TSR Why would anyone want to play 1e?

[Sacrosanct]

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.

So I understand, a huge reason you played 1e was just to see if you could reach level 11 and be a bard?

I think I'm misunderstanding, because most people I've seen, known, and heard about played 1e and moved to different campaigns, adventures and characters long before level 11 was reached. It wasn't really a consideration to play the game just to see if you could make it to high level. In fact, IIRC, the various poll have put the sweet spot of 1e to be between levels 4-9 or so.

 

[Theory of Games]

So I understand, a huge reason you played 1e was just to see if you could reach level 11 and be a bard?

I think I'm misunderstanding, because most people I've seen, known, and heard about played 1e and moved to different campaigns, adventures and characters long before level 11 was reached. It wasn't really a consideration to play the game just to see if you could make it to high level. In fact, IIRC, the various poll have put the sweet spot of 1e to be between levels 4-9 or so.

Not just achieving Bard - any type of higher level advancement that brought rewards. I'd include when certain classes acquire spells, attract followers and build strongholds. I get the impact of polls and surveys as they can provide useful information, but when I DMed AD&D back in the day, long-term play was the goal of the groups I ran with

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

Aesthetics and nostalgia, plus this:

AD&D 1e has the most defined set of "core" books and rules in all of early D&D. It has a PHB, a DMG, and a MM. Beyond that, it has a limited number of clearly identified supplements. The settings that exist for 1e are likewise limited, and reasonably well defined in their difference.

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.

I think there's a lot of truth here. 2E tried to be all things to all DMs, and encompasses some contradictory approaches and a whole mess of supplements. When I think back to playing 2E the Complete books are absolutely part of that, but which ones is very much a matter of taste.

I also think that dumping treasure for XP as a core rule, and a couple of dubious choices with other important rules (default ability score generation, multiclass M-Us not being able to cast in armor, spells gained after 1st being DM fiat, death at zero) are actively worse than the 1E versions.

The initiative system is the one really clear improvement, but even that is only so because it's actually understandable and playable. I find the system itself clunky and unappealing in part because it has weapon reach/speed backwards and makes that important every single round instead of an edge case on tied initiatives. 1E with a couple of judicious simplifications is actually better system IMO.

 

[Voadam]

There are a couple 1e mechanics I prefer over the 2e ones.

While I really love 2e specialty priests I prefer 1e clerics and druids mechanically to 2e ones. Turning spell access to 2e spheres instead of 1e curated lists meant that there were some spells designed for the flavor of one class that ended up switching over to the other one to fit the 2e spheres system.

I think 1e multiclassing magic users are better balanced with allowing casting in armor similar to Basic elves than 2e no armor elven fighter wizards.

For AD&D with its reverse bell curve stat mechanics and class prerequisites I prefer the 1e higher stat generation methods over 2e’s method I 3d6 down the line.

I really like 1e OA martial arts.

Thieves are terrible in both and while I like 2e’s assign points innovation, in 1e demihumans could at least be unlimited level thieves RAW.

 

[TerraDave]

2e was great except for all those specific things that were bad. (And 2e was not so great).

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

There are many reasons why people would want to play 1E.

If one is considering 1E for play though, the most practical question one can ask themselves is not dissimilar to the one that can be posed for any edition.

"Do I want to play with those who want to play 1E?"

If your actual preferences differ from the preferences of the players you are able to recruit, you'd be fighting an uphill battle. I prefer serious names, acting in first person, and other things. There are vocal segments in the 1E community that do not want these same things in their games. 2E, on the other hand, still seems to be less opinionated on the matter. Something to consider.

 

[SableWyvern]

Speaking only for myself:

Several restrictions on magic users were removed or loosened, for the worse:

• Preparation time drops from 15 minutes per level to 10 minutes per level, which means high level magic users can recover their full complement of spells much faster.
• Bonus spells for specialists.
• I believe chance to know rolls were removed and, in general, magic users are given much more control over exactly which spells they can learn.
• Conversely, while the mage is getting more powerful for no good reason, the fighter loses their multiple attacks against low HD enemies (edit: actually, I believe it may have still existed as an optional rule; still, IMO there is no good reason not to just leave it as standard).

Several classes were changed for the worse.

• Illusionist is now just another magic user.
• I think the 1e ranger is an awesome concept, while the 2e one is a bit bleh (possibly that's more an effect of the saturation of the new ranger archetype in later editions).
• Bard is easier to get to the table, but much more boring.

Other things:

• The general aesthetic of 1e was grimy, with a focus on dungeons and exploration. XP for gold was a key component, which is still present in 2e, but only as an optional rule.
• Giving fighters XP for combat as their primary method of advancing promotes a fight-first playstyle.
• 2e was going for a more heroic quest vibe, but I just wouldn't use AD&D for that sort of game. 2e had some amazing settings, but I would run most of them with Mythras rather than AD&D.

Mechanically, the games were still very close, and any game you could run with 1e you could do with 2e with little or no effort. But 2e doesn't provide me better tools for that sort of game, and does have a number of ways in which it offers less.

Plenty of people won't agree with me on many of these points, and that's fine. These things are why I would use 1e, not why you should.

 

[Belen]

2e is superior, 1e is inferior.

There is really nothing I prefer in 1e. I own the books for archival reasons but I’d play 2e again in an instant if I had the chance.

 

[SableWyvern]

So I understand, a huge reason you played 1e was just to see if you could reach level 11 and be a bard?

I think I'm misunderstanding, because most people I've seen, known, and heard about played 1e and moved to different campaigns, adventures and characters long before level 11 was reached. It wasn't really a consideration to play the game just to see if you could make it to high level. In fact, IIRC, the various poll have put the sweet spot of 1e to be between levels 4-9 or so.

The journey towards bardhood can be just as much fun as achieving it.

I played in a short lived 2e game where I convinced the GM to let me play a 1e bard. The campaign never went anywhere, but while it lasted I had much more fun playing a 1st level fighter who considered himself an apprentice bard than I would have had playing a 2e bard.

 

[cbwjm]

This might be a little rambling back and forth.

2e was the second version of DnD I played and still a favourite. I can't comment too much on 1e as I've only flicked through the books and read comments from others. I will say, one think I did not like about 1e core books was the writing style.

If I wanted to play 1e modules (and there are some classic adventures like against the giants or tenple of elemental evil that I'd like to run), I'd run them in 2e but that the cool thing about backwards compatibility, you can take modules from either edition and run them in both.

One thing I like about 2e is that there are a lot of options, such as character kits, that I like though don't necessarily require, the game runs wonderfully well with just the core books.

I do think that some of the classes lost a little bit of flavour, the shift from 1e to 2e completely changed the bard and I think both could be included in a game (maybe make the 1e bard its own standalone class though, with some thief and warrior abilities). To being back some of the 1e class flavour, there were character kits that brought back the cavalier and 1e ranger (up to a point).

I much prefer the 2e thief being able to customise their thief skills, though nowadays I'd convert them to proficiencies that are part of the rogue group and let thieves and bards pick a number of bonus rogue skills when created.