How did pre-3E D&D "play"?

[Jasperak]

/snip
At any rate...AD&D for me, plays like a fantasy combat simulator with very cool and immersive role-play elements provided by myself and the players to the best of our own abilities rather than having them defined by the rules. "Is the king lying?" "Let me repeat what the king said - you tell me if you think your character thinks the king is lying." versus "Is the king lying?" "Give me a sense motive roll."

Is it about the DM being an adversary? Of course! I'm the foeman, the villian, the cold, implacable universe to which there is no appealing nor call for succor. When the characters win, they've defeated a mighty opponent who tried at every turn to best them and they still won. I don't go in for "participatory storytelling".

I guess that right there defines it for me. I challenge the players characters (and therefore indirectly the players themselves) to the best of my ability. It's the way they want to game, and the way I want to game. If I lighten up and let situations slide, let them win without a real challenge...then it cheapens the whole game experience and we have less fun.

Yes to all the above. Saves me from typing near identical thoughts.

 

[RFisher]

This is always true, but I think was more so before 3E codified as much as it did.

I’m not so sure 3e really changed things. The way many people around her describe how their group plays 3e seems significantly different from how my group plays it.

 

[amnuxoll]

The basic principles are

1) Rulings, not Rules
2) Player Skill, not Character Abilities
3) Heroic, not Superhero
4) Forget “Game Balance.”

These principles really nail it for me. I played a lot of first edition AD&D in its heydey. The fundamental difference was that the quality of your game depended heavily upon who you played with (much more so than today) because the focus on rules was so much weaker. If a player tried to "power game" the players would generally use their combined social might to squash that. Also, if a DM couldn't tell a great story then you felt it a lot more than you do today. A great DM was a demigod among the gamers in that area.

When 2nd edition came out I was fine with it at first, but as the rules got more and more complex the focus of the game began to shift away from the game and toward the rules. Players spent more and more time with the PHB open on the table and reading it to figure out what they were supposed to do. I gradually lost interest and eventually just stopped playing.

When 3rd edition came out I was delighted at its relative simplicity and, more importantly, it's parsimony. 3e was also the first edition that made a solid attempt at game balance. The funny thing is that I think that had the opposite of the intended effect. Now that the rules were making an overt attempt to be fair, it became "ok" to abuse them. That is, by far, my biggest complaint about 3e.

It seems to me that 4e has corrected for that mistake. The authors did not attempt to explain everything and so, my hope is that we can return to a game where players mutually, implicitly agree not to twist the rules to maximum advantage. I would like to see us return to that mindset. (But, I admit, I really miss the multiclassing combinations that 3e allowed and would like to see that returned to the game if it can be done in the spirit of 4e. Can I have my cake and eat it too?)

:AMN:

 

[TerraDave]

I’m not so sure 3e really changed things. The way many people around her describe how their group plays 3e seems significantly different from how my group plays it.

I said "always true"....But "pre3", with its mix of different but somewhat compatible versions, large open spaces, and baroque corners all left a lot of room for interpretation. More then, well, just about any other game I know of.

There is a cycle of: new edition->fragmentation->consolidation under a new edition. Much of the fragmentation is driven by official sources, the supplements and Dragon articles for OD&D, more Dragon, and the latter hardbacks and settings for 1E, and a veritable explosion of offical suplements for 2E.

This cycle continued under 3E. (and 4E has been the reset). But 3E didn't have those open spaces, as baroque nooks and crannies, and overlapping editions (well, I guess there was 3.5). The supplements and changes, while wide ranging, seemed to be building off a tighter framework and were less ad-hoc then in the past.

But, it is always true the group makes the game. It was really just a matter of degree.

 

[RFisher]

I said "always true"....But "pre3", with its mix of different but somewhat compatible versions, large open spaces, and baroque corners all left a lot of room for interpretation. More then, well, just about any other game I know of.

There is a cycle of: new edition->fragmentation->consolidation under a new edition. Much of the fragmentation is driven by official sources, the supplements and Dragon articles for OD&D, more Dragon, and the latter hardbacks and settings for 1E, and a veritable explosion of offical suplements for 2E.

This cycle continued under 3E. (and 4E has been the reset). But 3E didn't have those open spaces, as baroque nooks and crannies, and overlapping editions (well, I guess there was 3.5). The supplements and changes, while wide ranging, seemed to be building off a tighter framework and were less ad-hoc then in the past.

I’m talking more about approach to the game than what rules we’re using. Everyone in my group has a somewhat “middle school” approach. (Not entirely “old school”, but certainly not entirely “new school”.) e.g. While 3e made it possible to take the DM out of the equation, we put him back in. We still have a lot of emphasis on player skill, not just character skill. Those sorts of things.

