D&D General 1e feel for 5E

[EthanSental]

I think for our old group and even now with Labyrinth lords and OSE, the group of 5 players hire a bunch to haul the loot for that exp calculation and not leave any behind and have to come back.

 

[Xenolith234]

I always hear about this, but in the 10 or so years we played 1e in the 80s-90s our group never had hirelings of any kind. I am not sure if we missed out, or we were better by subtraction.

I have very little interest in hireling play or domain-level play where your PC becomes a leader of a region. I’m cool with having a home base and maybe doing a little domain play, but not as the primary gameplay from level 10 on.

 

[haakon1]

Nobody says you have to play 5e? True, IF YOU CAN FIND PLAYERS who aren't 5E-centered and want to play a different edition.

Thanks for answering. I guess I don’t understand your world.

I’ve only ever seen the DM decide the edition (and other rules), the setting, and the adventures.

Most of the time, I’m the DM, so it’s my call what we play. The 5e game I’m in is run by a guy I’ve known for 20 years - the setting is Ravenloft mixed with Star Wars. Odd to me, but I’m happy to play his vision.

I don’t ever recall (in 30+ years of RPGs) any player saying “no” to an edition or setting, for me of any of the DM’s I’ve been a player.

Is the issue for you that you’re usually a player, so the rules aren’t up to you?

Or is there a competitive market where DM’s are offering games and the non-5e games can’t get players?

Nope, you missed it entirely. I am all for playing non-5E games. I'd love to join a 1E or 2E game.

Six nights ago (Saturday) when I ran a RAW 5E game, which I will run again tomorrow night. So, yeah, I play my non-favorite edition all the time, for the past five years at least (last time I did a 1-session 1E try out).

Would your players quit if you said “we’re playing AD&D”?h

 

[bloodtide]

A big 1E thing was random character death outside of combat. With two common ones:

Death by environment. A character might fall off a rocky ledge and die. Or breathe in some deadly smoke. Or die in a rock slide. Or fall in a pit of lava. Not only did environmental hazards do damage, but 1E was full of things like "characters that fall into the mud pit sink and suffocate and die in 2-12 rounds unless someone helps them escape."

Traps. Traps were everywhere. Plus the 'trap' of unknown potion bottles and unknown magical treasures. There were a lot of cursed items that would just kill characters.

 

[haakon1]

I didn't know that! Interesting.

Edit: went back to my copy of AD&D 1e and yup, many spells get stronger by character level. I can't believe that I didn't know this.

Spells scaling to Caster Level is common through 3.5e, which is one reason I think of it as “the final version of AD&D”.

I don’t remember if they scaled in 4e, but I think not?

 

[Distracted DM]

I understand this thread as not changing 5e, but simple things that a table can do to feel more like 1e.

Maybe reflavor ALL feats as a custom magic item that the player can purchase. Thus an ability score improvement is instead a book (Librum, Manual, etcetera), or an Ioun Stone, or whatever. A different feat benefit is a unique magic sword that grants the benefit (which can also be summoned to hand from afar). And so on.

The only pushback I’d see from this is “what about anti magic fields?!” Well, that’s not true, I can see pushback just based on it not being an intrinsic character improvement… but still, that’s a very cool idea.

 

[ezo]

Thanks for answering. I guess I don’t understand your world.

My pleasure! And my apologies if my response was blunt, but I hope you understand my reaction? When people post about moding 5E instead of playing another edition, they have their reasons. I've yet to see someone respond, "Huh? Wow, duh, your right, I'll just play 1E instead---I never thought of that!"

Whatever their reasons, people want to mod 5E instead of playing another edition. I just accept that and often can guess why, so the type of response you made drives me a bit wonky.

I’ve only ever seen the DM decide the edition (and other rules), the setting, and the adventures.

shrug I've seen it go both ways and in between. Someone offers to run the game, and either suggests the game/edition or asks what people are interested in playing. Some DMs offer a homebrew setting or will role with Forgotten Realms if that is what players already know and like.

Most of the time, I’m the DM, so it’s my call what we play. The 5e game I’m in is run by a guy I’ve known for 20 years - the setting is Ravenloft mixed with Star Wars. Odd to me, but I’m happy to play his vision.

Cool! Funny you should mention Star Wars... we have an addition for our 5E mod that brings in about a dozen races from SW.

I don’t ever recall (in 30+ years of RPGs) any player saying “no” to an edition or setting, for me of any of the DM’s I’ve been a player.

Oh, I have! Not often, true, but enough. I've bowed out of games when the DM said he was running 3E or another game entirely before. I've had players step out when I wanted to run B/X for a while instead of AD&D back in the day. Everyone has their preferences.

Is the issue for you that you’re usually a player, so the rules aren’t up to you?

Oh no! I am the DM 90% of the time now. Another forum member, @DND_Reborn, used to DM all the time, but he hasn't for a while now as he's working on his own collaborative game.

Or is there a competitive market where DM’s are offering games and the non-5e games can’t get players?

Where I am there is barely a market at all. My regular group is myself and three players. Last night a fourth player joined us and if our games move to every-other-Saturday, he'll probably join full time. I have two others that are interested, but couldn't make it last night.

Every once in a great while I hear about someone running a game, but it isn't that often.

Would your players quit if you said “we’re playing AD&D”?

