4E with 1E Feel: Does that appeal to you?

[ExploderWizard]

I'm with Cadfan. What is "1e feel"?

To me, its disposable, nameless characters that serve as a thinly veiled avatar for the players to try to survive a deathtrap dungeon by matching wits against an adversarial DM.

And to me "4E feel" means rolling toons with no depth at all as a very limited collection of restrictive powers, that get swapped out as I power up trying to survive a boring barrage of grindfest combat encounters by rolling dice against a DM acting as a server for the mobs.

That wasn't very fair was it? It was every bit as fair as your assessment of 1E which is to say not at all.

 

[Dragonblade]

And to me "4E feel" means rolling toons with no depth at all as a very limited collection of restrictive powers, that get swapped out as I power up trying to survive a boring barrage of grindfest combat encounters by rolling dice against a DM acting as a server for the mobs.

That wasn't very fair was it? It was every bit as fair as your assessment of 1E which is to say not at all.

I think you mistook my post for sarcasm. It was not. I loved 1e and still think its a lot of fun for one shots.

But make no mistake. I stated EXACTLY what 1e is. Gygax HIMSELF discouraged players from even naming their characters until they had survived several levels.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

Defining "1e feel" is as hard as defining why some people feel 4e, or 3e, or Xe, is "just not D&D to me". Very hard to do, very subjective, and very unique to individuals.

That said, I think:

1e is Greyhawk instead of Ptolus (thank you Filcher)

1e is medieval, not anime

1e is complex dungeons, not complex politics

1e is tattooed Frost barbarians, not dragonmarked artificers

1e is dangerous "peasant to hero", not "hero to god"

In 1e, if you wanted to do something "different", you explained yourself. The DM weighed what you said, thought about Gygaxian guidelines, and spit out an answer or a relevant check. There was not a codified rule for any move you could think of.

If we put this in a "power spectrum" of decisions that fall with the DM as opposed to rules that players can hold up, it'd probably look like:

DM Power ------------------------------------ PC Power

------1E-----------------------------------------------

-------------2E----------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------3E----------

----------------------4E-------------------------------

"Power" is a poor word, I know, but I'm trying to show where the heart of authority lies with how an action is adjudicated. 4e opens that up quite a bit over 3e, for better or worse (according to personal preference). I happen to think 3e made so many rules for so many actions because there was, or is, a dearth of DMs out there who can and will make decisions that are fair and equitable, and there is a dearth of players out there who can accept such decisions without feeling they are slighted.

Some lucky groups, certainly, have a good symbiosis. A DM that is fair and does make judgments, and players that accept those judgments because they know it's not an adversarial situation.

This ambiguous "1e feel" isn't for everyone, certainly. And my explanation of that feel is just that - mine. You could probably ask 42 different guys who cut their teeth on 1e what that "feel" is all about, and they'd tell you 42 different things.

WP

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think you mistook my post for sarcasm. It was not. I loved 1e and still think its a lot of fun for one shots.

But make no mistake. I stated EXACTLY what 1e is. Gygax HIMSELF discouraged players from even naming their characters until they had survived several levels.

Actually the feel you stated can be ANY game run under a poor DM. A bad DM can make the best rules irrelevant.

I always name my characters even if that name may as well be "Ensign Smith"

 

[Hussar]

The main difference being, Exploder Wizard, we have evidence of campaigns that most certainly DO look like Dragonblade's example. Dragon, for example, talks about a campaign where the players literally went through over a thousand characters over the course.

Not that all campaigns were like this, far from it. But, judging from the opinions ventured around here from those who still play 1e, Avatar Play is not exactly a wild stretch either.

 

[Hussar]

1e is dangerous "peasant to hero", not "hero to god"

I don't get this. By about 5th level in 1e you are a god. Very, very little can kill you in melee. The only reason 1e was so dangerous was the large number of save or die effects. In terms of relative power, 1ed characters are extremely powerful. There's a reason you can wade your 2nd level party through 20 orcs and expect to win.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The main difference being, Exploder Wizard, we have evidence of campaigns that most certainly DO look like Dragonblade's example. Dragon, for example, talks about a campaign where the players literally went through over a thousand characters over the course.

Not that all campaigns were like this, far from it. But, judging from the opinions ventured around here from those who still play 1e, Avatar Play is not exactly a wild stretch either.

Most certainly. A killer DM can do this with any rules. The only difference is that replacement characters take longer to build and fine tune in later rules sets. You don't have to play them like that either.

 

[Dragonblade]

Actually the feel you stated can be ANY game run under a poor DM. A bad DM can make the best rules irrelevant.

I always name my characters even if that name may as well be "Ensign Smith"

True. Absolutely.

My statement wasn't meant as a criticism of 1e at all. Perhaps I worded it poorly. There is a certain amount of enjoyment one gets from going through the Tomb of Horrors and surviving to be able to brag about it.

I loved 1e and still do. I would have given anything to be able to play in a game with Gygax as DM. Sure you could use it as a basis for deep character immersion role-playing and some people did play it that way.

But for me, 1e feel is graph paper, death trap dungeons, and 5 minute nameless PCs to get us back into the action faster.

 

[Delta]

I've said before that I think the Tome of Horrors is a better monster manual in many ways than the 3e MM. Some of the things that make it that way, for me, are...

Wow KM, that is the best sales pitch for any gaming book I've ever read. Makes me want to go out and find a copy right now.


Separately: 4E mechanics and licensing ain't for me, regardless of any supplements.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm a bit mystified by that "1e feel" as well.

Beyond the lack of certain Iconic monsters, races, and classes (which PH2, MM2, and DMG2 will probably patch) I can't find too much non-1e feel in the game that ISN'T directly a result of rules-change. So unless Clark is radically redesigning the rules, I don't see how much more can be added outside of modules and monster books. (which doesn't change what was promised in the first place).