OSR What Do You prefer 1E vs 2E

[MNblockhead]

1e but that's due almost entirely to nostalgia. I have very little experience playing 2e. I remember when 2e came out, it just didn't attract me. But at that time I had also moved from D&D to running Warhammer. I have no interest in trying to run either now. More interested in OSR games like DCC or Swords & Wizardry if not 5e.

 

[Celebrim]

Ah, I see the bit you're talking about now. Yes, this passage allows reconciliation of the issue that you can't fit nine 25mm or HO scale figures in a 1" physical square representing 10'. It's pretty awkward that he continues to use 1" = ten feet or ten yards (from Chainmail) everywhere else in the rules.

It's even more awkward when you get the gist of what he's saying. He wants you to treat each inch as being 6 feet for the purposes of miniatures, but he wants three of them to fit in a 10 foot wide corridor. But he isn't actually saying that the squares are 3 1/3 x 3 1/3 x 6. If I read what he's saying correctly, a 12 foot wide beast would still take up 2 of the 3 squares in a 10 foot wide corridor.

 

[Lanefan]

It’s on page 10. It doesn’t say battlemat no, but it’s talking about inches and scale. So… a 10 foot corridor would be… say it with me… 3 inches wide. So a ten foot square on an old map would translate to what then? A 3x3… inch…SQUARE maybe which is 9 squares on a what now?

Ah. I've always used the 3-foot-per-character idea when it comes to combat but never codified it into "squares"; and wouldn't want to.

The problem with using a scale of 3 inches per 10 feet is that even a table-sized map (on a typical dining room table) often can't show enough. I use 2 inches per 10 feet and find that to be limiting more often than I'd like.

 

[teitan]

It's even more awkward when you get the gist of what he's saying. He wants you to treat each inch as being 6 feet for the purposes of miniatures, but he wants three of them to fit in a 10 foot wide corridor. But he isn't actually saying that the squares are 3 1/3 x 3 1/3 x 6. If I read what he's saying correctly, a 12 foot wide beast would still take up 2 of the 3 squares in a 10 foot wide corridor.

He’s literally saying using 3.33 for each inch square for the floor scale. He’s just not coming across as comittal because he’s waxing about war gaming technicalities at the time with respect to HO scale being 1”=6’. “Oh well but of course. That’s why it becomes more convenient to go to each square is 5’ and using 28mm instead of HO scale.

 

[Shardstone]

I prefer 1e.

With apologies to Zeb Cook, who I think is an amazing designer, I will list the reasons-

1. 1e correctly consigned Bards to the appendix.
2. 1e had better art. IMO.
3. 1e was weirder, in a good way.
4. 1e had better adventures.
5. 1e's form followed function; yes, the High Gygaxian of the rules wasn't great as "rules," but it was perfect for the game. The books themselves felt like a fantasy game.
6. 1e was adult, and not sanitized like 2e.

2e did a creditable job in cleaning up the messiness of 1e, and to its credit, provided a wealth of material (especially w/r/t campaign lore, such as Dark Sun and Planescape) that has stood the test of time. But the unkempt, wild, and messy 1e will always be the better game as far as I'm concerned.

Isn't it interesting how, these days, especially in the OSR, clear rules is considered the apex of game writing? I find that reading the 1E stuff, I get inspired just from how Gygax talks about things. It does a great job of working me into a mood to do Fantastical things. But when I read the technical writing of today, I find myself losing interest in the game. For example, OSE is really a wonderful game, but reading it leaves me feeling uninspired every time.

 

[Mannahnin]

Isn't it interesting how, these days, especially in the OSR, clear rules is considered the apex of game writing? I find that reading the 1E stuff, I get inspired just from how Gygax talks about things. It does a great job of working me into a mood to do Fantastical things. But when I read the technical writing of today, I find myself losing interest in the game. For example, OSE is really a wonderful game, but reading it leaves me feeling uninspired every time.

