D&D 1E [For ORCUS] Convince me that I can "do 1E" with 4E

[Orcus]

That is an excellent question.

1E feel, in my view, comes from a number of things. A reverence for the classic style of design and elements of design. Certain monsters. Adventures that lend themselves to a certain style. Its hard to put your finger on "first edition feel," but as I have said before its the cover of the DMG, its demons and devils, its artifacts, its howard and tolkien and leiber, its tomb of horrors and the glacial rift of the frost giant.

Like the old definition of pornography, you know it when you see it.

Yes, the rules have something to do with the feel. But I am in control of that. First, I can change stuff if WotC screws it up. Succubii and erynes are the same monster? Uh, you can probably count on us doing them right in our Tome of Horrors. If they mess up demons and devils, we will fix it. Second, it is what you use in the rules. Like Casey's example of me and Monte, sure the rules might allow for legions of double-bladed sword wielding mages, that is probably stuff that you arent going to see from us.

We made the same promise for 3E and we delivered. I'm sure we can do the same for 4E.

But I guess in the end you all will have to judge.

Clark

 

[Reynard]

So what exactly is 1e feel vs. 1e mechanics...I'm just curious about how to define the difference.

First off, they are not entirely distinct. The elements feed one another. Rules of a certain sort push toward a certain playstyle, and a certain playstyle informs design. On top of those things, there's the issue of tone -- gritty dark ages sword and sorvery in 1E, high fantasy renaissance in 2E, and high octane action movie fantasy in 3e (to be extremely general about it, but I think you get my meaning).

It is certainly possible to play a dungeon that is designed in the 1E style in 3E, but that doesn't mean the experience, the feel is going to be the same. As Valiant said, there's the issue of the characters themselves. 3E characters are not tied to archetypes the same way 1E ones were; their capabilities and diversity of skill and ability is entirely different; their power level is different, as are their resources and resource maangement. Saving throws are different; traps are different; monsters are different. All these things combine to create an experience that, while fun and informed by the 1E style, isn't 1E.

I asked the original question not with the idea that Necromancer would make 4E just like 1E, but with the hope that Necromancer had a plan to deal with the decidedly not-1E aspects of 4E we've heard about -- per-encounter resources, the end of save-or-die, even more high octane abilities, dungeons designed as arenas instead of exploratory environments -- that make the game still fun (and therefore worth buying) for a guy like me who thinks the pinnacle of fun in D&D is the 1E/"old school" playstyle. partly because I want to like 4E, and partly because it will be a lot easier to keep playing with (and running the game for) the people I play with now -- my friends.

 

[Reynard]

That is an excellent question.

1E feel, in my view, comes from a number of things. A reverence for the classic style of design and elements of design. Certain monsters. Adventures that lend themselves to a certain style. Its hard to put your finger on "first edition feel," but as I have said before its the cover of the DMG, its demons and devils, its artifacts, its howard and tolkien and leiber, its tomb of horrors and the glacial rift of the frost giant.

Like the old definition of pornography, you know it when you see it.

Yes, the rules have something to do with the feel. But I am in control of that. First, I can change stuff if WotC screws it up. Succubii and erynes are the same monster? Uh, you can probably count on us doing them right in our Tome of Horrors. If they mess up demons and devils, we will fix it. Second, it is what you use in the rules. Like Casey's example of me and Monte, sure the rules might allow for legions of double-bladed sword wielding mages, that is probably stuff that you arent going to see from us.

We made the same promise for 3E and we delivered. I'm sure we can do the same for 4E.

But I guess in the end you all will have to judge.

Clark

You posted while I was replying to another.

I just wanted to thank you for answering.

I hold a little hope, yet.

to reward you, I think I'll buy some necromancer modules to run for my 3E group between now and 4e. What do you suggest?

 

[Orcus]

I am not suggesting going back and playing 1E. Frankly, 3E made so many great advances in how our game is played, going back doesnt make much sense. Shure we can make more advances and maybe some of the things in 3E were overly complicated or need to be changed. 3E to me is more fun. It lets me do more. It added things that I was already house ruling into my campaign (in fact, it didnt go far enough in some areas in my opinion).

The system doesnt create the right gameplay. You can have a cheesy campaign using the 1E rules (look at most of the 2E stuff, its all really still 1E; the difference from 1 to 2 is not that great, mostly cosmetic).

We are all about the OD&D mystery and mythology and feel and style. That is what we do, and we can do it with any system (unless they totally change the game to another game, which they are not doing).