Oh, they'd probably try it. And after this current 5E campaign I am going to pitch an AD&D game, but when I've done them in the past players have found them an interesting novelty as a break from 5E, but nothing they want to commit to long-term.

It is one reason why I am so hesitant to break far from 5E in my house-rules. It is what the players like for now, and I can tolerate 2014 rules well enough, so I just go with it.

 

[Clint_L]

I've had conversations with my current D&D group, not a one of whom played AD&D, as to what older editions were about, why folks wax nostalgic...

Okay, then. I, on the other hand, can only speak to my experience of having actually played through 1e for years, because I am, sadly, old as dirt.

I think one of the big mood shifts, that happened sometime between 3rd and 4th, is the stripping away of consequences from player choices and actions. You can be any race, any class, put your ability scores anywhere you want, specialize in any type of magic, and still be competent at everything you set out to do.

Of course choices and consequences matter. In fact, they matter more.

In 1e, we all rolled for ability scores, with consequences that lasted throughout the entire life of that character. No choice there.

In 5e, my group uses point buy or standard array: they choose where they want their strength and weaknesses, accepting the inevitable consequences. Of course, various options for creating characters through random dice rolls also exist for groups that choose that method. So...more choice, not less.

As an example, my monk chose intelligence, strength and charisma as dump stats, with the consequence that they are crap at things like investigation, persuasion, etc.

I chose human as their species because A) role-play reasons, and B) it gave access to a particular starting feat that I wanted (consequences).

She doesn't have access to any magic at all, as a consequence of my choice to make her a monk.

What has changed is more player control over how we want to balance choices and consequences. Players have far more control over how they want to build their characters in 5e...which is a good thing. More choices, not less. What are gone are many consequences that reflect the game designer's choices rather than your own.

For example, the game doesn't tell you that if you want to play as a dwarf, you cannot be a wizard because Gary Gygax didn't think those things went together. However, if you as a player decide that your dwarf won't be a wizard because those two things don't go together, you are free to do that! Or your DM can build out a game world where dwarves can't be wizards, and let the players know in advance. More choices, not less!

And if your low-level character has a weakness, then soon enough you can take a feat or a subclass that shores it up.

...at the consequence of giving up a different feat or ability score increase that would have helped in other ways. For example, when my monk hit level 4, I chose to increase her dexterity because it would shore up her core class features, as a consequence of which I couldn't take any of those cool feats. It's a trade off. Choices=consequences. There are now far more choices and consequences during character progression than in 1e, in which there were very few beyond spell and equipment selection.

Likewise, the use of magic is largely free of consequences. Spells are never dangerous to the caster, and never powerful enough to hurt a player's feelings by denying them the thrill of combat for more than a round or two. 5e combat feels more like a Champions slugfest than a (pseudo-)medieval battle.

Uh-oh, "hurt a player's feelings." I think we all know where you are coming from now, but let's look at your statement for its veracity. Which spells, exactly, in 1e were dangerous to the caster? Which ones in 5e? In general, D&D has never been a game in which spell casting was particularly dangerous to the caster unless you choose to blow yourself up with a fireball or something.

As for denying the player the "thrill of combat for more than a round or two," this can and still does happen in 5e; in fact, in my very last game at school (Thursday) two of the players had their characters possessed in the first round and lost control of them for virtually the entire battle, until their own party beat them unconscious. However, as a rule we probably don't want a lot of situations where players don't get to play their characters because games should be fun. Passively sitting there is not, as a rule, as fun as getting to participate and make choices that have consequences. I think that was your implicit priority?

First edition was all about niche protection and consequences. It was arguably too restrictive (e.g. dwarves can never be magic-users) but at the same time it gave a reason to experiment with different classes and tactical approaches to the dungeon.

D&D remains a game about niche protection, and your consequences argument, as I have shown, is fallacious. I'm pretty sure that players still experiment with different classes and tactical approaches. See @ECMO3 for lots of examples - they specialize in bespoke builds and inventive tactics.

 

[dave2008]

Thanks for answering. I guess I don’t understand your world.

I’ve only ever seen the DM decide the edition (and other rules), the setting, and the adventures.

Most of the time, I’m the DM, so it’s my call what we play. The 5e game I’m in is run by a guy I’ve known for 20 years - the setting is Ravenloft mixed with Star Wars. Odd to me, but I’m happy to play his vision.

I don’t ever recall (in 30+ years of RPGs) any player saying “no” to an edition or setting, for me of any of the DM’s I’ve been a player.

Is the issue for you that you’re usually a player, so the rules aren’t up to you?

Or is there a competitive market where DM’s are offering games and the non-5e games can’t get players?

Many people on this boards discuss how it can be very difficult to find a non-5e game in their area. I only game with friends so the situation is more like what you describe for me.

 

[Clint_L]

Another thing that 5e would need in order to feel more like 1e is way more magic items, and those items should be more powerful. No attunement slots, and bonuses up to +5 and (in certain circumstances) beyond! In 1e, magic items were a primary means of character progression, whereas in 5e they are much more restricted.

Thinking about this in light of my post about choices and consequences, I think limiting magic is a good design move. Having progression happen mostly through magic items placed a lot of control in the DM's hands, whereas limiting the impact of magic items and having progression happen mostly through things like feats and multi-classing places more control in the players' hands.