First Edition Feel: Why Is This a Good Thing?

[delericho]

There are all kinds of flavors and all kinds of tastes, I'm just judging from my point of view with my own taste and experience.

Which is entirely sensible. As noted, people have different tastes.

But where I start to have a problem is with statements like:

I don't ever want to see anything emulating 1e again...

That's where it goes from "not for me" to "and you can't have it either."

It is, of course, quite likely I've read more into that statement than was intended.

 

[goatunit]

I think "First Edition Feel" differs from merely "First Edition" specifically in that it avoids a lot of your complaints. That is to say that if someone is playing a game that "feels" like first edition, they are de facto also specifically not playing first edition. Presumably because they like certain esoteric qualities of first edition play but do not like the mechanics.

For me, the most important element of early D&D is the sandbox. Today, when someone says "sandbox," they mean freedom to go wherever and do whatever they want, but there is an unspoken restraint that has seeped into D&D in particular and modern games in general in the form of balance and the assumption that everyone in the party will A) attend every session, and B) mostly maintain the same character throughout a campaign. It is really difficult to get newer players to grok the idea that the world can be the story and the characters can be merely participants in it who come and go.

The thief dies. The wizard retires to a demi-plane of his own creation. The fighter's henchman becomes a great hero in his own right. A completely different party made up of completely different players visit some dungeon six years on in the campaign and find a ghoul who was a PC belonging to a player who has since moved away, but who fell on that spot lo these many years ago. It's about saving the town from a swarm of giant ants, only to learn that the problem was caused by another party of PCs beating module A1 but failing to destroy that damn giant ant nest.

You can do these things in any game, but AD&D in particular lends itself to this kind of living world play. And, of course, this is only what I think of when I hear "first edition feel." I'm sure that it means something else for other people.

 

[GMMichael]

It has to do with how adventures are written, and what kinds of challenges are there. More surprise and room for clever, or devious role-playing is provided, the stories are a little more dark than what the fans are used to now, and there is less emphasis on balance or on using your powers and abilities as written. Creativity is encouraged.

This is a hefty promise. I'm expecting this sort of thing from Zweihander.

Today, when someone says "sandbox," they mean freedom to go wherever and do whatever they want, but there is an unspoken restraint that has seeped into D&D in particular and modern games in general in the form of balance and the assumption that everyone in the party will A) attend every session, and B) mostly maintain the same character throughout a campaign. It is really difficult to get newer players to grok the idea that the world can be the story and the characters can be merely participants in it who come and go.

Aha - fear of death. So quickly lost in 3rd edition when they provided a handful of resurrection spells and negative hit points (and Con bonus to hit points?). Yet 5th edition continues the legacy with death saves. Excitement comes from risk, and if there's a risk that you'll have to rip your character sheet in half, there will be plenty excitement.

I have the impression, though, that 1st edition also had the assumption that the players would attend every session. Maintain the same character throughout the campaign? Heck, no.

 

[delericho]

Aha - fear of death. So quickly lost in 3rd edition when they provided a handful of resurrection spells and negative hit points (and Con bonus to hit points?).

1st Ed had Con bonus to hit points, though it was capped to +2 for everyone except the Fighter and its subclasses (and, presumably, Cavaliers and Barbarians when EA hit). BECMI had it too, without that limit.

Negative hit points was an optional rule in 2nd Ed discussed in the DMG.

 

[SirAntoine]

1st Ed had Con bonus to hit points, though it was capped to +2 for everyone except the Fighter and its subclasses (and, presumably, Cavaliers and Barbarians when EA hit). BECMI had it too, without that limit.

Negative hit points was an optional rule in 2nd Ed discussed in the DMG.

It's not only the constitution bonus having no limit, it's the rolling for hit points past 9th level that makes characters have many more hit points.

 

[delericho]

It's not only the constitution bonus having no limit, it's the rolling for hit points past 9th level that makes characters have many more hit points.

True, but in 3e (and at high levels), that's the least of your problems - by then the spellcasters are probably dominating the game quite handily, so any slight mitigation in favour of the warriors is actually a good thing.

 

[amerigoV]

For me, "first edition feel" hearkens back to a more free-wheeling game where anything was possible. The rules were a mess but the games were fun and it was always at its best when someone said "I want to do this" and the DM thought a moment and said "roll x, and you want at least a y to succeed." There was no point in looking it up in the book because it was either not covered, covered in some obscure place, or covered in a way no one liked (pummel/grapple rules).

If you had a good DM, it was great. If you had a bad one, the rules could really make it worse (and thus the excessive crunch in 3x to save us from ourselves).

To a degree, I thought it was nostalgia when I look back to those days. But my group rediscovered that wonder with Savage Worlds. Same feeling with a more coherent framework. I have not played 5e, but at a light read of the 5e Basic rules it certainly might be able to generate that feeling (lighter and quicker with stronger framework).

 

[gamerprinter]

But where I start to have a problem is with statements like:

I don't ever want to see anything 1e again...

That's where it goes from "not for me" to "and you can't have it either."

It is, of course, quite likely I've read more into that statement than was intended.

The key word in my statement is bolded "I". If I were to suggest nobody should get something (and that would rather presumptious) I would have stated "nobody should" instead of "I don't". I'd say you're reading way too much into it. In anything I post, there is nothing ever "between the lines". If its not plainly stated, it hasn't been stated.

 

[delericho]

The key word in my statement is bolded "I".

My mistake - I thought it was the "see".

I'd say you're reading way too much into it.

Fair enough.

 

[gamerprinter]

Honestly, I never go to game stores anymore (haven't in almost 5 years), nor do I go shopping much at all. I only create Kickstarter projects, I never look to Kickstarter for any other reason, so I never look at what other KS projects are out there (I generally don't care enough to look). I've never visited WotC's website. I never look at online ads - banners or otherwise. So the only place I'm going to "see" a new game is in an RPG forum thread titled with an introduction of such a game. If I choose not to look at such a thread, then indeed "I won't be able to 'see' it." If you're looking or "not looking" the same as I, there's no way to "see" it. So what obstructs my perspective cannot possibly affect how others do.

All my game purchases in the last 7 years, was following reading a forum thread about some product on ENWorld or the Paizo boards that somehow intrigued me. Also since I am a freelancer for Rite Publishing, everything Rite releases (even the many products I have no part in), I get a free copy. Also many publications that have my cartography featured in them, is usually sent by the publisher (at least in PDF form) as a bonus to payment - including The Empty Throne module of the Paizo Publishing Jade Regent AP (I don't have the rest of the modules, since I would never buy them). So the majority of RPG products I've obtained in the last few years, cost me nothing. That said, I've purchased at least $100 in game material last year alone.