Can someone explain what "1st ed feel" is?

[Barendd Nobeard]

Re: For me?

There's not a Drow on every street corner.

There was only one major published world to play in.

The ultimate test of a party was the G1-2-3--D1-2-3 series.

And you waited (and waited and waited) for T2-The Temple of Elemental Evil, which (it seemed) was never to be released. T1-The Village of Hommlet was just a big tease!

 

[Desdichado]

I agree with Pielhorino (sic?) -- I doubt I'd enjoy a game that was "1st edition feel" today. The part about 2nd that was so bad was the system, not the "feel." Not that I ever really played it; the last 1st edition stuff that came out, and the 2nd edition stuff that I read in the meantime turned me off of D&D for years.

 

[Henry]

"1E feel" is quite simply the nostalgic feeling that was evoked by the defining characteristics of the first edition: The bare-bones room descriptions for the DM's eyes only; there was almost no pre-written flavor text, unlike what accompanied so many of the late first and most 2nd edition modules. It was the feel of modules, rather than campaign settings.

The Orcus (Clark Petersen) Quote is the best description - it is hard to quantify, and can be best seen rather than described.

------------

In another light,

Someone on another webiste once said: "In the beginnings of D&D, you had people trading stories like "In my dungeon I have a room where..."; now, people trade stories like "In my campaign I have a town where..." There was more emphasis on setups and challenges of logic rather than situations and challenges of character.

Have you ever noticed how most reminiscences of Players are flavored by their play style or when they started playing? Whereas some stories start with "My favorite game moment was when I rolled a critical success on my jump check and then critically hit and killed the Ogre that was threatening the party", others start with "My fvorite gaming moment was when I talked the Duke of Tristram into not going to war with our home country."

Both are valid, but one gamer's fun is another gamer's boring, and there is a large untapped market of former players out there that remember the "Beer and Pretzels" style of gaming with fondness.

 

[Particle_Man]

Back in the day...

Well, you certainly did not have every single fighter doing the two-weapon style elf with long swords.

One thing I STILL miss from 1st ed is that the illusionists were WAY different from M-U's. The spell lists were different, and when there were shared spells, their levels could be different too. Of course, no two DM's agreed on how illusions actually worked.

On the other hand, sorcerors and wizards are different in 3rd ed...

 

[bushfire]

I agree with Pielhorino (sic?) -- I doubt I'd enjoy a game that was "1st edition feel" today. The part about 2nd that was so bad was the system, not the "feel." Not that I ever really played it; the last 1st edition stuff that came out, and the 2nd edition stuff that I read in the meantime turned me off of D&D for years.

Just the opposite for me! What got me about 2e was the feel, the idea that Story was more important than having fun. That following some sort of overreaching plot was more important than character (player) decisions as to what they wanted to do.

I don't mind little unrealistic items in my games involving dwarves, elves, and dragons

 

[Psion]

Re: Re: For me?

There's not a Drow on every street corner.

There never was in my 2e or 3e games either... or any game I played in. Not sure what you are getting at here.

The ultimate test of a party was the G1-2-3--D1-2-3 series.

Ah! GDQ! Them were good times.

Unfortunately for me, Necromancer's idea of "1e feel" seems to center around the kind of modules I try to forget like White Plume Mountain (premise? what premise?) and Tomb of Horrors (the Materhorn of Gaming can have no replacement!)

That said, I find that despite some initial misgivings about RA, I ran it on off weeks for a while, and a lot of the encounters actually are proving pretty interesting. Word of warning... keep your 1e books and, if possible, 3e conversions therof handy, because they have a habit of referring to items and creatures that aren't in the 3e rules (gas spores... wands of conjuration.)

 

[Desdichado]

Just the opposite for me! What got me about 2e was the feel, the idea that Story was more important than having fun. That following some sort of overreaching plot was more important than character (player) decisions as to what they wanted to do.

I don't mind little unrealistic items in my games involving dwarves, elves, and dragons

Who said story was more important than having fun? A good story was what made the fun. I remember when I very first started playing 1e in the early 80s or so thinking that the game would be so much better if the characters could even see the dice roll, or the characters sheets, or associate their actions with numbers at all. I don't feel so now, because few games are so number-crunchy, meta-gaming tactical wargames, like they used to be.

It doesn't have to do with realism or not, to me, it has to do with being able to submerse yourself in the game the same way you would with a book.

 

[Pielorinho]

I don't mind little unrealistic items in my games involving dwarves, elves, and dragons

I had a pointyheaded writing professor in college who loved science fiction and who talked a lot about "imaginary objects."

His theory was that science fiction was all about the authro creating an imaginary object and seeing how characters and societies responded to the object. For Le Guin, it was the ansible; for Gibson, it was the Net; for Asimov, it was the laws of robotics.

In some ways, that's how I approach my game. Dwarves, elves, and dragons are imaginary objects, as are spells, magic swords, gods, and monsters. A lot of my interest is seeing how characters respond to these imaginary objects.

A weird imaginary object won't ruin my suspension of disbelief. A weird response to the imaginary object will.

Thus, dwarves, elves, and dragons aren't a problem. Windy corridors are.

Daniel

 

[daTim]

I think what they mean is Nolstagia, which is generaly left tucked away in your mind, because as soon as someone tries to bring it back to reality, everyone seems to have remembered everything differently.

 

[Barendd Nobeard]

Re: Re: Re: For me?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Barendd Nobeard
There's not a Drow on every street corner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There never was in my 2e or 3e games either... or any game I played in. Not sure what you are getting at here.

It's just that in the "early days" of AD&D, Drow were rare. When you ran into them in the G3 module, player were meant to be surprised + not sure what it was. Now, it seems every character knows what Drow are. If a DM describes a black-skinned elf, players know it's (probably) Drow, with certain abilities, etc.

Nothing wrong with it; I think it's a natural progression. Something exotic and mystique eventually becomes ordinary. It's not just Drow; I think they're just the best example. Same could be said for Yuan-ti. I'm sure there are other "monsters" out there that have gone from 'mysterious and unusual' to 'commonly understood.'