Can someone explain what "1st ed feel" is?
- Thread starter Abyss
- Start date
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
True -- I shoulda said that illogical stuff like that was rampant in 1E AND OLDER D&D.
I think that for the most part it's gotten steadily better, and I think White Wolf has a lot to do with that. In Search of the Unknown is pretty far at one end of the spectrum.
Daniel
I think that for the most part it's gotten steadily better, and I think White Wolf has a lot to do with that. In Search of the Unknown is pretty far at one end of the spectrum.
Daniel
Henry
Autoexreginated
Pielorinho said:
...And B2 Keep on the Borderlands was at the other end of the spectrum.
This adventure is one of TSR's best-selling adventures EVER. It had a fully-fleshed-out Keep at the edge of civilization, it had interesting and memorable encounters scattered throughout the woodlands (who could forget the mad hermit and his Wildcat?) and it had a series of humanoid tribes in the caves of Chaos who had banded together for mutual protection (but not without a healthy dose of suspicion amongst one another). Why was the Minotaur's lair in there? Because when the Humanoids located here, the Minotaur's lair was already there, and they gave him a wide berth - occasionally making offerings to him to keep him from killing them all. The other humanoids had banded together under the influence of the Evil Priest and the place even had several hidden rooms where the tribal leaders met and dealt with one another politically. The place had it all!
Yet, one of the prime complaints I always heard on the internet were, "Why would so many different humanoids have gathered in one place like a vegetable tray?" These usually came from players who had never so much as seen the module, but had only heard of it second-hand, or from bashers who never took the time to really read the thing and note the tremendous amount of crunchy bits and behind-the-scenes stuff that made it such a good module. And all within a scant few pages! (I think 20 or so pages? Anyone have an exact count?)
Keep on the Borderlands was a mini-campaign all unto itself, and contained enough detail to keep people adventuring there for several levels, and even establish a home base there! Don't get me wrong - I loved the Dark Sun, Night Below, Council of Wyrms, Planescape etc. Setting, but In the 1990's, it took a boxed set to give someone the basics of a full-fledged campaign - something that in the 1980's was being done with one thin little book.
God only knows how many campaigns have had a "Keep on the Fringes" because of this module.
P.S. Regarding the influence of White Wolf on setting-based campaigns - I had one unfortunate experience with White Wolf's World of Darkness setting, and decided to never return. With a better GM, perhaps I may one day give it another whirl, but if want to play that way, I'll take up either Mind's Eye or community theater. In my previous experience, that kind of influence only appeals to a narrow audience (compared to the heyday of RPG's in the 1980's), and only lasts for very short times.
WizarDru
Adventurer
1st Edition feel. Hmmm.
Well, I do think Nostalgia plays a large part, here. Certainly, the phrase has different meanings to different folks. Here are a few, I think:
a) The Wonder: The joy I personally experienced the day I cracked open the DMG that I'd bought with money I'd saved for weeks of lawn-cutting. The imagination that was sparked looking at the listings of magic items. The anticipation of running a game after reading the 'sample of play', section. The evil-grin of looking at the pictures in the 'Tomb of Horrors'.
b) The Design Ethic: The original modules were not adventures. They were settings for adventures to take place in. At their root level, they were even less than that...they were large, freeform puzzles that were more than a boardgame, but moderately faithful to D&D's wargame roots. Logic often took a back seat to an interesting challenge or a clever logic puzzle. Does 'Tomb of Horrors' or 'Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan' make much sense. Nope. But they're fun to run characters through, if that's the kind of game you enjoy.
c)The Metagame: Some folks liked 1e's wargame-like mechanics. I'm not one of them, but that's not the issue. Some people liked the AC system, the experience point tables, the unique spells, the various races and classes. Some folks don't want to have to deal with some of the strictures that Role-playing imposes. If they know that their 5th-level fighter needs 10 experience to level, then you damn well bet they'll just go find it, and role-playing reasons be damned.
d) Look and Feel: The artwork and layout of those old materials was far from the polished look of WOTC and other contempararies. Compare the cover of Chainmail, the 1e DMG and 3e DMG.
That said, I think that the nostalgia, as always, often confuses the issue. For every good 1e module, there were tons of bad ones. I found 2e so distasteful, I never played it, and dropped out of D&D entirely, until the advent of 3e. 'Back to the Dungeon', indeed.
I think that to NG, the second and third descriptors are '1st edition feel'. To me, it will always be the first....the thoughts of how to get my players to use a Deck of Many Things or a Rod of Wonders.
I loved 1e at the time, but as I grew, I wanted and needed more. Even when I ran 1e games, I filled in the blanks. The Colonel's point is not lost on me...but I soon came to the point where the 1e modules required enough work that I might as well make my own, which is what I did (and what I found more rewarding, anyhow). 1e's rules were not pristine and untouchable...quite the opposite, IMHO. The RPG artform has grown from it, but it is primitive by today's standards. Does that mean it was harder to have fun under 1e than 3e? ABSOULTELY NOT. I have had a blast under either edition.
