3e & 1e Ad&d/od&d

Just for the record - I am really german.

But back to the actual topic. What I am wondering is...

1e kinda is the silly version of D&D. The more books came out the sillier it got. Characters could become so redicilously powerfull... looking back all of my clique simply laugh at our high leven 1e sessions. Is that a view that other people share as well?

3e seems to be somewhat more sober, even though that epic level handbook has come out.

As for the original d&d. I did buy the boxed when they came out in Germany back in '82 and to this day it holds a special place in my heart. And even though they had that immortal set everything was more down to earth.

My guess is that it has to do with the adventures that were offered for each system. Nothing can beat the original 1e Against the Giant series when it comes to megalomania.

2e rulewise is an afterthought for me personally. 2e brought a lot of great settings (Planescape, Birthright, Al Quadim) but really never had its own special flavor.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Jay Berg said:
Just for the record - I am really german.

But back to the actual topic. What I am wondering is...

1e kinda is the silly version of D&D. The more books came out the sillier it got. Characters could become so redicilously powerfull...

And 3E is any different? Ability scores that you can raise at a very high level with bonuses that occur at lower scores feats that allow wizards to use swords and become assassins?

3e seems to be somewhat more sober, even though that epic level handbook has come out.........

Explain that one.
Is this a sobering?
Feats, Prestige classes, open multi classing ( for the most part ), etc.

.

Look it's obvious that BOTH games have shortcomings ( especially to a newbie who doesn't know enough of the rules & time to have tweeked them them ) but why attack the game? All I'm asking is if you would play it not a reason why it sucked or whatever have you.
 

My god I never looked at it that way, that IS profound. I geuss you could say it's reasonable to assume that in the older editions as you say, DMs had more say in what dice to roll and what effect would transpire. Not a bad point but quite different from 3E none the less were that sort of thing is kept to a minimum and more rules are enforced with the players knowledge of them because its more official. Again, not a bad thing but your right it is quite profound.

You say you would play though under certain circumstances?
 
Last edited:

Certain circumstances = not very likely.

I might play a convention 1e/2e game, but in my rpg group, we'd never use it again methinks.

Maybe the occasional old module for nostalgia, a 1 or 2 shot session, but again, highly unlikely.
 

I don't think I'd ever play 1st or 2nd edition AD&D again; anything you'd want to do in that game could be better and more efficiently expressed in 3rd edition. However, I think it would be neat to play with the D&D Rules Encyclopedia; there is an allure to playing a game whose rules actually fit between just two covers. :)
 

Well, I have to say, I've loved dnd since the Basic Set.

I loved 1e and 2e, thought that a lot of the Players' Option book stuff sucked but some was great, and converted faster than a peasant with a sword at my throat before 3e was even out.

I'd play a one-shot in another system, but I really think that 3e is so much better, so much more of a unified system, so much more user-friendly, that I'll never go back.

And while I'd be willing to play a 2e game again for a session or two, the dm would HAVE to use the 1e dmg. There was NO excuse for the 2e dmg- reprinted sections of the PH and a few dozen pages of magic items. Ugh!

But, generally, all the different incarnations have their strengths and weaknesses.

OD&D has, as its greatest strength, simplicity. It's easy to learn, easy to play. It lacks rules to cover a lot of situations, but a lot of people like that. A lot of dms like making on-the-fly rulings and don't worry about the inconsistencies that can develope, or else they take the copious notes necessary to make sure that they keep the rulings consistent. I'm not that organized, personally. Think of OD&D as a simple sugar cookie.

1e has, at its greates strength, complexity. There's a rule for almost everything if you look hard enough through the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, Wilderness Survival Guide, Oriental Adventures, etc. But the rules don't always fit together as a whole, and when you add in the stuff from Unearthed Arcana all balance gets thrown out the window. 1e is like a chocolate chip cookie with a hint of vanilla, walnuts, cashews. a salty crust and bits of chocolate-covered coffee beans crushed up. There's lots of stuff, but not much actual cookie.

2e has, as its greatest strength, a sort of strange mixture of simplification of the 1e rules, complexification of the 1e rules, kewl settings, and lots of resources. There's a complete book of everything, although halflings and gnomes somehow got lumped together. The only thing that I personally liked better in any old edition than in 3e is the way cleric spells worked, with spheres and all that. 2e's greatest weakness is that, with all those books, there are a lot of contradictions, imbalances and silly things. I mean, come on, look at kits; look at the way generic clerics are totally flavorless, making the whole specialty priest thing useless unless you go to the effort to work them up; look at the official specialty priests and how unbalanced they tended to be. Worse still are the words tanar'ri and baatezu. What?? 2e lacks flavor at its base- you can stick it back in but it requires a lot of hard work. It's like a chocolate chip cookie with nutrasweet instead of sugar.

2.8e (by which I mean the PO series) has, as its greatest strength, the most customizable system available before 3e. But the negative side of this is that it's a power gamer's wet dream. In fact, there are things in the Skills and Powers book that make it impossible to make a standard PH fighter- you've got too many points! Not to mention that humans suddenly power up, and you can build a cleric who has everything a fighter has plus spells. Again, balance gets defenstrated. It's like a batch of cookies that has everything somewhere in the batch, but some have chocolate chips and walnuts, some have m&ms, some have white chocolate chips, m&ms, walnuts and popcorn, for that matter, and some are just plain.

Then comes 3e. Demons and devils are back; the flavor of 1e has returned. The rules are comprehensible and encompassing without being a strange Frankenstein's monster of different systems. There is a core mechanic that is easy to use, understand and apply. There is a tremendous amount of work that went into balancing things, at least in the core rules. 3e takes the best of all the systems- the simplicity of OD&D, the complexity and flavor of 1e, a great deal of the customizability of 2.8 and the sphere system (although not quite all of it)- and cooks it into a wonderful wonderful cookie that's got the chocolate chips, walnuts, real sugar, and macadamias in it.

Just my humble opinion, of course.


Just my opinion.
 

No insults or flames, please. An honest question never hurt anyone.

I currently do not, because 3e fits all our needs quite well, for games of low, moderate or high power. We find we can play in a more classic style with it, or more outrageously fantastic as the mood strikes a particular DM to play a campaign.

However, if a DM came up with a good idea using the old rules, I am sure I would play it. There's still quite a few good character idea rolling around in my head for a 1E character. In fact, I wouldn't mind playing a kick-butt 1E Druid again sometime - no other class gained third level spells at 3rd freaking character level! :)
 

I haven't played 1e since the late 80's. I think I'd like to go back and play a session. It's a nice reminder of our previous games.

I dread the rules curve, though; I've forgotten most of our old house rules!
 

I'd play in a one shot, or maybe through a module with the original rules just for flavor. But the restrictions would rake me so much now, I couldn't see playing in a long term campaign. Someone (I think PirateCat) suggested doing one of the old classics like White Plume Mountain or the Temple of Elemental Evil with the 1e rules and characters, then immedietly after that do the 'Return' module with 3e rules, playing the original characters' children.

I'd do something like that :).
 

Remove ads

Top