1E Resurgence?

[PapersAndPaychecks]

But do you think people who believe 4e has a 1e feel are deluded, or that they're looking at things in different ways than you are?

-O

I'm (obviously) not Shazman, but I think the people who see 1e in 4e are stretching things as much as the people who see WoW in 4e are.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

games like labyrinth lord or castles and crusades do remind me that there was a reason (besides a satanism scare) that people turned out in tens and twenties at game tables throughout the seventies and early eighties, and looking back to the old while thinking about the new is a good way to remind us just what was popular about those games to those people who weren't smitten with die-hard gaming, but just those who wanted a fun experience at the table.

amen.

 

[Timeboxer]

I think it's great that a pro-1E thread can turn into an anti-4E thread so quickly.

Heck, we even got a "videogamey powers" reference a few posts ago.

As a discussion about Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the word "videogame-y" approaches one.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

...since OSRIC there's been a slowly increasing tide of new blogs, new sites, and more modules appearing in the OOP websites like Dragonsfoot and Knights & Knaves. I don't think it's been linked to 4e - I don't recall a large blip - maybe a small one - around the time 4e came out.

This is what I've seen, too; I think the "resurgence" started prior to 4e, and has been quietly gathering steam for some time. It's definitely becoming more visible, lately, though, and seems to be expanding beyond the "niche" sites.

 

[MerricB]

This is what I've seen, too; I think the "resurgence" started prior to 4e, and has been quietly gathering steam for some time. It's definitely becoming more visible, lately, though, and seems to be expanding beyond the "niche" sites.

Honestly, I think it started with 3e. It's just taken a while to get this far.

Cheers!

 

[PaulofCthulhu]

For me, I've been re-considering 1E and OD&D recently due to a sense of "freedom/maneuverability" as I remember it (and the overall speed of combat). I like combat in such settings, but personally not when it could take 60-90 minutes to complete a single battle. Let me fight, move on, explore, interact, overcome!

Horses for courses, really.

 

[Nikosandros]

I'm (obviously) not Shazman, but I think the people who see 1e in 4e are stretching things as much as the people who see WoW in 4e are.

I agree.

I honestly see 4e as extremely different from AD&D, not only in the mechanics but in the feeling. 4e is, IMO, far more removed from AD&D than 3e was and 3e already felt like a wholly different game to me (even if it maintained an appearance of similarity).

 

[Remathilis]

I agree.

I honestly see 4e as extremely different from AD&D, not only in the mechanics but in the feeling. 4e is, IMO, far more removed from AD&D than 3e was and 3e already felt like a wholly different game to me (even if it maintained an appearance of similarity).

I agree, and for the life of me cannot figure out if this is good or not.

Fourth edition introduced a lot of good concepts, but I think it ultimately lacked something in execution. They got a lot of things right, and much of their ideas had noble intentions (replacing rarely-used and poorly defined concepts with new, revamped alternatives) but in the process of revamping and "fixing" everything the smoothed out the quirks that gave the system character.

Take a case-in-point: alignment. The nine alignments are synonymous with D&D (yes, I know BECMI used 3 alignments) to the point of it being part of the brand (I'm sure more than a few people would get a reference to Chaotic Evil, even if they weren't hardcore D&D players). However, alignment was never used satisfactorily; no matter how hard the designers tried, they never got people to agree what the alignments meant. This grew worse when game-mechanics became tied to alignment (paladins, smite evil, druidic neutrality). Sensibly, alignment needed some fixing and that's what they did. They removed game-mechanics from alignment, untethered classes from it, and removed "neutrality" as a concept to come up with five decently defined alignments. However, in doing so, some of the wonky charm alignment had was lost. For some, that is no loss. For others, its a symbol of D&D's change from LG paladins N Druids, and CG rangers facing LE demons and CN Slaad.

