The mythical ideal of 1E?

[Lanefan]

Ah, but Gary's intention was that the DM would rarely (ideally never) actually look at the rulebook during play, and just have a good enough understanding of the rules and the reasoning behind them and the feel of game they were intended to evoke that he'd be able to make spot-judgment calls consistent with that spirit. The handful of charts and tables that need to be used in actual play were all included on the 1E DM Screen (or in the front & back of the DM Adventure Log); everything else in the DMG is either explanation or for use between sessions.

That's one of the ironies of the DMG, one of those things Matt Finch's Quick Primer for Old School Gaming calls a "Zen moment," towards understanding 1E AD&D -- Gygax presents a thick book chock full of very detailed rules, but he doesn't necessarily expect anyone to actually use them. The rules are there to help the DM grok the intended shape and feel of the game, but once he does he's expected to supplement or even supercede the written rules with his own judgment. That's the real meaning of the famous ALL CAPS afterword at the back of the DMG -- not that the DM should wantonly ignore and change the rules in the book to suit his fancy, but rather than once you "get" the feel and intent of the rules, that making a judgment call informed by those is just as good as, or better than, slavishly following the letter of the printed rules.

This. For the win.

And, the best part for me about 1e (or 0e, for that matter) was the very thing some here seem to want to deride: its malleability. If something didn't work in the game system for you, you *could* kitbash it into shape - or at least try - as it was generally loose enough that the knock-on effects of such changes as you made weren't likely to slaughter your game.

I mean, hell, the game I run today started out as 1e, only it's now had getting on for 30 years worth of kitbashing done to it; it's only vaguely recognizable now, and that process is not over yet. And for some reason, people still seem to want to play it...

Don't like ExP for g.p.? Change it. Don't agree with racial level limits, or with some of the racial abilities? Change them, or lose them. Don't like the initiative system? Fix it. And so on. It really doesn't matter if what I play in Victoria is the same as what someone else plays in Winnipeg or a third group plays in Pittsburgh, as long as the games are fun.

I never tried tinkering with 2e, though I swiped a few things from it. I've seen some good attempts made to tinker with 3e but the system there is so tight that changing one thing inevitably screws up somethng else. 4e looks at first glance to be somewhat more malleable - one could, for example, probably divorce oneself from the grid (but not from use of minis; I have no problem with that) and squares as measurement and firecubes without wrecking the game at all.

Someone in here last night put up a post asking pretty much what would you take from each edition to build the best overall system; one of 1e's contributions here would have to be its flexibility.

Lanefan

 

[bagger245]

I started with 2nd ed and it will always be my favourite. Reread Zeb's foreword
on the books and try appreciate what he was trying to do. Right now, my current system
is B/X but I am itching to run a 2nd ed Lankhmar campaign using Complete Thieves.
I recently acquired the historical references splatbooks and damn, I feel like running
them all..

 

[Hussar]

Now, Lanefan, a question. You've folded, spindled and mauled your 1e rules to where you like them.

Are you still playing D&D?

I'm not trying to start a fight, just honestly curious to the reaction.

 

[Obryn]

2e's rules are undoubtedly tighter, better-organized, and more complete. The core books gathered together the rules scattered through 1e, tidied everything up, and tried to make the rules reflect the game as it would actually be played.

This is why, when I want to run or play an oldschool game, I prefer 1e.

-O

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ah, but Gary's intention was that the DM would rarely (ideally never) actually look at the rulebook during play, and just have a good enough understanding of the rules and the reasoning behind them and the feel of game they were intended to evoke that he'd be able to make spot-judgment calls consistent with that spirit. The handful of charts and tables that need to be used in actual play were all included on the 1E DM Screen (or in the front & back of the DM Adventure Log); everything else in the DMG is either explanation or for use between sessions.

That's one of the ironies of the DMG, one of those things Matt Finch's Quick Primer for Old School Gaming calls a "Zen moment," towards understanding 1E AD&D -- Gygax presents a thick book chock full of very detailed rules, but he doesn't necessarily expect anyone to actually use them. The rules are there to help the DM grok the intended shape and feel of the game, but once he does he's expected to supplement or even supercede the written rules with his own judgment. That's the real meaning of the famous ALL CAPS afterword at the back of the DMG -- not that the DM should wantonly ignore and change the rules in the book to suit his fancy, but rather than once you "get" the feel and intent of the rules, that making a judgment call informed by those is just as good as, or better than, slavishly following the letter of the printed rules.

Indeed.

When I first ran 1e, I was dirt bloody poor and in high school. I was the group's DM, and the only one who couldn't afford the bloody books (until about a year later). So I borrowed them, and copied them by hand. (Thank you, Keith.)

Needless to say, I didn't need to look up rules while playing the game.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

The big thing, however, is that I’ve come to the conclusion that “how most people played” 1e is not necessarily the best way to play 1e.

Agreed.

 

[Obryn]

That's one of the ironies of the DMG, one of those things Matt Finch's Quick Primer for Old School Gaming calls a "Zen moment,"

I'll just note really quickly that I read through this pretty recently, and sent links to it to my group.

It's a good primer, and it considerably improved my 4e game last night. I expect it'll also considerably improve my upcoming 1e game.

-O

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I think nostalgia has a lot to do with it. Looking back I didn't see 2E as a totally new edition... rather it was a cleaned up 1E. THAC0 wasn't anything new... if I remember correctly it was introduced in one of the Ravenloft modules for 1E (at least that is where I remember first using it). I can't remember much actually changing but rather being clarified.

 

[Chainsaw]

Really great read. Reminds me of how we used to play 2E, heh. To search a room, the player had to describe all the ways he searched it.. not just roll a die against his search skill or whatever. Cinematic combat came through player and DM providing engaging, imaginative description or commentary, not through having a specific power. Fighters didn't need special abilities b/c they were ALWAYS more likely (according to us) to be able to do something nifty. Bob the fighter rolls high and maybe gets a flavorful result. Maybe it results in more damage, another attack, whatever. Zeke the Wizard rolls a 20 and gets a less flavorful result. We had a great time and never thought anything was amiss. The player/DM dynamic was never really antagonistic, so no one ever really felt picked on or anything. They knew I wasn't "out to get them." Nobody wanted a TPK.

Edit: 'Really great read' was in reference to the Quick Primer for Old School Gaming.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So, IME, you were fighting armies single handedly. Heck, the GDQ series of modules sees you fighting armies of GIANTS at 6th level. And winning. Even at very low levels, something like Keep on the Borderland has encounters with dozens of opponents that you are expected to win at first level.

If you were running 6th level characters with appropriate gear through the G series then there was probably some modifications going on.

Again, to me, there has never been a time when the PC's were "just a bit stronger than the average Joe". My first level character was already capable of wiping out a bar full of average Joes, and by 3rd level, I was getting 3 attacks per round against Joe Average. (Gotta love going Mulinex mode on the under 1 HD crowd)

A fighter didn't gain this power until 9th level per RAW AD&D.

It's just that because 1e was generally kit bashed beyond all recognition by the majority of tables, that trying to draw any meaningful points of comparison is extremely difficult.

And so it seems your own experiences prove this to be true.