AD&D First Edition inferior?

[Theuderic]

A real mechanical benefit means it's in the books. If your players don't mind you "winging" it or using special rules of your own then by all means use 1st edition. If you want more rules so that more things have mechanical "benefits" then use the new ed. Basically it's all a matter of personal preference. My group is more into the story and we throw half the rules out the window sometimes if it makes for a more interesting game. Which is why I I probably wont spend the money on 3rd E in the near future. If I did, it would be to keep players coming to my table ( the few new ones that wont play 1st E no matter what) which I don't have a problem with, being a fair and creative DM helps too) Like I said it's all about personal taste. 3rd E is not a "better" way to do anything as is any other edition. This is what I've found out from this thread. It took the man who created the game to help me see it.

 

[Piratecat]

#rd E is not a "better" way to do anything as is any other edition.

This is the only thing I'd disagree with. The core mechanic of 3e - low is bad, high is good, roll a d20 and add a modifier to hit a target number - is legitimately "better" game design. It's simpler, it's easily taught, and it's consistent.

I think this is most clear when you try to start a new group, or try to bring in new players to your existing group. Probably the best thing about 3e is that everyone knows how to play it, and if they don't it's easy to teach. You can't really say the same thing about 1e.

I'd also maintain that the 3e skill system is far superior to the 2e proficiency system, but this thread is about 1e.

 

[Grazzt]

I'd also maintain that the 3e skill system is far superior to the 2e proficiency system..

Amen to this. The intro of proficiencies in 1e OA, WSG, DSG really did nothing for the game (which is why we NEVER used them in 1e..or 2e for that matter). The way the system worked made no sense at all (you're either really good or you're not). Yes its a game. No it doesnt have to be realistic, but 3e does go a long way in making it more believable than the 1e/2e NWP system.

 

[Theuderic]

[

BTW, this sort of post makes as much sense to me as arguing over which edition is "better"--nothing but subjectivity and personal taste. As for making mechanical analogies, specious in the extreme. People reading words and all that. Even the mechanical systems do not have any technological component that can be rated as more or less advanced. Only preference in question here.



Gary [/B]

This is the veiw I hold as well.

 

[Psion]

3rd E is not a "better" way to do anything as is any other edition.

Dunno about that.

As others have said, it is largely a matter of personal preference. But you can only play that card so far before it becomes a little fishy.

Sure, some factors may drive you to play 1e over 3e... most likely nostalgia. That's not inconsiderable. People play games to have fun, and the feeling of history that you have with a game could make it or break it for you.

But when you strip it down to just what the books have to offer, first edition really shows its age. If you take a person new to the game, and put a 1e and 3e PHB in front of the table and tell him to pick one, I bet you that in the vast majority of cases, the person will walk away with the 3e version. The clean consistent core system, the flexibility, the support for skills other than combat related class skills or theif skills, lack of reliance of tables, and consistent application of terminology and restriction on bonuses are all things that make 3e the superior choice. If there is some bona fide benefit to using 1e other than reaping nostalgia, I really fail to see what it is.

 

[Theuderic]

How about lack of money and sticking with a system that works for me and my group?

 

[Psion]

How about lack of money and sticking with a system that works for me and my group?

That's all well and good, but says nothing about the utility of the system itself. It just says that you aren't wealthy and are happy where you are, not that 3e isn't a better choice for those who can afford it.

 

[Theuderic]

Better when it comes to a game is in the eyes of the beholder it is purely subjective. Is Chess better than checkers is Poker better than War? It's a game and this arguement is pointless. BETTER INFERIOR what about fun? I have more fun playing AD&D FIRST edition does that make it better? For me it does for you, it doesn't.

 

[Psion]

Better when it comes to a game is in the eyes of the beholder it is purely subjective. Is Chess better than checkers is Poker better than War?

Are apples better than oranges? Tough to say when you are talking about games that are doing different things.

But when you start talking abuot games that strive to do the same thing, that argument begins to falter.

It's a game and this arguement is pointless.

It is pointless... because you insist on projecting your values on the game, and insist on repeating the same arguments. Open your eyes and you will there is a point.

And note here, my point is not that 3e is the one true way, nor that you cannot have fun with 1e. My point is merely there is a general improvement in the mechanical implementation of 3e over 1e. If that's not a selling point for you, then fine.

BETTER INFERIOR what about fun? I have more fun playing AD&D FIRST edition does that make it better?

That depends. Are you having more fun because of some nostalgia factor or because of some quality of the game? Is there anything about the 1e game ITSELF that makes it more fun?

I really don't think so.

 

[Theuderic]

you're right 3rd edition is better you have opened my eyes