The mythical ideal of 1E?

[Obryn]

A fighter didn't gain this power until 9th level per RAW AD&D.

Are you sure about this? I don't remember that limitation.

-O

 

[Nikosandros]

I don't remember that limitation.

That's because it doesn't exist (cfr. PHB p25 and UA p. 22).

 

[Remathilis]

Now my group by and large played AD&D 2e after we had done with and discarded the D&D Basic Set. We (like many younger gamers, I suppose) thought that Basic ---> Advanced, and never even knew that it was a separate game that went onto Expert &c.

So we grew up with 2e. Certainly, at the time, lots of "1e-isms" still dominated the AD&D-playing culture, but we just kind of dismissed them as archaisms which were of no use to us modern-day gamers. "What are these 'magic-users' you speak of? Do you happen to mean 'mages,' old-timer?"

After a while, though, I really started to feel the lack of certain character options, like half-orcs and monks and barbarians, that ought to have been retained in 2e. We got half-orcs back in a Complete Book of Humanoids, and barbarians in a Complete Book of Barbarians, and we even sort of got assassins back in the Complete Book of Ninjas, which served as our "Oriental Adventures" rulebook throughout the 2e years. But an official 2e monk didn't come along until very late in the game (The Scarlett Brotherhood of Greyhawk supplement, from 1999!), so in order to have kung-fu kickin' monastics in our 2e games, we actually had to go dig up a 1e PHB. I did so, and my impressions were... mixed.

Mainly, it was a whole lot of snickering and "WTF?" reactions to the black and white cartoony art, the arcane and arbitrary rules, the flowery prose, and the odd race and class advancements. Demihuman level limits were mind-bogglingly lower in 2e than 1e; certain human classes (assassins, druids, monks) had level caps for no apparent reason; and then there was the crazy business with monks and rangers starting off at 2 hit dice, and "prestige" bards. (It wasn't until much, much later that I learned that all of these quirks were simply holdovers from OD&D and the Greyhawk and Blackmoor supplements, but I still thank my lucky stars that I grew up in the 2e era, so that I can be nostalgic about some clean and sensible rules!)

We ported the 1e monk into our 2e games, and in order to surpass the level 17 experience cap, we looked to the only analogue we knew: hierophant druids. So we just added some rules for grandmaster monks above level 17, and we were quite happy with our second edition game that used all the 2e core stuff, plus 2e ninjas, and 1e monks and half-orcs.

And we were happy that way for short couple of years: those were the best campaigns of our young gaming lives. The rules-bogged 3e games that followed them just never came close. 3e got me so fed up with the "rules heavy" style that I switched to the Cyclopedia, but that's another story.

It sounds like your experiences and mine were similar. I also went from "Basic" (actually the RC) to 2e as I went from middle school to high school (and thus, met a larger play group with a more 2e base). I also looked back at 1e (buying many of the books from a local used bookstore) with a sense of WTF. And for years, we played 2e even with warts (read: kits & complete books) and loved the expansion of classes (ninjas, barbarians, psionicists) and races (humanoids) and even a house-ruled monk (based on the psionics rules, don't ask).

Eventually, we adapted SOME rules from the PO line (which brought half-orcs and half-ogres back as "near-core") such as some of the new priests, wizard specializations, their version of kits (read not as broken) and weapon mastery (to replicate RC's rules). In addition to PS bringing Fiends back and Scarlet Brotherhood bringing us "true" monks and assassins (the best versions for 2e ever. Worth checking out for all pre-2000 players)

Had 3e not been announced, I had intended to go through and again "revamp" 2e to make my own 3e; no more exceptional str, revised class fixes, no more level limits, humans that don't suck, etc. 3e actually looked close enough to how we were starting to play 2e (ignoring the radical AC and save changes) that it was natural to convert.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

the amateurish but full-of-life art that really draws you in and makes you want to be part of the game is almost entirely absent from 2E...

