D&D General 1e feel for 5E

[Foxmikelima]

I feel like Shadowdark RPG exists for exactly this purpose.

1e feel with a modern game

 

[Celebrim]

The post and the OP reminded me of what my experience with 1e AD&D was like, except in almost the completely the opposite direction. Our games in the 80s and early 90s looked nothing like what is described here.

I don't understand what this means.

Just goes to show there is no one way to play 1e AD&D or any edition really

I don't disagree with that claim but unless you were using very extensive house rules or played only a few times at 1st level, the claims I made in my post would apply to any way you played 1e AD&D.

 

[Yaarel]

For a 1e feel, I would emphasize default subclasses:

The core four:

Wizard Evoker
Fighter Champion
Rogue Thief
Cleric Life

The other class options rethink the design, but feel appropriate enough:

Wizard Illusionist
Druid Land
Paladin Devotion
Ranger Hunter
Fighter Psi Warrior (plus psionic feats as background feats)
Rogue Assassin
Monk Open Hand
Bard Valor

 

[Lanefan]

So, what "feel" from 1E are you trying to create?

Here would be my starting point. Some agree with yours.

1. Change ability modifiers to 15: +1, 16: +2, 17: +3, 18: +4. Negative modifiers would begin at 6 and down from there.
2. Non-martials cap STR and CON modifiers at +2 for attack/damage and hp, even if the PC has a score of 17 or 18. They can still apply higher modifiers for checks and saves.
3. Races (if you don't want to go with direct-race modifiers based on 1E) get a floating +1 but must take a -1 someplace for abilities.
4. Cap HD at 9. Reduce Wizard to d4 HD, Warlock and Rogue to d6 HD.
5. Frankly, I would get rid of ASI and feats, and some of the classes. No subclasses at all.
6. Enforce strict alignment/ personality traits.
7. Training for leveling is required.
8. Short rest = 4 hours, Long rest = 24 hours. You spend HD to regain HP on a long rest (you don't regain HP automatically).
9. Multiclassing must keep all classes withing 1 level of each other.
10. Either PCs add proficiency to damage for everything or creatures gain no HP from CON bonuses. Alternative, reduce all creature HP to half.

And yeah, there would be quite a bit more I would do.

Good list, though were it me I'd tweak it just a bit:

For #3 I'd keep the hard-coded species-based modifiers, both upwards and downwards
For #4 I'm not sure a hard cap is the way to go here. 1e had kind of a soft cap where hit point gain became roughly halved* and the j-curve on the xp charts got mighty steep, but it wasn't a hard cap and kept intact the idea of the game and system being open-ended. It also allows you to design very-high-level opponents without going beyond PC-build rules.
For #9 I really think the only way to fix multiclassing is to go to the 2e system where the classes advanced independently, and then put a hard limit of two classes per character.

I'd also add a #11 that only just occurred to me:

11. Individual xp-based levelling only. No milestone levelling, no at-the-DM's-discretion levelling.

Edit to add: just thought of a #12:

12. Dying and then coming back to life permanently costs you a point of Constitution.

* - the fixed hit point gain after name level is, on closer look, for each class the closest integer to half the average roll on that class' original hit dice.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I don't understand what this means.

I meant it mostly literally. Examples from the op:

First. Hit points were lower, yes. No disagreement.

Second: We didn't do any encumbrance or resource tracking in 1e. It wasn't fun for us, and it didn't impact the game in a meaningful way for us so we didn't do it.

Third. Gritty Realism healing never seemed to be a thing in out 1e games. Whether had healing (magic of some sort) or we would rest until we were at full HP.

Fourth. I was a player, not a DM, so I don't know what changes to monsters may be relevant.

Fifth. Same as #4 above.

Sixth. I don't remember us tracking movement penalties with armor in 1e. I generally played a thief so it wasn't a concern for me so much, but I don't ever remember being slowed down by the more heavily armored fighters (or when I played a fighter).

Seven. We never really tracked time much in 1e.

Eight. we have never played with multiclassing so I don't know about this one.

Nine. We never really tracked lighting in 1e. We just pretty much always assumed we could see. Either we had enough light or torches or whatever. However, we definite didn't track how many torches we had or how much we used.

Ten. I don't ever remember fighting a monster that caused level drain. Maybe we did and our DM nerfed them, but we didn't really fight many undead so maybe we never a deal with level drain.

...or your statement implying the way D&D is played changed a lot from 1e to 5e:

"I largely agree with your list and what you've really shown is just how little like D&D, D&D has become and how more and more it's trying to be a tabletop cRPG, and also why I have had had no interest in new editions of D&D since 3.0e."


We didn't play 3e, but we played 4e and 5e pretty much the same way we played 1e.

 

[EthanSental]

Probably already said but only 1 attack for any melee classes for the first 10 levels, if the party doesn’t get burned out after level 4 of the old school combat style. Melee goes first, ranged goes last or how ever that movement and combat rule went and my last one - Also you have 4 porters and 3 torch bearers in the party for a total parry on the move of 10 to 12. Obviously tongue in cheek but that’s what I remember 1e being like for our table.

 

[bloodtide]

This passage made me laugh.

The important part is to not worship the rules like you find in many modern games and play styles. So many gamers get stuck by "what the rules on page 11 say". And should it even be suggested anything, they will cry "all hail the rules!" and say annoying things like "we are all playing the same game here".

Disagree. Sure you've got to make rulings now and then but I think it's vitally important that the rules - whatever they are - be and remain consistent once put in place. In other words, shore the rulebook up rather than tossing it out.

Ruling that something works one way now and then next session ruling the opposite when the exact same thing arises is IMO poor DMing.

