TSR Why would anyone want to play 1e?

[TiQuinn]

What about skills? In 1e, if they are important for adventuring you have them through your class. All other skills are either diceless (You were a sailor? OK, you can steer the boat) or handled by DM fiat (which may be a d20 ability check). If you need an obscure and difficult skill you're supposed to hire a specialist. In 2e, on the other hand, there are just too many NWPs, they are too closely tied to ability score and class, and they create the assumption that the NWP is required to perform the action. I'm not a fan of the system.

To be fair, it was an optional system even in 2e.

 

[soviet]

The 1e DMG is a work of art. I ran 2e a few years back but made heavy use of the tables in that DMG.

I started with 2e and the Mentzer red box so that's where my nostalgia falls back to but if someone started with 1e I could absolutely see that the power of nostalgia is big enough to overcome any perceived extra clunkiness in the 1e rules.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Like all things of that era, any comment about 'how we all played' is innately mistaken. However, 'how we all played' in my social circles was that -- for both 1E and 2E -- we used what we wanted, discarded what we didn't, borrowed heavily from BX/BECM where preferred, and generally made the game what we wanted it to be. If I were to play either of them today, it would be a lot of BX core mechanics with some vital AD&D components (like spell disruption), and the 1E or 2E class descriptions, monster listings, weapon charts, etc.

And I think that's what people do. Many by playing one of the many (many... many) osr games out there that are usually ostensibly modelled after one or the other, but in reality at least partially 'the way we played TSR-era A/D&D, but with...'. Others by playing their old copies of one of the different main games, but like my first paragraph being a wild smear of all of them as one sees fit, along with house rules up and and down the play experience.

1e is painful by comparison. Again, I say this as a fan! But let's be real.

So here is my take -- 1e, 2e, and oD&D-RC are all painful in various ways, and I say that as a fan (of each). Thieves are garbage in all of them -- sure some of them have worse percentages, but that's minor compared to fundamental issues like those 7 tasks being a static list, their relative adventure contribution dropping off as you level, and you being systematically ill prepared (highly fragile) to handle the fail state of many of them. All of the systems have lots of tables that could slow the table down (2e coming in in 2nd place, honestly). Bards (and monks/mystics, and multiclassing) are not greatly integrated into the game, and end up being wildly swingy based on what other rules you use. Skill systems (NWPs from 1.5 or 2e, or the BECM/RC version) are all fun for building character theme, but are poorly integrated with the rest of the game. Psionics in all the different editions are wildly overly complicated, and as much as I value anyone saying they find them an important part of their D&D game, I generally think that some other (homebrew) system works better than any of the official rules of the TSR era.

And yet, we see a lot of 1e clones, but IIRC, there's only one 2e clone, and almost every single OSR group I've seen plays a 1e version and not 2e. Does it really come down to "Gary's edition vs. Lorraine's edition?" Or I'm hoping it's more for nostalgia and the memories.

If we're talking about OSR published games, I honestly find BX to be the backbone of more games than any other of the TSR editions (probably because it is easiest to pull back to bare studs). When people pull out the old books and start playing, yeah I agree most people grab the 1e books. But again, as stated above I think usually what they are actually playing is their own house rules which use the parts of all of them that they find engaging (or at least worth the effort).

AD&D 2e starts as a well defined core with Zeb Cook's books. But it immediately goes off the rails with over a dozen "Complete ____" books, and continued with supplements like the Arms and Equipment Guide, multiple monster manuals, and multiple rules expantions. The number of settings is just bonkers, with lots of creativity but also lots of overlap. The number of rules that a re-written multiple times is extreme. I was at a con panel once where one of the 3e designers mentioned that they found 6 completely different sets of drowning rules publised by TSR in different 2e books.

The result of the above is that there really is much of a less defined zeitgeist for exactly what "2e" means. Different groups at different times have completely different ideas of what the rules are, what the baseline of the system is, and what "D&D" means in terms of setting and flavor.

This is another great thing to highlight. A huge amount of the things that 2e brought are ideas moreso than hard rules. I know a lot of people that capital-L Love the ideas surrounding kits and specialty priests and playing as swashbucklers or pirates or defining your character through NWP selection. But at the end of the day, a lot of the rules actually printed vary wildly in playability and balance. Those that want to explore those things generally will do so with their own heavy re-build. In which case any system is as good as another, since you'll be rebuilding to suit your own needs anyways.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It has the clearest focus. It gives the clearest set of "this" without too much "that".

This I have to disagree on. The DMG is full of a whole bunch of this and that with not a whole lot of focus to it all. It's why it's near universal that 1e players ignored large parts of 1e.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If we're talking about OSR published games, I honestly find BX to be the backbone of more games than any other of the TSR editions (probably because it is easiest to pull back to bare studs). When people pull out the old books and start playing, yeah I agree most people grab the 1e books. But again, as stated above I think usually what they are actually playing is their own house rules which use the parts of all of them that they find engaging (or at least worth the effort).

OSE is the biggest retroclone. Right now, OSRIC is going gangbusters. But I bet if there was a Gold and Glory kickstarter, it would be an afterthought compared to OSE or OSRIC.

Which kinda goes back to my original post. Why does 2e get overlooked compared to 1e when it's a much better* written game? It's either b/x or 1e. That's what I see in the OSR discords I belong to, and the conventions I've gone to as well.

*it seems consensus is that 2e is better written and designed, for reasons above.

 

[TiQuinn]

OSE is the biggest retroclone. Right now, OSRIC is going gangbusters. But I bet if there was a Gold and Glory kickstarter, it would be an afterthought compared to OSE or OSRIC.

