What do you dislike about 1E?

[TerraDave]

Wow! I knew 1E had some problems, but dude, you really bring it all out into the open. So the question begs, how did such a game become so popular? diaglo? Bullure?



Scott

Yes it had problems, the various lists above are dead on.

But, as Francisca implied, few people played by the book AD&D--not even Col Pladoh. They played an O/B&E/AD&D hybrid that simplified things...though they might then use Dragon, or the various volumes of the Arduin Grimoire or their own house rules to recomplicate it (see Hackmaster).

D&D overall succeeded becuase in spite of all these flaws, it worked (at least in a simplified form). If the DM had some clue, he could buy a module, make charecters, and begin a campaign that could last years and see significant charecter development (of a kind). And most rules could be used as written most of the time. This sounds basic, but I don't know that you can say that about a lot of RPGs that have released over the years.

1st edition AD&D also succeeded becuase it could be evocative with a great sense of style. And this is the big difference with later editions: 2nd edition did clean up some mechanics (though most of the deeper flaws remained), but was deathly boring in comparison. Some of the later campaign worlds made up for that, but only partially.

 

[Celebrim]

Wow! I knew 1E had some problems, but dude, you really bring it all out into the open. So the question begs, how did such a game become so popular?

Well, I completely disagree that I'm overstating the problems. If anything, I'm vastly understating them. First edition D&D was a horribly flawed game.

But that has to be put in the proper perspective. I'm prone to picking on Col. Pladoh and offering up various scathing criticisms of his work. Doing so is something like criticizing Edison for his early attempts at making a light bulb, or criticizing the Wright brothers for thier early work with flying machines. The fact of the matter is the Col. Pladoh is co-creator of and primary driving force behind one of the most important inventions of the 20th century which has and will have far reaching implications in education, entertainment, and military sciences and which has had an indirect impact in hastening the information and computing revolutions. It's only a mild understatement to say that Moore's law has been driven by the needs of gamers. So, while I do think 1st edition D&D to be horribly flawed, I feel pretty comfortable thinking that I won't offend anyone's ego by saying so. The Kittyhawk is a horribly flawed airplane, but its hanging in Smithsonian for a very good reason.

The topic was what 1st edition D&D got wrong. It would be an even lenghtier discussion to discuss what 1st edition D&D got right.

But since you asked why such a horribly flawed game succeeded, I'll give a brief answer:

1) TSR put out alot of quality - even revolutionairy - products. That is such an obvious explanation that it is easy to over look it, but the fact of the matter is that alot of what TSR put out is deservedly classic. Alot of TSR's competitors could see what TSR was doing wrong, but generally speaking it wasn't until the '90's that TSR competitors started consistantly putting out products that were actually fixing more problems than they were causing.
2) Everyone who gamed knew how to play. The system was it its heart very simple, and everyone who gamed had played it. If you wanted to get a game together with friends, it was the only game that everyone would know how to play and would have books for.
3) It is was cool in a wierdly esoteric way. It wasn't a dumbed down product. It was electic and compelling and strange and exciting. It inspired the imagination. Old 1st edition books read like fantastic arcane tomes. The language was right, even if at some level it was language horribly suited to conveying clear meaning.
4) The class/level system and hit point systems are at some level highly elegant despite thier complete lack of 'realism'. If you don't believe that, then you haven't played enough gaming systems. One thing you learn playing alot of rules systems is that often a game systems biggest strength is also its biggest weakness. For example, GURPS has a remarkable level of detail and potential for simulation. It's also more detail than you really need or as a game moderator can usefully prepare before a game begins. Rolemaster and MERPS and all the other 3rd generation games reveled in the very esoteric tables (and cross references tables) that we know recognize as another type of hinderance to play. Pure skill systems are hard to balance, can lead to munkinist one trick wonders, and make describing NPC's tersely extremely difficult. Just because D&D was all horribly wrong, doesn't mean anyone had really figured out a better way to do things. Rather, choosing between AD&D and something else typically meant choosing what you considered to be the lesser of several evils. Several systems proved better at one thing or the other (it was hard to do horror or Sci-Fi in D&D), but in the fantasy market, D&D remained king. HARN, MERPS, and GURPS in my experience tended to exist mostly as simulationist play things for DM's. Most of the actual group play that was going on was in AD&D.

 

[Crothian]

Why not?

