Doug McCrae
Legend
I'd like to see someone run Toon in a Grim and Gritty style.francisca said:
Can someone explain what "1st ed feel" is?
- Thread starter Abyss
- Start date
WayneLigon
Adventurer
I always assumed 'First Edition Feel' was just a marketing slogan; Necromancer got in the d20 game early and used that to snag fence-sitters and old edition diehards into at least looking at their stuff. Which is probably most of the battle. I generally don't buy adventures, though, so I couldn't tell you if I think they succeeded in recreating a 'first edition' feel.
If there is such a thing. Almost every GM I've played under has emphasized different things so I can't say I've noticed a real 'feel' to the actual playing of the game regardless of edition. I suppose you could say the text of the rulebooks evokes a certain feel.
If there is such a thing. Almost every GM I've played under has emphasized different things so I can't say I've noticed a real 'feel' to the actual playing of the game regardless of edition. I suppose you could say the text of the rulebooks evokes a certain feel.
D+1
First Post
Well not so much that something was lost as that things just changed even as the rules and the players who use them changed, as well as the very theory behind those rules. The result is that in looking back and comparing then and now, there's something about "then" that was good/better that we don't see as much of "now". It was never really gone entirely, but the emphasis shifted in sometimes subtle ways that require hindsight to see the forest for the trees.Sanguinemetaldawn said:
But 3E isn't about primacy of rules. Just read the DMG. P.14 of the 3.5 DMG covers the topics of CHANGING/ADDING TO the rules. 3.0 has similar if not identical content. Look at the 3.0 PH, the first book of the new version that was released and the one that EVERYONE involved in the game reads. Right after the table of contents, the very first thing presented, the first rule is the incomparably important "Rule 0" - check with the DM because he may have CHANGED the rules.
People just have a different attitude these days about "rules". One reason for that change - and no offense intended here to anyone - is the atmosphere generated by having an "Official Rules" sage who will always give you the OFFICIAL rule for something, but never, EVER suggest that you just figure it out or make it up yourself, or that your own interpretation might be superior to the "official" rule - or even correct where the official rule is not. It gives the continual direct implication year in and year out that by there simply being "Official" answers that they are better, and perhaps even more important than the use of imagination. Another reason - and again no offense intended here to anyone - is the use of D&D in COMPETITIVE TOURNAMENTS. That is, I'm sorry to insist, a clear misapplication of what every version of the game is designed and intended for. [Which is not to say that it necessarily MUSTN'T be used for it, but fair competition requires sacrosanct rules. D&D is not designed for competition, it's designed for group participation. As a "game" in it's intended incarnation D&D most definitely does NOT require sacrosanct rules and the free alteration of rules is inherent to its very popularity.]
This, perhaps, can be attributed to WOTC having acquired D&D just after becoming wildly successful with collectible trading card games. Those games ARE competitive games with vast, intricately woven effects that require detailed, HIGHLY definitive rules. It is no surprise that they should then handle D&D in a similar manner given it's vast, intricate rules. It's just that D&D doesn't NEED the "Official" rule all the time. DM's just need solutions that will work for their purposes - and their purpose is not always the one promoted by an "Official" rule.
So, while 3E isn't ACTUALLY about primacy of rules, current climate and so forth simply has given that very mistaken impression to a great many players. Because the "official" response to any question is always an "official" rule, the business about being able to CHANGE the rules as desired is overlooked - but it's always there. Changing the rules is always an "Official" rule because it is contained in the rulebooks themselves. The ability to change the rules has never been controverted. But it's NEVER the "official" response that is given when a question comes up. "Officially" the RULES about being able to change the rules don't seem to exist.
The Shaman
First Post
First edition feel (and what it’s not), for me:
1. External influences: I believe that D&D reflects overall trends in fantasy fiction.
First edition drew much of its inspiration from classical and medieval mythology, of course, but more contemporary writers like Robert E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, J.R.R. Tolkien, and Poul Anderson exerted a strong presence as well – with the exception of the Professor, this was a swords-and-sorcery heavy group, and the early adventures and general style of play faithfully reproduced this genre.