Which kinda goes back to my original post. Why does 2e get overlooked compared to 1e when it's a much better* written game? It's either b/x or 1e. That's what I see in the OSR discords I belong to, and the conventions I've gone to as well.

*it seems consensus is that 2e is better written and designed, for reasons above.

I think a factor is not the rules themselves, but also what was going on at the time when those rulesets came out. The Hickman Revolution started in 1e's timeframe, but that style of adventure design dominated the 2e era, and for many, 2e will always be associated with that.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Which kinda goes back to my original post. Why does 2e get overlooked compared to 1e when it's a much better* written game? It's either b/x or 1e. That's what I see in the OSR discords I belong to, and the conventions I've gone to as well.

Well then I think the rest of my post is pertinent: both 1e and 2e have massive issues, and people aren't really playing by-the-book 1e or 2e,so much as their (or their OSR game developer's) take on TSR-era A/D&D. In which case 2e's initiative system being less nightmarish than 1e's is immaterial, etc.

 

[Theory of Games]

OK, the title is a bit click baity.

Background: I started playing in 1981 with BX and quickly moved to AD&D. I've been saying for years that one of my favorite editions is 1e but I always have a disclaimer: "With 2e elements."

Note: This is not an edition war thread. Please don't make posts about "this edition just sucks" and leave it at that. This is meant to be an honest discussion about why one would prefer 1e over 2e.

I was playing another session of 1e yesterday and something that's always been in the back of my mind really came out. Why would anyone still play full 1e when 2e is right there? 1e is painful by comparison. Again, I say this as a fan! But let's be real.

• THAC0 is more intuitive than attack matrix tables
• 1e has a ton of rules and charts that slow the game down to a crawl and are handled better in 2e. Rules and charts that pretty much everyone ignores anyway.
• 1e thieves are garbage. You suck at everything you're supposed to be good at until you get near name level, but 95% of the game is played before that, so....
• 2e cleans up that mess by being able to distribute your points at at least be decent at a few things.
• Don't get me started on 1e bards (even if I am not a fan of the class to begin with)
• If you're a fan of psionics, stay away from 1e's rules

So what does 1e have that 2e doesn't?

• Aesthetic: Trampier, Otis, etc. I get this, because I prefer the art of 1e more than 2e, but I don't think it's a reason to stick with 1e rules.
• Gary wrote 1e, Lorraine was in charge of 2e. Weird reason, because Gary and Lorraine don't game at your tables. Pretty sure they don't care which rules you are using. (also, Lorraine didn't design 2e, Zeb Cook did, who is regarded as one of the best designers of all time--look at his portfolio).
• Devils and demons and assassins and half orcs. Yeah, 2e was sanitized, but it's super easy to use demons and devils in a 2e campaign. Why you would use 1e rules just for this reason is kinda weird.
• Classic modules. 2e was designed intentionally to be backwards compatible. You can run 1e modules without conversion in a 2e game.
• Nostalgia. This one I get, because I love me some good nostalgia.

And yet, we see a lot of 1e clones, but IIRC, there's only one 2e clone, and almost every single OSR group I've seen plays a 1e version and not 2e. Does it really come down to "Gary's edition vs. Lorraine's edition?" Or I'm hoping it's more for nostalgia and the memories.

They're both great editions IMO:

• IMO any game can be "slowed down" by a lack of rules mastery. But, once [at least the GM] gets it, gameplay is pretty smooth. I struggled with AD&D1e at first, but within a few sessions I picked up when & what to roll.
• Up until 2nd or 3rd edition, Thieves did kind of suck since their skill ratings were pretty low. I liked the Rules Cyclopedia because it introduced a broad list of skills that made some of the things Thieves do a lot easier.
• 1e Bards were cool because they were the first real Prestige class - you needed great ability rolls, smart play and a lot of luck in order to reach the level of Bard. Because the old Bard was a combination of Fighter/Thief/Cleric-Druid, they put the newer Bards to shame IMO
• I thought the 1e Psionics could be fun to use, but like anything, it took a few sessions to become familiar with how they worked. It was pretty difficult to even get Psionics: a character needed a INT, WIS or CHA of 16+ AND you had to roll 100 on 1d100!
• 2e changed most of how combat worked (initiative, weapon speed, charging, ect.)
• 2e removed the Class Titles which IMO were fun and meant something as a character advanced in the setting
• 2e prohibited multiclassed Mages from wearing armor and material components for spells became optional
• 2e's Monster Manual had more challenging monsters IMO
• 2e was the "Satanic Panic" edition: TSR dropped devils, demons and even assassins from the game to appease the critics. IMO the loss of the Assassin class was terrible (they were beautiful)

Again, both editions are great and worth the investment. If you want "cleaner" adaptations, there's OSRIC (1e) and For Gold & Glory (2e).

 

[Sacrosanct]

• 1e Bards were cool because they were the first real Prestige class - you needed great ability rolls, smart play and a lot of luck in order to reach the level of Bard. Because the old Bard was a combination of Fighter/Thief/Cleric-Druid, they put the newer Bards to shame IMO

I just think in practical purposes, they were awful mechanically. Not just because it's highly unlikely you were rolled at least three 15s, a 12, and an 10, but at bare minimum, you couldn't start being a bard until you were level 11. And most people didn't play to that level.

 

[Theory of Games]

I just think in practical purposes, they were awful mechanically. Not just because it's highly unlikely you were rolled at least three 15s, a 12, and an 10, but at bare minimum, you couldn't start being a bard until you were level 11. And most people didn't play to that level.

I see your point as I've gamed with a lot of people who shared that viewpoint. But, for myself and those who share my playstyle, the challenge of keeping a character alive long enough to claim the title of Bard was a huge part of why we played AD&D.