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

[Madfox]

And for me, an illogical dungeon shoots my suspension of disbelief all to hell. We were playing through RttToEE recently (VERY MINOR SPOILER), and in going through one complex, I noted the corridors that travel only in cardinal directions but that wind all around. You go 20' north, then 50' east, then 10' north, then 20' west, then....

Digging underground is hard, even with magical help. Why on earth would anyone make their corridors wind all over creation, when they could just make the corridors be straight shots from one location to another? Even something that small can get under my skin.

Your assumptions are wrong with this so called dungeon. It used to be a mine, not to mention that a large part of those dungeons were naturally formed. Since ore never follows a straight line, so will corridors not form a straight line. As for the moathouse, those curving corridors where recently dug by the ghould in that area as a den. Parts that had been dug by the cultists gave me the impression the dungeon was not finished when the original inhabitants where destroyed. As a player you should never be too quick to judge something that appears to be illogical. As a player you most likely miss a lot of information that your DM has.

I must admit though that when somebody mentions 1edition feel I always think of dungeons that make no sense, but are just there to challenge the intellect of the players and the power of the PCs. There are few 1st edition adventures I would use in my campaigns except perhaps for 1 shot adventures.

 

[Pielorinho]

Your assumptions are wrong with this so called dungeon. ....As for the moathouse....Parts that had been dug by the cultists gave me the impression the dungeon was not finished when the original inhabitants where destroyed. As a player you should never be too quick to judge something that appears to be illogical. As a player you most likely miss a lot of information that your DM has.

I elided the parts of your post that I've already answered in this thread: I'm not talking about curvy ghoul warrens, I'm talking about the parts that contained corridors that wound wihtout reason. I disagree that my assumptions are wrong, for two reasons:
1) When I made some comment to my DM about the corridors (I was the ill-fated party-member trying to map the corridors), he got a sheepish look on his face and agreed with me that it was stupidly designed.
2) I ran the original Temple of Elemental Evil a long time ago, and I'm pretty sure that there was no construction going on at that point in the adventure.

My best guess is that Monte used a modified version of the maps from the original adventure: to do otherwise woulda POd a lot of fanboys. And the illustrious Gygax was never known for making well-thought-out, plausibly designed dungeons: he emphasized kewl tricks above plausibility.

Perhaps you shouldn't tell folks they're wrong unless you've got better evidence?

Daniel

 

[WizarDru]

The moathouse was completely demolished during the original series. The cultists in question have been excavating the buried ruins, and exploring them, by the time adventurers arrive on the scene. It's implied and somewhat illustrated that there are parts of the original moathouse dungeon that are completely lost or destroyed...so any examination of the place will reveal an incomplete and possibly seemingly illogical picture. There are several locations that don't seem to lead anywhere...and these are because the original design has been competely subverted.

If, however, you are referring to a particular series of extremely windy caves....your DM should have told you to just stop trying to map carefully. There is a logical explanation for the design of those particular tunnels, but without giving spoilers, I can't say for sure if that's what you are referring to.

 

[Psion]

Perhaps you shouldn't tell folks they're wrong unless you've got better evidence?

Evidence?

Sorry, Daniel, but your "evidence" is no less subjective than his. Your DM agreed with you? That is hardly objective evidence.

 

[adndgamer]

Dungeon Crawls rule! I run a beer and pretzels game, I tried to run something else but my players don't want long drawn out scenarios where they do more talking and political maneuvering than slaying and trap finding. It's an adventure game where one makes ones name and fortune in the dungeon, or outside, battling monsters and coveting their treasure hordes.

Exactly.

Dungeon crawls are great, because they're easy and fun. Maybe someday I'll change my mind and decide that I want to have political intrigue and such, but as for now, my players and I are happy to go around doing dungeon crawls. After all, isn't that what D&D was named for?

And as for the original topic...It's been explained by many already, but here's my 2¢. The 1st edition feel is the rough and wooly feel of the game. It's the dungeon-crawl atmosphere. And it's the simplistic approach.

1st edition was more complicated than OD&D, but it's nothing compared to 3e in terms of complication. Our gaming group is having a little meeting soon and we'll be changing some mechanics of 3e (probably taking out skill points, for example) and bastardizing it and simplifying it until newbies are able to make up a new character in roughly 15 minutes.

