fuindordm
Adventurer
My own interpretation was that all the races thought they could cast spells but since none of them were maia the spells never worked.Right. So Tolkien's Dwarves could cast spells
TSR Why would anyone want to play 1e?
- Thread starter Sacrosanct
- Start date
fuindordm
Adventurer
XP for treasure gives the PCs a clear incentive to go on adventures, avoid unnecessary combat, and adds a risk/reward tradeoff to every decision the party makes.
The only other system I would use is milestone XP: give everyone a flat 30 000 for finishing an adventure for example. But that feels a bit like a participation trophy.
Gus L
Adventurer
It doesn't matter if Tolkien's dwarves cast spells...
This whole discussion reminds me of "Gandalf is a 7th level Magic-User tops" sort of claims. Tolkien's books do not follow any D&D system and can't really be laid on top of them very well, and despite Elric or Cthulhu getting stats in the old Deities & Demigods neither do Moorcock or Lovecraft. D&D creates its own implied fantasy setting that is far more mechanistic then any novel setting. It demands things happen on specific time tables and in reproducible ways so that players can better plan and now the setting and that setting can remain generalized. For example - the player facing rules for making magic items in D&D are highly abstract while in most fantasy novels or myth what matters is sourcing strange materials, gaining the favor and intervention of magical and divine beings and the special skills of superhuman craftsmen ... none of that is in D&D, because none of it allows for a generalized and reproducible system that can be easily mapped onto the level of detail in the setting...
Imagine for a second if we wanted to include a general rule (as implied in the DMG I think) that +1 weapons are made from "Mitheral" or whatever. Now this becomes a problem for the designer because none of the existing adventures have any mitheral mines or deposits and D&D doesn't really have a world map... to make this work well one would need a system for gathering mitheral. Do you dig it from special deep mines? Where are they? Do you squeeze it out of a hungover dwarf? Easier, but does this imply powerful governments trap dwarves in some kind of alcoholism factory to arm their legions?
D&D - at least as the general system of fantasy its early editions envision starts to fall apart the more detail one includes, because detail is a synonym for setting. Conversely generalized and universal ways of dealing with things - like magic or the toughness of goblins don't make for very good fiction.
This whole discussion reminds me of "Gandalf is a 7th level Magic-User tops" sort of claims. Tolkien's books do not follow any D&D system and can't really be laid on top of them very well, and despite Elric or Cthulhu getting stats in the old Deities & Demigods neither do Moorcock or Lovecraft. D&D creates its own implied fantasy setting that is far more mechanistic then any novel setting. It demands things happen on specific time tables and in reproducible ways so that players can better plan and now the setting and that setting can remain generalized. For example - the player facing rules for making magic items in D&D are highly abstract while in most fantasy novels or myth what matters is sourcing strange materials, gaining the favor and intervention of magical and divine beings and the special skills of superhuman craftsmen ... none of that is in D&D, because none of it allows for a generalized and reproducible system that can be easily mapped onto the level of detail in the setting...
Imagine for a second if we wanted to include a general rule (as implied in the DMG I think) that +1 weapons are made from "Mitheral" or whatever. Now this becomes a problem for the designer because none of the existing adventures have any mitheral mines or deposits and D&D doesn't really have a world map... to make this work well one would need a system for gathering mitheral. Do you dig it from special deep mines? Where are they? Do you squeeze it out of a hungover dwarf? Easier, but does this imply powerful governments trap dwarves in some kind of alcoholism factory to arm their legions?
D&D - at least as the general system of fantasy its early editions envision starts to fall apart the more detail one includes, because detail is a synonym for setting. Conversely generalized and universal ways of dealing with things - like magic or the toughness of goblins don't make for very good fiction.
