"First Edition Feel"

[Barendd Nobeard]

I've played half a dozen one-shots at the NC ENWorld Gamedays over the past two years, things I prior to then NEVER had the chance to play, such as 1st edition AD&D, .... as well as some things I haven't played in years, such as 1st edition AD&D (long explanation).

Tease!

What's the story here, Henry? How was 1st ed. both something you "NEVER had the chance to play" and something you "hadn't played in years?"

You time-travelling and not telling us?!

 

[Ace]

I like the health benefits of Tofu but want the flavor of a Monte Cristo plz and thanks!

Either way, I agree with this post (IAWTP!)

Monte Christo (DROOL!!!) I didn't think anyone still ate those

 

[Mark Chance]

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

and vice versa for the D&D [past editions] bashers.

For example:

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

 

[Abe.ebA]

Okay, so my post count is pretty low (bordering on non-existant) but I've been lurking for a good bit and this thread has thrown me into complete confusion. I assumed that the edition wars were because people really liked some part of the old edition rules or had a setting they loved and didn't want to convert, or conversely just hated enough of the new rules (for whatever reason) that they wouldn't play with them.

But why should 'feel' keep you in an edition? I've played the old boxes, 1e, 2e, 3.0, and 3.5 at various points over the years and I've never noticed a change in feel. The books' writing styles are different, sure, and I've noticed a lot less fluff-centric books in 3E, but that has nothing to do with the game itself's feel. If you want to run dungeon crawls, run dungeon crawls. If you want intruige and social interaction, run that. Nothing stops you from doing either in any edition.

And if it's a matter of there being too many rules... Why does it matter? If you and your players are of the mindset that you should be able to do whatever you want, I'd expect the conversation to play out like this:

Wizard PC: I grab my staff by the knob on the end and crack the orc across the back of the head as hard as I possibly can.
DM: Do you have power attack?
Wizard PC: No, I'm a wizard.
DM: Okay, if you want you can take a -2 to hit and get +1 damage.
Wizard PC: Well, I just cast truestrike last round, so can I take more than -2?
DM: Sure, I'll let you go as high as +5 if you take a -15 to hit.
Wizard PC: Alright. I close my eyes and let the magic guide me while wailing on his orcish arse.

It's not in the RAW anywhere, but so what? It wouldn't be in the RAW in 2E, 1E, or OD&D either. Why is it even a problem? It seems like people have this "I must play by Every Rule" obsession and want an edition with fewer rules. I don't get it.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Grognards everywhere may laugh at me, but when I was running a 1E AD&D game last January in the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, I resorted to 3E grapple rules when someone wanted to wrestle a hill giant -- hey, it got the job done...

That's part of the beauty of AD&D . . . you can add "modular" rules for what you don't like without disrupting the system.

 

[mmadsen]

I think they want the Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, and just like that module, they don't care about the financial basis for the village; they don't care if Saltmarsh is located on limestone and is the empire's sole source of jellyfish goo; they don't care that the innkeeper once served in the Greyhawk Wars....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.

That was excellent. Well said, WizarDru.

 

[JohnSnow]

That's part of the beauty of AD&D . . . you can add "modular" rules for what you don't like without disrupting the system.

*CHOKE*



Are you honestly suggesting that you can't disrupt AD&D? What about all those LONG notes about the DM being the final arbiter of the game? What about the warnings about "Monty Haul" campaigns? And all those comments that DMs should disallow anything they feel will disrupt the game. And the warnings to make sure all your "house rules" are consistent and fair to all classes. Unbelievable...

AD&D can't be disrupted...wow, I think I've heard everything now.

At least 3e starts out being vaguely balanced...

 

[Shemeska]

Because there are advantages to be had by taking newer rules and marrying them with some older concepts for those who liked some things about the old, but not all.

Couldn't have said it better myself. That's like me, who never played till 3e, but I adore the approach that 2e took to the game, its 'feel' and design philosophy as best typified in Planescape. I'd laugh if it was suggested that I use 2e game mechanics though. I'll take my flavor from 2nd edition, and my rules from 3rd edition and make the gaming equivalent of perfect, cybernetic death robot... of legacy. Or something like that

 

[Gentlegamer]

*Are you honestly suggesting that you can't disrupt AD&D?

AD&D, like any game, can be disrupted. I said that the beauty is that, for example, it doesn't disrupt the system by discarding the original grappling rules with something you like better, such as even d20's version of grappling. You can do such a thing without sending out "ripple effects" throughout the system and upsetting other rules and procedures.

 

[Silverleaf]

It's not in the RAW anywhere, but so what? It wouldn't be in the RAW in 2E, 1E, or OD&D either. Why is it even a problem? It seems like people have this "I must play by Every Rule" obsession and want an edition with fewer rules. I don't get it.

For me it's a matter of not having to wade through rules I don't want when I'm looking for the stuff I do want. So instead of searching through 1000 pages, I only search through 128 pages. That way it's less distrating and faster. I also very much like the fact that the B/X D&D stat blocks (for monsters and spells) are tiny enough that they can be glanced at and fully comprehended within a matter of a few seconds (at most!) without needing to actively parse the data to get the info I'm looking for.
Generally speaking, I just don't want to deal with many rules, in any way, shape or form. It's not fun for me, and if I was going to do that I'd become a lawyer so I could at least get something out of it.
BTW, your play example is how I'd typically handle the situation (except without the discussion of feats since there aren't any in Basic D&D). It's all about ad-hoc rulings, making stuff up if/when needed, and disregarding "rules" if they don't seem appropriate or will waste time or create tedium.