Anyways, there's my little rant.

 

[Pielorinho]

Evidence?

Sorry, Daniel, but your "evidence" is no less subjective than his. Your DM agreed with you? That is hardly objective evidence.

Well, exactly. That's why I didn't tell him HE was wrong, but rather said that I disagreed with him. I don't tell people they're wrong unless I got irrefutable evidence.

I know, I know, I know about the tunnels that curl around, Wizardru, and them ain't what I'm talking about.

It's strange to me that defenders of adventures seem unable to see any flaws in them at all. So far, I think RttToEE has some very cool stuff in it, and I'm enjoying playing it. Do you guys think it's flawless? If not, what do YOU see as flaws in it?

The problem with the maps (perfectly 10' wide corridors which turn at perfect 90 degree angles at random) is a common one from 1E adventures. Those of you who've been playing for awhile: do you disagree?

1E has a lot going for it. Plausibility isn't one of those things. Neither is character-rich story. That's my point.

Daniel

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Maybe we just aren't tunnelling experts but issues like that have NEVER come up in any games I've played in or run. I guess we are too busy fighting for our lives to wonder if the layout of the underground temple to the dark gods is layed out in a perfectly logical way.

 

[Pielorinho]

Maybe we just aren't tunnelling experts but issues like that have NEVER come up in any games I've played in or run. I guess we are too busy fighting for our lives to wonder if the layout of the underground temple to the dark gods is layed out in a perfectly logical way.

(I'm guessing your DM doesn't make you map the damn thing! )

Daniel

 

[Neqroteqh]

1st edition feel means all players and the DM agree to only use thier right brain for the course of the adventure. No logical left brain thinking allowed.

Most 1st edition adventures seemed to be designed so that copious amounts of alchohol or other chemicals consumed while playing would make the whole thing make much more sense.

1st edition was all about Elf, Dwarf, Fighter, and MU (names pretty much optional) wandering thru randomly assembled & populated dungeons in the pursuit of things to kill and stuff to take. And stirges hiding in the rafters. And lots of stupid giant animals, particularly poisoned rats. Kill or be killed. Stupid pointless death traps at -7. More death traps. Occasionally, an entire dungeon made of 3 encounters and a double box full of death traps. After a few months of this, you leveled up, but only got something for leveling every 3 levels or so.

Really, think Diablo minus the computer and you have a decent grasp on the majority of 1st edition games.

On the other hand, for mindless fun you couldnt beat it.

Here, here! Now, to all you 2nd Edition bashers out here, here's what I like about it:

The Modules. Crappy? Heck no! Return to the Tomb of Horrors, Axe of the Dwarvish Lords, The Night Below, A Paladin in Hell, The Rod of Seven Parts, For Duty and Deity, Hellbound: The Blood War, Faction War, Undermountain, Undermountain II, Die Vecna Die, The Ravenloft Grand Conjunction series, The Lost Shrine of Bundashatur, Tale of the Comet, Dead Gods, The Vortex of Madness, The Apocalypse Stone, Hellgate Keep, the condensed version of the DL 1-16 series that was released for 2e (Dragonlance Classics), Dragon Mountain- had enough yet? All fantastic adventures, many of which are getting converted for my 3E campaign. Sure, there were some dogs... many of the campaign-specific adventures to come out were pretty weak (the Volo Trilogy and Four from Cormyr, The Deva Spark, Caravans), and there were some weak non-specific ones as well (the Beholder trilogy, the Illithiad adventures...)... but there were many great ones as well- and they had more than the mere dungeon that would come in a 1E adventure. Return to the Tomb of Horrors wasn't just a deathtrap with a demilich- it had a plot, a city and school full of vampires and necromancers, giants, the creepiest city ever seen in a D&D product (Moil), and many encounters that test the wits of the best players.

Rules- Guess what, folks? Unlike 1e, the AD&D Skills and Powers system (which was a godsend for my campaign) let characters truly customize their characters with skills and abilities, not just with kits. I'm also a fan of the complete books series- Complete Bards, Elves, Paladins, and Druids among my favorites. Spells and Magic allowed all kinds of variations to the magic system- and new stuff for players, as well... and Combat and Tactics made D&D combat make more sense than it did previously.

