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

[TerraDave]

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".

And I responded to your thread...

...but in short, I think player and DM skill remain pretty important (even though it has been strongly implied in various places that 3E was designed to reduce dependence on the later), no matter how you define them.

 

[Spatula]

Something I've sought to recapture in my current 3e campaign is that prior to 3e, high level Fighter types could wade through hordes of opponents, including giants and demons (though not dragons, due to their breath weapon).

That's because those monsters were a LOT weaker in 1e than they are now. Both 2e and 3e powered up giants, demons, dragons, etc. (and dragons were pretty wimpy in 1e, even with the breath weapon) The fighter been powered up as well (starting with the 1e UA), but it's harder to mow down the tougher monsters as their HD goes up.

Hence 'meat shield', a derogatory term that did not exist prior to 3e.

...wut?

 

[Spatula]

To sum up, play under older editions really depended on players and, especially, DMs. This is always true, but I think was more so before 3E codified as much as it did.

So, how did it play, well, it all depended...

Yep. There are as many different "feels" to D&D as there were groups. But the attitude of the original published books was generally along the lines of Estar's points.

 

[S'mon]

That's because those monsters were a LOT weaker in 1e than they are now. Both 2e and 3e powered up giants, demons, dragons, etc. (and dragons were pretty wimpy in 1e, even with the breath weapon) The fighter been powered up as well (starting with the 1e UA), but it's harder to mow down the tougher monsters as their HD goes up.

Yes - and I much prefer the weaker 1e versions. Hit points is not the issue IMO, it's the enormous damage output of 3e melee monsters.

 

[Shades of Green]

I've played 2E and various OD&D stuff before 3E came out. Some of the prominent features of OD&D and 1E/2E in comparison to 3E were IMHO:

Different complexity levels between different classes. Fighters had very little rule material and relatively simple mechanics while mages and clerics had almost half the PHB in spells between them. I don't recall anyone complaining much back then about fighters being "boring" - fighters (with less rules to memorize) were great for beginners and casual players, while experienced players interested in clever tricks and complex rules played the spellcasters (and the mage was considered as more complex than the cleric IIRC). Character generation was very fast for fighters (just roll the attributes, record the THAC0 and saving throws, choose a few weapon and non-weapon proficiencies and buy the best armor and weapons your starting money could buy) while mages' players spent much time choosing spells. game balance wasn't that importance - catering to different players' tastes probably was.

Abstract combat. Rounds were a minute long and the character was supposed to make a number of jabs, feints, attack attempts and so on and do the maneuvering "on his own" - the attack rolls represented the sum of these attempts rather than just one attack. Combat was typically played map-less, with daring manouvers and tactics role-played (at best with a to-hit or Dexterity roll) rather than simulated on an exact grid.

Arbitrarily-placed stuff in adventures. Adventures typically had themes, but sometimes unrelated monsters and/or treasure was thrown in for good measure without much reasoning in addition to the themes' monsters and treasure. You probably had less 'fluff' justifying each encounter - some encounters didn't have 'fluff' justifications.

More monster fluff. The 2E MM had an "Ecology" and a "Habitat/Society" section (a few paragraphs each) for most entries, giving much more detail than the 3E MM does. Many monsters had listed uses for their body parts, or descriptions of how their strongholds should be designed and staffed.

Much more perceived freedom for DM fiat and rulings. A lot of things were decided by DM fiat rather than by rules, especially riddle-locks, hidden doors and most kinds of traps. The DM was supposed to make up a lot of stuff on the spot, even when using published adventures. A good amount of DM fiat and rulings also made combat interesting despite its abstract nature.

"Gotcha" traps and "Gotcha" secrets. Not everyone used these, but in many cases it was considered OK to punish careless PCs without rolling any dice - cursed magical items were an example of this and much more common than in 3E. Some adventures also had save-or-die traps, which have become rarer in 3E. It was also common to reward players for being inquisitive, perceptive or smart by hiding treasure in tricky or secret places requiring players' skill to get to.

Name Level. PCs were supposed to become politicians, or, for the very least, local power figures, when reaching mid-high levels. Older versions had clearer mechanics for this. 2E granted you with automatic followers (similar to the 3E Leadership feat) when you reached a certain level and built a stronghold; each class had different followers listed for it in the PHB.

 

[TerraDave]

Shades...basically agree (after I said everyone was different...).

The "differing complexity" was reduced in 3E and has been removed almost entirely with 4e (though you could argue that fighters are still simpler then wizards, but that gap is far, far smaller).

This is arguably a drawback.

 

[S'mon]

Shades...basically agree (after I said everyone was different...).

The "differing complexity" was reduced in 3E and has been removed almost entirely with 4e (though you could argue that fighters are still simpler then wizards, but that gap is far, far smaller).

This is arguably a drawback.

Yeah, it's a huge drawback for 4e with me. When I play D&D I usually like to play a Fighter and put my brain in neutral gear most of the time. I find it very relaxing - I guess I'm a classic "butt kicker" type player. It seems like with 4e I can't do that anymore, I'm supposed to be thinking all the time, and it's a big turn-off.

 

[Shades of Green]

Shades...basically agree (after I said everyone was different...).

The "differing complexity" was reduced in 3E and has been removed almost entirely with 4e (though you could argue that fighters are still simpler then wizards, but that gap is far, far smaller).

This is arguably a drawback.

This reduction is a drawback from three main perspectives:

1) New players. D&D takes time to learn, especially if this is your first RPG ever. AD&D fighters had significantly less rules and base concepts attached to them than any other class, and thus were ideal for beginners. They also gave the beginner an active role in the game even if they weren't very good or confident in role-playing yet: combat was more or less commonplace, and the fighter was active in every combat. Also, the rules and concepts that did apply to the fighter were the very basics of D&D - to-hit rolls, AC, THAC0, damage rolls, saving throws, HP, role-playing, general in-game concepts and so on; once you learned the basics you could move on to more complex classes such as thieves or rangers, and, eventually, paladins, clerics and mages.

2) Casual players. Some people want to enjoy a D&D game once in a while but don't intend to invest much time or effort into it (such as learning complex rules or spending time studying a wide range of spells). Different complexity levels for different classes meant that the casual player could play and enjoy the game without having to deal with complex rules.

3) Different play styles. Some players like to focus on learning and using the rules (or spells) to their advantage; others like to focus on role-playing (or problem solving, or killing things) without much rule-crunching. Different complexity levels for different classes allowed you to choose how complex the game would be for you.

 

[TerraDave]

I decided we needed a new thread on this whole ease of play by class thing, and forked off a new one:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/newthread.php?fork=1&do=newthread&p=4462658

 

[ExploderWizard]

Even within a single edition, say OD&D or Basic D&D, the flow and style of play was different depending on the DM. This was a feature, not a bug of the ruleset. At the table, character sheets and rulebooks were looked at and referred to less often. The rules were loose guidelines to aid the DM in making rulings and the play was all about describing what your character was doing, and how, rather than looking for an applicable skill or power to roll against.

There is no substitute for "feel". Get some old rules, round up some players, and give it a try. You might really enjoy the freedom and simplicity.