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

[PapersAndPaychecks]

To me, the "1st edition feel" has several important characteristics that distinguishes it from modern products.

21st Century AD&D is about plot and character. The DM is primarly concerned to tell a story, and may actually go so far as to write adventures in "chapters." The player is usually playing a character which has been carefully thought-out and created in an enormous amount of detail; the effort put into playing the character is justified because the chance of character death is small.

1st Edition AD&D was created by miniatures wargamers, and is considerably closer to these roots. The DM does not tell a story - the DM's role is merely to create an environment in which the characters' adventuring can take place. The player does not spend enormous effort on a low-level character because character death is not merely possible, but likely.

In 21st Century AD&D the player can create exactly the character of his or her choice. In 1st edition the character's class and development path was often ascertained by dice rolls over which the player had no control.

A "skilled" player of 21st Century AD&D is one who can create and play a character so detailed and realistic that he or she lives in the minds of the participants. A "skilled" player of 1st Edition AD&D is one who can complete Tomb of Horrors with no casualties.

I don't believe the rules complexity has much to do with it. Rolemaster, as originally written, was a far more complex and detailed game than D20 D&D - and yet it has an "old school feel" compared to D20.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Like Kenny in South Park?

Very much so. Except that South Park has a little more continutity than Aeon Flux did. Hard to imagine, I know.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

I still make these sorts of [rules chaning] 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.

I don't think it is blasphemy to the other 10, so much as it is unfair. Some people simply like to know what the rules are and if they're changed on the fly, they get upset. Will the DM change how much damage a longsword can do next? etc.

Of course, people did do just that in 1e and in oD&D variable weapon damage was optional.

 

[Psion]

I think I have expressed this earlier, but just for a quick refresh:

I think what "1e feel" was is different for differnt people. For us, it was probably a bit more story and character oriented than the norm. When Vampire came out, WW fans were acting like they invented roleplaying, I was like "so what".

As far as Necromancer seems to mean it, it is characterized by often difficult and relatively static site based adventures, as was common in the first edition published adventures.

 

[MonsterMash]

And I thought the problem was that people seem to think "diaglo" when they think First Edition

Surely that would be diaglo = OD&D(1974)

Finally read through this thread. Got to admit these days I would argue that there is a Necromancer Games feel as there is a fairly strong house style with their products and there are not the rows of 10 ft square rooms with different creatures in, in the modules, but there is description to a certain level of detail, with a logical reason for how things are, but with plenty of scope for the DM to mould the products to fit their campaign.

 

[Virel]

Pielorinho, sure may be on Game Day. Sounds like fun. Time there just isn't enough of it...

On another note...

Shaman's post makes a lot of sense to me. Because when I read 3e, I tend to see it the same way as you did. I was out of gaming from late 1995 until mid 2004.

I have a different impression of 3e based on what I read when I read the books, I just looks like 3rd ed AD&D to me that "fixed" the "2e suck factor" that appears in late 2e materials. I guess this is why I don't "get" the edition war stuff that I keep hearing about. When I read ENworld many (most?) of the threads read like what I would expect a 1st ed AD&D board to read like: ideas on this, what do I do about this situation, did the dm do me wrong, etc.

When I play 3e it is in a Greyhawk setting/campaign that was planned and designed for grim & gritty feel. I like this. In fact it "feels" like my Greyhawk setting/campaign in 1st ed. The class selection & multiclassing are actually more restrictive than in it than in my 1st ed AD&D game by player and DM choice. This is fine too as it fits what they want to play etc. I know 3e can have a 1st ed feel, and 1st ed feel doesn't mean a wonky, goof ball, anti-logical type of D&D, at least not the 1st ed style that I know. Of course there were many bad 1st ed DM's...with bad 1st ed games but think that happens with any rpg.

As for gritty in 1st ed, that's part of the DM's job if that is what the players and DM want...

 

[maddman75]

To me, the "1st edition feel" has several important characteristics that distinguishes it from modern products.

