D&D 1E The reasons to keep the rules 1e

[Ranes]

No minis, no battlemat. Easier to play without supporting materials.

Shame about those tables though.

I normally heartily agree with BG but I always used minis and a battlemat in 1e and I don't even begin to understand the reference to support materials.

Were I to stick to 1e, it could only be for the perfectly valid - albeit intangible - reason, that 1e did everything I needed it to.

 

[edemaitre]

D&D1e vs. D&D3.5

I've known several role-players and Game Masters over the years who were reluctant or refused to update their games to the latest editions of "Dungeons and Dragons" (or Hero/Champions, RoleMaster/MERP, Storyteller, GURPS, etc.).

One reason is that if you've made the investment of money in rulebooks and spent the time to learn what's in them, why throw that away every five or 10 years? It takes a while for most player groups to make the transition, assuming they're even willing. I understand that publishers need to stay in business, but some updating seems arbitrary rather than for the sake of efficiency.

Another reason is that each iteration of the game has its own personality. I miss the Erol Otus art from AD&D1 and the Larry Elmore and Clyde Caldwell art of AD&D2. Different campaign settings rise and fall in terms of support in each edition--Mystara, Lankhmar, Al-Quadim, or Spelljammer, for example. Even with the boom of third-party D20/OGL publishers, few have captured the swashbuckling mystery and, yes, Monty Haul hack-and-slash roll-playing feel of the older editions. I think that's part of the appeal of games such as "Hackmaster" or "Castles and Crusades."

While I generally prefer to play the latest version of a particular RPG, I certainly understand the appeal of those who stick with older editions, although I think we should all be open to both the charm of the old and the (ideally) smoother game play of the new...

 

[Macbrea]

There is only a few reasons to keep 1e over 3e in my opinion.

1) you have old modules you would like to run the party through, and would like to run them in such a manner you don't feel like your people are superheros.
2) you are stuck in the late 70's and early 80's
3) your group has a long running campaign that would be seriously effected by converting to another system.
4) you don't wish for quite as fast of advancement system

I should first state that I started playing D&D with the blue lined box edition. That would be the set after edritch wizardry but before the blue and red boxes. The year for that is '77 or '78. I transitioned to 1e when it became available and I could afford the books. As the years went on I bought 2e and 3ed and most recently 3.5e. The game industry exists because we put money into it. Sticking with an old system just because is a perfectly good reason to do it. But don't expect alot of support for it.

Given that bit of information some of the issues I mentioned on the top can be fixed with the move to 3.5e. You could reduce the exp gain to 1/10th the normal amount and get the same advancement feel as 1e. You could choose not to enter the wilds for more then a couple of random encounters, making everything a continous dungeon adventure. Heck, you could simple run an underdark campaign like G1-G3, D1-D3, Q1. Without ever letting your characters see the light of day. There isn't any reason the game must be run with minatures, but that was the way it was originally designed.

We used minis in the 70's same as we use them today. We just didn't have as strict of rules to state what happened when the rogue attempted to roll past the troll and down the well. The new game can be degrade to a tactical tabletop game, but that is the fault of the DM. If it isn't done descriptively then the DM needs to step back and ask themselves what they are doing wrong.

The game system doesn't make the game... the players and gamemasters do.

 

[Artoomis]

A quick reminder - please everyone make a special effort to keep on-topic in this thread.

If you can't think of any reasons to keep to 1e rules, then you don't need to post that here.

Regards,

Duly noted. No contrary oponions in this thread. I have nothing to add, then.

 

[werk]

Cars and computer games are RPGs or really even close. Converting between systems never works out right. Unless its okay for first level human fighters to start with a 23 strength?

Right (I think?), comparable to putting a new fuel injector into a studebacker...it just don't fit. If you want a new fuel injector, you need a car that it'll work in.

And that's where my analogy comes around. If you want new products, you'll need to update, if you don't mind sticking with what you've got, there is really no reason to switch.

Just don't come crying to me when your pI won't boot up XP

Reasons for keeping with 1e...fear of change.

 

[Prime_Evil]

On a personal note, I think that 1e does a better job than 3e of simulating the elusive 'feel' of classic Swords & Sorcery fiction. The restrictive character classes actually help to enforce genre conventions. 3e wins hands down if you're looking for a game system that lets you customize your character, but 1e wins hands down if you want a game system that feels like it just stepped off the pagers of Robert E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, and Michael Moorcock. Try building a Gnomish Paladin / Sorcerer in 1e.....

 

[Cam Banks]

It depends on whether you use all of 1st edition AD&D or just the bits you like.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[nittanytbone]

I'm a young'un, but I started RPGs with 1E. As a poor college student, the biggest advantage 1E has is the low price. You can get monster manuals for $1.32 on EBay, DMGs for $2 on Amazon, etc. For the cost of one 3.5 DMG PHB and MM, you can get EVERYONE a 1E core set and pick up some modules to boot.

 

[Particle_Man]

Illusionists were possessors of a unique spell list in 1st ed., and some of their spells were of different levels than the M-U spells when there was overlap. This made illusionists special.

(Still regrets not getting to play a dual-classed 13th Assassin/14th+Illusionist.)

 

[Plane Sailing]

I liked the way that 1e assumed that high level characters would start doing different things - building fortifications, attracting followers, clearing areas for civilisation; these things were all part of the core rules and it encouraged greater involvement with the game world politics at high level as a default.

Another thing I liked about 1e was that the rules were not integrated, and paradoxically that made it easier for me to introduce whole new rules systems while worrying less about knock-on effects.

I still happily converted to 3e, but those are two reasons why a mate of mine continued his existing campaign in 1e until it reached its natural conclusion, before starting a new campaign in 3e.

Cheers