OSR What Do You prefer 1E vs 2E

[haakon1]

It was the realization of how much 1e cleaned up would just be 3e with slightly different language that kept me from pursuing a retro-game.

And that’s why I still DM 3.5e. Running mostly 1e & Basic adventures in the final version of 1e.

 

[teitan]

Pretty much the same for me.

If we're talking about as a playable game there really isn't much of a reason to not play 2e. It's really just a cleaned up and slightly streamlined 1e. It's pretty much superior in all gameable aspects aside from the art and content being sanitized because of angry moms who will never love you anyway (thanks Jim Ward!).

As for mining stuff, inspiration, general warm fuzzy dungeon feels; 1e.

Minus NWP, 100%

 

[teitan]

And that’s why I still DM 3.5e. Running mostly 1e & Basic adventures in the final version of 1e.

I ran a ton of 1e and Basic with 3.0, mostly just swapping out monster stat blocks. It's amazing how much bigger dungeons get though when you convert 3.x and later back to the 1e standard of 3.33' per square/hex.

 

[haakon1]

I ran a ton of 1e and Basic with 3.0, mostly just swapping out monster stat blocks. It's amazing how much bigger dungeons get though when you convert 3.x and later back to the 1e standard of 3.33' per square/hex.

Yes for the 1st sentence. And there’s a 3e/3.5e/PF1/Starfinder rule for just about any monster from those earlier editions.

For the second sentence, in 3x, most maps are 5 ft. squares. In 1e and Basic modules, I see many at 10 ft. squares, and TOEE nodes are 50 ft. squares.

I deal with converting map scale (I find 5 ft. consistency easier) by either hand drawing on dungeon paper, or this process:
1) Scan map
2) Format an Excel worksheet so it looks like graph paper. Format all lines.
3) Copy worksheet.
4) Paste your scan. Use resize to fit to the scan’s squares scale of “graph paper”, like 1 10 ft. square from the scan to 2x2 5 ft. squares. Or 50 ft. squares to 10x10 5 ft. squares.
5) You can create a square or image to the same square size, copy and paste it, and move it around,
6) You can use gray boxes inserted to cover stuff.
7) For my email campaign, it works well to copy the map for each round, as it’s fun to see what happened.

 

[teitan]

For the second sentence, in 3x, most maps are 5 ft. squares. In 1e and Basic modules, I see many at 10 ft. squares, and TOEE nodes are 50 ft. squares.

Yes when converting the 10' squares to a battlemat the DMG for 1e says that each 1" square is 3.33' so a 10' map square is 9 squares battlemat ground space. Vertical space was still a 5'=1" space like current scales though.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes when converting the 10' squares to a battlemat the DMG for 1e says that each 1" square is 3.33' so a 10' map square is 9 squares battlemat ground space. Vertical space was still a 5'=1" space like current scales though.

Where did you find the bolded, and-or in what context? I've never seen it, that I recall.

 

[Mannahnin]

Yes when converting the 10' squares to a battlemat the DMG for 1e says that each 1" square is 3.33' so a 10' map square is 9 squares battlemat ground space. Vertical space was still a 5'=1" space like current scales though.

I've never seen that either.

Perhaps teitan is inferring it from the instruction that three characters can normally fight abreast in a 10' hallway, assuming they're using appropriate weapons which don't require more space? The 1E DMG doesn't talk about battlemats at all.

 

[teitan]

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?

 

[Mannahnin]

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 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.

 

[teitan]

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.

He was never very precise but using Chainmail to judge AD&D is wrong in my opinion. unlike OD&D, AD&D and BX are complete within themselves while OD&D required Chainmail or a lot of study of the second set of 3 books to hash out these rules.

It resolves the entire question and I think it was his intent in the rest of the references but like most of these terms in AD&D he was about as precise as as a dog relieving themself on a target.