NOT AN EDITION WARS THREAD: 1E'ing 3E

[Jefe Bergenstein]

What feats would you add/delete/modify? (e.g. remove some of the more extravagant combat feats for fighters.

Making non casters useless would go a long way to recovering that 1st edition feel.

Really, if you dont like skills, feats, classes, etc, why not just run 1st edition? Its not like theres a shortage of published material thats easily available and cheap. It seems that you want to round off a square peg, then sand the edges back on again.

 

[Henry]

Making non casters useless would go a long way to recovering that 1st edition feel.

Ehren37,

First of all, we don't need to stir up edition wars in this or any other threads, as per Piratecat's pretty explicit request.

Second, if you feel like you can't comment in this thread without stirring up a fight, I'd strongly suggest this thread isn't for you, and not to read it.

Third, if you have any comments about this Admin's request, please e-mail me at henrythelesser@yahoo.com.

This goes for anyone else looking to stir up trouble intentionally.

Thank you.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I simply make Dwarfs and Halflings unable to cast arcane spells, ignore the suggested wealth by level, ignore the demographics information from the DMG, and run a hack heavy game. Seems to come close enough.

 

[JeffB]

Making non casters useless would go a long way to recovering that 1st edition feel.

Really, if you dont like skills, feats, classes, etc, why not just run 1st edition? Its not like theres a shortage of published material thats easily available and cheap. It seems that you want to round off a square peg, then sand the edges back on again.

Who said anything about not liking feats and skills? (not sure why anyone would play ANY version of D&D if they did not like classes)

There are alot of things I really like about 3.x. e.g. balancing of classes through the levels, the skill system, feats (as a general idea), the basic mechanics and the inherent "makes sense" attitude they take, etc etc.

What I personally don't care for is the ramped up power level, increased # of and access to magic (items/buffs, etc), lack of consequences for dangerous magics, level drain, "over the top" feats, etc etc. Its not so much making a weapon type vs armor type table and separate experience charts or that sort of thing.

I'm not looking to make 3E into 1E (and as much as I LOVED 1E, when I was a kid I've no desire in my old age to start running it again..or OSRIC), but rather make 3E adhere closer to the spirit of 1E. I know that ALOT of it has to do with how the game is presented to the players by the DM, however there are also alot of assumptions/defaults in the RAW that deviate quite markedly from the same sort of assumptions/defaults in previous versions of the game.

And again, I'm not trying to start an Edition War....rather just see what kind of tweaks others would make to get back to the "intent and theme" of 1E while using the 3E rules framework.

C&C I like, but I feel has gone too far in the opposite direction..more towards a Moldvay/Cook type type of simplification with just a few more classes and spells...though thematically I think its on the right track.

There has been many useful tips/suggestion so far

Hope all that made sense....?

 

[BroccoliRage]

It still seems to me that C&C already does what the OP asks.

OF course, has anyone considered reccommending Hackmaster? In addition to recreating a 1e/2e feel, it still allows for choosing skills and talents and flaws. You can still personalize your character while playing something pretty akin to AD&D.

 

[tx7321]

Henry is correct: "That's my feeling, as well. It uses the Basic language of d20, but it restructures classes, DCs, and assumptions about character power to aesthetics that are much closer to AD&D 1st edition. OSRIC is great for bringing AD&D1 itself back to life from OOP death, but C&C is a good bridge between 3E and 1E that already exists"

That said, if your group is used to 3E, its very likely your C&C game will feel similar to 3E, just less complex (because C&C was intentionally designed to be adaptable in that way so it can feel like 1E or 3E (using the SIEG engine) unless you import 1E concepts your not going to get them (see P&Ps post)). The best way to understand what the unique feel of 1E is, is to buy the 1E books, read them (interpreting them for yourself) and play it. There is no substitute.


As for changing 3E to feel like 1E, IMHO thats impossible. Feats and skills are too ingrained into the system (you can't remove feats from a fighter for instance). 3E is all about customization in meaningful numbers, 1E is about archetypes, customization exists in personality ("my fighter is a LE coward and shoots arrows from the back, my fighter is a LG hero and stays in the front with his bastard sword etc." you don't have any skills or feats to help with this identity) Also, you'd need to loose the D20 system and go back to hit tables (where the DM keeps up with who hits and who doesn't). Believe it or not, those tables are a big part of what 1E is about (where the players don't worry about calculating anything, and your never sure what exactly you need to hit).

 

[Raloc]

I don't want this to turn into a edition wars thread, please

What I would like to ask is how would you make the 3.x game feel more like 1E in play.

By this I don't mean, adding racial level limits or making up a new XP chart for each class.

By this I mean: What would you add or change mechanically or thematically with the rules to make 3.x graviate more towards the 1E/OD&D type feel (I know..I know..somewhat of an intangible, but humor me )

e.g.

Might you alter the EL/CR/XP system? Change the power curve?

What feats would you add/delete/modify? (e.g. remove some of the more extravagant combat feats for fighters...nix or possibly modify item creation feats for Magic-Use...errr..Wizards..etc)

Modifications to some of the more classic/common spells?