If you want my opinion of who is doing a good job on 1e feel, it depends on what you want. For my money, Fiery Dragon is doing a great job, module-wise, of meeting that concept, but taking it to the next level with logical design. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. See 'NeMoren's Vault'.Kingdoms of Kalamar is also keeping it real, IMHO, but again, with an emphasis on logical design backing it up.
Rappan Athuk, at least the first one, was everything I didnt like in a 1e module. Mimic Toilet monsters are just so far and away from the kind of game I want to run, I can't tell you. Poorly edited, little guidance in the use of the module, and multiple mistakes make it difficult for me to even look at it. Some folks like that, which is fine, but it's not for me.
Ultimately, I think '1e feel' is to we older gamers what '3e feel' is to 12-year old DM somewhere out there right now, learning D&D for the first time. And that's what it's really all about.
Well, I do think Nostalgia plays a large part, here. Certainly, the phrase has different meanings to different folks. Here are a few, I think:
a) The Wonder: The joy I personally experienced the day I cracked open the DMG that I'd bought with money I'd saved for weeks of lawn-cutting. The imagination that was sparked looking at the listings of magic items. The anticipation of running a game after reading the 'sample of play', section. The evil-grin of looking at the pictures in the 'Tomb of Horrors'.
b) The Design Ethic: The original modules were not adventures. They were settings for adventures to take place in. At their root level, they were even less than that...they were large, freeform puzzles that were more than a boardgame, but moderately faithful to D&D's wargame roots. Logic often took a back seat to an interesting challenge or a clever logic puzzle. Does 'Tomb of Horrors' or 'Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan' make much sense. Nope. But they're fun to run characters through, if that's the kind of game you enjoy.
c)The Metagame: Some folks liked 1e's wargame-like mechanics. I'm not one of them, but that's not the issue. Some people liked the AC system, the experience point tables, the unique spells, the various races and classes. Some folks don't want to have to deal with some of the strictures that Role-playing imposes. If they know that their 5th-level fighter needs 10 experience to level, then you damn well bet they'll just go find it, and role-playing reasons be damned.
d) Look and Feel: The artwork and layout of those old materials was far from the polished look of WOTC and other contempararies. Compare the cover of Chainmail, the 1e DMG and 3e DMG.
That said, I think that the nostalgia, as always, often confuses the issue. For every good 1e module, there were tons of bad ones. I found 2e so distasteful, I never played it, and dropped out of D&D entirely, until the advent of 3e. 'Back to the Dungeon', indeed.
I think that to NG, the second and third descriptors are '1st edition feel'. To me, it will always be the first....the thoughts of how to get my players to use a Deck of Many Things or a Rod of Wonders.
I loved 1e at the time, but as I grew, I wanted and needed more. Even when I ran 1e games, I filled in the blanks. The Colonel's point is not lost on me...but I soon came to the point where the 1e modules required enough work that I might as well make my own, which is what I did (and what I found more rewarding, anyhow). 1e's rules were not pristine and untouchable...quite the opposite, IMHO. The RPG artform has grown from it, but it is primitive by today's standards. Does that mean it was harder to have fun under 1e than 3e? ABSOULTELY NOT. I have had a blast under either edition.
If you want my opinion of who is doing a good job on 1e feel, it depends on what you want. For my money, Fiery Dragon is doing a great job, module-wise, of meeting that concept, but taking it to the next level with logical design. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. See 'NeMoren's Vault'.Kingdoms of Kalamar is also keeping it real, IMHO, but again, with an emphasis on logical design backing it up.
Rappan Athuk, at least the first one, was everything I didnt like in a 1e module. Mimic Toilet monsters are just so far and away from the kind of game I want to run, I can't tell you. Poorly edited, little guidance in the use of the module, and multiple mistakes make it difficult for me to even look at it. Some folks like that, which is fine, but it's not for me.
Ultimately, I think '1e feel' is to we older gamers what '3e feel' is to 12-year old DM somewhere out there right now, learning D&D for the first time. And that's what it's really all about.
Melan
Explorer
Wizardru: IMO you should give Rappan Athuk II a chance. Although I had no problems with RA 1, the second part is definitely better (despite the crappy maps - but that has been rectifed since). I found that the middle levels had much stronger themes and better ideas overall - not to mention the increased size of the module. But of course, it is still a dungeon, so you should avoid it if you don't like difficult dungeon crawls.
1st edition feel
"The Third Edition of the world's most popular fantasy roleplaying game is here. Are you a veteran gamer? Do you remember the good old days of fantasy roleplaying? We at Necromancer Games do, and we are committed to producing high-quality products under the D20 System for use with Third Edition but with a "classic" First Edition feel."
Now I myself never played 1st ed. Can someone explain what a "first edition feel" is?