21st Century AD&D is about plot and character. The DM is primarly concerned to tell a story, and may actually go so far as to write adventures in "chapters." The player is usually playing a character which has been carefully thought-out and created in an enormous amount of detail; the effort put into playing the character is justified because the chance of character death is small.

1st Edition AD&D was created by miniatures wargamers, and is considerably closer to these roots. The DM does not tell a story - the DM's role is merely to create an environment in which the characters' adventuring can take place. The player does not spend enormous effort on a low-level character because character death is not merely possible, but likely.

In 21st Century AD&D the player can create exactly the character of his or her choice. In 1st edition the character's class and development path was often ascertained by dice rolls over which the player had no control.

A "skilled" player of 21st Century AD&D is one who can create and play a character so detailed and realistic that he or she lives in the minds of the participants. A "skilled" player of 1st Edition AD&D is one who can complete Tomb of Horrors with no casualties.

I don't believe the rules complexity has much to do with it. Rolemaster, as originally written, was a far more complex and detailed game than D20 D&D - and yet it has an "old school feel" compared to D20.

Oooh, I like that idea! I'll even go one further.

The first era could be referred to as the Wargame period. This was the nascent period of gaming, which had just emerged from wargames. Characterization tended to be light, because characters could and did get killed all the time. Most DMing was done from the perspective of setting up an environment and letting the characters explore it. Games tended to go for the wild and exotic - from adventures like Through the Looking Glass and Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, to weirdness like Gamma World, if it was cool and interesting it was in.

The second era I'd call the Storytelling period. This is the age of 2nd edition D&D with its highly developed, internally consistant campaign settings, and when Vampire made a game that was meant to be more about playing a role than killing things and taking thier stuff. (Until players dicovered katanas, mirror shades, and sawed-off shotguns that is) The rule here is that if it makes sense its in. Players were expected to make detailed backgrounds for their characters and play them to the hilt, while GMs created interesting stories for them to take part in.

Gaming continues to evolve, and I believe we're on the beginning of the Cinematic period. Even 3e started off with 'Back to the Dungeon' - role playing your character's angst at the pointlessness of existance could be moving (and help you score goth chicks) but dammit, sometimes you just want to kick in the door and kill some orcs. At the same time, there's still an emphasis on characterization. To solve this most games take the approach of rewarding coolness and letting the players have input over the flow of the game. This is apparent in the stunting rules for Exalted, the Drama Points in Buffy/Angel, Dramatic Editing in Adventure! and so on. Even many varieties of D&D/d20 now have some manner of hero/actio/luck points. This style is about looking good and being cool, while still keeping to resource limitations. The players are not longer completely at the whim of the DM, but have points where they get to say what the world is like.

And I'm sure after we get tired of Cinematic games something else will capture the gaming public's attention.

 

[The Shaman]

The first era could be referred to as the Wargame period....

The second era I'd call the Storytelling period....

Gaming continues to evolve, and I believe we're on the beginning of the Cinematic period....

Very interesting!

It also explains, to me at least, why "cinematic" is one of the most overused terms in gaming at the moment, along with "rollplayer" and "hat of dO2."

 

[Krypter]

"1st-edition feel" means "leaders" and "mappers."

[...]

It means hoping that maybe, one day, you can be a "Grand Master of Flowers."

Absolutely brill. That's it right there. For most people 1E feel is just a simpler time when everything fantastical was new, you had no idea how many hit-dice the dragon had, you had never heard of drow, and you were afraid of skeletons. SKELETONS! And if they had a bony tube in them, you had hit the motherlode!

Not that I dislike 3E thick-story games, or even WoD, but there's something to be said for a simple bashing game that was thick on Gygaxian/Vancian flowery language and light on rules. These days every conceivable event is noted and codified in the rules. Nowadays I'm older and all for the cultural hierarchies of coffee-growing elves, but when you're jumping into D&D for the first time it's awesome to just stomp on some orcs. I doubt if any modern 1E-feel adventure could rekindle that pure feeling again, but kudos to NecroGames for trying.


