D&D 1E Mearls on AD&D 1E

[darjr]

And almost all of that was true during 4th edition and Pathfinders reign. None of it led to this golden age until after 5th. There were even SUPER popular public games at packed theaters at PAX. 5th edition shocked WotC when it was released, the playtest helped show that 5th had or helped foster that magic. Look at the rankings and you’ll see very erratic numbers early on which is indicative of low supply in ever growing demand. WotC was struggling trying to print enough PHBs to keep up.

It is my conjecture that the magic [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] talks about is a fundamental part of that success.

But I also know it isn’t the only thing, and that the magic varies by table and all of the rule sets foster it to more or less degree. I just think that 5th is better at it than many of the recent editions.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I started with Basic D&D in 1982. My first experience was magical. I'd never go back to pure old school D&D dungeon crawling though. What Mearls describes just seems boring to me now.

 

[pming]

Hiya!
[MENTION=5788]me[/MENTION]arls played 1e...and during that game, when it ended, and he thought about it all....he "got it". I have no idea if Mearls even played 1e before (I doubt it...but you never know), but his experience mirrors my first experience with 1e back in 1982? I think it was around there that we started to switch to AD&D from B/X.

Nostalgia? *shrug* Maybe, maybe not. But in the end...does it even matter? Who cares what the 'real' reason was for his absolute enjoyment and fascination with the game. He had an "awakening" experience to some degree I guess.

I just started a Hackmaster 4th campaign (the first HM...the one based on 1e/2e) two weeks ago. Tomorrow will be our third session. I can guarantee that the reason for playing it is NOT because of "nostalgia". Why? I've never stopped running 1e since day one back in 1982 (?..thereabouts anyway). I have taken multi-months, or even a year or so, off every decade or so, sure. But 1e/HM4 is always in my top 3 games to play and I'm always running or planning a campaign in it. How can I be "nostalgic" for something I never left?

Anyway, as I said, in the end...does the reason why someone enjoyed the hell outta 1e and had an "awakening" really matter? I say...no. If 1e gives him that feeling every game, he should keep playing 1e. Plain and simple. When it starts to wane, move to something else. But if he's anything like me, that special "something" that 1e has will keep him coming back for more. IME, that special "something" has a large part to do with the system and presentation. And that is not a bad thing. Not a bad thing at all.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

PS: 1e DID have THAC0; but it was only listed in the back of the DMG with the condensed Monster List. Just fyi...

 

[Azzy]

[MENTION=5788]mearls[/MENTION] played 1e...and during that game, when it ended, and he thought about it all....he "got it". I have no idea if Mearls even played 1e before (I doubt it...but you never know)

From what I remember, all of the members of the design team played each edition (from OD&D to 4e) prior to the development of D&D Next.

 

[Parmandur]

That was clarified: humans are the most popular race (not news) and most characters didn't have feats - those were two separate data points. Up to 49% of PC could have been variant humans with feats, and the rest evenly divided among the other races, all without feats, and both statistics would have remained true, for an extreme example.

Didn't Gygax run his game in a basement?

Not that that changes anything. Just mildly amusing.

The two bits of data were that humans are the most popular race, and most players do not use feats. The cleaned up data from D&D Beyond suggests that two-thirds of Human PC don't have Feats at level 1, and Feat percentages don't rise considerably until level 12 (which most players never reach).

 

[Parmandur]

And almost all of that was true during 4th edition and Pathfinders reign. None of it led to this golden age until after 5th. There were even SUPER popular public games at packed theaters at PAX. 5th edition shocked WotC when it was released, the playtest helped show that 5th had or helped foster that magic. Look at the rankings and you’ll see very erratic numbers early on which is indicative of low supply in ever growing demand. WotC was struggling trying to print enough PHBs to keep up.

It is my conjecture that the magic [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] talks about is a fundamental part of that success.

But I also know it isn’t the only thing, and that the magic varies by table and all of the rule sets foster it to more or less degree. I just think that 5th is better at it than many of the recent editions.

I started playing with 3.x in the Aughts, and don't have any experience of older editions to be nostalgic about (at least not until 5E inspired me to pick up some 1E material): but 5E does scratch the itch in a way that 3.c and 4E never did.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The two bits of data were that humans are the most popular race, and most players do not use feats.

OK.
Still leaves a lot of room for variant humans.

Though, players don't necessarily have the option of using feats...

The cleaned up data from D&D Beyond suggests that two-thirds of Human PC don't have Feats at level 1, and Feat percentages don't rise considerably until level 12 (which most players never reach).

Which data are those and cleaned up in what sense...

 

[darjr]

From what I remember, all of the members of the design team played each edition (from OD&D to 4e) prior to the development of D&D Next.

Apparently they still do. On the stream somewhen somebody said they play the edition of some element they are considering implementing, like using 1e for Ravenloft. ( my example)

 

[Parmandur]

OK.
Still leaves a lot of room for variant humans.

Though, players don't necessarily have the option of using feats...

Which data are those and cleaned up in what sense...

Cleaned up to account only for actively used and regularly updated PCs on the platform, not test cases: it was linked in the news thread. One third of humans, roughly, were variant as opposed to standard. And at midlevels, only about a third of all players chose feats. Not all games allow Feats, but people still play in those games, and not everyone takes Feats in games that allow them (such as in AL). The point beingg made was that the board consensus is that Feats are standard and variant Humans are a no-brainer, but that is a minority report in the D&D populace.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

How do you describe that 1st Edition feel? Start with a blank monotone map. Only doors and stairs need marks. Now fill every room with a monster, trap, and/or treasure. Pick your race and class. Don't worry, someone will tell you what you need to do. Check for traps, heal the others, turn undead, hit everything with your weapons, or cast fireball. Level up. Ditch the +1 weapon for the +2 model. Which way you want to go now? Kick in the door until you find the boss. Then we'll figure out which module to play next. And for the love of God, don't forget the Cheetos and Mountain Dew!