-Abyss
I'd say 1st edition feel was stuff like Gutboy Barrelhouse(a 1st edition "iconic") and charts like the wandering prostitute table (brazen strumpet, anyone?). It's artwork like the great picture of Emirikol the Chaotic blasting people outside the Green Griffion tavern or the Paladin in Hell. It was the bizzare, superfluous Gygax writing style (I still like to read my old DMG just to read his prose).
Part of it, I think, is that 1st edition D&D was totally different from any game I had ever played before. It was new and mysterious. I still love the game, now more than ever, but after 16 years of playing and DMing I know all about the monsters, magic and treasures.
Unfortunately for Necromancer, part of the feel came from game mechanics like negative armor class is good, 1d6 initiative, and 1 minute rounds (a no-prize to the first person who knows how long a segment was!!).
And just a little of the mystique came from playing "Satan's Game". Jack Chick is a poor replacement for Geraldo and 60 minutes, IMHO.
kyuss
"The Third Edition of the world's most popular fantasy roleplaying game is here. Are you a veteran gamer? Do you remember the good old days of fantasy roleplaying? We at Necromancer Games do, and we are committed to producing high-quality products under the D20 System for use with Third Edition but with a "classic" First Edition feel."
Now I myself never played 1st ed. Can someone explain what a "first edition feel" is?
-Abyss
I'd say 1st edition feel was stuff like Gutboy Barrelhouse(a 1st edition "iconic") and charts like the wandering prostitute table (brazen strumpet, anyone?). It's artwork like the great picture of Emirikol the Chaotic blasting people outside the Green Griffion tavern or the Paladin in Hell. It was the bizzare, superfluous Gygax writing style (I still like to read my old DMG just to read his prose).
Part of it, I think, is that 1st edition D&D was totally different from any game I had ever played before. It was new and mysterious. I still love the game, now more than ever, but after 16 years of playing and DMing I know all about the monsters, magic and treasures.
Unfortunately for Necromancer, part of the feel came from game mechanics like negative armor class is good, 1d6 initiative, and 1 minute rounds (a no-prize to the first person who knows how long a segment was!!).
And just a little of the mystique came from playing "Satan's Game". Jack Chick is a poor replacement for Geraldo and 60 minutes, IMHO.
kyuss
shadow
First Post
I personally hate world-based settings. This is one reason why I love D&D and GURPS. I enjoy creating my own worlds, no matter how crappy and genreic they may be. With games like Shadowrun, World of Darkness, etc. the rules are subservient to the setting. Hence, the setting is not easily modifieable without unbalancing the rules. For example, if you want to use Shadowrun rules but remove meta-humans and make magic rarer, it completely throws the character creation process out of whack.
I suppose that's what I really like about 1e AD&D, the fact that all the adventures were fairly generic. You could pick up a module and throw it into your home campaign without much problem. Sure some of the adventures were 'illogical', but no one can deny that they were really fun!
I suppose that's what I really like about 1e AD&D, the fact that all the adventures were fairly generic. You could pick up a module and throw it into your home campaign without much problem. Sure some of the adventures were 'illogical', but no one can deny that they were really fun!
Desdichado
Hero
Oh, I get it alright, and I did play 1st edition. Just because I'm making a different point, don't assume that I don't understand another one in the same thread.
The Industry, as Melan calls it, operates (or at least did unitl a year or so ago) on a very different paradigm than D&D. Now, to listen to the posts on this thread, D&D was made great on the older paradigm -- that players didn't want setting. However, as other games came out that offered setting, for the most part, they stole market share away from D&D something fierce. 2nd edition D&D supposedly embraced the newer philosophy of adding lots of setting to the game. According to those in this thread, this was also a Bad Thing(tm). Yet, Forgotten Realms is the most popular setting for D&D, largely because of the amount of setting information available.
So, although I'd agree to a certain extent with what the posters here have said, the market seems to disagree quite firmly -- setting is incredibly important to a roleplaying game in order for it to maintain sales. The current situation, with the profligeration of d20 settings and games has so far not settled down into a predictable market pattern.
However, the point I still make is valid, although Melan offered (I think) a very good counterpoint to it: if modules without setting or story or much of anything except some monsters in rooms are so great because it allows DMs to make up there own stuff, why not just have the DM make the whole thing up and not mess around with this farce of producing modules? Because there's a dearth of mechanics out there? Balderdash! There's more mechanics than anyone can possibly absorb out there, even without new mechanics in modules. I doubt, although I don't have any of them, that modules with a "1st edition feel" are truly like 1st edition modules in many ways, because I think the market has moved beyond them except in terms of nostalgia.
Victim
First Post
In my opinion first edition feel is the rulebook saying that the HPs of a 10th level fighter with 18 con are ridculous, even though the same same guy thought that the HP system was good enough to publish.
Of course, I've just started playing 1e.
It's also about killing goblins with a rock slide.
Of course, I've just started playing 1e.
It's also about killing goblins with a rock slide.
Similar Threads
- Locked