Mannahnin
Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
Well, leaving aside for a moment the extent to which the purpose of forums like this is for the enjoyment of nerd musings (
), whether they cast spells in a D&D sense kind of matters, because of the exact points you're making about the more subtle nature of magic in Tolkien.As contrasted to, say, the more mechanistic magic we characteristically see in Vance. Yes, of course, D&D obsesses with categorization and rationalization and defining clear distinctions and statistics for bogies and elves and all kinds of mysterious entities and phenomena which defy such clear categorization in real world myths and legends, and it's important to distinguish D&D fiction from real-world folklore. In my opinion it's still worthwhile to comprehend where it corresponds to or contradicts various inspirational fiction.
Hmm. In the TSR editions, the rules for making magic items are mostly pretty abstract, but the details given (say, 1E DMG pages 116-118, or 2E p83-88) do involve sourcing strange materials, and for Clerics and Druids, praying and asking the favor and aid of divine beings. And of course, the PCs involved are superhuman craftsmen by the time they get the ability to make such items.
In 3.x and 4E, ingredients are largely abstracted to simple gold piece or residuum costs, though the actual processes are laid out in clear and straightforward mechanics (for example, 3.5 DMG p241-247). Making them generalized and reproducible. 3rd ed does include special material properties, like Adamantium weapons having an inherent +2 bonus, mithril armor counting as lighter in encumbrance and having a reduced spell failure chance, and darkwood items being masterwork, lighter, and less encumbering (3.5 DMG 242-243), as well.
Last edited:
Neonchameleon
Legend
Honestly? Because 1e is a solid game of gritty dungeon crawling mercenaries out for liit with rough edges, 2e is a complete mess where the rules are written for high fantasy action adventure while still using 95% rules for gritty mercenaries robbing dungeons. (And most "1e" fans IME play B/X with a few 1e house rules anyway).
We have a perfectly good modern game that does most things pitched in the 2e PHB and DMG starting with high fantasy action adventure better than 2e does, and that's 5e. 5e however does not do the gritty dungeon crawling 1e is based around (and there isn't even anything really to spend your gold on).
Sacrosanct
Legend
Can you give me specific rules for dungeon crawling in 1e that offer a better table experience and specific rules in 2e that make that experience a complete mess? What rules in 2e make it a high fantasy adventure compared to 1es rules that do not?
Voadam
Legend
I believe Neonchameleon was more saying that 1e says it is a game for dungeon crawling and has rules that suit dungeon crawling while 2e says it is a game for high adventure but has rules for gritty dungeon crawling that do not suit high adventure.
The rules are mostly the same.
Neonchameleon
Legend
Xp for GP is a fundamental default rule in 1e and deprecated into a very much optional rule in 2e. And deprecating this rule (and a couple of its relatives) ripped the heart out of the gritty dungeon crawling
In 1e roughly 80% of your experience came from loot not fighting. If you could trick and rob the monsters without fighting them that was optimal play.
Also wandering monsters didn't carry treasure, so they worked as a pacing mechanic; 100% of the risk for 20% of the XP. You wanted to hurry up to avoid them.
By contrast under the default 2e rules the biggest source of party XP was ... killing monsters. (Individual XP for doing your Class Things - including fighting as a fighter). Wandering monsters were worth all the XP of other monsters and came slowly.
Also for a bonus 1e DMG Appendix A: Random Dungeon Generation. Does not exist in the 2e DMG.
And there are no rules in 2e that make it suitable for high fantasy. Doesn't stop it talking about encounter based play and high fantasy tropes. This is what I mean by a mess.
Sacrosanct
Legend
I guess I don't really agree that loss of XP for gold makes a game "no longer gritty". XP for gold just drives towards less combat, but you can have a gritty game and be combat focused.
Neonchameleon
Legend
Exactly this. The main mechanical changes I recall were the deprecation or removal of XP for GP and of hireling rules, both of which strongly work with gritty dungeon crawling, and the addition of "Non weapon proficiencies"
But the tone changed dramatically while most of the mechanics didn't
Similar Threads
