Define "___-edition feel"?

[Bendris Noulg]

Clark: First Edition is the cover of the old DMG with the City of Brass; it is Judges Guild; it is Type IV demons not Tanaari and Baatezu; it is the Vault of the Drow not Drizzt Do'urden; it is the Tomb of Horrors not the Ruins of Myth Drannor; it is orcs not ogrillons; it is mind flayers not Ilithids (or however they spell it); it is Tolkien, Moorcock, Howard and Lieber, not Eddings, Hickman, Jordan and Salavatore; it is definitely Orcus and the demon-princes and not the Blood War; it is Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound not Elminster's Evasion; and it is Artifacts and Relics from the old DMG (with all the cool descriptions).

The ironic part being that "Illithid" was introduced in Vault of the Drow as the Drow name for Mind Flayers...

Don't get me wrong; I like Clark, really. Just found the comparison funny.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

For me, 2e Feel ended up being "world shaping novels and epic events that your players get to tag along to watch while NPCs do everything"

Sounds like you played a lot of Forgotten Realms.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Seems like we're all talking about Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. But is there a distinct (Original) Dungeon & Dragons feel?

I've never been a big fan of 1e or 2e AD&D, for some reason, but I've played Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal Set D&D for years. It always seemed to me that it was a much more straightforward, modern and elegant set of rules, with a stronger focus on roleplaying. In my opinion, 3.0 and 3.5 have inherited some of the most interesting aspects of OD&D.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Oh, no... He's cast summon Diaglo!

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Oh, no... He's cast summon Diaglo!

Yes, I understand that it's a Magic User/Elf spell...

 

[HeavyG]

Re: The topic.

I think in reality, it's really quite subjective. It seems obvious to me that what some players think of as first edition feel doesn't match my 1e gaming experience, which was in actuality quite story intensive.

Me too. I'd say that the roleplaying to mindless adventure ratio in my D&D games has consistently gone down as editions came out, but that may be more a factor of gaming with different people as time advanced.

The ironic part being that "Illithid" was introduced in Vault of the Drow as the Drow name for Mind Flayers...

Don't get me wrong; I like Clark, really. Just found the comparison funny.

I have also never seen an ogrillon outside of a 1E product.

Sounds like you played a lot of Forgotten Realms.

Or Ravenloft. It's true that 2E had a lot of "storyteller" type adventures, though.

 

[Remathilis]

Hmmm...


Basic OD&D: Classic. Strongly defined archtypes. Magic rare but powerful. Limits, but not limiting. Simple. Feels like a fantasy novel.

1st AD&D: Hodge-podge. anything goes. Powerful and magical. Arbitary limits. Politicall incorrect. complex. Fantastical. Emmulates anything. PC driven, but not necessarily character driven.

2nd AD&D: Seperate but equal. A variety of settings. Powerful and magical, but varies from world to world. Politicially correct. Plot driven. Emphasis on setting, world, meta-plot. limits for no real reason other than tradition. character driven, but not necessarily PC driven.

3rd D&D: Modular. Open ended settings. Powerful and magical. generic to D&D, specific to fantasy. Fantastical. Less complex. Tool-kitish to a point. options, not restriction. PC driven, character driven. balanced.

All D&D: Rules heavy. Social. Caters to munchkins and role-players alike. combat based. Good vs. evil. More than the sum of its parts.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

Based on my own experience:

OD&D/1E AD&D: Challenges. Whether a creature, puzzle, or trap, the focus is on overcoming challenges and taking stuff. Rinse and repeat. Roleplaying is optional (depended on the group). Computer analogy: Diablo

2E AD&D: Story. PC's are characters in a story, which too often is more important than the characters. Elaborate settings designed for the story. Roleplaying mandatory. Computer analogy: Planescape Torment.

3E/3.5E: Campaign. This is the hardest to pigeonhole, as the new edition hasn't been out very long, but going by what I've seen, the focus seems to be on building campaigns. While story and plot are important, they're not necessarily more important than the PC's, as happened in 2E. Computer analogy: Baldur's Gate series.

As others have said, it's impossible to define these terms with complete accuracy, but these fit with my own experiences.

 

[reiella]

I have also never seen an ogrillon outside of a 1E product.

That was probably a comment more in relation to Baldur's Gate (the first, where there were Ogrillions as randoms, and occasionally in BG2), and just a bit of general snide/resentment towards the CRPG environment in general and the "new players" who came over from that environment . Of course, I am reading too much into it .

Of course, my only experience with OD&D adventures is the silly 'Solo Adventure' in my old red box (damn that Charm person!).

 

[Bregh]

Seems like we're all talking about Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. But is there a distinct (Original) Dungeon & Dragons feel?

I've never been a big fan of 1e or 2e AD&D, for some reason, but I've played Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal Set D&D for years. It always seemed to me that it was a much more straightforward, modern and elegant set of rules, with a stronger focus on roleplaying. In my opinion, 3.0 and 3.5 have inherited some of the most interesting aspects of OD&D.

A distinction must be made about "original D&D" in this regard.

Original or "Classic D&D" is the wood grain/white box from '74 with the three booklets, and its four supplements "Greyhawk", "Blackmoor", "Eldritch Wizardry", and "Gods, Demigods, & Heroes". The whole of this is what was collated to become Original AD&D (1st edition) during 1977-79, although the two were published in concomitance until 1979, with another volume, the Holmes edit "blue box" version (c. 1977-78), serving as a bridge between the two. This original version of D&D is the one diaglo is always invoking. It is extremely similar, in tone and spirit, if not all mechanics, to OAD&D ("first edition").

What many people commonly refer to as "OD&D" (being the Moldvay/Cook edited "Basic" and "Expert" sets, and the later Menzter Basic/Expert/Companion/Master and Allston "Rules 'Cyclopaedia" revisions of the same) is a far cry from "original" in terms of its age. In fact, it's younger than OAD&D by a year. The style and pesentation of this version of D&D is substantially different than AD&D, and became moreso as the line progressed.

I would opine that the Mentzer boxed sets and Rules 'Cyclopaedia have far more influence on the latest version of D&D (as has been mentioned) than either OD&D or AD&D (with the possible exception of AD&D Second edition's "Player's Option" line).