• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Re-trying 1st Ed.

As I started playing back in 87 with 1st edition, I would jump at the chance to get in on a 1st edition game - DMing or playing.

I do love 3rd edition, but I've still never captured that feeling when I encountered an Algoid for the first time.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I agree with diaglo.

I would highly discourage house ruling 1e into 3e or even into a hybrid. There's nothing wrong with that, but--IMHO--you might as well just play 3e. If you're having a desire to play 1e, I think that means you need to try to understand what really makes it different. (Save hybridizing for later.)

Lurking at DF can help you understand how some people can enjoy 1e without house-ruling it into an equivalent of 3e. You have to understand that there isn't a monolithic grognard viewpoint, though. Look for the bits that surprise you.

I also found it helpful to read nigh everything Gygax, Kuntz, & Mornard (Gronan) wrote online.

Realize--& express to your players--that there is a whole lot of room to create interesting characters within the choices offered by 1e. Save any ideas that don't fit in 1e for the next 3e campaign, & challenge yourselves to come up with interesting 1e characters.

That's not to say that I'm not all for busting out of the choices in the books. I'm just saying that it's possible to focus more on the opportunities than the limitations.

(I think it also helped for me to realize that a PC doesn't need mechanics to validate his style. It's OK that mechanically two fighters are identical. Their choice of weapon, tactics, & style--not to mention everything outside of combat--can still be quite different, even if mechanically they could swap those things. If that makes any sense...)

As for players, I don't know. I'm lucky, I guess. Everyone in my group was happy to let me run Basic/Expert D&D instead of 3e when they asked me to run a D&D campaign. They jumped in whole hog & enjoyed the system on its own terms. They said they happily do it again. Even the one player who insisted on saying that he still felt 3e was superior in every way.

Edit: Ironically, I may have been the person in my group who was most set against playing older editions again. If somebody else in the group had suggested playing Basic/Expert several years ago, I might well have been the one grumbling against it. (^_^)

Edit #2: & for what it's worth, I'm not advocating playing 1e strictly by-the-book. I'd likely omit weapon v. armor adjustments, the finer points of initiative, weapon profs, the DMG unarmed combat rules, &c. if I were to run a 1e game. On the other hand, those are reasons I choose Basic/Expert instead.
 
Last edited:

RFisher said:
(I think it also helped for me to realize that a PC doesn't need mechanics to validate his style. It's OK that mechanically two fighters are identical. Their choice of weapon, tactics, & style--not to mention everything outside of combat--can still be quite different, even if mechanically they could swap those things. If that makes any sense...)


Wow. Everyone thinking about playing 1E (or B/X, C&C or other rules-lite flavors) ought to read and re-read that. What a great way of putting it. For characters, that was an overriding philosophy - your character's concept isn't determined by its mechanics or abilities, it is determined by its choices.
 



der_kluge said:
If his players aren't showing up for 1e, they aren't going to show up for C&C, either!

Depends on how much diversity they want. C&C offers, right off the bat, 6 non-human races x 13 classes x 6 bonus non-class primes for a sub-total of: 468 , plus the human race gives 30 bonus non-class prime choices x 13 classes for a sub-total of: 390, for a grand total of 758 choices, and there are no level limits based on race or class.

If they want more than 758 mechanical choices (independant of ability score order choice and independant of Game Master houseruling stuff in), then you are right, they may not like C&C. :)

I would advice the OP to go slow, if they are modding 1st ed or C&C games to be more like 3e. See how it goes at first, and add as you need to.
 

SavageRobby said:
Wow. Everyone thinking about playing 1E (or B/X, C&C or other rules-lite flavors) ought to read and re-read that.
I agree; appreciating the game for what it is (i.e. the designers' philosophy, etc) makes a big difference, IMO. Robert has some really good articles about classic D&D on his site. Anyone that is considering (or even currently playing) an old-school system might benefit from some of the thoughts, there. For example, check out:

How to appreciate classic D&D
and
I used to think...
 

Eliminate racial level caps and class limitations.
Remove class ability score prerequisites.
Consider translating the sorcerer to 1st edition as a class option.
 

If you want the 3e feel of tons of splat book options then old role aids books and dragon magazine articles are for you.

Basic D&D, 2e D&D, Castles and Crusades, Osric, all provide fairly compatible stuff for 1e as well with more options that could be applied.
 


Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top