1st ed again.

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I too much perfer the art in MM & MM2 from 1e to 3e. In fact I usually haul the MM's with me so I can show the players what stuff looks like. The 1e MM's were just great products with tons of feel and atmosphere, MUCH better than the 3e MM. I still love to flip through the deamons, demons, & devils of 1e and read the descriptions and look at the art. The individual pictures of all the creatures was great too, half the in the new MM doesn't even have a pic!

I never played 2e, but I don't find 1e to be lacking even when compared to game systems written 20 years later.

 

[Hard8Staff]

I recommend anyone interested in 1e ask around at the Hackmaster community to see what they have to say. It has the "1e" feel.

http://pub18.ezboard.com/fhmpafrm4

Note I am biased since I wrote a lot of HM. I do so love the "1e" feel and we tried real hard to preserve it and even expand on it.

But you certainly shouldn't take my word for it. The products speak for themselves.

Dave

 

[zamoran]

I will reply to each point soon but I am in a hurry now.

 

[Grazzt]

OK- I just have to reply to this. Not sure why? But seeing as how I started playing in 1981 with 1e I guess I qualify.

It has the real demons from real demonology.
It has a spell to summon some.

To some degree true...but most were in name only and a lot were just invented. For example....Graz'zt, Fraz Urb' Luu. There are no real world equivalents. And the true version of Demogorgon is not a two-headed baboon with tentacles.

It has druids and illusionists as separate classes
even in the spells sections (and the druid is my favorite class).

So does 3e (and so did 2e). Druids are still a separate class (they always have been AFAIK) and illusionists are specialist wizards.

It has a darker and older feel,
even in the way the printing is done,
the pictures look and feel older and
stimulate the imagination more.

While I tend to like the artwork more in 1e than any other edition....to each his own I guess. The "feel" is what you as DM make of it.

It has 6 saving throws.

3e has three saves. No need for anymore. Need to dodge something? Roll a Reflex save. Need to withstand a physical change or assault? Make a Fortitude save. Need to repel some mind-influencing spell? Make a Will save. Easy, simple, to the point.

It is the original version by the very guy who created RPG
or at least D&D (reason enough?).
Subsequent AD&D and D&D are just copies without the feel.

Possibly true to some degree, but as I said above....the DM is the one that puts the feel into it.

Legends & Lore had pictures in it !!! (duh)

You do mean Deities & Demigods right? The book was recovered near the mid to end of 1e as Legend & Lores, but the original book was called Deities & Demigods.

1st ed Oriental Adventures presented ALL-NEW PC classes
and was written through intensive and passionate research
while 2nd ed Complete Handbooks and I hear Arabian Adventures
only had DISAPPOINTING and NO FUN AT ALL
CHARACTERS KITS which are a real RIP OFF
instead of new PC classes.

The 3e version of OA is a conversion of the original book and then some. The classes are there; the spells, etc. I agree that KITS and the Complete Handbooks were well....garbage (more or less- though I did like the Thieves Handbook). Al-Qadim (the Arabian Adventures stuff) was good, at least IMO.

It has the assassin and the barbarian NOT CHARACTERS KITS.

The barbarian is a core class in the 3e PHB. The Assassin is a prestige class in the DMG. They are both in 3e as good/bad as ever.

I could go on and on.

Please don't. It seems a lot of what you are saying is #1 based on 2e rather than 1e, and #2 it doesn't seem like you have even seen or looked at 3e at all.

I live in Québec, 80% French-speaking province of Canada and
I've had to order used copies of every AD&D 1st ed book
to individuals in the U.S. cause since we're French here,
less people understand English and the 1st ed had never been
translated in French, as far as I know, so there was no more
copies around even in the used stores but I really wanted
the real one.

Go buy them all before they become an expensive rarity

I am presently re-reading every book from the 1st ed even if
I'm French though very good in English
and I will NOT play another edition.

I can always take a small thing here and there
from the 2nd edition and add it if I feel the need arise
which I don't till now.

Isn't taking a small thing from here or there and adding it to your game what D&D has ALWAYS been about? You say you will never play another edition? Then you are missing out. While I agree that 2e was bad, 3e is not. It is different, more streamlined, and a lot of fun. It has brought a ton of 1e players back to the game, and if anything can capture that 1e feel it is the new rules.

Hell, look at the 3e DMG and the 1e DMG. The exact same sample scenario is in both books (the dungeon, the scroll tube, the ghouls, etc). It plays just as easily and fun with the 3e rules as it did using the 1e rules.

2e was about storytelling and driving the story. 3e takes the game back to the dungeon, where it should be. It is after all called DUNGEONS & Dragons.

Scott
The Creature Catalog
http://www.enworld.org/cc

Content Editor
Necromancer Games
http://www.necromancergames.com
"Third Edition Rules, First Edition Feel"

 

[Desdichado]

2e was about storytelling and driving the story. 3e takes the game back to the dungeon, where it should be. It is after all called DUNGEONS & Dragons.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. Do all of your games feature dragons as well because it's called Dungeons & DRAGONS? Back to the dungeon was, IMO, the biggest step backwards for the 3e system, and quite surprising when in most respects it is such an improvement over prior games.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Please! Not the dungeon vs. storytelling debate!

3e simply RE-INCLUDED the dungeon as an option after more than a decade of the dungeon being relegated to second-class status. It doesn't mean 3e can only be used for dungeon crawls.

 

[Desdichado]

I agree, that's why I said it was one of the few steps backwards compared to the many, many strides forwards. The other major step backwards I would say is the heavily miniature influenced combat. I really don't know how I'd run combat correctly without tactical battlemaps ala Warhammer Quest.

If 3e were really all it could be, it would be flexible enough to allow storytelling vs dungeoncrawling and serve both of them equally well. And it would be entirely neutral as to what type of game players played, instead of trying to spell out "the game must be played as so" as the DMG tends to do at times.

 

[herald]

I don't by the storytelling vs. dungeon debate.

I switched back from Vampire to 3e because of the improvements.

I can run a game in D&D with minimal combat if I wanted to. Most of my games run 50/50.

 

[Desdichado]

Sure, you can run one. So can I. However, you don't have any mechanics to help you. The mechanics are so heavily combat-slanted that it might as well be the only part of the game that you actually play. In fact, I think it pretty much is for the most part. Everything else is just storytelling and acting.

And the tactical wargame feel of combat is just plain annoying.

 

[Victim]

It's not like there's a skill system for non combat, complete with classes that mostly focus on skills.