First Edition Feel: Why Is This a Good Thing?

[Henry]

The opposite is in fact true. AD&D was thoroughly playtested. What is true is that 1e was thoroughly untheorycrafted.

I have to agree, based on the words of Mike Mornard (one of Gygax's and Kuntz's players and contributors from the 70s) From RPGNet regarding the creation of the monk class: "We made up **** we thought would be fun after watching the TV show Kung Fu", not because they needed a fast moving Striker/DPS with an Asian theme.

However, in regard to playtesting, the 70s saw according to eyewitnesses weekly or sometimes daily playtesting from dozens of groups for months. No, it wasn't thousands of groups, but in the 1970s there weren't thousands of groups, nor an internet with which to coordinate, and both the rulebase and needs were less complex.

I generally prefer later editions, but some misconceptions about the earlier games deserve to be dispelled for the record, and both lack of playtesting and capability for fun are two.

 

[delericho]

It's true. I think, though, that we've reached a point in gaming culture where "1st Edition" is a catch all term for all D&D before 2nd Edition AD&D. I don't think most people know the difference between the various early versions.

Certainly, when referencing "First Edition Feel" there's some truth in this - quite often the adventures that will be referenced may be for editions other than AD&D1, with B2 probably being the most common of these.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I have to agree, based on the words of Mike Mornard (one of Gygax's and Kuntz's players and contributors from the 70s) From RPGNet regarding the creation of the monk class: "We made up **** we thought would be fun after watching the TV show Kung Fu", not because they needed a fast moving Striker/DPS with an Asian theme.

However, in regard to playtesting, the 70s saw according to eyewitnesses weekly or sometimes daily playtesting from dozens of groups for months. No, it wasn't thousands of groups, but in the 1970s there weren't thousands of groups, nor an internet with which to coordinate, and both the rulebase and needs were less complex.

I generally prefer later editions, but some misconceptions about the earlier games deserve to be dispelled for the record, and both lack of playtesting and capability for fun are two.

Indeed. Misconceptions are worth clearing up. Which is why I'm going to clear up one of yours.

4e and 1e used the same approach to design until Mike Mearls took over (and handed the lead to Pathfinder). If you read the 4e PHB you find two martial strikers and no martial controllers - indeed there was never a martial controller until Essentials. Each role in 4e was a collection of benchmarks of roughly how able someone should be if covering that spot in the party. And although a missing power/source combination acted as inspiration, there was never a need to fill holes. Which is why the Martial Controller was conspicuously absent until Mearls took over - and there was double duty in Martial Striker (Ranger/Rogue) and Arcane Leader (Bard/Artificer) even before the PHB3. It was just that when you designed a new class you tried comparing it to the benchmarks.

Now. Where does this fit with oD&D and 1E?

oD&D has class design also based on benchmarks of the Core 4. And indeed we can see this very clearly if we look at the 1E Monk. The benchmark class is, of course, the Thief just as the Druid's is the Cleric. How can we see this? First ignore everything after level 10 and the wandering around duelling - that's an endgame and part of an almost completely different game entirely. The Monk attacks on the same table as the thief. They have all thief abilities except Read Languages and Pick Pockets of a thief of the same level. They then have a similar number of HP to the thief; the thief gets d6hp/level - the monk gets d4/level and an extra d4. Pretty close. The thief gets extra damage from backstabbery 1/combat. The thief has terrible armour that's expected to go up to Elven Chain. The monk's is worse - no armour and a tiny AC bonus. Yes, the Monk gets additional abilities on top of this - but they get hit hard in the XP chart to compensate.

In short, the reason the monk was designed was because they thought it would be fun after watching the TV show Kung Fu. But the method used to design it was by taking one of the core four classes (the Thief) and tweaking it so you had another class able to fill the role the thief did. (This was a part of good game design that mid-2e lost when they came out with speciality priests without such basic benchmarks and was only brought back by 4e that made the benchmarks separate from the classes, and called them roles). The Balrog Mike Mornard played in oD&D was also designed by taking a class (the fighter IIRC) and tweaking it to make it Balroggy.

 

[SirAntoine]

There was nothing negative about 1st Edition in my opinion. The game was a work of art.