Eh. I'm not sure it's considered the apex as in the single best and only important quality. Plenty of folks express the same joy in and inspiration from Gary's evocative language and concepts in the 1e DMG that we have. And a lot of folks talk about the evocative art and quality binding and book quality in recommending OSE, in addition to the clear layout and writing.

Some OSR books have both clarity and evocative writing- look at Necrotic Gnome's adventures, for example. Or Through Ultan's Door. Or The Nightmares Underneath.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Eh. I'm not sure it's considered the apex as in the single best and only important quality. Plenty of folks express the same joy in and inspiration from Gary's evocative language and concepts in the 1e DMG that we have. And a lot of folks talk about the evocative art and quality binding and book quality in recommending OSE, in addition to the clear layout and writing.

Some OSR books have both clarity and evocative writing- look at Necrotic Gnome's adventures, for example. Or Through Ultan's Door. Or The Nightmares Underneath.

I think that what I am thinking of, and what @Shardstone was discussing, speaks to a slightly different issue.

Roughly boiled down, it's the idea that form follows function. There are people that prefer that the rules of the game be ... well, game rules. That they are clear and precise. That they aren't "readable" so much as they are rules- you'll see people that prefer, for example, the use of "keywords" to "natural language." And that's certainly a valid preference!

On the other hand, there are those who view the early 1e material in a more holistic sense- in terms of being "rule books" they weren't particularly good. But in terms of inviting people to delve into them, in terms of evoking a particular fantastical mindset, they were amazing. They were not just rulebooks, but mysterious tomes with intermixed snippets of lore, hooks for adventures, and laden with atmosphere. The books themselves were calls to adventure.

It's a fine line to draw; but I know, for example, that I've gone back to the original (1e) PHB and especially the DMG time and time again, but have only looked to the 2e versions of same when I needed to do some research into a 2e rule. That's not to say that Zeb Cook didn't make a better ruleset in terms of the rules; but simply that in the process of clarification and usability, he also stripped some of the inspiration and fantastical mystery out of it as well.

 

[DammitVictor]

I generally lean toward 2e because of the Player's (GM's) Option line, but without those books... it's hard to choose between them. They're too similar, for starters, and for everything I'm glad 2e cut there's something I wish they hadn't.

In practice, I don't choose. I include all of the 1e and 2e content I want in my AD&D games, I use whichever version of each individual rule I prefer, and I use house rules to reconcile everything that isn't fully compatible out of their respective boxes.

 

[GreyLord]

For the original options, I'd probably normally almost always choose 1e over 2e for those two.

Interestingly enough, in response to some statements in the thread...the 1e versions of the Assassin and Monk were available in a slightly tweaked form in 2e via the Scarlet Brotherhood book.

Also the 1e Ranger was in the Complete Ranger and the 1e Druid in the Complete Druid.

I think the 1e barbarian may have been available in the Complete Barbarian (not positive, would have to go back and look at my copy).

The 1e Cavalier was not available ever as far as I know it from an official 2e source.

However, if you HAD the 1e books and used the grandfather clause, all your 1e stuff could be used in 2e...if you wanted it to be.

The one thing I missed in 2e was Wild Elves/Grugach. They may have made an appearance and I just forgot about it, but my memory kind of tells me they just used Wood Elves from then out instead and erased the Wild Elves from Memory.

Pity as I loved Wild Elves.

 

[Mannahnin]

Also the 1e Ranger was in the Complete Ranger and the 1e Druid in the Complete Druid.

Both of these are in the 2E Player's Handbook as core options. They got expanded stuff in those books.

I think the 1e barbarian may have been available in the Complete Barbarian (not positive, would have to go back and look at my copy).

The 1e Cavalier was not available ever as far as I know it from an official 2e source.

Both were kits in different books like The Complete Fighter's Handbook, then The Complete Barbarian's Handbook gave the Barbarian Fighter and the Shaman as actual classes. The Barbarian Fighter is largely a new version of the 1E class.