As fantasy fiction changed, the game evolved as well – the external influences on both gamers and designers were writers like Terry Brooks, Terry Pratchett, David Eddings, Robert Jordan, George R.R. Martin. The game also began to ‘feed on itself’ by creating the genre of “D&D fiction” – Dragonlance and later the Realms novels – making the game more ‘literary’ and inspiring plot-heavy adventures and ‘deep’ campaign settings in which the implications of a world with magic became almost as important as the existence of magic itself.
The most obvious recent influences – and by influences I mean stuff the designers rip liberally from the fantasy genre (swarm shifter? The Mummy?) – are derived from steampunk and anime/manga.
Fantasy literature wasn’t the only source inspiration of course – movies also shaped the style of play. First edition gamers drew from the films of Ray Harryhausen and classics like Robin Hood and Ivanhoe – now gamers and designers look to Ang Lee and John Woo as the cutting edge of the genre.
For me, “first edition feel” is adventures and settings that reflect heroes and exploits like those of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, of Conan, of Sinbad.
2.“Beer-and-pretzels” gaming: What some posters describe as the first-edition “fun house” style of gaming – orcs in room 1, a dragon in room 2, a water elemental in the fountain in room 3, &c. – lasted roughly two years for me, if that.
By the time I was 13 I enjoyed creating dungeons and wildernesses that “made sense,” within the generous boundaries of fantasy of course, and apparently the other gamers in our group did too, since I ended up being the most frequent GM in our group.
Did I have long elaborate story arcs? No, just enough to get the players from one adventure setting to another in most cases, but there were recurring villains and the adventurers often became involved in local politics (as tends to happen when you’re the richest bad-arses in the land), so the net result was they created their own story arcs by their actions. Did I have pages and pages of cultural notes? No, but the different lands and races were distinct from one another and their economies reflected their geography enough that life in a port town was quite different from life in a desert oasis caravan stop.
The idea that “first edition feel” is mindless collections of monsters and puzzles in improbable or implausible settings doesn’t reflect that game that I played from about 1978 on.
3a.Edition-specific: I picked up 3e after not gaming from more than decade and immediately created what would probably be considered a “1e feel” campaign-setting and adventures for my gaming group. Stripped down or bulked up, the rules are less of a factor for me than the setting and the adventures.
I never carried the baggage of 2e, the Realms, Planescape, and so on, so perhaps it was easier for me to jump right into playing the game I knew so well using the newer ruleset. In any case, “first edition feel” isn’t rules-specific for me, with one significant exception…
3b. GM style: The first-edition GM carried the responsibility of being much more than the arbiter of the game – the GM created many of the rules of the game, often on-the-fly.
Someone else mentioned ‘thieving skills’ in an earlier post – that only thieves could climb sheer surfaces, hear noises, move silently and so on in the 1e RAW. As GM I houseruled how other characters could perform similar tasks – for example, a fighter, paladin, ranger, or monk could climb, hide, or move silently at one-half the ability of a thief of the same level, and not in armor heavier than leather, while clerics, druids, magic-users, and illusionists could do the same at one-quarter the thief’s percentage. Is it done “better” in 3e? IMO, yes it is, but it worked in the context of the game we were playing – the absence of an “official” rule was not a constraint, and it was more-or-less universally accepted by the gamers around the table. Such was the role of the GM and the way in which the flow of the game was preserved.
I still make these sorts of calls all the time – I had a situation in my Modern game that would’ve been pretty much instant death for the PCs if I followed the RAW (twelve skill checks, failure of any one of them resulting in as much as 13d6 damage to 2nd–level characters), so I tweaked it until I got the feel I wanted for the encounter.
That probably seems like no big deal to 90% of the people reading this thread (and blasphemy to the other ten), but to me that is “first edition feel” as well.
Anyway, that’s my DC 2 Wealth check – if you’ve read this far, thanks very much!
