"First Edition Feel"

[francisca]

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.

I'll second that.

 

[Kanegrundar]

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."




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.

I could never really go back and play those first couple of sessions all over again. Marching my fighters into a lizardman den one by one until they were dead and then doing the same with my druid...fun then, but it would suck rocks now. However, I could get that feel of free and easy gaming every now and then. I can do it right of the box, but it's cool to pick up a rulebook or module that has that vibe in mind.

My one-offs tend to be wacky and wild! Just so you're warned...

Kane

 

[Mark Chance]

Again, i could also argue that the cost of complexity in having the extended rules and the fact that many of them can't be peformed without purchasing the right to do it (power attacks, grappling feats, charging related feats, disarming feats, two weaping fighting) may just not be worth it. DM fiat can quite often be more liberating for a player than a tome of rules.

Player: I do this
DM: Can't, you don't have the feat.
Player: Huh? Okay, i do this.
DM: Can't, you don't have this class ability.
Player: Well what the heck can i do?
DM: Refocus?

Amen to that. I actually had to listen to a DM-player argument that went something like this:

DM: You see a group of orcs near the woodline.
Player: Have they seen us?
DM: Not that you can tell.
Player: How far away are they?
DM: Do you have any skill points in Range Estimation?
(Editorial Note: No, I'm not making this up.)
Player: What?
DM: Range Estimation. It's a new skill.
Player: No, I don't have any skill points in Range Estimation.
DM: Then you can't tell how far away the orcs are.
Player: Why not?
DM: Because you don't have any skill point in range estimation.
Player: So?

Et cetera, et cetera.

 

[Kanegrundar]

Wow. I have not seen or heard anyone taking the skills to such a level.

Heck, in my game I took out non-combat oriented in lieu of allowing players to roleplay any skill they would have had based on how their background was fleshed out.

Kane

 

[Quasqueton]

It's sad when you have to use completely bogus examples to insult a game.

It's also very pathetic that the D&D [current edition] bashers can't participate in a conversation without throwing down their edition wars gauntlet.

Quasqueton

 

[JohnSnow]

DM: You see a group of orcs near the woodline.
Player: Have they seen us?
DM: Not that you can tell.
Player: How far away are they?
DM: Do you have any skill points in Range Estimation?
(Editorial Note: No, I'm not making this up.)
Player: What?
DM: Range Estimation. It's a new skill.
Player: No, I don't have any skill points in Range Estimation.
DM: Then you can't tell how far away the orcs are.
Player: Why not?
DM: Because you don't have any skill point in range estimation.
Player: So?

And that, boys and girls, is why it's dangerous to houserule in extra skills...:\

I'm going to post the same comment here I posted in the Dancey thread, cuz I think it's relevant.

I REALLY wanted to like Castles & Crusades, because the prep time for 3e is daunting for me as well, and I sort of miss that "1st Edition Feel." However, as both a player and a DM, I find C&C to be "incomplete." I guess this comes down to personality types. I prefer giving detailed descriptions of things that I know about. Let me make the point by way of an example.

As an improv actor at the Ren Faire, I have to "extemporize" things ALL the time. If I have to make something up out of whole cloth, I stink at it. But give me something to hang my creativity on and I can be really creative. I grant this is just me. I have friends who are perfectly good at coming up with bits out of thin air. Not all of them are as good at incorporating new things as I am, but that's why we work well together.

For me and my form of creativity, the 3e rules provide the "hooks" I need for MY form of creativity. By contrast, the C&C (and 1e AD&D) ones fall short. However, I'm terribly frustrated by all the "balancing" and "stacking" issues - I've mentioned I hate the 3e magic system, right?

That's why I'm looking forward to Iron Heroes. I know Mearls has addressed the spell system and "magic items as power-ups" issues. The Feat Mastery System and the skill groups should make feat and skill selection a lot more straight-forward. And some of the things he's added to the game are about giving people (both players and GMs) more "hooks" of the kind I like to have. That all sounds like it will really appeal to me. Of course, for those who prefer making things up with less guidance, it's probably not the system for them.