Third edition attempted to bridge the gap by keeping some of the wonky nostalgia even as the game changed around it. Vancian casting (heck, the spells per day table!), 9 alignments, the Great Wheel, Greyhawk, half-orcs, Bards, Monks, and Bronze Dragons. Sure, saved changed and AC went upwards, and many spells looked different, but I could take a 5th level elven mage in 1e and make him a 5th level elven mage in 3e and they would look roughly the same. In 4e, this is no longer true. He has more hp, a different magic system, healing surges, different racial traits, etc.

In a vacuum, all of the 4e changes are good and justified. Each fixes a common complaint players have had (not all players, but a large group) but it almost feels like too many cooks in the kitchen; by the time their done, you have Quiche Lorraine when all you wanted was bacon & eggs.

Perhaps 4e went too far. Perhaps they did everything right, but by doing so lost anyway. The whole is larger than the sum of its parts; perhaps some of those god-awful game elements like alignment or Vancian casting defined D&D more than any are willing to discuss. Those who love 4e will no doubt disagree, and they are also right. 4e players smoother and is better balanced (and easier to run) than any edition of D&D before it. There are some great ideas in it others would consider very "un-D&D" (like dragon-men or PC half-fiends). But it has lost some of those "sacred cows" that defined D&D to others. Logically, it made sense to change them. Emotionally...

I'm not knocking 4e, I run it and play it. But it feels different; much different than the D&D I ran in 2e or 3e. Not better, not worse, different. Perhaps too different for me. I enjoy it, but there is something, deep inside me that feels a sense of loss for all those annoying sub-systems, alignment arguments, and fire and forget magic spells.

Maybe its that sense that is bringing people "home" to older D&D?

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

I raised this with a friend of mine and his thoughts were that the "OD&D feel" that gets touted about 4e is more in relation to the ease of DMing it. From what I've read there does seem to be truth in that.

I agree with your friend. The ease of DMing, the freeform rules, and the relative elegant simplicity of the game all create a "1E feel" within a 4e game. Much more than could ever be captured in 3e.

3e, to be fair, was certainly closer to 1e in terms of sacred cows and familiar terms.

If one compares the editions subjectively, 4e is very close to 1e (or, rather, very much closer than 3e).

If one compares the editions from familiar terms, 3e is very close to 1e (or, rather, very much closer than 4e).

If one compares the editions in terms of rules mechanics, neither 3e nor 4e are "close" to 1e.

Ergo, it comes down to what is fun for you. If it's the "feel" of 1e, then 4e is your cup of grog. If it's the familiar world and terms, then 3e is it.

Actually, the best system to capture 1e feel and familiar tropes is, well, 1e. Barring that - 2e.

Brilliant, eh? And that is why I'm not Intelligence Penalty.

1E. It's the new 4E.

Um, as an aside, I have a great amount of respect for those folks who stuck with 1e through thick and thin and still play it regularly. There is a very large part of me that would very much like to do just that. I think you'll also note that these folks, by and large, don't hurl dispersions at 3e or 4e players (though they might at 2e gamers). The 1e crowd just seems more - I don't know - mature and yet casual.

1E: Old s(c)h(ool).
2E: Stepsons of the gaming world.
3E: Fun to Play.
4E: Fun to DM.

WP

 

[Obryn]

Um, as an aside, I have a great amount of respect for those folks who stuck with 1e through thick and thin and still play it regularly. There is a very large part of me that would very much like to do just that. I think you'll also note that these folks, by and large, don't hurl dispersions at 3e or 4e players (though they might at 2e gamers). The 1e crowd just seems more - I don't know - mature and yet casual.

That's because they hang out at Dragonsfoot. You're at ENWorld, where a certain amount of tolerance to 3e and/or 4e is more or less required, lest you implode, explode, or get banhammered.

I agree.

I honestly see 4e as extremely different from AD&D, not only in the mechanics but in the feeling. 4e is, IMO, far more removed from AD&D than 3e was and 3e already felt like a wholly different game to me (even if it maintained an appearance of similarity).

I really, really hate to ask this - but since we have like 10 other threads about this on the forum, and it's clear nobody's budging with the same arguments, I will. Could we just accept that, for quite a few folks, 4e feels a lot like RC/1e, even if you have no idea why they'd feel that?

-O