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

[pemerton]

The more robust skill & feat systems of 3.x is an advance for traditional simulation as well as for a game where players just optimize their characters for encounters.

<snip>

It’s certainly possible to play a less meta-gamed and more simulation/‘being there’ game in 3.x where character progression is more organic and molded to what’s going on in the game world.

Sure. In this respect 3E brings D&D closer to games like RQ and RM. But that is still (in my view) quite a way away from 1st ed.

If a player says his character turns over the plate that the DM has decided has a map stuck to it does that character need to make a Search check to find it? A matter of group style I suppose.

The plate example is interesting - one way I handle that sort of case when GMing RM is to only mention a certain detail to those players whose characters succeed on a Perception skill check. But of course, if a player asks whether there is a plate in the room, and then decides to have her character look under it, no Perception roll is required. So the simulationist deployment of the mechanics has its limits.

You don’t have to go out to space to include traps and puzzles in your game that require a bit of player planning before they start making rolls.

Agreed. But just as an example of the sort of issue I had in mind, that came up in a recent RM game: the players were planning an assault on a guardpost, and one of the PCs has ranks in Tactics (Siege Engineering & Fortifications). That aspect of the character build tells us that his PC should be able to plan the assault better than the player in fact is able to. As a GM, I decided to give him an indication of the number of guards such a post would typically contain, and some ideas as to a probable layout - the players then took those things into account in their planning.

My view is that the more those aspects of character build rules (and action resolution rules, where appropriate - RM has very underdeveloped action resolution rules for knowledge skills) come into play, the less the game has a 1st ed feel, because the character and the character's abilities are defined more by what the numbers on the sheet say, and less by what the player actually does with the character in play.

 

[Delta]

THAC0 in 2e was a direct calculation from the hit charts from 1e, while 3e's BAB and flipped AC is a significant departure, and the d20 mechanic itself is a big change from 2e, which in general only contained slight adjustments of 1e's mechanics.

I certainly don't have time or interest to debate point-for-point, and I can see quite a few of your "from memory" recollections which are mistaken. If you think that my friends and I are all hallucinating over why we skipped 2E, came back to 3E, and skipped 3.5, so be it.

I'll just reiterate, as an example, that the d20 mechanic is mathematically equivalent to 1E attack rolls and resolutions (just as it presented them in table or THACO form in different parts of the 1E DMG), and therefore doesn't change the actual outcomes of the game much at all. Scratched into my 1E DMG I had a note to add hits up instead of down, long before 3E came out. It's 4E where the designers have specifically said they want to change all the actual math/probabilities involved.

 

[Dacileva]

I certainly don't have time or interest to debate point-for-point

Can you provide examples of instances where 3e is closer to 1e than to 2e, or than 2e is to 1e? Without refuting any of my comments about your points, the statement that '3E swung it back very close to the central edition nigh-1E' becomes unsupported.

I'll just reiterate, as an example, that the d20 mechanic is mathematically equivalent to 1E attack rolls and resolutions

So was 2e. In fact, 2e's attack roll and resolution mechanics were nearly identical to 1e's. While 3e is mathematically equivalent, it isn't nearly identical the way 1e/2e were.

Scratched into my 1E DMG I had a note to add hits up instead of down, long before 3E came out.

This is a good, logical and intelligent house rule (small wonder that it became the core of 3e). There were those that house ruled it that way in 2e, too. This doesn't make 3e more like 1e.

It's 4E where the designers have specifically said they want to change all the actual math/probabilities involved.

The quotes I've seen include things like "this is still a d20 game and game system." (quoted from the GenCon 4e Q&A session)

I've seen no quotes where the designers specifically said they want to change all the actual math/probabilities involved.

 

[Delta]

Like I say, my friends and I skipped 2E, came back to 3E because it felt more like the original game to us, and skipped 3.5. I'll let you interpret that however you need to.

 

[RFisher]

I've seen AD&D played in 3e style, so I don't doubt that 4e can be played in 1e style.

3e was no surprise to me. (Well, maybe I was surprised that it actually happened, but I wasn't surprised by what it was.) It is a natural result of the style that some people applied to AD&D. It's the same style that resulted in the many other systems that began as AD&D house rules but developed into things quite different. (& then came back to influence 3e.) 3e style has been around since the 1e era.

But when I learned more about how the people who never abandoned AD&D play, I've discovered that there is a 1e style that I only partially--barely--understood before.

You can apply any style to any set of rules. It makes sense, however, to try to pick the combinations that fit best.

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

& that's the crux of it. For you, 1e feel & 3e rules were a good fit because your idea of "1e feel" & your idea of "3e rules" were a good fit. I've no doubt that somebody around here has a conception of "3e rules" as different from yours as another's conception of "1e feel" is different from yours.

Necromancer is going to produce "Clark's idea of 1e feel with Clark's idea of 4e rules". And I wouldn't want you to do otherwise, because you don't create great products by shooting at someone else's target. As you say, it'll be for us to determine how much those products match up with our own preferences & whether they're worth the price of admission.

 

[pemerton]

I've seen no quotes where the designers specifically said they want to change all the actual math/probabilities involved.

I tend to agree with you about the closeness of (core) 2nd ed mechanics to 1st ed, and think that 3E, with its emphasis on character build and action resolution, is a significant departure. (In tone, however, I get the sense that 2nd ed was quite different.)

But as to the issue of maths, James Wyatt (and maybe others) have made it clear that 4e will aim to extend the so-called "sweet spot", by generalising the mathematical properties of those levels (approximately 4th to 12th, I think) to all levels.

 

[Dacileva]

But as to the issue of maths, James Wyatt (and maybe others) have made it clear that 4e will aim to extend the so-called "sweet spot", by generalising the mathematical properties of those levels (approximately 4th to 12th, I think) to all levels.

I recall that quote, but it's still pretty much entirely vague about any actual method of doing so.

In any case, using how the math/probabilities work for a span that, in the prior edition, consisted of 40% of normal advancement, and extrapolating that to a broader span of the game, isn't "changing all the probabilities" by any means.

It just seems that the language used by a majority of the anti-4e posts I've read over the past month has been alarmist and highly exaggerated to an extent I haven't seen since...

Well, okay, since the launch of 3.5.

And since the 3.0 launch before that.

And since 2.5's launch (on a smaller scale, given the smaller internet audience at the time).

...

Okay, so maybe I should have expected it.

 

[see]

Hmm. Imagine 1e as Carrie Fisher. Imagine 2e as Gilbert Godfrey. Imagine 3e as a succubus that has assumed the appearance of Natalie Portman.

1e & 2e, in actual mechanics, are much more similar to each other than either is to 3e, in the same way that Carrie Fisher and Gilbert Godfrey are both biological humans. But if you're putting together a movie that needs a "young Carrie Fisher", the succubus is going to fit the role a lot better than Gilbert Godfrey.

2e eliminated barbarians, monks, assassins, half-orcs, demons, and devils. Guess what 3e brought back?

 

[Creeping Death]

That is an excellent question.

*snip*

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.

*snip*

Clark

I love you

 

[Desdichado]

That seems like an odd request. None of us know enough about 4e to make that call yet.