First Edition feel with 4E rules

[LostSoul]

I would:

- Change Extended Rests so that you only recover 1 healing surge per;
- Use wandering monsters who have no treasure;
- Place treasure down based on the level of the monster/environment, not the party level;
- Set DCs based on the level of the monster/environment, not the PCs;
- Decide what the monsters mean in game-world terms;
- Don't reskin monsters;
- Allow the DM to override any action that he doesn't think makes sense.

I think that would do it. You could play around with other things, like a trap that says "+8 vs Ref, Dead (no save)" and requiring identification of magic items.

 

[clip]

This is a lesson I learned in spades with Savage Worlds. I've used that system to run just about everything under the sun, including games that I was told "couldn't" be run with it. If you tilt your head just so when setting up a game, it's amazing what you can do by thinking outside the box.

I concur. I've found that you can use Savage Worlds to make the Jerry Bruckheimer version of any other RPG.

 

[clip]

I would:

- Change Extended Rests so that you only recover 1 healing surge per;
- Use wandering monsters who have no treasure;
- Place treasure down based on the level of the monster/environment, not the party level;
- Set DCs based on the level of the monster/environment, not the PCs;
- Decide what the monsters mean in game-world terms;
- Don't reskin monsters;
- Allow the DM to override any action that he doesn't think makes sense.

To me, this sounds like adjusting the game to fit a particular pattern that might be preferable (nothing wrong with that),but I don't see how it makes it old school.

Sure, wandering monsters are old school - but they're something that just doesn't work in 4e. Unless they have either absolute sacks of hps, or some kind of outstanding defence (super mobility, high AC, insubstantial) that monster is going to be toasted by a party within a round and a half. The only thing a wandering solo does is tap one or two surges off the party and slow them down a bit.

Similarly, if extended rests only restore one surge - this can only act to slow the party down and would make certain adventures impossible. Old school parties never ran out of healing in this way - quite the opposite - they were only limited by the efficacy of the party cleric.

I maintain that you can't really recreate an old school feel - but this doesn't mean you can't have throwback dungeons. Like they said in Rappan Athuk - "16 trolls and a jug of alchemy". If you put together a winding dungeon with random beasts and treasure as well as the old favourites - green slime, rust monsters, cockatrice and gelatinous cubes - that's pretty 1e.

 

[Chainsaw]

Anyone who really wants 1E fell can, well, play 1E. The DMG and PHB can be had for pretty cheap and OSRIC can be had for free (and the PDF downloaded immediately). I worked on getting 1E feel with 4E for a while and just didn't have any luck - so I cut out the middle man and went to 1E. Best of luck to anyone who wants to keep trying.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Feel isn't necessarily tied to mechanics.

It is actually, necessarily, tied to mechanics. Intimately, in fact. I can't play a good game of D&D using the rules from Monopoly or Backgammon or Rugby.

Right here is the basic problem with trying to capture anything involving an "old school" feel. Put quite simply, old school means something different to everyone who likes it. If you ask ten different "old school" gamers what "old school" means, you'll get ten different lists of criteria.

That's true on a buzzword level, but let's look past the vocabulary into what people are actually talking about.

Forex, matcolville says that for him, old school feel is tied to the "zero to hero" advancement scheme. 4e does lessen that advancement scheme, in comparison to other editions, through a variety of ways (most prominently, more survivable low-level characters that are capable of great wahoo). For matcolville to have a game closer to that feel, he would need to have low-level characters who are more fragile and not capable of superhuman feats.

Now, we can talk about whether or not that would be a good thing from a broader standpoint. Is it possible to have fragile, mortal low-level characters in 4e?

The answer, really, is "sure." That's entirely possible. Fragility is easy to add (-10 hp until paragon tier!). Mortal ability is a little harder, but it can still be achieved (essentials? perhaps just re-fluffing the powers?).

You're not likely to see such an idea from WotC themselves, of course. They're convinced that low-level characters should have high survivability, and already be heroes. They're not really concerned with a "zero to hero" advancement scheme. They're firmly in "hero to hero++" territory.

But it's always your game, not theirs. Do what you want. If they run their business well, they'll follow what most people want. If what you want is more niche, or they fail to run their business well, it doesn't have to affect your game at all.

Have fun in your way. Lead, and WotC might decide to follow.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Don't use skill challenges.

 

[AngryMojo]

I concur. I've found that you can use Savage Worlds to make the Jerry Bruckheimer version of any other RPG.

I like this statement. I may steal it.

Either way, SW is a wonderful lesson in game design from an abstract angle. Their whole idea of the "black box" effect is an interesting one, and nothing will teach you how to reflavor with flair like that little ten dollar book.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Old school is more than grimdark one-shot kills. If there's a difficult encounter in 4e the players can simply run and spend 24 hours to fully recover. Classic monsters are meaningless when they lack odd quirks and ridiculous powers of their originals. I can't very well say "You are bitten by the dire rat and die 1d4 weeks later. No, stop trying to roll a saving throw, you're dead."

I thought you just said that old school wasn't about grimdark one-shots?

And yes, you could. Your players might not like it (mind you, i think they'd appreciate it the same amount regardless of edition), but you could do it.

I can't say "The trap takes away half your health, sorry" because they'll counter with "I spend a healing surge."

So take away all of their health instead: thats half their health for the day. Even better, it leaves them unconscious and vulnerable.

I can't pit my characters against 20 orcs then send in 20 more from the room next door because, holy crap, that battle would take FOREVER even if they were all minions whereas AD&D it would take maybe half an hour of exchanging die rolls until one side ran away or died.

Why would it take forever? In fact why would it take any longer than in 1e? In fact, wouldn't the simpler math make it take LESS time? If all the orcs are the same, the DM's turn doesn't get any longer. The PC turn doesn't get any longer either: there's still the same number of them, and immediate interrupts are 1/turn. Just don't do anything dumb like provoking AoOs every turn and you're golden.

Now - if you want to make it a genuinely interesting fight, then yes, 4e will take longer. But so would 1e if you weren't just having each side roll dice until someone flees!

 

[I'm A Banana]

In fact why would it take any longer than in 1e? In fact, wouldn't the simpler math make it take LESS time?

IMXP, any time gained with simpler math (and it's not insignificant) is eclipsed by more decision points. Using a combat grid and having powers and having an action economy both play into a high number of decisions that a player must make on their turn. More decisions = more time to take your turn = more combat time.

 

[LostSoul]

Sure, wandering monsters are old school - but they're something that just doesn't work in 4e. Unless they have either absolute sacks of hps, or some kind of outstanding defence (super mobility, high AC, insubstantial) that monster is going to be toasted by a party within a round and a half. The only thing a wandering solo does is tap one or two surges off the party and slow them down a bit.

You don't have one lone wandering monster, you have an encounter with some wandering monsters. I had a very exciting session in Thunderspire Labyrinth based on the party trying to get back to civilization plagued by wandering monsters.

Similarly, if extended rests only restore one surge - this can only act to slow the party down and would make certain adventures impossible. Old school parties never ran out of healing in this way - quite the opposite - they were only limited by the efficacy of the party cleric.

It's supposed to do two things: make those encounters where you only lose a couple of healing surges have some influence in the rest of the game, and force the PCs to take some downtime. I think that it's not a bad approximation of the Cleric's healing capacity, as well as the full week you need to rest after being dropped to less than 0 HP.