4E with 1E Feel: Does that appeal to you?

[Engilbrand]

Is it just me, or are there only 2 pictures up there when there should be 4? I'm curious about what the other 2 pictures should be.

I'm 25. Other than the older computer games, I started playing in college at the tail end of 3.0 and then a lot of 3.5. I currently DM for 2 guys who are about 40. I keep hearing from one of them, Sarge, that the 4th edition game is the closest thing to 1st edition that he's played, other than 1st edition. He loves how it has gone back to the basics, cleaned everything up, and gives a ton of options. I see these posts about 1st edition feel and how 4th edition doesn't have it, and then I think about Sarge's constant comments, and I am confused.
I also grew up reading the Salvatore Drizz't novels. As they're playing, things are happening like in the books. The heroes are interacting in an interesting way, they do a lot of cool things while manipulating their environments, and I, as DM, have a LOT of leeway to make up new and interesting things. The reinforcement that I'm getting from live people who played 1st edition is that this is the best system for mechanics, and the closest to 1st edition feel.
As a system, 4th edition requires imagination in a different way than 3rd edition. There's a wider margin for error when it comes to challenges. 1st edition "feel", I would guess, has to come from the DM, the things that they allow, and the things that they throw at the players. If I want a pillar to talk, I have the pillar talk. I don't need a super-specific spell in the book. The books already tell me that I can make up a lot of stuff, and there's a near infinite quantity of things in the game world that aren't in the books.
I have a series of villages with landmarks around them. One of them is a lake. At the first game, a player asked how large the lake was. My response: It's as large as it needs to be when it needs to have a size. Until that point, it's just a lake.
I guess my question is: What can Necromancer actually do that would give me a reason to change things? How can they make my players say that the game feels even MORE like 1st edition than it already does?
For the record: I've never played 1st edition. Everything that I've heard about it makes me NOT want to play it. I love 4th edition. My players love 1st. Somehow, what I hate about 1st, but love about 4th, seems to be what they also love about 4th. It's rather confusing to me.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

Sarge, that the 4th edition game is the closest thing to 1st edition that he's played, other than 1st edition. He loves how it has gone back to the basics, cleaned everything up, and gives a ton of options.

Sarge is right.

Take it from a guy who played more 1st edition games in his buddy's parent's basement than you can shake a broadsword at.

Arneson? Kuntz? Perrin? Ever hear of 'em? Rookies.

WP

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Snip images

Is that Skeleton wearing the shield around its neck? Thats not how it is supposed to work, right?

 

[Ourph]

If I want a pillar to talk, I have the pillar talk. I don't need a super-specific spell in the book. The books already tell me that I can make up a lot of stuff, and there's a near infinite quantity of things in the game world that aren't in the books.

100% this! IMO, this is exactly what 1e and 4e have that 3e was missing.

 

[Remathilis]

I loved playing thieves, no doubt I'm with you there. Its when the designers decided to put the thief on equal combat ground as a sustained damage dealer that it all fell apart.

This might be where we differ then...

The number #1 group activity in D&D is combat. Each character before 3e had a definitive role in combat. A fighter fought toe-to-toe. A wizard unloaded devistating damaging spells. A cleric healed and buffed and also fought in melee. A thief? Well, it couldn't fight like a fighter (or even a cleric) and couldn't cast like a cleric or wizard. In combat (after it may/may not have gotten in its single backstab, I found them rare in older D&D) he was pretty useless.

I never bought the "useless in combat, useful elsewhere" line. With the sole exception of the fighter (who classicaly reversed it) every other class had in-combat and out-of-combat abilities. Wizards had all manner of useful spells out of combat (divinations, enchantments, transmutations) and clerics had more out of combat spells than in (healing, divination, protection). Druids could tell if water was poisonous and then turn into a bear and maul you. Bards cast arcane/druid spells (depending on edition) and paladins and rangers also gain limited casting (as well as ranger track/survival skills and paladin healing). Every other class, for the most part, could do something cool in-and-out of combat. Thieves were one-trick ponies.

Personally, I think the 3e SA was the best route, expanded to affect all monsters (not just those with anatomies.) It gave them something in combat (perhaps too much when coupled with multiple atks, but that could be fixed) as well as some defensive abilities (evasion, uncanny dodge) that fit with agile combatant well. Now, I feel I'm contributing on both-sides of the game (sneaky/social/traps, as well as a solid blow or two in combat).

 

[Mercule]

For the record: I've never played 1st edition.

You should. I'm not saying a whole campaign, but have one of your players pick up one of the PDFs of old modules that are available (RPGNow?) and give it a shot.

I don't think you'll be converted or anything (I'm not planning on doing 1e again). But, there's something to the system that's elegant in its own way. Sure, it shows that it's a generation or two old, but I think it's worth playing a session or three to see how it works.

 

[Mercule]

I never bought the "useless in combat, useful elsewhere" line.

Agreed. I can't speak for Exploder, but I was also advocating scrolling back the rogue's combat utility.

I don't want to see anyone sitting out in combat. I just don't like everything balanced around combat. The rogue shouldn't be a "Striker" in the sense that he dishes out obscene damage in pretty much every combat. That's the fighter's schtick (though I kinda like that the ranger and barbarian might be able to out-do the fighter under certain circumstances).

What I'd actually like to see is a "Utility" role that has typical damage output like a Leader, but really shines in exploration/non-combat situations (skill challenges?). In combat, the Utility character would be doing steady, but not outstanding damage, plus some things that are somewhere between the Leader and Controller roles. Movement (foe, ally, or self) powers or condition-inducing powers are great examples. For rogues, make sneak attack an encounter power or cut its damage in half (or more).

Maybe my idea wouldn't work out, in practice. But, it's certainly the flavor I'd like to see from a rogue, diviner, illusionist, artificer, noble, archivist, and several other concepts that have floated around over the years.

 

[Psion]

Not 1e feel:

O RLY?

That looks like it could have been drawn by Jeff Dee. Who, to me, defines all that is awesome about old school.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

And if that don't explain it, son, then I can't help ya.

So a move away from the "super hero high fantasy" and more towards "sword-n-sorcery dungeon crawling"? I think a lot of those elements are already in place in 4e. Perhaps the art isn't as much to your liking, but the mechanics lend themselves to it more than 3rd edition. Though I confess I don't quite understand what's not 1e about picture #2. Is it too colorful? Hair too long? Too many gems? As fantasy art goes it doesn't stand out, but it seems like a basic character piece to me.

Oh, and please don't call me son. I've been playing RPGs in some way or another since I was 10, and I've gamed in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th editions for 10 years above and beyond that. Unfortunately I missed the game's hayday in the 80s, but I can't really help when I was born.

 

[Simon Atavax]

Oh, and please don't call me son. I've been playing RPGs in some way or another since I was 10, and I've gamed in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th editions for 10 years above and beyond that. Unfortunately I missed the game's hayday in the 80s, but I can't really help when I was born.

Hey, I ain't holdin' it against ya, kid. (spits tobacco juice onto porch)