Define "___-edition feel"?

[diaglo]

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

i was hybernating this weekend.


the distinct OD&D(1974) feel is: ....everything is new and different. and simple to explain. so play was fast and furious or slowed down if you wanted to take the time and build on other aspects. but the key was keeping the game fun.

edit: 1edADnD feel includes the hard and fast, but flexible EGG mechanics and style.

2edADnD feel includes taking the rules and expanding them to explosive proportions

2000ed feel is ....an area for Edition wars. i could add my opinion but this thread will just get ugly.

 

[Orius]

That said, I'd say that there is no "1E Feel" or "2E Feel", as there were many different "feels" to each of them. For instance, if something is plugged as having that "1E Feel", are they talking about Adventure-Only (Tome of Horrors) 1E, mini-series (Temple of Elemental Evil) 1E, or mini-saga (original Dragonlance) 1E?

IMO, I don't think "feel" exsits, or at leasts exists to the extent assumed by the use of the phrase. Perhaps 1e, 2e, Basic D&D, and the original D&D box all had their own flavor. But I think "feel" has at least as much to do with nostalgia, remembering those earliest games one played back in the day as it does with flavor.

 

[Joe123]

Posted by Bregh

I would opine that the ... 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).

I see similarities between the Rules Cyclopedia and third edition D&D, in terms of skill names and descriptions, as well other things, so I think you are right that the Rules Cyclopedia had a strong influence on the development of third edition.

The D&D rules presented in the Rules Cyclopedia, still nevertheless, provided for fast-paced, action-oriented games. Much could be accomplished in one gaming session, that would in third edition or 3.5, take far longer to do. This is the main advantage of the older rules - faster play, albeit less complicated rules with less player options. (Rules Cyclopedia is the latest revison of Basic to Companion D&D Boxed Sets, pub., 1991).

Regardless, I feel third edition D&D presents rules significantly improving upon the Rules Cyclopedia, providing for more concrete boundaries and instructions for handling things, where as, before, variation might exist between how one DM handles a certain game issue, to another.

The "going back to the dungeon" theme of third edition is good. The way I saw it, D&D started out as mere dungeon-combat-oriented. Then, it developed further towards role-playing and outdoor adventuring. Now, it appears WotC tries encouraging players to concentrate more on dungeon-like adventuring. Thus, it has gone around in a loop.

 

[Belen]

I am not sure how I feel about the three editions. Each had its own unique style and brought a different gaming experience:

1st edition: Exploration driven. Man versus monster in order to reap great rewards. It was a location dependent game. GMs designed what background was needed to fill in the location events. Even with modules like Temple of Elemental Evil, the larger world was irrelevant. GM and players had the same rules options. Everything was simpler.

2nd Edition: Event driven. Characters reacted to the world, although the world did not react to them. GMs did not need to design a lot of background. A wealth of information existed for GMs. Eventually, the complete books and player options arrived to provide the same level of support for players. However, TSR marketed to the GMs because they felt that GMs bought more material. It is the GM edition.

3rd edition: Player driven: Players are given access to a variety of options. WOTC markets directly to their needs because more players exist than GMs. Little support for GMs from the main company which decided to farm that out. That fails as third party companies market to players as well. It becomes the "Everyone wants to play, no one wants to GM" edition. Rules set, while exhaustive, is MUCH better. The design allows for easier access into the gaming community. It is the player edition.

No clue what the future holds. There are a lot of possibilities. An amalgamation of 2e GM support and 3e rules would be the perfect edition for me, although, if I had to choose, it would be 3e, even if I miss the ease of GMing 2e.

 

[Henry]

"Feel" is usually only truly captured within time periods, in my experience. For instance, the band Aerosmith's songs from the 1970's have a VERY different tone, rhythm, and ambience than their work from the mid-1990's to current. But then, their very environment was radically different - in the 1970's, they were shooting dope until their eyes bled, and had far fewer wives and kids - now they're not. So to have "classic" Aerosmith, you can listen to those old recordings and visualize, or listen to them record the versions of those old songs that they do now. Each way will have a far different effect on its fans. But both are appreciated for their style, and what they brought to the party.

Now, RE: the edition "feel". You can't get the same tone and pace of a Gygax 1979-1980 module that you do now from a Bruce Cordell 2003 module, or for that matter a 2003 Gygax LA module. They're different people, different companies, that what existed at the time the original is produced. You can approximate, but approximation only leads to imitation, which is sometimes unflattering.