But, it is always true the group makes the game. It was really just a matter of degree.

Yeah.

 

[Irda Ranger]

• Buying guard dogs, henchmen and alchemist's fire instead of fighting.
• Regularly dying and being replaced by new characters.
• DM vs. Players, not DM working with players.
• Clumsy pastiche of pop culture, pulp fiction and mythology.
• Dungeon as an underworld, where every PC cannot see in the dark and every NPC can.
• Sprawling, nonsensical mega-dungeons.
• Wilderness adventures.

Eh. The above are play styles. They're not limited to AD&D and OD&D. I like "Wilderness adventures" and games where "Buying guard dogs, henchmen and alchemist's fire", so that's what my 4E game is like. Certain of the others (Underworld, mega-dungeons, pastiche) I have used or not used in AD&D and 3E/4E alike.

As for "DM vs. PC", I can live without it, in any edition. It's stupid anyway, since a DM that wanted to "win" can do so whenever he feels like.


Rolling 3d6 in order for each ability score.
Partly this is (as Philotomy Juriment described) about letting the game choose for you what class you're going to play. Rather than come to the table with preconceived notions, you simply sat at the table and said "Deal me a hand." You played the best you could with the hand you were dealt, and success or failure was measured against the difficulties you overcame (including a sucky Con). In 4E everything has to be "fair", but OD&D recognized that life is never fair, and we respect each other for coming from different backgrounds with different handycaps.

Back then, "character building" didn't mean the same thing at all.

But if you're asking about "low" stats, you're missing the point. The real difference was that stats mattered less. You could have a Fighter with 11 Str and it just didn't matter that much. As long as you qualified for the class, you were in. That's the real difference.


Complicated and scattered charts and tables.
Complicated? Not really. And if they were scattered, it just taught me to use my memory. I had all the table's page numbers memorized, and the most frequently used ones I could open the book right to without the benefit of a bookmark or nothin'.

Frankly, it's just a different kind of "system mastery", and 3E's version was one I wasn't ever that fond of anyway.


Races as classes.
This was OD&D only, and it was lousy. I moved on to AD&D in this respect and never looked back.


Weak low-level mages and powerful high-level mages.
This had an interesting effect. It was understood that the wizard had to be protected at low levels, and that he would return the favor at higher levels. We were a band of brothers, and the wizard rarely needed reminding that "You'd be dead a hundred times over if it weren't for the rest of us." A simple concept governed here: gratitude.

Raistlin was Evil in many ways, but one of the key ways was that he accepted his brother's protection when he needed it, but never returned the favor.


Levelling differently.
Just a different kind of class balance.


Simple game, few options.
Maybe the Core was. We complicated it quickly enough.

This is one respect in which 4E is better. By providing simple non-combat rules for Skill Challenges and such they provide a guide for making house rules that are simple and intuitive.


NPCs and PCs follow different rules.
Huh?

Look, the PCs don't get to see over the DM Screen. They don't know how an NPC was built, or how he came by his skills, or what his equipment can do. All they can see are: AC, HP, Dmg, BAB (or their pre-3E equivalents). As long as the NPC has those variables, and they match up with the PCs variables, it's "the same rules" as far as I am concerned.

The PC classes are built for players do make characters, not for DMs to make NPCs. They're a means to an end; not an end of themselves.


Everyone had house rules.
And that's different from 3E/4E how?

 

[Aus_Snow]

I'm looking into making a short free RPG that "plays like" OD&D and BD&D though it could be mechanically very different. For that purpose, I'm looking for feedback on how you felt pre-3E "played".

Perhaps then, given that 'it could be mechanically very different', you should have a look at several of the 'retro stupid' PDFs floating around teh intarweb. There was one only a little while back for example, on RPGnet, based on the 3e/d20 system. Any number of these could provide ideas, inspiration, or - in some cases - stuff best avoided.

Your points, quoted below, have been answered quite thoroughly, so I'll be brief with my own answers.

For example,
*Rolling 3d6 in order for each ability score.
I miss that. It's one of my two favourite methods. The other: Pure point-buy.

*Complicated and scattered charts and tables.
Yes, no, maybe. There's still a lot of that going on, even in very 'modern' RPGs.

*Races as classes.
That's been covered, above. Not a thing I mind anyway, depending on setting / implied setting. In fact, racial classes are one of the things I like best in 3e/AE/d20.

*Weak low-level mages and powerful high-levle mages.
Hm. So, like in 3e then (and OK, a bit more so.) Sure, yes. Feature, not bug - to me, anyway. Balance is something that can work in a variety of ways, and as much as I'm a fan of game balance, I like to believe that many if not all of the varieties can be equally valid when trying to achieve that.