1. External influences: I believe that D&D reflects overall trends in fantasy fiction.
First edition drew much of its inspiration from classical and medieval mythology, of course, but more contemporary writers like Robert E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, J.R.R. Tolkien, and Poul Anderson exerted a strong presence as well – with the exception of the Professor, this was a swords-and-sorcery heavy group, and the early adventures and general style of play faithfully reproduced this genre.
As fantasy fiction changed, the game evolved as well – the external influences on both gamers and designers were writers like Terry Brooks, Terry Pratchett, David Eddings, Robert Jordan, George R.R. Martin. The game also began to ‘feed on itself’ by creating the genre of “D&D fiction” – Dragonlance and later the Realms novels – making the game more ‘literary’ and inspiring plot-heavy adventures and ‘deep’ campaign settings in which the implications of a world with magic became almost as important as the existence of magic itself.
The most obvious recent influences – and by influences I mean stuff the designers rip liberally from the fantasy genre (swarm shifter? The Mummy?) – are derived from steampunk and anime/manga.
Fantasy literature wasn’t the only source inspiration of course – movies also shaped the style of play. First edition gamers drew from the films of Ray Harryhausen and classics like Robin Hood and Ivanhoe – now gamers and designers look to Ang Lee and John Woo as the cutting edge of the genre.
For me, “first edition feel” is adventures and settings that reflect heroes and exploits like those of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, of Conan, of Sinbad.
2.
By the time I was 13 I enjoyed creating dungeons and wildernesses that “made sense,” within the generous boundaries of fantasy of course, and apparently the other gamers in our group did too, since I ended up being the most frequent GM in our group.
Did I have long elaborate story arcs? No, just enough to get the players from one adventure setting to another in most cases, but there were recurring villains and the adventurers often became involved in local politics (as tends to happen when you’re the richest bad-arses in the land), so the net result was they created their own story arcs by their actions. Did I have pages and pages of cultural notes? No, but the different lands and races were distinct from one another and their economies reflected their geography enough that life in a port town was quite different from life in a desert oasis caravan stop.
The idea that “first edition feel” is mindless collections of monsters and puzzles in improbable or implausible settings doesn’t reflect that game that I played from about 1978 on.
3a.
I never carried the baggage of 2e, the Realms, Planescape, and so on, so perhaps it was easier for me to jump right into playing the game I knew so well using the newer ruleset. In any case, “first edition feel” isn’t rules-specific for me, with one significant exception…
3b. GM style: The first-edition GM carried the responsibility of being much more than the arbiter of the game – the GM created many of the rules of the game, often on-the-fly.
Someone else mentioned ‘thieving skills’ in an earlier post – that only thieves could climb sheer surfaces, hear noises, move silently and so on in the 1e RAW. As GM I houseruled how other characters could perform similar tasks – for example, a fighter, paladin, ranger, or monk could climb, hide, or move silently at one-half the ability of a thief of the same level, and not in armor heavier than leather, while clerics, druids, magic-users, and illusionists could do the same at one-quarter the thief’s percentage. Is it done “better” in 3e? IMO, yes it is, but it worked in the context of the game we were playing – the absence of an “official” rule was not a constraint, and it was more-or-less universally accepted by the gamers around the table. Such was the role of the GM and the way in which the flow of the game was preserved.
I still make these sorts of calls all the time – I had a situation in my Modern game that would’ve been pretty much instant death for the PCs if I followed the RAW (twelve skill checks, failure of any one of them resulting in as much as 13d6 damage to 2nd–level characters), so I tweaked it until I got the feel I wanted for the encounter.
That probably seems like no big deal to 90% of the people reading this thread (and blasphemy to the other ten), but to me that is “first edition feel” as well.
Anyway, that’s my DC 2 Wealth check – if you’ve read this far, thanks very much!
BiggusGeekus
That's Latin for "cool"
Doug McCrae said:
I'd argue The Maxx did this. Aeon Flux would be a better example, people "died" in that all the time only to come back with no explanation in the next episode.
Doug McCrae
Legend
Like Kenny in South Park?BiggusGeekus said:
Similar Threads
- Locked