Add/delete/modify some class abilities to certain classes? get rid of some classes period?

deletion of entire subsystems? Not someting like "skills", as the rogue would get hosed...but perhaps..and this is just an example...AoOs...or add in a different initiative system?

These are the type of things I'm interested in hearing from the ENworld community. I realize much of 1E's appeal was in Gygax's writing style..or the various original module writers. And that it was influenced heavily by the classic fantasy literary sources and did not have modern fantasy/sci-fantasy/sci-fi and anime styles influnces whatsoever. These types of things certainly had alot of impact. But I'm more interested in rules applications.

And yes I know about and own C&C. I'm asking specifically about changes to the current D&D rules system.

Thanks for your input!

I know this doesn't really answer your question, but I find it strange when people compare the "play styles" of 1e through 3e to eachother and say they are vastly different games. I own some 1e books, but never had a chance to play it, as I started in AD&D2e before Skills & Powers. All that considered though, as a DM I've always ran my games in such a way that mechanics of the system were secondary by far, with the main focus on RP and strategic combat/battles (though, not strategic in the sense that everyone was a rules lawyer, as is the case much of the time now). If the rules detracted from this, or didn't make sense in a certain situation, they were ignored or fixed on the spot to facilitate play. That's why it seems very strange to me to say "Make 3e more like playing 1e" and then suggesting mechanics changes. If you want a 1e experience, I say get a DM that knows the style, and limit the player options to things that would be consistent with 1e. Then put the rules themselves in the backseat to playing the game. As far as I'm concerned, the game hasn't ever been about rules, which IMO are only there to give a consistent entropy to a wide range of actions so that the DM isn't too PC-biased. I'd have to say that I think what you're perceiving as differences in play are largely due to nostalgia, or a focus on rules/mechanics. I know that myself, my early D&D games make me feel very nostalgic, but quantifiably, they were far poorer in content and quality than the game I run today. To me, the rules have always been merely the means to the end, which is to enact player-agents within a game world in a semi-realistic (or at least, internally consistent) manner.

 

[tx7321]

Q: "but I find it strange when people compare the "play styles" of 1e through 3e to eachother and say they are vastly different"

I don't think they are vastly different. Risk and 1E are vastly different. Still, every game with different rules will result in different feels when played out (assuming "feel" is what you mean by "play style"). For instance 1E is similar to Hackmaster, but they both have different feels. Thats not saying one is "better", there just different.

 

[Raloc]

Indeed. My main point was that the overall "feel" IMO, does not come from any specifics of mechanics, but from the style and capabilties of the players/DM involved, and that the actual "feel" of a D&D game varies less between edition than it does from player to player or DM to DM.

(That is, assuming the game is not rules-centric. Games which tend towards more of the crunchy aspects rather than RP aspects, I guess, would be significantly different since combats play out differently. But in a game where the rules are guidelines (which is my personal style ) I don't think this is the case, very much.)

 

[Tarek]

The biggest thing I would do to "bring back" a 1st edition feel is to strictly limit the character classes. Core rules only to start.

If you want to multi-class, you have to find someone who's willing to train you in the new class and take campaign time off for that character to do so. For fighters and rogues, that's fairly simple and not very time consuming; a few months of training will usually get the basics of those classes.

Clerics, Wizards, and Monks would take a year of training, minimum, if not longer. Wizards are especially suspicious of people who want to learn arcane secrets from them, so I'd even consider making the training period even longer.

You can only be a Sorcerer if your 1st level class is Sorcerer, for what to me are obvious reasons.
Same with Barbarian; there are brain chemical/genetic factors on top of the culture and mindset. You can't be 'trained' to be a barbarian if you come from a civilized culture.

If you want to take a prestige class, you have to look for someone to train you in that class. Then you have to gain that person's trust, or at least convince them that you want to follow in their footsteps.

Leveling requires going back to a trainer of higher level than you are, paying them for training, and taking a few weeks of game time to train up. If you're high enough level (I'm thinking 9th), you can train yourself but it takes twice as long. The DM decides how long leveling up takes, based on how well he thought you roleplayed your character and stuck to the character concept.

For Wizards, I'd dump the "automatic two spells of the player's choice" rule for each time a new level is gained. You learn whatever spell your tutor wants to teach you, so you'd better be in good standing with him. If he dislikes you, you're not going to learn the spell you want to learn. Your tutor is going to be teaching you from the spells he has access to, so you won't be able to learn some of the more exotic spells.

The idea here is to limit the player's options. 3e is very open ended, and there is an assumption implied in the rules, which is that if a character meets the requirements to enter a new class or to gain a prestige class, that character may do so at will. That would be the very first assumption/rule that gets thrown out.

Social skills would not be usable unless the player roleplayed the use of that social skill. Constantly rolling "sense motive" checks every time an NPC speaks implies that the character doesn't trust the NPC, and when this becomes obvious to the NPC, I'd have the NPC react accordingly... because NPCs would get to roll Sense Motive too.