PS: *winding* - not windy - corridors, for the love of Freya!

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Oooh, I like that idea! I'll even go one further.

The first era could be referred to as the Wargame period. This was the nascent period of gaming, which had just emerged from wargames. Characterization tended to be light, because characters could and did get killed all the time. Most DMing was done from the perspective of setting up an environment and letting the characters explore it. Games tended to go for the wild and exotic - from adventures like Through the Looking Glass and Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, to weirdness like Gamma World, if it was cool and interesting it was in.

The second era I'd call the Storytelling period. This is the age of 2nd edition D&D with its highly developed, internally consistant campaign settings, and when Vampire made a game that was meant to be more about playing a role than killing things and taking thier stuff. (Until players dicovered katanas, mirror shades, and sawed-off shotguns that is) The rule here is that if it makes sense its in. Players were expected to make detailed backgrounds for their characters and play them to the hilt, while GMs created interesting stories for them to take part in.

Gaming continues to evolve, and I believe we're on the beginning of the Cinematic period. Even 3e started off with 'Back to the Dungeon' - role playing your character's angst at the pointlessness of existance could be moving (and help you score goth chicks) but dammit, sometimes you just want to kick in the door and kill some orcs. At the same time, there's still an emphasis on characterization. To solve this most games take the approach of rewarding coolness and letting the players have input over the flow of the game. This is apparent in the stunting rules for Exalted, the Drama Points in Buffy/Angel, Dramatic Editing in Adventure! and so on. Even many varieties of D&D/d20 now have some manner of hero/actio/luck points. This style is about looking good and being cool, while still keeping to resource limitations. The players are not longer completely at the whim of the DM, but have points where they get to say what the world is like.

And I'm sure after we get tired of Cinematic games something else will capture the gaming public's attention.

Aye.

Now here's the kicker: Despite the fact that it may at first glance seem to be a more highy-evolved form of gaming, the "Storytelling" style is one that takes most of the power and choice away from the player characters.

Probably the most extreme example of this is the Dragonlance and other early 2e adventures. In these published modules the direction of the plot and the flow of the action is fixed in advance and certain things will happen no matter what the players do. The players will always defeat the Big Bad Evil Dude and prevent his Evil Plans from coming to fruition, thereby Saving the World - but the Big Bad Evil Dude will always make an improbable escape (or at least his body will never be found) so that he can rematerialise in a new and even more credibility-stretching guise in the forthcoming Quest to Recover the Toothpick of The Gods.

Once the plot's predetermined to that extent, folks, there's no point playing a game. The DM might as well just tell you what happens and give you some xp, then you can spend the rest of the evening drinking beer and talking about why "old school" games were better.

They weren't better games or systems, they were unbelievably primitive ones with many gaping holes in them. What made them better is that they weren't pre-scripted - with the consequence that the choices made by the player had a real impact on the character's future and even the character's survival. Skilled players' characters lived longer and reached higher level while fools died, often and regularly. That's something that has been lost.

The enduring curse that afflicted 2e, under which the subsequent versions of AD&D still struggle, is the idea that it's okay to pre-script an entire adventure and then move the player characters around like pawns on a chessboard in accordance with this plot.

What 2e also did was to erase any possibility of anything permanently bad happening to your character. Players no longer suffered irreversible aging effects, there were no longer any real limits on how many times you could be raised from the dead, etc. etc. And nobody's had the guts to put these irreversible ill-effects back in - so no matter how foolish a player's choices or actions, their character can never be permanently harmed, because of the desire to excahnge Gygax's "game with no permanent winners or losers" into a game at which even the terminally hard-of-thinking were guaranteed to succeed.

I've yet to see this "Cinematic" style done well - but it has to be a step forward from the bad old days of "Storytelling."