Campaign Settings- admittedly, 2nd Edition Realms was a bit weak... but other than that, what does 3E have that's better? Planescape, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Spelljammer- all gone, and Ravenloft has been reincarnated as a shadow of it's former self. The settings I've seen so far either strike me as completely bland (Kalamar), uninspired (Dragonstar), or fairly decent places to steal ideas from (Scarred Lands)- nothing that really excites me like the old settings did.

As for 3rd edition adventures, I've only seen three (excluding several excellent Dungeon Magazine adventures) which are up to par with the ones I've listed above- Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, The Demon God's Fane, and Lord of the Iron Fortress.

However, 3rd Edition is the clear winner for rules... they're far superior to 1E, Skills and Powers, or any other system I've ever seen. Just give me something good to play with!

 

[Psion]

Here, here! Now, to all you 2nd Edition bashers out here, here's what I like about it:

The Modules. Crappy? Heck no! Return to the Tomb of Horrors, Axe of the Dwarvish Lords, The Night Below, A Paladin in Hell, The Rod of Seven Parts, For Duty and Deity, Hellbound: The Blood War, Faction War, Undermountain, Undermountain II, Die Vecna Die, The Ravenloft Grand Conjunction series, The Lost Shrine of Bundashatur, Tale of the Comet, Dead Gods, The Vortex of Madness, The Apocalypse Stone, Hellgate Keep, the condensed version of the DL 1-16 series that was released for 2e (Dragonlance Classics), Dragon Mountain- had enough yet?

While I agree that there is some good stuff in 2e, you are just digging your own grave here. You have named several modules on my "crap" list... Faction War, Die Vecna Die, the Apocolpyse Stone, the railroad-fest DL modules, and book two of the Night Below, just to name a few.

Now Undermountain, Squaring the Cirlce (from Hellbound) and Dead Gods, on the other hand, are good stuff. Better than anything published for 1e, AFAIAC. (I am still slowly working on an undermountain conversion.)

Return to the Tomb of Horrors wasn't just a deathtrap with a demilich- it had a plot, a city and school full of vampires and necromancers, giants, the creepiest city ever seen in a D&D product (Moil), and many encounters that test the wits of the best players.

Yep. Will really have to play that some day.

Rules- Guess what, folks? Unlike 1e, the AD&D Skills and Powers system (which was a godsend for my campaign) let characters truly customize their characters with skills and abilities, not just with kits.

Actually, skills and powers was one of my fave 2e books. That said, it had major balance problems and required a great degree of personal intervention. I still think 3e can use a class customization system somewhat like a stripped down S&P, but most of the things S&P did, the 3e feats and skill system does much better, cleaner, and with less confusion.

I'm also a fan of the complete books series- Complete Bards, Elves, Paladins, and Druids among my favorites.

I liked many of them on the basis of the ideas they provided. Theives and Wizards were my favorites. However, the books had no consistency of vision or quality control; they were all done by freelancers with little guiding influence. As a result, they varied wildly in approach and quality. Rules-wise, this made them nigh-unusable. Especially three of the ones you have named: Paladin's, Druid's, and Bard's. (That said, I think that song & silence could have taken a few more notes from the bard book...)

Spells and Magic allowed all kinds of variations to the magic system- and new stuff for players, as well... and Combat and Tactics made D&D combat make more sense than it did previously.

More material from Combat & Tactics got used in 3e than nearly any other 2e book. No complaints there!

Campaign Settings- admittedly, 2nd Edition Realms was a bit weak... but other than that, what does 3E have that's better? Planescape, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Spelljammer- all gone, and Ravenloft has been reincarnated as a shadow of it's former self.

Dragonlance - glad its gone. It never really served as well as a game setting as it did a literary property.
Spelljammer - had no vision of its own, no underlying conflict to the setting, and forced some lame changes in the cosmology. Glad its gone (that said, it will be making a cameo soon.)

Planescape & Dark Sun will be missed by many. (But in a way, Dark Sun dug its own grave by means of its all-encompassing resolve-everything-at-once metaplot, BID.)

Ravenloft - I loved the old Van Richten books. But I really must Vehemently disagree with you that the 3e RL is a shadow of its former self. Have you read the 3e RL book? I think it is a far stronger offering than any previous incarnations of the setting.