"First Edition Feel"

[JohnSnow]

You can do such a thing without sending out "ripple effects" throughout the system and upsetting other rules and procedures.

A game where "balance" is a nebulous concept solely under the control of the Dungeon Master doesn't have ripple effects on balance because it wasn't particularly well-balanced in the first place.

AD&D was a fine game to play as long as this didn't bother you, but arguing that it was well-balanced is...well...I really have nothing to say to that...

And if you could put up with the imbalance in AD&D, why does it bother you in 3e? Just curious.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

What new gaming systems? Hackmaster and Castles and Crusades?

 

[mearls]

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 sums up my personal view rather nicely. I really prefer that style of play to games where I have to find my fun - I don't like chasing clues or being in a situation where I don't know what to do next.

I have an idea brewing to run a weekly game of D&D, starting with the 1974 white box set and progressing through the years to 3.5e. I think it would be fun to look at how the game has changed over the years and how that has altered the feel. Ideally, I'd do it over consecutive days, but I doubt I can pull that off.

The sequence would be:

White box
Blue box ('78 basic set)
1e
Red box (either '81 or '83)
2e
Rules Cyclopedia
3e/3.5e

(I know that's missing a few iterations of BD&D, but I think it hits the important points. IIRC, the changes from the '81 to '83 sets were primarily in presentation.)

I've also had a though to convince Erik to let me write a module for Dungeon in the 1e style - minimal backstory, no complex characterization or details, off the shelf monsters, 5 sentence encounters. It'd be fun, and it'd be really cool to see how people react to it.

 

[Mokona]

Perhaps because of, as Ryan Dancey says, network externalities.

 

[Napftor]

I've also had a though to convince Erik to let me write a module for Dungeon in the 1e style - minimal backstory, no complex characterization or details, off the shelf monsters, 5 sentence encounters. It'd be fun, and it'd be really cool to see how people react to it.

Make this happen. Make it happen now.

 

[francisca]

I have an idea brewing to run a weekly game of D&D, starting with the 1974 white box set and progressing through the years to 3.5e. I think it would be fun to look at how the game has changed over the years and how that has altered the feel. Ideally, I'd do it over consecutive days, but I doubt I can pull that off.

The sequence would be:

White box
Blue box ('78 basic set)
1e
Red box (either '81 or '83)
2e
Rules Cyclopedia
3e/3.5e

(I know that's missing a few iterations of BD&D, but I think it hits the important points. IIRC, the changes from the '81 to '83 sets were primarily in presentation.)

We've kicked around an "Evolution of D&D" campaign in my group as well. Dunno if it will ever happen.

Mmm.. How about at GenCon some year, a 5 session event:
Wednesday night: 74 whitebox
Thursday: Red Box basic
Friday: 1e
Saturday: 2e w/ some of the Options series, as core 2e look alot like core 1e to me
Sunday: 3.x

 

[diaglo]

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...

<laughs at Henry>

 

[Gentlegamer]

A game where "balance" is a nebulous concept solely under the control of the Dungeon Master doesn't have ripple effects on balance because it wasn't particularly well-balanced in the first place.

Balance in AD&D was not a "nebulous" concept. You really don't understand the system if you think that.

 

[diaglo]

That sums up my personal view rather nicely. I really prefer that style of play to games where I have to find my fun - I don't like chasing clues or being in a situation where I don't know what to do next.

I have an idea brewing to run a weekly game of D&D, starting with the 1974 white box set and progressing through the years to 3.5e. I think it would be fun to look at how the game has changed over the years and how that has altered the feel. Ideally, I'd do it over consecutive days, but I doubt I can pull that off.

The sequence would be:

White box
Blue box ('78 basic set)
1e
Red box (either '81 or '83)
2e
Rules Cyclopedia
3e/3.5e

(I know that's missing a few iterations of BD&D, but I think it hits the important points. IIRC, the changes from the '81 to '83 sets were primarily in presentation.)

I've also had a though to convince Erik to let me write a module for Dungeon in the 1e style - minimal backstory, no complex characterization or details, off the shelf monsters, 5 sentence encounters. It'd be fun, and it'd be really cool to see how people react to it.

hey,

i'm a referee for OD&D right now. you can read about it in the Story Hour forum. written by JoeBlank, et. al

 

[Templetroll]

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?

Quasqueton

One of my friends does. He avoided 2e and dislikes 3/3.5 for the fact that it actually set up rules for all the things he felt should be done by the DM on the fly. He prefers roleplay and feels the AoO and rolls for Spot etc interfere with that.