some ways, I liken this to the idea that it was successful as something to be read because it invoked a world, in the same way that a god book or movie or show that alludes to a world outside the corners of page/film do, as opposed to being simply a source of rules.

I honestly loved all those hints of the kinds you're talking about. Or even just the illustrations. Emirikol the Chaotic?!? Who the hell is this guy?

But don't you think a lot of this is more about the fact that the books in question were first? Later editions have always had to strike a balance between adhering to what was known and loved, and offering something new. Too much of one and it seems like you're simply retreading things, too much of the other and people think you're dishonoring what's come before.

Also, it's very hard to try and remain objective in this sense. If we look at the 5e PHB or DMG, there are plenty of hints at more. It's just that we, as long time readers, know more about the hints than a new reader will....so they aren't as evocative for us. But does that make it less evocative? Are the "hints" missed because for us they are simply references to what we know rather than a hint at something to be discovered?

And is this the kind of thing that affects someone's ability to enjoy a particular edition? I would expect it very much is. Because even if looking at the picture of Emirikol now doesn't really do much for me because I know all there is to know about the guy, at the very least, looking at that picture lets me recall how I once felt when looking at it. So I can at least recall the wonder you're describing. So if given a choice, I'd pick the book with Emirikol in it, rather than a reference to the fall of the drow that I've heard about in multiple editions.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*