Axegrrl said:
What, exactly, gives something "first-edition feel"? What qualities do you look for before you describe a module, setting, or whatever as having "first edition feel"?
Having never actually played 1E, but having quite a few 1E products, to me, the feeling of First Edition (bearing in mind that "feeling" for all of these is in how the modules are constructed, not necessarily the feeling of actually playing them, which is what you seem to have described) is "basics". Dungeons are just there, with little backstory, and virtually no hooks for why the characters go to them (that's the DM's milieu). Most encounters tend to be direct. Some characters do lie, and use magic to disguise themselves or their intentions, but this tends to be somewhat rare, and when it does happen, it usually only lasts for several rounds, long enough for the NPC to get into an advantageous position and attack. Never ever trust a beautiful female NPC who seems flirtatious - she's a vampire or succubus or whatever. Beyond the three core books, very few options are present. Variety is meant to come from the actual role-playing, not in the form of diversified mechanics.
What about "second-edition feel"?
Complex, in mechanics (which is bad) and story (which is good). Representing a dramatic shift from 1E, 2E wanted to weave tapestries around everything. Modules had rich backstories to them, even though many times the PCs would never get to find out about them. Complex world histories became important, not necessarily in the game, but in products as they kept building on various campaign worlds. Events from some products get mentioned in others. Rules proliferate madly in a creative frenzy, with less oversight given to their power levels relative to each other. Free from the relative inflexibility of 1E, 2E represents a feeling of pushing new boundaries wherever it can, and creating overarching stories between products many times. The consequences, from a mechanical standpoint, tend to be overlooked however.
So far, it feels like the happy medium between the two. Third Edition realizes that the various module cross-overs creates an entangled web that intimidates newcomers to the game. Likewise, the existing discrepancies in power between so many products that create new rules cannot be allowed to stand. At the same time, simply retreating back into the rigidness of 1E is of little use either, since most 3E designers remember how that evoked the 2E explosion of rampant creativity.
Thus, 3E tries to simplify things across the board, but only in terms of the basics, leaving areas open to individuals to make more of certain features of the game, but using an existing framework so as to keep power levels balanced. Third edition encourages players and even other companies to make new spells, races, prestige classes, feats, etc. but provides the framework for doing so so that none of them lead to the brokenness present in 2E. Interlinked stories in modules are, for the most part, necessarily abolished. Third edition goes out of its way, sometimes too much so, to make every product stand alone (though lately its eased up on that). With the new spirit of "we've given you the frame, you do the rest", multiple campaign worlds for different genres are no longer necessary, freeing up company resources; alongside modules being independant of each other, most are now independant of a setting as well. Products now attempt to introduce the same combo of new rules and great storyline from 2E, but this time done without being overpowering. Third edition feels like a box of puzzle pieces that can be arranged many different ways, so that the same picture is never formed twice.
). There's also a corporate shift, in that WOTC seems to see rulebooks as their real money maker and publishes adventures and settings only as necessary to drive rulebook sales.