Clark

 

[JamesM]

I asked the original question not with the idea that Necromancer would make 4E just like 1E, but with the hope that Necromancer had a plan to deal with the decidedly not-1E aspects of 4E we've heard about -- per-encounter resources, the end of save-or-die, even more high octane abilities, dungeons designed as arenas instead of exploratory environments -- that make the game still fun (and therefore worth buying) for a guy like me who thinks the pinnacle of fun in D&D is the 1E/"old school" playstyle. partly because I want to like 4E, and partly because it will be a lot easier to keep playing with (and running the game for) the people I play with now -- my friends.

These are the things that most worry me as well. When all is said and done, the fluff and chrome, however much I dislike it and see it as an abandonment of 30 years of shared story, can be easily fixed. But the rules and the playstyle they encourage, that's not so easily changed. 4E, from what we have seen so far, looks like it'll have a very different feel to it mechanically and, while I wish Mr. Peterson and others all the success in the world in finding ways to overcome the hurdles the new rules create for fostering a 1E feel, I think it'll be an uphill battle (and perhaps a Quixotic one).

 

[Orcus]

Reynard, if you really want some old school Necro fun, go download Wizard's Amulet and then buy the PDFs of Crucible of Freya and Tomb of Abysthor and Bard's Gate. That should get you going. Of course, I'd also check out Rappan Athuk Reloaded, Demons and Devils and Vault of Larin Karr. But, if you really want 1E feel, you gotta go get our City of Brass boxed set. It may be the most 1E thing ever. Seriously. The guys on Cannonfire are loving it. That is when you know you have done it right

Clark

 

[Pbartender]

The system does matter greatly. If you were to play any of the TSR early 1E classic modules using 3E the experiance would not be the same. I mean, the characters are completely different for starters, never mind the combat rules.

Actually, I few years back, I based a campaign on just this premise... The entire campaign consisted of old OD&D, BD&D and 1ed ed. AD&D adventure modules which I converted straight up to D&D 3.5.

It was a blast. There were a lot of points where either I or the players had to change up our usual tactics, because the encounter was considerably outside the usual CR range (either above or below) for characters of their level. Sometimes they kicked ass, sometimes they ran away, often they came close to death, and once or twice a character died.

All in all, the adventures ended up running just as well, if not better, converted to 3.5 than they did when I originally ran them almost 20 years ago. The experience was different, but not because the rules were different... It was because I'd grown up and now have all those years of gaming experience under my belt.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Yes, the rules have something to do with the feel. But I am in control of that. First, I can change stuff if WotC screws it up. Succubii and erynes are the same monster? Uh, you can probably count on us doing them right in our Tome of Horrors.

You just sold yourself a Tome.

...you know, assuming it gets written, and all.

 

[Cam Banks]

But wait!

"Succubii" would be the plural of "succubius!"

I don't think anybody has ever been able to top the illustration of the 1st edition MM succubus, either. I still remember a kid in my class at school getting in enormous amounts of trouble for all the naked boobage in his D&D books. There's a 1st edition element for you.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Treebore]

When you get down to it, there is really no way for any new system to truely capture the feel of first edition. The reason for this is because there is no way for any new system to turn back the clock and make you 14 years old again.

Regardless of how old you actually were when you played it, or even how long ago it was, there is no way to get around the fact that the first time you see something new, it will always seem much more special to you.

your right, you can't completely recapture that experience, but you can get close. With my switching to C&C, and pulling house rules from every edition of D&D, and rereading all of those rule books, I've gotten so close to recapture that feeling its made me giddy upon occassion.

So its possible, just a question of how to go about getting it. I didn't have to go back to playing 1E, but apparently close enough that I am as excited about gaming as I was back in my early days.

How can Necromancer catch that 1E feel in 4E? Pretty much the same way they have in 3E. Cool, tough, deadly adventures that make you feel like one lucky SOB to still be alive and want to brag about it.

Just because WOTC is whimpifying D&D doesn't mean every DM has too. "Deadly" can definitely be put back in.

Heck, next month I am running I6 Ravenloft on line for 3 groups of 6 players, 3 games a week. Not only am I jazzed up about it, but so are the players. They are all trying to figure out how to be the first group to ever live through I6, let alone defeat Strahd. I have run I6 ten or so times over the years, and no one has beaten Strahd, and only one character got out alive. 73 PC's have died in Ravenloft Castle, and you can be certain if anyone does win, they'll have every right to brag. Even I will be excited if Strahd is finally beaten.

This is what the "1E feel" is all about to me.