Kickin' it old school -- are you game?

[Gnome]

I'd play it for nostalga, if nothing else. I greatly perfer 3.5, but I do remember 1st Edition quite fondly.

 

[the Jester]

I don't play pre-3e stuff right now, but I'd be willing to play a retro game with 1e or od&d rules. 2e I'd be more reluctant about, frankly.

 

[Altalazar]

As a lark, I might play 1E again. But the problem is that I only game once a week now, and I'd rather use that slot on 3.5E. Not that I didn't enjoy 1E, but I think 3.5E is so far superior to it. Sure, 1E was fun, but what you could do with characters was very limited and characters of similar classes were basically the same. 2E improved on that, but not far enough (though kudos to speciality priests and kits).

It would be interesting to play 1E again in a classic 1E module, just to see what it feels like now.

Two of the people I played 1E with are in my 3.5E campgain now and I don't think they've ever even hinted at any interest in playing 1E again. I certainly haven't.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

This highlights one of the strengths of the 3E structure: the mechanics are more tightly built with principles that are simple to apply and more consistency.

Its also one of the weaknesses of 3e. The more tightly built the mechanics the worse it feels when the try to shoe horn a dynamic into it that doesn't fit. Personally I prefer a core mechanic with many exceptions where it makes sense.

 

[delericho]

I'll take 1st Edition with a good DM over any other game with an okay or worse DM. Actually, I'll take any version of any game with a good DM over any other game with an okay or worse DM.

I might also be interested in the occasional game of an older edition for a change of pace.

However, for my regular fix, assuming all other variables are the same, I'll take 3.5 over other versions. The rules are just that much more solid (and the issue with the Diplomacy check is more one of play-style than game rules, IMO. I'm with Psion on this: have them roleplay and then make a modified roll).

 

[Shemeska]

My question: do any of you play AD&D 1e and/or OD&D (ie Diaglo-edition )? If not, would you be open to it? Just curious.

No, and probably not unless it's a kick ass DM. My exposure to 1e or earlier, and games run using those systems, has generally shown in my experience that they emphasize a more tactical and less role playing aspect to the game. This seemed to fade a bit in 2e to emphasize RP, stay similar to that in 3e, and move back towards tactical in 3.5e.

Not to say that I'd prefer to play or run a game with 2e rules either. I honestly prefer 3e mechanics above other editions, both for the ruleset itself and just being experienced most with it.

A DM can run their own preferred style using any system really up to using nothing but a lopsided d4 and half a deck of cards, but some systems seem to put an emphasis on one or the other just within what the rules seem to have in mind.

I wouldn't mind using an earlier system if I was familiar enough with it, but the moment it emphasizes crunchy tactical gaming rather than actual role playing is when I and my players start to completely lose interest and question why we're playing that. No interest whatsoever in tactical stuff at all, I just don't find it the important part of the shared experience. It can be there in my mind, but it's superfluous to the character and plot development among the PCs and NPCs in a shared world.

 

[angrypossum]

No, but I would play 1e again. Would be nice to revisit some of the old modules.

 

[jdrakeh]

My question: do any of you play AD&D 1e and/or OD&D (ie Diaglo-edition )? If not, would you be open to it? Just curious.

I always have a copy of the Eric Holmes Basic D&D manual handy and am currently working on my own cut down version of D&D 3x in that vein.

 

[Zelligars Apprentice]

... I was surprised at how rules-lite the game is compared with the bloat of 3/3.5...

I have never understood this statement at all, or agreed with it.

I mean, imagine trying to teach a new player how to play 1E: "So, let me get this straight: You roll a d20, and you want high for attacking, and for saving throws, but low for ability checks, right? And Armor Class, you say the lower the number is, the better!? And Strength, I roll percentile dice to bend bars, but a d6 to bash doors open!?! And, oh yeah, before every combat I have to roll to see if I am suprised. That's a d6 roll that I want high on, but if it's too low, then high is BAD!!?? HUH?!?!"

Compare this to teaching 3e: "So, I roll a d20, add a number, and the higher the better. OK, got it!"

With regards to bloat: 1E had it's share of it, too. And 2E was far, far worse. Although there is more material for 3/3.5 printed nowadays then there ever was for previous editions, here is what you must always keep in mind about it:
YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE ALL OF IT!!!!! In fact, you don't have to use ANYTHING beyond the three core books if you don't want to!!!!! If you REALLY want, you can even leave stuff out that IS IN the three core books!!

Any DMs who allow themselves to be convinced otherwise need immediate spine insertion surgery before being allowed behind the DM screen again.

Sorry to rant about this (and I don't in any way mean to pick on you, Sebastian), but this is a major pet peeve of mine. Besides, you did ask.

To answer your original question: Ironically, I am using 1E material right now to help with a special project that I eventually want to run...in 3E. Other than that, you couldn't PAY me enough to run or play that game again (OK, since I'm desperate for money right now, you COULD pay me, but it would have to be a LOT of money). THAT'S how much more I like the current ruleset.

 

[jdrakeh]

YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE ALL OF IT!!!!! In fact, you don't have to use ANYTHING beyond the three core books if you don't want to!!!!! If you REALLY want, you can even leave stuff out that IS IN the three core books!!

Yes, but the orginal D&D game is complete in less than 100 pages. If you want to do comparisons, all other versions of the game have far more rules - nearly none of which are necessary, merely preferred by most people (which is what the OP meant by 'bloat', I imagine).