OD&D 4E and its effect on 1E/OD&D

[thedungeondelver]

Compared to much of 3.5? Yes, yes it is. By every stretch of the imagination.

THAC0 tables.

No such thing. "To-hit Armor class '0'" isn't a table. It is, in AD&D a notation for monsters in the APPENDIX E:ALPHABETICAL RECAPITULATION OF MONSTERS (With experience point values) of the DUNGEON MASTER'S GUIDE. "THAC0" was never a part of the AD&D ruleset beyond this.

Attack matrices - these are the easiest thing in the world to use. Honestly, the complaining about this sails completely over my head. Level. Opponent armor class. Target number. Once you see it, it isn't like you have to keep going back to it over and over again. The character isn't (barring the unlikely situation of a level drain) going to suddenly need to shift columns.

Save tables.

A single row of numbers on the character sheet. You know, just like "fort" and "willpower" and "dex" saves. The only time I ever bother looking at the table is to tell the character when they level what the change is. And that's out of combat.

Grappling and pummeling rules.

UNEARTHED ARCANA greatly simplified these; I'll give you that they're convoluted but no less so than the time it takes to (ugh, I hate this ridiculous terminology) "stack buffs" in 3rd.

Object saving throws.

Wait - having the ability to find out if something gets destroyed is a rules problem?

Weapon speed factors.

Yes, they're very handy for determining who wins an initiative tie. Is there any such beast in 3e?

Wilderness directions and getting lost. Grenade-like missiles. Facing. NPC reaction tables.

Would you like me to go on?

No, because that last batch of rules isn't problematic in the least. The issue here seems to be that you don't like to look at a chart instead of using a formula.

 

[seskis281]

Maybe, but a new car model isn't likely to move you to think that way and get a classic one. Either you were interested or you weren't.

Absolutely... ergo the point I made in my previous post above about preferences. What the thread does ask is if times of transitions like this aren't somehow naturally moments where some people do cast about for different options.... if you've been a Saturn owner and lover all your life, and the car is about to die and you don't like the Ion compared to the SL1 you loved, you might look at a Honda or another model. And certainly not all owners of the 65 Mustang drive it because they grew up with it - I've seen plenty of 20-somethings who adore older cars after they discover them.

I think I pretty much agree that MOST players in question here will most likely stick with 3.0/3.5 or move to 4e. To me, as long as fun is being had it's cool by me. I'll continue to sing praises of TLG and C&C because it's what I like - if someone who hasn't encountered the system tries it I think that's great. They will then either like it or not, and if not that's cool by me too.

 

[Umbran]

Interesting analogy - so I shouldn't think a vintage Volkswagon Bug would be more appealing than the modern version? Or the 65 Mustang should be worthless today? Classic car owners take note....

As Glyfair noted - the question as stated it isn't about what is appealing, or valuable. It is about thought process. There are things that make classics attractive, surely - but new releases of the current line aren't generally among them.

For the analogy - If I own a 2005 VW Bug, but I am not particularly interested in classic cars beforehand, and thus already considering the oldie, the release of the 2008 product line is unlikely to suddenly make me a retro-aficionado.

 

[seskis281]

As Glyfair noted - the question as stated it isn't about what is appealing, or valuable. It is about thought process. There are things that make classics attractive, surely - but new releases of the current line aren't generally among them.

Actually I think I'm in agreement with both you guys and maybe my wording is just making it seem different - I would be surprised if that many players change up. Unless of course the "new" model is an Edsel. Won't really know that one until 4e is released and players have driven it for awhile.

 

[grodog]

To some extent I think 4E is a response to public awareness of [1E and OSRIC/C&C] (a return to simplicity). Certainly, they're promo tries to play off of the evolution of 1E (grounding it in the games roots).

Wait, wasn't that what 3e was supposed to be?---a return to the dungeon, to Greyhawk, etc.

 

[EyeontheMountain]

With 4E coming out, I wonder if we'll see more 3.5 players start looking at 1E and OSRIC/C&C (and other new 1E support material). To some extent I think 4E is a response to public awareness of these 2 systems (a return to simplicity). Certainly, they're promo tries to play off of the evolution of 1E (grounding it in the games roots). Why not get people to actually take a look at the original game.

I really do not think so. Most players who like the 1E style of play all still play 1E, or have moved on to C&C or TRue20m which are very similar to 1E in feel ( one of the main attractions of those systems) Some even go ruleless.

I think most 3.5 players are in 3.5 because they like the complexity, and if 4E does not offer enough they might stay with 3.5. But they wil not suddenly change to 1E becasue 4e is not what they want.