So that's what it really comes down to - personal preference. Some of us like extra rules to spark our creativity, and others find those rules inhibiting. Now I don't know why people can't just ignore rules they don't like, but that may be me. Maybe the issue is that too many of the 3e rules seem "central" to the system, so people feel uneasy about taking them out. If there's a message there for the 4e design team, it appears to be "give us more 'behind the curtain' blurbs so we know what effect our changes will have on the game." The release of Unearthed Arcana was a real good step in this direction, IMO. For example, tell us what effect removing skills has on the power of rogues in the game, or what effect giving characters max ranks in all their class skills has, and so forth.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[Von Ether]

Amen to that. I actually had to listen to a DM-player argument that went something like this:

DM: You see a group of orcs near the woodline.
Player: Have they seen us?
DM: Not that you can tell.
Player: How far away are they?
DM: Do you have any skill points in Range Estimation?
(Editorial Note: No, I'm not making this up.)
Player: What?
DM: Range Estimation. It's a new skill.
Player: No, I don't have any skill points in Range Estimation.
DM: Then you can't tell how far away the orcs are.
Player: Why not?
DM: Because you don't have any skill point in range estimation.
Player: So?

Et cetera, et cetera.

... Sounds more like GM trying to say "no" by hidding behind the rules to me.Couldn't of the DM say the same thing with a "new" weapon nonprofiency?

Regardless, in two sessions I had the best and worst of "1st edition" feel ... while using the 3e rules even.

1st Session: We could use core book only and only humans. We had PCs whipped up in 20 minutes. The cool 3e twist is that we had several Fighters and none of them were duplicates. One was a damage dealer, another one a damage sponge and another was the flanker. Having a paladin and rogue with us made it all the better.
The game was quick and fun with us almost dying in a kobold arsonist trap and following him into his cave lair

2nd Session: Turned out the lair was a whole clan of Kobolds who made tunnels with murder holes. If we refused to go down a hallway, they'd poke us with sticks until we went down every room in the dungeon.

The climax was us taking on a band of elves for the gladitoral amusement of the kobolds who watched us behind a *glass* wall. We declined the GM's next invite.

 

[Quasqueton]

Player: I do this
DM: Can't, you don't have the feat.
Player: Huh? Okay, i do this.
DM: Can't, you don't have this class ability.
Player: Well what the heck can i do?
DM: Refocus?

D&D [current edition]
Player: I disarm him.
DM: OK, he takes an attack of opportunity. <rolls> He misses. Let's make opposed attack rolls.

Versus

AD&D1
Player: I disarm him.
DM: Can't, you aren't using a bastard sword.
Player: Huh? Okay, I grapple him.
DM: <groans> Oh, come on, I don't want to have to deal with those rules.
Player: Well what the heck can I do?
DM: Attack him.

Quasqueton

 

[Von Ether]

Now I don't know why people can't just ignore rules they don't like, but that may be me.
But that's just my opinion.

Perhaps becuse it's not just the GM. I know some GM's that can't say "no" when a player brings up a rule. Of course nine times out of 10, the player has an agenda when they bring up a rule that could be optional.

I also know people who can't say no to any PrCs brought to the table. Some GMs feel better about making adjustments on the fly if they know there isn't a potential rule floating out there to contradict them, especialy if their players are the types to press for rules that favor them.

I don't want to cast stones, but isn't the sterotype of hobby focused on passive/agressive personalities.

GM: "Uh, yeah. I guess we can go with that rule PC Bob, you've only been ranting about it for an hour. .... Oh look PC Bob, you just missed your 'Spot' check. I guess that means you 'll fall into that trap with poison and take 3d6 Con damage. Would you care to look up a rule on that too?"

 

[Mark Chance]

... Sounds more like GM trying to say "no" by hidding behind the rules to me.Couldn't of the DM say the same thing with a "new" weapon nonprofiency?

Certainly, which only further reinforces the point that additional rules sets sometimes restrict the game in ways that defy common sense and work to constrain player and DM creativity.

I've played OD&D, 1E, 2E, 3E, and 3.5. 3.5 is a superior game mechanically speaking. There is, however, nothing in it that makes it an inherently better role-playing game. IME, the emphasis on video-game-esque power-ups (feat chains, 5 skill points in the right place to get that synergy bonus, mechanics selections to quality for this or that PrC, et cetera) actually put 3.5 in the comparatively inferior column as a role-playing game.

AD&D1
Player: I disarm him.
DM: Can't, you aren't using a bastard sword.

There was no rule in 1E that said one had to be armed with a bastard sword to disarm an opponent.