I appreciate the 1E turns of phrase, the language that Gary wrote with in the old DMG, and they terse "fill-in the blanks" style that 1E modules conveyed. But I also appreciate the fact that 3E aims to cater to many types of fantasy, from Howard and Leiber to now Martin and Jordan.

But for 1st edition feel, I will return to my 1E books and pull out the Against the Giants modules, and run them with gusto, before going back to 3E and what it offers me today, and not feel guilty or reminiscent of either one.

 

[Thanatos]

This seemed interesting, thought I would toss in my 2 copper's worth:

"first edition feel"?

Wow. First Edition. I had just laid down The Red Book from The Red Box Set (though I did have this older white/green box set where even the monster's weren't in the dungeon, just blank squares).

I played First Edition for so long. We had many wonderful adventures. We also had quite a few humiliating defeats. The feel? It just covered enough so we could make unique characters. It didn't really cover too much in the way of backstory or histories and left that up to us to create. There were alot of options we got to make up because there weren't as many rules written for things (e.g. feats and skills). Additional books did add to the complexities and rules presented, but at its core, it took Basic D&D just a bit further in concept and complexity. How did they say it in Conan? "Those were the days of High Adventure!" (If Memory Serves Me Correctly - IMSMC).

What about "second-edition feel"?

What do you mean my Barbarian can't take on that horde of 1,000 orcs? Okay, so the old days were gone. Now we cover things like proficiencies and "game balance". Gone is alot of the uniqueness because the rules and options cover alot more. Things seemed firmer, more real in this edition. There were more indepth histories and unique flavors to taste. This is when D&D became "good", eliminating the Devils and Assassin Class.

No, it wasn't the days of High Adventure, but we still had some great ones. Astounding victories and utter losses. We got kits to expand the flavor variations of the classes and options books to change the score and spice it up a bit, but it was dated and a bit tough to wield at that point. And face it, if you played First Edition, you always really resented the loss of the Devils and Assassin Class, if just on principles of being against all that is PC (okay, well maybe some of you didn't...you are excepted.).

This was a good and solid game though. It didn't have as much of the running-blind feeling of the first one, which could make for some interesting situations, but it was consistant, solid and steady.

"third-edition feel"?

"We have risen above our mediocrity, let the gods now tremble!" - I'm sure someone said it.

Third edition covers not only alot of rules and options, but alot of history, detail and character customization capability. Once again we can create unique characters, which don't balance as well against each other as in the past edition, but still retain a semblence of balance. We even have classes to make our characters more powerful, if more focused.

We have ridden high, snubbing a god or two along the way. We have been quashed, reminded of our fragile mortality. This is potentially the deadlist edition of D&D, but also with the most options. We see rules governing Exalted beings, Vile beings and even sexuality is touched upon. Gone are the days of wondering if a rule exists to cover something, because we know somewhere it probably does exist if we really don't want to make it up ourselves.

This edition is probably the most complex. It's the one that offers the closest march along side reality at one end and on the other, the highst realm of fantasy, alowing you to even march into partial or full godhood and continue to play. We can explore the realms of our deepest fears, fantasies or realities. We no longer have to be blind. We got back our Devils and Assassin Class and more. Good? Evil? These are now our characters quandries and are as powerful as any monster that we've cast a spell at or struck with a weapon.

The feel? different then the other editions. At first we were kinda lost and making it all up as we went along with a basic sub-set of rules...then we were introduced to balance and a sense of histories and ages and myriad of worlds...and finally, we have been introduced into infinite possibility, to which only the boundries of your groups imagination will stop you.

All in all, I think it was very progressive...and we learned from each edition.

I'll go so far as to say, chainmail? taught us about fantasy in wargaming.

Basic, Intermediate, Expert and Immortals Boxed editions played a part as well...it taught us to imagine ourselves in the fantasy world, more indepth then in wargaming...and taught us that even if we become gods, the adventure doesn't have to stop.

Thanks for reading my lengthy post.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

These are views of Calico_Jack73 and shouldn't be construed to be the views of players everywhere.

1st edition feel - A serious lack of rules forcing the DM to make on-the-fly rules calls. That same issue though makes for a wonderfully open game where anything is possible. Not a whole lot of options for the players... a fighter is a fighter is a fighter.

