TSR Why would anyone want to play 1e?

[haakon1]

But in both cases, the key to success and survival is tactical thinking. If you can't hit the AC, is there something else you can do?
And this is exactly why I like AD&D. Because tactical thinking as a player or DM is just as important as the numbers on the paper.

This is what is best in D&D.
Searching your character sheet and deciding maybe you can distract the monster with iron rations.
Trying to jump on the mounted enemy’s horse.
Trying to distract the monster to attack your Paladin instead of the squishy mage.
Praying for divine intervention and rolling a natural 00 to get it.

This sort of stuff happened often when I was playing AD&D (retronym 1e). “Stygian, the best.” The platonic ideal of D&D of which all other editions are a pale copy.
Never in 2e.
But also a few times in 3e/3.5e.
Never in 4e.
Once so far in 5e.

But that may reflect that I’ve played a lot more AD&D (classic) and 3x than the other editions. Still, per hour, higher in AD&D, I’d say.

I suspect adding Proficiencies/Skills reduced free form gaming in D&D (the whole thing, 2e on).

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Interesting, in that by the time 2e came out we'd long since made many of these changes as houserules. We dropped xp-for-treasure (the slow-down in level advancement is a huge benefit if one wants to run long persistent campaigns), we changed it so multi-class characters had to go by the most restrictive class when it came to armour allowed, spells gained on training after 1st were random, and death was at -10 with potential unconsciousness at 0.

The one there that we didn't change (and if I have my way, will never change) is randomized ability score generation.

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.

We designed our own fairly simple initiative system for 1e a very long time ago and haven't changed it much since.

As to the OP, the big thing 1e has going for it over 2e (particularly later-era 2e) IMO is that it's easier to kitbash. Also, the sanitization of 2e was a huge turnoff; that alone ensured we'd never play it anywhere near as written.

All the charts and tables are easy enough to use if you've got them printed out and taped to the back of your DM screen (or if you have one of those DM screens that has them already pre-printed).

 

[Lanefan]

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.

If you're looking for a serious game, 1e will gently fight against you as there's a quiet underlying sense of whimsy and gonzo-ness to it that none of the other editions have really managed to replicate. That sense of whimsy is one of the things I love about 1e.

I mean, I like first-person acting etc. as well, but I'm also fine with someone giving their character a silly name because ultimately one of two things will happen: the character dies fast enough that no-one cares about its name, or it becomes a superstar and the name doesn't seem so silly any more.

My SO's number one character, a Gnome MU that she's been playing on and off since 1995, is named Pearl Jam. And yes, it's named after the band. We all, even including her, thought it was a silly name at the time. No-one thinks it's silly now.

 

[Lanefan]

We never did. Occasionally we'd try just needing a trainer and the gold, but never once used the rating system. Usually we didn't bother with training or stopped the training after a few levels because it was super annoying.

We've kept training and the associated costs - if nothing else, having to train forces the PCs to take some downtime every now and then - but that stupid rating system went out the window in less time than it took me to type this.

 

[Lanefan]

Ranges are in game units, which are 10s of feet indoors and 10s of yards outdoors. I could understand if you find that strange.

Descriptions of objects are in real world terms, not the game mechanic used for measuring range; I don't think that is surprising or crazy. It even says twelfths of a foot instead of inches, to help ensure there is no confusion.

The game is quite consistent with this, which is why a fireball (for example) has a fixed volume (in cubic feet) but a variable range (in tabletop inches).

The game is consistent but the tabletop-inch system is still a bloody pain. I went through the spell lists and converted everything to feet, listing separate ranges and-or AoE's for indoors and outdoors when needed, and I am - and my players are - much happier for it.

 

[Theory of Games]

If you're looking for a serious game, 1e will gently fight against you as there's a quiet underlying sense of whimsy and gonzo-ness to it that none of the other editions have really managed to replicate. That sense of whimsy is one of the things I love about 1e.

I mean, I like first-person acting etc. as well, but I'm also fine with someone giving their character a silly name because ultimately one of two things will happen: the character dies fast enough that no-one cares about its name, or it becomes a superstar and the name doesn't seem so silly any more.

My SO's number one character, a Gnome MU that she's been playing on and off since 1995, is named Pearl Jam. And yes, it's named after the band. We all, even including her, thought it was a silly name at the time. No-one thinks it's silly now.

From this post it seems that it wasn't the system that was as gonzo as your group The groups I've played with have usually been more "serious", similar to how many experienced chess players engage their game. But IMO the modern ttrpg culture has a much more "waggish" presentation than decades earlier.

 

[Lanefan]

The 1e Ranger is still the best Ranger, and it's not even close. 2e completely ruined the class and it has yet to recover.

1e Thieves weren't great at low levels but by high levels they really could rock pretty good; and they got to those high levels way faster than anyone else due to the variable-by-class advancement tables (which IMO are also a very good thing).

1e's non-Human multiclassing where each class advanced independently (which 2e kept) was IMO light-years better than how the WotC editions do it.

That spells are a) usually very effective and b) easy to interrupt is IMO a far better risk-reward take than the modern game has.

There were some elements of 1e that sucked hard, though, and I say this as a fan of the edition. Species-based class-level limits. Dual-classing in general, never mind that it was for one species only. Gender-based stat limits. Bards as a prestige class. Psionics as written. Monks as written. Large chunks of Unearthed Arcana.

All of those, with one exception, are relatively (and in a few cases, trivially) easy to fix by houserule. The one exception IME is Bards; I've tried redesigning them several times to start at 1st like any other class, and have seen other peope's attempts at the same, and none of those designs have yet worked out. But I still don't want to drop the class outright, as there's massive potential in it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

As to the OP, the big thing 1e has going for it over 2e (particularly later-era 2e) IMO is that it's easier to kitbash. Also, the sanitization of 2e was a huge turnoff; that alone ensured we'd never play it anywhere near as written.

All the charts and tables are easy enough to use if you've got them printed out and taped to the back of your DM screen (or if you have one of those DM screens that has them already pre-printed).

I don't know if it was easier to kitbash, but you pretty much had to. If you used all rules, you were constantly referring to tables and charts (weapon vs AC, speed factor, initiative, etc)

 

[Lanefan]

From this post it seems that it wasn't the system that was as gonzo as your group The groups I've played with have usually been more "serious", similar to how many experienced chess players engage their game. But IMO the modern ttrpg culture has a much more "waggish" presentation than decades earlier.

Any edition that has White Plume Mountain, Castle Amber, and the two EX-series ones as official modules, while also having some of the whacked-out monsters in the three MMs, is already leaning well toward gonzo. It doesn't need much help from us.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't know if it was easier to kitbash, but you pretty much had to. If you used all rules, you were constantly referring to tables and charts (weapon vs AC, speed factor, initiative, etc)

Dropping weapon-speed and weapon-vs-armour-type outright is a trivially easy kitbash that really doesn't affect much else while making combat far more streamlined.

A not-so-easy but still IMO very necessary kitbash is to re-do or even re-invent the initiative system.

Another very easy one is to ditch dual-classing and make Human multiclassing work the same as it does for non-Humans.

Etc. etc.