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

[Ourph]

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).

I doubt there will be many 3e players who will decide to revert to an older edition because of the change. On the other hand, a new edition may bring some older gamers back into the D&D fold who eventually revert to the editions they grew up playing. I know there are many on these boards (including myself) who returned to playing D&D when 3e was released and subsequently reverted to playing mostly older editions of D&D after our interest in fantasy RPGs had been rekindled but our dissatisfaction with 3e led us to look for alternatives. That is if 4e is as successful in "winning back" ex-D&D players as 3e was, which is a pretty big "if".

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The save rules for items in 3e are much, much simpler.

Simpler, maybe. Completely stupid? yes.

There is a stick of butter on the table, a firball (hot enough to melt gold) goes off. The butter melts. But wait, someone picks the butter up. The fireball goes off. They have 3rd degree burns. The butter does not melt. Um, huh?

 

[Korgoth]

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.

Well, I don't really agree with what you imply about options, but that's a separate discussion (namely, are options things which are increased by rules or limited by them, etc.). But my post wasn't intended to say that things would necessarily follow out that path, only that (in the speculative vein of the thread), there might be some possibility of some people going down that path. In other words, a "possible" but not a "necessary" connection.

 

[thedungeondelver]

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.

You would be completely wrong. I played it for two years, and have written 3e product.

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

That's probably a good idea.

 

[coyote6]

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.

It could happen; 4e could turn GURPS or EABA or Reign or some as-yet-unreleased game into the next big thing, too. I doubt it will, though.

For myself, I quit playing AD&D before AD&D 2e came out; I stopped because I found other games I liked better. My opinion hasn't changed; the only thing that would interest me in playing AD&D 1e (or 2e, OD&D, Basic, etc. -- including OSRIC & probably C&C) would be the other people involved in the game. And the GM would have to be really damned good for me to want to play for more than a session or two.

 

[Crossroads]

I'm going back to OD&D, baby!

I hope I can find some players

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Hmmm... now that makes me want to pull my B/Expert set out and run The Lost City and Isle of Dread again.

You might be interested in my posts on running Lost City with Holmes/OD&D.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I'm going back to OD&D, baby!

And you might be interested in the OD&D Disucssion Forums and my OD&D "musings" (assuming you mean OD&D 1974).

 

[Valiant]

I agree, on my part this is wishful thinking. But so what?
One reason 3.5ers might like AD&D is the ability of not having so many options (across the board). Once everything seems to be like everything else (the MU with armor, the fighter with spells) a desire to get back to archetypes could occur, and AD&D D&D are better suited for this.
Options (or variations) relate more to personality in AD&D, something you slowly develop as your character advances.


Anyhow, everyone should try AD&D at least a few times (if for no other reason then to see what Gygax was thinking). And if they haven't in a while they should try it again. Thats all I'm going to say.

 

[Crossroads]

And you might be interested in the OD&D Disucssion Forums and my OD&D "musings" (assuming you mean OD&D 1974).

Thanks for the heads up.

Already been there (and other places) lurking.

Great stuff!