2nd edition feel - More options for the players but still numerous instances where rules do not cover specific situations allowing the DM to still make on-the-fly rules calls.

3rd edition feel - Even more options for the players but now almost every conceivable situation is covered by rules which at times can tie the hands of the DM. System supports a belief by players that everything must make sense by system mechanics which can be learned on both sides of the tables. Increased amount of rules lawyering due to said mechanics.

Yes, I prefer earlier editions but have conceded that it is nigh impossible to find a group willing to play the earlier editions or a DM to run them.

 

[Dark Jezter]

1st Edition Feel: I didn't play 1st edition a whole lot. By the time I was introduced to D&D, 2nd edition was in full swing.

2nd Edition Feel: Little to no reason to play as a single-classed fighter. Why can't my elf be a druid? Lots of paperback suppliments being released every year, most of which are mediocre at best. Bladesingers set the standard for just how overpowered and unbalanced a class can be. TSR sends out cease-and-desist orders to everybody who creates an AD&D web site, earning nicknames like "They Sue Regularly" and "They Suck Royally". Many gamers are swept up in the Magic: The Gathering craze and forget about D&D.

On the plus side, we've got a few totally awesome 2e books, such as the Planescape and Dark Sun settings, as well as the Forgotten Realms deity books.

3rd Edition: For the first time ever, the D&D rules are made available for completely free, and can be downloaded from the company web site. The rules contain much more internal consistancy, and you no longer have to remember whether or not it's good to roll high or roll low. Characters are more customizable than ever, due to feats and skills. Multiclassing rules actually make sense. The classes are more harmoniously balanced with each other than ever before, and warrior classes can still be useful to a party at high levels. Many gamers who hadn't played D&D in years are curious about this new third edition of D&D, and are brought back into the fold. The age of Open Gaming Content begins, and for the first time ever anybody is allowed to make suppliments for D&D rather than the company that owns it. Life is good.

 

[woodelf]

From an old interview with Clark Peterson regarding First Edition Feel (and Necromancer Games):

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).

I always say we want to be the VW Bug of roleplaying companies, meaning that we want to have a modern style and appeal but an obvious link to the past.

Um, that's the VW Beatle--the original is the Bug, the new is the Beatle. But we all knew what he meant.

Anyway, the Clark quote seems like as good of a place to hang my thoughts off of as any other. First of all, i'm mostly with Psion on this one: there is no one, distinct, feel to any of the editions, or, if there is, it often is missed by the players. I say this because i've played all 3 editions, with varying levels of supplements and houserules for each (including playing all 3 of them "by the book"), as well as a bit of OD&D (Basic through Companion levels, and read Masters and Immortals), and got distinct feels for each of them, and yet the feels i got from them don't seem to match what others are saying.

Part of this is probably that i'm judging the rules only. In twenty years of RPing, i've bought a grand total of 4 D&D scenarios [hell, i've probably got fewer than a score of scenarios for all of my 100+ RPGs combined], of which i've only ever read two of them, and only even considered running 1 of them (but i never quite figured out a good way to work it into the campaign)--the other was Tomb of Horrors, and i knew before i bought it that i'd never run it. I don't think i've ever played a commercial scenario (for any game system), either. Likewise, i'm not much of a prepackaged-setting person, at least where D&D is concerned. I fell in love with The Known World, and still want to complete a collection of the Gazeteers, but i never was particularly interested in gaming in it. The only setting i ever really bought over the years was SpellJammer, and even then i never bought any adventures or novels for it. Other than the FR bits that they crammed into mostly-non-FR supplements i wanted (such as the original Draconomicon), i really didn't buy setting-oriented stuff, and never read any novels or scenarios. So, for me, D&D was always about the rules. With that in mind:

AD&D1: This was what i started with. [well, mostly, i'd been introduced via the Basic Set, and tried to run a game with it, but it fell apart, and the first game i ran, as well as the first campaign i was in, were both AD&D.] By the time i started playing, the 6 core books were out, and that's the way it stayed for quite some time. To me, AD&D1 is characterized by a solid, reasonably-balanced, but not very versatile, core ruleset, upon which groups bolted the additions they wanted. These additions were a mixture of Dragon material, house rules, and 3rd-party add-ons [the original Arms Law, when it was still a D&D supplement, was one of the most popular around these here parts], and no two games i ever knew used the same set of rules. And, Gygax's posturing aside, no one ever questioned whether anyone's particular iteration was "D&D" or not. So, 1st ed, to me, is wild variability in rules [for both good and ill], stemming from a relatively simplistic core (essentially no mechanical support for RPing, skills outside of combat, and quite a few other areas), combined with *lots* of add-ons, most of which increased the complexity, though often less than they increased the options. The hardcovers that came out after the "core 6" further emphasized that feel, being mostly rules collections, often not really compatible with each other, often showing obvious evolution (the non-weapon proficiencies system from Oriental Adventures, through the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, to the Wilderness Survival Guide), and usually being themed (Unearthed Arcana being the notable exception).

AD&D2:AD&D 2nd ed was the era of "everybody uses the same rules" for me. From talking to other players, it sounds like my game, with a pretty significant set of house rules, was quite unusual--most groups i knew during 2nd ed's hayday ('89-'95, or so) pretty much played "by the book", including as many of the "Complete ..." handbooks as were out by then. If it was published by TSR, we used it, but not nearly as much inclusion of houserules, 3rd-party stuff (such as the Role-Aids line), or Dragon material. And by "we," i mean the various groups i knew about, not just my games. As for the feel of the rules themselves, what most lodged in my consciousness was how they differed from AD&D1, which can basically be summed up as much more RPing-oriented. The inclusion of the "Habitat/Society" and "Ecology" sections in every monster entry is probably the best example of this. But it's also the edition from which i remember the most spells that fit the "cool, but what would i ever do with it?" category--spells that make sense given the magic paradigm, and fit into a magical society, but have little-to-no use for adventuring. [To be clear, i *love* those spells--one of the things i miss most about D&D3E is all the spells that are useless in a typical dungeon or combat encounter.] Also, AD&D2 is for me a job half-done: it was masterfully cleaned up compared to AD&D1, with a lot more of the rules consistent with each other, but it still suffered from some rough bits (NWP being one of the worst) and inconsistencies (thief skills vs. tracking vs. NWPs). It also was better-presented, having about the same complexity as AD&D1, but seeming much less complex, and easier to grok.

Oh, i never played the Players' Option books, and only really read them years after i'd stopped playing D&D of any stripe. So i don't really have an opinion on that. Perhaps, if the first one to come out had been anything but PO: Combat & Tactics, i would've given them a look, and maybe used them. But the *last* place i wanted more complexity or options was combat, so i gave it a quick flip-through in the store, and then passed on it and never looked at anything else in the PO/DMO series.

D&D3E: (and presumably 3.5E, but i've only read it, not actually played it, so i might have missed any shift in feel) If i had to sum up D&D3E in two words, it'd be "video-gamey". Another way of putting it would be that it's much more mechanically focused. The two elements that most influence its feel for me are the complexity of the rules, and the game-ness of the rules. Moreso than previous editions, it feels very concerned about artifical constructs like balance, and thus you get lots of mechanics that favor balance over verisimillitude (the paladin pokemount being the most egregious example of this i can think of). It feels more like a computer game, with carefully-quantified options at every turn, and clear-and-present limitations on exactly what you can and can't do. And I know i'm probably gonna start a flamewar with this one, but core-book D&D3E is definitely the most complex of any of the editions (just looking at the core 2-3 books)--there's *way* more mechanical complexity to just about everything. Yes, it's got a unified underlying mechanic, but the sheer volume of detail is still much greater. It is also the most combat-oriented of the editions, with combat emphasized over just about everything else (look at monster descriptions, frex, or the distribution of feats--or the fact that wizards are way more combat-worthy in 3E than any previous edition). All of these things remind me more of Final Fantasy than of previous editions of D&D.

 

[woodelf]

Just today I was trying to explain to my friend the difference between the D&Ds, and I still don't think he got it. I agree with Mirrorball Man - OD&D is a very nice system. It has an archetypal, 4-color fantasy feel that I like, with more elegant mechanics than AD&D. I was playing OD&D right before 3.0 came out.

Yeah, next time i see a copy of the Rules Cyclopedia fora reasonable price, i'm grabbing it. BTW, anybody know how much of the metaphysics/plane-hopping stuff from teh Immortals boxed set made it into the Rules Cyclopedia?