This is more modern thinking. The idea that The Official Rules must be placed on a pedestal and worshiped. Everyone must know all the rules and the game must be "by the rules". Look...sure, great ideas for some games. MODERN games.

And "consistency" is another modern gaming concept...and really just one often used to bully weak DMs.

And in a 1E type game players can NOT do the modern rule and math exploits. Where the player knows all the rules and crunches the rules and the math and can demand of a weak DM that everything happens "By the Rules".

To a point. Unless they're in a true madhouse-dungeon-style adventure there should always be some sense behind what happens, including character death, even if said sense consists of no more than (in the case of death) bad luck.

I don't really see a "point". As soon as the DM says it is a Safe Game, it is no long 1E type style.

I get this, but also know from having tried it that renaming everything puts a real burden on the DM.

Or just say "it is a monster"

One would think Dave's and Bill's characters would at least get saving throws, hm?

Sure....roll them lucky dice....

 

[Yaarel]

1e combat has tight rules. But everything else is almost entirely narrative.

For 5e to resemble this, I would emphasize skills checks. Players can never say "I roll Persuasion". The players must come up with a ploy that they think might be persuasive. Then the DM decides "yes-no-maybe". Sometimes, the DM feels the ploy makes sense and will automatically succeed. Or, in this context will automatically fail. Only if the ploy "might" work, would the DM then ask players to roll a Persuasion check.

Pretty much the LAST thing players will ever do is roll dice.

 

[Lanefan]

The important part is to not worship the rules like you find in many modern games and play styles. So many gamers get stuck by "what the rules on page 11 say". And should it even be suggested anything, they will cry "all hail the rules!" and say annoying things like "we are all playing the same game here".


This is more modern thinking. The idea that The Official Rules must be placed on a pedestal and worshiped. Everyone must know all the rules and the game must be "by the rules". Look...sure, great ideas for some games. MODERN games.

And "consistency" is another modern gaming concept...and really just one often used to bully weak DMs.

I'm a 1e banger from way back and have held rules consistency and precedent as being vitally important almost since day one.

And in a 1E type game players can NOT do the modern rule and math exploits. Where the player knows all the rules and crunches the rules and the math and can demand of a weak DM that everything happens "By the Rules".

In 1e the players weren't exposed to a lot of the rules, particularly around combat; so while they could best-guess things (which is fine as that's what the in-fiction character would probably be doing as well) they could rarely if ever get to a point of exact or even near-exact precision.

I don't really see a "point". As soon as the DM says it is a Safe Game, it is no long 1E type style.

I didn't say "Safe Game". I said the dangers, and their results, have to at least vaguely make sense.

Or just say "it is a monster"

If the monster is at all common in the setting the odds are high the PCs will know what it's called before they even start adventuring. Orcs, for example - even a lot of common townsfolk will have a vague idea what an Orc is, which means if you're going to rename them you a) have to do it right out of the gate and b) have to then be consistent and unrelenting in using the new name every time.

From experience, it's b) that puts the load on the DM: I renamed a bunch of monsters for my current campaign; the only ones I could make stick were renamed Orc, Ogre, Kobold, and Goblin (Grash, Turvitian, Quitch and Knill respectively), the other renamed monsters didn't come up nearly as often and so of course I kept forgetting to use the new names.

 

[Clint_L]

I meant it mostly literally. Examples from the op:

First. Hit points were lower, yes. No disagreement.

Yes, but this was just as true for monsters (especially higher level monsters and characters), so you'd have to change this as well.

Second: We didn't do any encumbrance or resource tracking in 1e. It wasn't fun for us, and it didn't impact the game in a meaningful way for us so we didn't do it.

We seldom used it either. Wasn't fun.

Third. Gritty Realism healing never seemed to be a thing in out 1e games. Whether had healing (magic of some sort) or we would rest until we were at full HP.

Same.

Fourth. I was a player, not a DM, so I don't know what changes to monsters may be relevant.

I was both, but more of a DM. Monsters, like players, had far less HPs but also had some scarier abilities, like level drain.

Sixth. I don't remember us tracking movement penalties with armor in 1e. I generally played a thief so it wasn't a concern for me so much, but I don't ever remember being slowed down by the more heavily armored fighters (or when I played a fighter).

We used it but I don't remember it being a big deal.

Seven. We never really tracked time much in 1e.

Same.

Eight. we have never played with multiclassing so I don't know about this one.

We did, and we got rid of level caps, which was a common house rule. Though it seldom mattered as level gain was so slow. Slow levelling is the biggest single difference, IMO. For example, I played my first character for years and I think he made it to level 11.

Nine. We never really tracked lighting in 1e. We just pretty much always assumed we could see. Either we had enough light or torches or whatever. However, we definite didn't track how many torches we had or how much we used.

It was all about bullseye lanterns, and we mostly hand-waved it, assuming that there was light unless there was a special stipulation.

Ten. I don't ever remember fighting a monster that caused level drain. Maybe we did and our DM nerfed them, but we didn't really fight many undead so maybe we never a deal with level drain.

I never used monsters with level drain because players hated it. Especially in a system where levelling is such a grind. Probably the most punishing and hated mechanic in the history of D&D.

We didn't play 3e, but we played 4e and 5e pretty much the same way we played 1e.

Yeah, I think when we old timers wax nostalgic we tend to exaggerate - "uphill in the snow, BOTH WAYS," and so on. There were some significant differences (hirelings!) but 1e was nowhere near as brutal as some folks make it out to have been, and lots of players were house ruling the more obnoxious rules (for example, giving new characters maximum HP at level 1 was common practice back then - in fact, my first character, a ranger with constitution 18 (17+1 for age modifier) started at level 1 with 24 HP!).