If there is one thing I really miss from 1e I would have to mention the art. It looked like someone had bought a Bob Ross beginner's oil painting kit from Michaels and painted it at their kitchen table in a few hours one evening. Yes it was bad compared to today's standards (the original Monster Manual cover for example) but did it ever drag me in.

 

[justanobody]

If there is one thing I really miss from 1e I would have to mention the art. It looked like someone had bought a Bob Ross beginner's oil painting kit from Michaels and painted it at their kitchen table in a few hours one evening. Yes it was bad compared to today's standards (the original Monster Manual cover for example) but did it ever drag me in.

So very true.

 

[Mythmere1]

I see many people invoking a mystical ideal of 1E AD&D that seems to me far above the objective reality of how the game was actually played. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a lot of the small changes and refocusing of D&D that occured with the 2E revision a response to how most people played the game, and the most commonly used houserules? A lot of what 2E revised and/or discarded from 1E are included in this mystical ideal of 1E that gets brought up here. While the 2E revision alienated some people, the vast majority of D&D players happily converted. I think that fact gets lost in the cloud of 1E nostalgia sometimes.

It's not nostalgia if it's what you actually play. Are all the 3e players out there suddenly doing so out of nostalgia? Is it about a mystical ideal? Of course not. Neither is it so with the 1e players. If you mean people who post about 1e but don't play it, then perhaps the question makes sense. But then it's just an edition war between 1e and 2e. In which case I side with Original D&D.

 

[Grimstaff]

I see many people invoking a mystical ideal of 1E AD&D that seems to me far above the objective reality of how the game was actually played. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a lot of the small changes and refocusing of D&D that occured with the 2E revision a response to how most people played the game, and the most commonly used houserules? A lot of what 2E revised and/or discarded from 1E are included in this mystical ideal of 1E that gets brought up here. While the 2E revision alienated some people, the vast majority of D&D players happily converted. I think that fact gets lost in the cloud of 1E nostalgia sometimes.

I was among the converted when 2E premiered, but it really didn't take long for the shine to wear off. Things nagged at me, and eventually I strayed from the hobby altogether, until I came to the belated realization (doh!) that there was no reason not to go back and play 1E again - and I had no trouble finding players.

I'd have to argue the point that 2E was revised as much from player input and houserules as it was from political correctness and a strong desire to remove EGG's influence from the game.

Some things that pained me:

The disappearance of the assassin and half-orc.
The nuetering of the bard and monk.
The disappearance of the armored fighter/magic-user
The political/religious motivated changes to demons and devils
The removal of druid-specific spells
The removal of illusionist-specific spells and most of the class itself
The DMG focus off of sandbox play and more on railroady type stuff
The sterilization of art and prose
The ruination of EGG's Greyhawk setting

2E was an enjoyable enough game, bolstered in part due to the emerging vibrance and popularity of the FR and DL settings, but the earlier editions were hand-crafted with affection by afficianados of Sword-n-Sorcery pulp novels and table-top wargaming. 2E was crafted by talented enough people, but with an increasingly obtrusive company agenda and policy to adhere to, and it shows.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I have realized that even though I play by old-school rules now, I cannot and must not let other old-school gamers sway me from my own personal DMing style. This means that the little angels on my shoulder saying "DM fiat! Sandbox!" have to be flicked away, so that I can listen to the devils saying "Skill checks. Railroads. Come on, you know you love it. Stick with what works!"

 

[Hussar]

If you were running 6th level characters with appropriate gear through the G series then there was probably some modifications going on.

Sorry, misremembered. I said 6th and should have said 8th. Sue me.

A fighter didn't gain this power until 9th level per RAW AD&D.

Nice to know I got that one right.

And so it seems your own experiences prove this to be true.

That would be why I said it. Am I missing something here?

 

[RFisher]

but I still thank my lucky stars that I grew up in the 2e era, so that I can be nostalgic about some clean and sensible rules!

Now, this is what bothers me about these kinds of discussions. And I’m not picking on you, Jack, because I’m indicting my younger self who said the same and much worse.

Don’t you think the people who came up with those rules, the people who gave feedback while playing them, and the people who edited them all thought that they were perfectly sensible?