*Levelling differently.
Not a bad idea, all in all. Never was an issue when I was playing it, or running it.

*Buying guard dogs, henchmen and alchemist's fire instead of fighting.
Experienced very little of this stuff. It did come up sometimes, but actually more often in other systems. . . weird, huh.

*Regularly dying and being replaced by new characters.
Nope, not IME. Or, put another way, this hasn't changed AFAICS from edition to edition - though, as I haven't actually played 2e or 4e, I can't be 100% sure of this.

*DM vs. Players, not DM working with players.
As above.

*Clumsy pastiche of pop culture, pulp fiction and mythology.
As above.

*Simple game, few options.
Kinda. Plenty of options if you were playing a caster.

*Dungeon as an underworld, where every PC cannot see in the dark and every NPC can.
That's been covered. And really, what's changed with regards to this, as well?

*Sprawling, nonsensical mega-dungeons.
Nope, not IME. Not as a certainty, or even a default.

*Wilderness adventures.
Same with this, though slightly more of them, IME.

*Invincible overlord.
Rarely encountered this kind of thing. Don't see it as a staple.

*NPCs and PCs follow different rules.
I have mixed feelings about this - it's very contextual. But anyway, yes, it was a feature of earlier editions. . . far more so than 3e, anyway.

*Several different parallel versions of the game.
To a small extent for a short while, yes. Not 'several' anyhow, but sure.

*Everyone had house rules.
No, not everyone. Same as now - most or many, but not all.

So how did earlier editions "play" for you?

To the best of my recollection, they played pretty fast and loose, most of the time. This is where they (often) had the edge, IMO: speed and [a kind of] flexibility. Rules arbitration courtesy of the DM was more of a prominent feature. A greater number of game mechanics seemed to be bizarre, or indeed, arbitrary. 'Rough around the edges' would be my take. Now, that's not necessarily a damning indictment, by the way. And besides, RPGs as a whole were still quite the new(-ish) thing. So for that reason, even if for no other, the earlier editions that I'm familiar with could be said to have a kind of charm that's rare or maybe nonexistent in more recent games. But I can never be sure how much of that is me at different ages with different outlooks vs. systems with different 'feels'. :shrug:

Best of luck, anyway. Hope you post your game on EN World, so I (hopefully) won't miss it.

 

[TerraDave]

I’m talking more about approach to the game than what rules we’re using. Everyone in my group has a somewhat “middle school” approach. (Not entirely “old school”, but certainly not entirely “new school”.) e.g. While 3e made it possible to take the DM out of the equation, we put him back in. We still have a lot of emphasis on player skill, not just character skill. Those sorts of things.

Ahh. My guess is that player and DM skill are still important in a lot of groups. You may not be so different after all.

 

[Remathilis]

When I began in 2e, I can honestly say we avoided many of those "tropes." No one hired hirelings and rarely did a PC have a henchman (though we had plenty of DMPCs). We always did 4d6, drop lowest. We scoured for new classes and races (my 2e race list bordered 30 races, class list included 15). We always had cheesy ways to bring the dead back (even elves). No mega-dungeons (well, Return to Tomb of Horrors and Return to White Plume Mountain...) and no wilderness adventures. Plenty of story-based modules/railroads though (Planescape/Ravenloft, I'm looking at you). We used kits often to keep our fighters and such from being clones of one another, and we were NEVER clerics; specialty priests of [Deity] all the way.

However, I can say I did run into some of those "mechanical" ones; the difference in leveling typically was moot (thanks to players missing games and story/individual awards) and mages did suck early (but most were multi-classed fighters or thieves, so they didn't suck too badly).

Eventually the house-rules document got to be PHB-sized though. That's because I gave wizards bonus spells like a priest, added weapon mastery for fighters, gave thieves improved backstab rules, removed the "leveling challenge" from druids and monks, improved bardic song ability, allowed rangers to be any alignment, removed exceptional strength (and revised the table to account for that), revised spell schools and spheres ala Spells & Magic, added opportunity attacks and martial arts from Combat & Tactics, ditched casting time/weapon speed, and had seriously considered flipping AC upwards.

In other words, my 2e game began to look A LOT like 3e, trapped in 2e's body.

In that regard, all 3e did was reset my house-rules to "core" and do things I hadn't done yet (fix saves, fix ability scores, remove thac0 add the concept of feats).

So if your looking for my "pre-2000 D&D tropes" it would come out "Like 3e, but much more confusing and requiring many more books" would have been it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Ahh. My guess is that player and DM skill are still important in a lot of groups. You may not be so different after all.

I really should open a thread discussing what "player skill" means. Because I never played in a game where players didn't need some kind of skill - but yet don't feel like I am playing the kind of game that people refer to when they say "I want player skill to matter".