"First Edition Feel"

[Joshua Randall]

A natalie portman statue is here, covered in hot grits.
>

> grope statue

 

[Gentlegamer]

A very very fine reference! }

*bows*

 

[Breakdaddy]

> grope statue

I beat zork in only 65 hours!!!! THE GRUE BE DAMNED!!!!

 

[TheGM]

I believe that (by default) 1E appealed more to role-players and left people who cared more about solid, consistent rules out.

I further believe that (by default) 3E appeals more to rules-oriented folks and leaves people who prefer role-playing out. When you have a die roll for "Knowledge - Religion", it does kind of dampen the role-playing aspect.

Now, mix the two in a 3E game, and the guy who argues for rules is going to spoil everyone else's fun.

Could the problems with 3E be gotten around? I like to think so. The only one my long-term players still complain about is "A twenty is a Crit, not a threat!" But we do limit who can do what, and there is no "take a level of X", you spend time - years for some classes - to learn how to be something other than you started as, and that whole time your party is adventuring and getting more powerful, so there's not a ton of multi-classing going on in my games.

When we get a rules-oriented player in the group it takes them a while to understand that min/maxing your character and trying to push the edge of the rules through cross-referencing is frowned upon by the rest of the group. Some things that I'm just like "yeah, he's trying to get an edge", some of my players have blown up about - so it really is the group.

But I focus on being a fair and consistent GM, so eventually they "get it".

Though there is a small amount of nostalgia involved for some people too, methinks.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Have to? So there's a rule now that I have to take a PrC?

No, but if you want one, you have to decide at first level.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

For me, I liked the balls to the walls play style of many 1E modules where it was see a monster, kill a monster, and take his stuff.

Can be fun. Can be done in 3e. You don't even need much for that. The DM just breaks out the monster manual, opens it, and gives you a monster.

That just goes to show the gap between the two points of view. Most people who don't like D&D see the 3.o/3.5 rules as an excuse to power game.

So why don't we just agree that it has nothing to do with power gaming? Both can be used to do good roleplaying, both can be abused to do powergaming.

I've seen instances in my own games and countless instances in stories on these boards about the scorn one would receive from trying to disarm someone without the feat

That's not the problem of the rules, though. It's the problem of some problem players. Actually, I don't see stuff like that here often.

Sure, if someone comes along and says "I want to have a warrior/martial artist who does more than just hack at the enemy, but tries to gain the advantage, I would say "do stuff like disarming, tripping, sundering weapons. Get the feats for that to be better at it". He'll have a good run for these feats as he'll use these maneuvers very often, and it makes sense that he has experience/training in these tactics. But I won't jump at a guy who will try to disarm someone without having the feat or something.

Not for things that the character should just be able to do naturally.

See improved disarm: Everyone can try it. But those who are trained in the trick (who have the feat) are better at it.

Such as power attack, anyone can choke up on a weapon and swing extra hard. Having a feat for it is just extra white noise no game needs.

This is one of the few instances where the new dogma hasn't arrived yet (others are weapon finesse, trapfinding and Track). But seeing that earlier editions (AFAIK) did not even offer the option to sacrifice accuracy for damage potential, it is a step forward (And 4e will probably make power attack available for everyone, maybe weaker than now, and have an improved power attack feat.

they just want to get their mission...and GO. That doesn't mean they don't roleplay...just that they want the "Good Parts" version of the Princess Bri.....err, I mean D&D.

Personally, I cannot stand dungeon crawl after dungeon crawl, but that's a matter of preference. The fact is that this old "mission design" is possible in D&D, and quite easy. I don't think that it's just that.

I mean, if you want to do a kick-in-the-door style campaign, you just do it. Make cha dump stat, just pick some skills (and max'em out), get the attack spells and go. As easy as that.

 

[Psion]

There are at least two new game systems that claim something along the lines of "a 1st-Edition feel". There are some folks who house rule D&D [current edition] to give their campaign an AD&D1 feel.

My question:

Why not just play AD&D1?

There is a difference between first edition rules and first edition adventure design philosophy.

Of course, I've pointed out before that even as far as adventure design philosophy goes, my first edition feel seems to be different from some others. And there were different feels in 1e. I'll take D1-3. You can keep white plume mountain and tomb of horrors.

 

[Kanegrundar]

Can be fun. Can be done in 3e. You don't even need much for that. The DM just breaks out the monster manual, opens it, and gives you a monster.

Sure you can, I didn't mean to insinuate otherwise. It just seems like the settings, and even the PHB, in 3E are geared a bit more towards a grander scope of game. Granted, I likely feel that way becasue that's the way gaming has been headed for a long time now. Modules and settings are written with solid plotlines with far-reaching implications and plenty of intrigue mixed in with all the combat. Gone are the days of the 50 orcs piled into 10 ft x 10 ft room. It's that old sense of heroic wonderment that many felt when they first played that some miss. Maybe it's just wanting to get back to the days where the storyline was "there's a dragon terrorizing the village, go kill it!" kind of stories that fuel that fire. Either way, it's fun to sort of vacation in, but overall I like the complexities that current settings and modules display these days. Sometimes, though, I just want to kill, XP, loot, repeat!!!

Kane

 

[Kae'Yoss]

It's that old sense of heroic wonderment that many felt when they first played that some miss.

That's the problem. It's the old sense. Sure, some miss it. But you will never get that back completely. Not without getting your memories wiped or something. It's good old nostalgia. I know the thing. Sometimes I remember something I played or saw when I was younger. Usually, a frenzy follows when I look for the stuff. Then I play it. Then I think "this sucks."

Sometimes, though, I just want to kill, XP, loot, repeat!!!

Than by all means do so. I'm sure that the rest will join in for a one-shot. You can even keep the characters and do it again a couple of weeks later.

 

[francisca]

I do play and DM 1e. I also ran a 3.x game for 3+ years, have played in the RPGA recently, and am playing in a 3.5 DL compaign.

And let me tell you, I play 1e differently today than when I was 13. It's a better game when you are older and more experienced in this thing called life. In my current groups, it's not about pumping your stats to 25 and collecting the ears from all of the divinities listed in Dieties and Demigods, as some would have you believe. Not that it ever was for my groups, back in the 80s. That's never been my idea of "1st edition feel".

However, there was a definite lack of maturity back then, compared to the games I play in and run today. It has much more to do with the attitude and aptitude of the participants than the edition, in my experience.

Looking back at my experience last year with the RPGA, I'd say Living Greyhawk under 3.5 has much more of a "get phat l00t" Monty Haul feel to them than my current 1e games.

That's my experience, anyway.