What do you dislike about 1E?

[Kanegrundar]

So this brings me to my next question, why on gods green earth is 3.5 so popular if it is such a pain to DM?
Scott

It's the current edition? In all honesty I think that's part of it. Plus, from a player's standpoint it is more fun to play. In earlier editions, unless you were a caster you didn't have much change in your character from level to level. 3E offers something beyond to hit and save bonuses at nearly every level.

I don't personally have that much of a problem DMing 3E. Sure it takes a little longer, but I also have the ability to make exactly the kind of game that I want without trying to shoehorn it into the rules like I had to with other editions. I don't mind a little extra prep to make a memorable adventure.

Kane

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

So, you don't want RPG books you want VCR manuals. RPGs books are more then just rules.

Hmm. Think I'll go stand with Rogueattorney and help him with his wall.

 

[francisca]

So, you don't want RPG books you want VCR manuals. RPGs books are more then just rules.

Not speaking for P&P, but to me, the the 3e core books read way more like a VCR manual than 1e core, despite being in color, with more art, etc... I just think the writing was way better in 1e.

Oddly, I often turn to CMG's reformat of the SRD, rather than the core, as I find them to be a better read: just the facts, naked and plain.

 

[Crothian]

Hmm. Think I'll go stand with Rogueattorney and help him with his wall.

Cool, I'll takle that to mean another win for Crothian!!

of course it isn't a win, but since that comment makes no sense what so ever I'll just take the victory!!

 

[diaglo]

Not speaking for P&P, but to me, the the 3e core books read way more like a VCR manual than 1e core, despite being in color, with more art, etc... I just think the writing was way better in 1e.

Oddly, I often turn to CMG's reformat of the SRD, rather than the core, as I find them to be a better read: just the facts, naked and plain.

quoted for truth

 

[Grazzt]

RPGs books are more then just rules.

Correct. They are guidelines.

 

[teitan]

If I remember right, Saves and To hit tables weren't in the PHB, so you needed the DMG to even complete a character.

A total lack of skills hurt the game. Different experience tables per class was always strange as well. I also never liked how some stats worked differently for different classes (Str and Con).

It was fun, but many of my friends and I moved on to other systems eventualy. I know people who won't touch 3.0/3.5 because of their extreme dislike for experiences with 1st or 2nd Ed.

The different experience tables make PERFECT sense. A Fighter is a simple profession and learns combat abilities at a much faster rate than a Wizard, whose magic casting abilities are much more complex and require more study and preparation, thusly 2 seperate tables.

There wasn't a total lack of skills, they were either way simplified in the form of Secondary Skills (A profession) or in 85 when they introduced Non Weapon Proficiencies, not plentiful enough and then inconsistent with the already established Thieves Skills.

The idea that Str and Con worked differently for Warrior based classes also makes a lot of sense to me. Think about it like so, A fighter has a better idea of how to best use his strength and body to maximum effect while a Wizard or Priest are more focused on spiritual or magickal pursuits. The idea that STR and CON were of greater benefit to the warrior I think was overlooked by the majority of people when saying that Fighters were the weakest class. Consider a Fighter with an 18/00 and a 17 Con with the +1 to Thac0 per lvl he gets an AWESOME overall Thac0 and AWESOME hit point bonuses AND his Weapon Specializations granting not only extra attacks but a further +1 to hit. Damn. Now a Wizard with a 18 Str and and 17 Con WON'T outshine that fighter in combat except by magic. It helped to keep the specializaed aspects of the classes intact. Remember that Weapon Spec. and the Percentile Str and Bonus HP were not eligible to multi-classed characters.

Jason

Jason

 

[Janx]

I'm not a fan of Gygax's writing style. So I believe it to be opinion, not fact that 1e books were better written than 3e books. I've read his Greyhawk books (#1 and #2 in my collection at home, as well as the rest of the set by Rose Estes). Not good writing style. His Dragon Magazine column in recent years I found to be a bit pompous and pretencious(sp?). Both descriptors being of the high dollar type he would use.

As a final case in point, when I started D&D, we got the 1e PH and 2e DMG (accident from the mail-order, we ordered all 2e). The layout and writing in the DMG was far more easily digested than the 1e PH. And when I got the 2e PH, the rules were much easily understood. Mind you, at the time I was already into other RPGs and wargames, writing my own PC games, so knowing how to digest this stuff was easy.

All the above is just my experience. Others have different results. But let's not put 1e on a pedestal because it was first and Gygax wrote it.

Fact of the matter is, the games are getting more complex because that's what the player's want. Sure, some folks long for the simpler rules, but they are the minority (albeit vocal). People keep making extra rules to add complexity, because they've already mastered the system, and want to model new things. Hence, Non-weapon proficiencies and Skills and Skill Points. Some folks don't need all that.

 

[gizmo33]

Very cumbersome and pro-DM. What amazes me, though, are how threads pop up from time-to-time discussing how to get the 1E feel in 3.5. Just play 1E and you will definately get that feel! Why rearrange something that works (somewhat) efficently back to something that is very inefficent?

3E has plenty of style changes that have nothing to do with the d20 mechanic. There's no reason that you break the d20 system by making halflings hobbit-like (as opposed to kender), making the assassin a character class in it's own right, restoring monster power (demons, for example, are way more powerful in 3E relative to character level), etc.

There are plenty of ways to change 3E to get a 1E feel without changing the core mechanics of 3E (which is how I read "efficiency" in your post).

 

[teitan]

Certainly, you don't stop the game and start threads for resolution to an issue.

The answer now is, as it ever was, "the DM said so."

I wish it were so simple. As DM I have had HOURS long arguements with players who learned on 3E and just will not accept Rule 0, the Dm is always right. have always been a fair DM but when I say no, you can not screw over your other party members and they argue with me over it... ugh. I don't care if you are "playing your character". Fact is, if your character is an adventurer in a deadly dungeon or even as a part of a company of adventurers, whether he is evil or not, he will not try to get the Cleric's divine magic and domain abilities taken from him because HE NEEDS THEM JUST AS MUCH AS THE CLERIC DOES and KNOWS IT unless he is the DUMBEST fricking adventurer EVAR.

Jason