I am in the above group, very strongly. I will never play 1E again. No matter what WOTC does with the game. If nothing else I will jsut stick with 3.5

 

[Korgoth]

There might be some prospect for this if 4E really is simpler than 3E, and people say to themselves "Wow, I can have a fun game, have a unique character, etc., under a simpler set of rules. I wonder if I could go even simpler and still get an enjoyable result?"

That's possible, anyway. Although Moldvay Classic is my favorite edition, I've been taking a hard look at OD&D (3 brown books) and saying to myself: "This seems to have everything I need and it's even more liberating to my creative process than B/X." So there may be a logical progression here, once you start obsessing about simplicity and lite rules.

 

[Desdichado]

There might be some prospect for this if 4E really is simpler than 3E, and people say to themselves "Wow, I can have a fun game, have a unique character, etc., under a simpler set of rules. I wonder if I could go even simpler and still get an enjoyable result?"

That's possible, anyway. Although Moldvay Classic is my favorite edition, I've been taking a hard look at OD&D (3 brown books) and saying to myself: "This seems to have everything I need and it's even more liberating to my creative process than B/X." So there may be a logical progression here, once you start obsessing about simplicity and lite rules.

But that presupposes that simplicity is your only, or at least your primary, goal. I said this in some other thread (maybe not even here at ENW, can't remember) but the "old school" simplicity model as in the RC, OSRIC, C&C, etc. is simplicity because of lack of options. It looks to me like 4e is attempting to get simplicity via elegant design without taking away options. (Whether or not they're successful at that remains to be seen, but I think that's what they're saying that they're trying to do---remove the clunky, frustrating elements that slow the game down but still give players options.) I think by and large, D&D players prefer options, to obsessing about simplicity doesn't necessarily lead you down the B/X or C&C, etc. path unless you care about simplicity and nothing else.

 

[ruleslawyer]

No such thing. "To-hit Armor class '0'" isn't a table. It is, in AD&D a notation for monsters in the APPENDIX E:ALPHABETICAL RECAPITULATION OF MONSTERS (With experience point values) of the DUNGEON MASTER'S GUIDE. "THAC0" was never a part of the AD&D ruleset beyond this.

I'm sorry. I'll be more precise. "To-hit-vs.-AC tables" would be the correct term, then. THAC0 is a simplification of those rules in the 1e DMG, if anything.

Attack matrices - these are the easiest thing in the world to use. Honestly, the complaining about this sails completely over my head. Level. Opponent armor class. Target number. Once you see it, it isn't like you have to keep going back to it over and over again. The character isn't (barring the unlikely situation of a level drain) going to suddenly need to shift columns.

Attack bonus plus roll vs. AC is much, much simpler. You weren't arguing "simple enough," you were arguing "simpler than 3e." In that, you're simply incorrect.

A single row of numbers on the character sheet. You know, just like "fort" and "willpower" and "dex" saves. The only time I ever bother looking at the table is to tell the character when they level what the change is. And that's out of combat.

Not for NPCs and monsters, it isn't. THere, you have to use the tables. 3e gives you the DCs directly.

UNEARTHED ARCANA greatly simplified these; I'll give you that they're convoluted but no less so than the time it takes to (ugh, I hate this ridiculous terminology) "stack buffs" in 3rd.

Actually, they're MUCH more complicated than "take a bunch of numbers and add them together unless they're of the same type.

Wait - having the ability to find out if something gets destroyed is a rules problem?

The save rules for items in 3e are much, much simpler. I really am getting the feeling from your posts that you've never even perused the 3e rules, much less played a game using them.

Yes, they're very handy for determining who wins an initiative tie. Is there any such beast in 3e?

Higher Dex wins. Simple. And by the 1e RAW, that is NOT how speed factors work, by the way.

No, because that last batch of rules isn't problematic in the least.

Wow. Complete conjecture. Those rules are all disjointed, in multiple and non-intuitive places in the rulebooks, and involve using multiple matrices. In D&D, they are intuitively and fully integrated with the combat and skill rules. Period.

But I'm taking this thread OT... and opening up another edition war. So I'll stop.

 

[seskis281]

But I'm taking this thread OT... and opening up another edition war. So I'll stop.

Yeah, a flame war over 4e versus earlier/alternative editions seems a little silly when it's not even released yet.

Sadly it seems inevitable anytime something "new" enters the marketplace. Language and word meanings always get in the way too -- "options" can mean different things to different people, for example.

I wish WotC the best and hope they turn out a good game. From the direction indicated it's probably not gonna move me back, but if they turn out something that pleases a good segment of RPGers then I say that's good. Every other "edition" still exists, and I can play any one of them at any time. Hmmm... now that makes me want to pull my B/Expert set out and run The Lost City and Isle of Dread again.