Because of all the options availible in the later games.

 

[rogueattorney]

Well, I completely disagree that I'm overstating the problems. If anything, I'm vastly understating them. First edition D&D was a horribly flawed game.

Celebrim, if AD&D1 was the best of a bunch of horrible options, why do we have an rpg market now? Back in 1978, why didn't people just keep their money in their pockets rather than buy rpg's? Are you presuming a market existed for product that didn't? As what is essentially a luxury product, I don't believe rpg's are filling a need which was being unfulfilled, not when board games, television, movies, books, etc., etc., etc. already existed.

OD&D and AD&D1 succeeded because they were good, fun games that people enjoyed playing over and above other entertainment options. In the 70's, people weren't pulling out their wallets because it was the only game in town, or the best of a bunch of poor options. They were pulling out their wallets because they were preferring to spend their money on D&D rather than on the movies, or on comic books, or what have you.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's something intrinsic to rpg's that fulfills something in people that wasn't being served prior to their creation and popularization, and the popularity of early D&D had more to do with the fact that it fulfilled the need rather than the quality of the product itself. I doubt it though. Not when it remains such a niche hobbey. It would be like saying building RC airplanes or home brewing has something intrinsic about it that fulfills in people. RPG's, RC airplanes, home brewing, macrame, doll collecting, etc. are all hobbies, nothing more, and the popularity thereof rely entirely on the fun to cost ratio of the product.

The truth is, AD&D1 succeeded, and succeeded wildly, because it was a great game. The entire rpg industry owes its existance to the game.

R.A.

 

[Crothian]

The truth is, AD&D1 succeeded, and succeeded wildly, because it was a great game. The entire rpg industry owes its existance to the game..

Not really. People diodn't know better it was one of a few games on the block. Now with all these great games out there the compitition has created better games.

 

[rogueattorney]

Not really. People diodn't know better it was one of a few games on the block. Now with all these great games out there the compitition has created better games.

Wow. I'm going to go talk to a brick wall now.

 

[Crothian]

Wow. I'm going to go talk to a brick wall now.

Somehow I think you are trying to make some sort of comment that has meaning here but I fail to see it. Perhaps you are imitating that brick wall you are going to go talk to, I'm just not sure.

Now there is the chance that you feel games have not improved at all in the past 20 years. But by your comment no one has any idea what you might be talking about except for that you like talking to walls.

 

[EricNoah]

When this same topic came up a month ago, here's what I said:

"Dislike/hate" [of any older edition, particularly Basic or AD&D] is too strong and in the wrong direction. I get a visceral charge out of reading older materials; it tickles my brain in a place nothing else can reach. Any time I want that feeling I can read module B1 and get it again.

But that's not saying I would want to play older edition D&D. It's not due to hate or dislike, though. And it doesn't mean those who do are stupid or backward or unable to embrace change. People should play what (and how) they like.

Also, if the question is "are edition wars the height of RPG stupidity/futility/dumbosity" then my answer is yes.

Read that last sentence again. Edition wars are utterly, utterly pointless.

 

[orsal]

The truth is, AD&D1 succeeded, and succeeded wildly, because it was a great game. The entire rpg industry owes its existance to the game.

Not really. People diodn't know better it was one of a few games on the block. Now with all these great games out there the compitition has created better games.

Ummm... may I say that I think you're both right, and I don't understand how anything Crothian is saying contradicts rogueattorney?

Early versions of (A)D&D were, and still are, an excellent and innovative hobby. Over time, they have been improved on.

 

[Celebrim]

Maybe there's something intrinsic to rpg's that fulfills something in people that wasn't being served prior to their creation and popularization, and the popularity of early D&D had more to do with the fact that it fulfilled the need rather than the quality of the product itself.

That's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. I do believe that role playing fulfills needs that say chess or movies or novels does not, and that remains a niche hobby because only a small percentage of people strongly have the creative needs that D&D fulfills. Which isn't to say that alot of people can't enjoy a role playing game, only that the hobby is driven not merely by the people who enjoy an occasional game but by its obsessive fans. And we, by arguing this point, prove conclusively that we qualify in that category.

To continue a previous analogy, I'm saying that D&D in 1980 was something like a 1920 airplane. By comparison to the modern version, it was clunky, slow, had limited range, was fragile, and couldn't really carry alot of weight. But it still fulfilled a need that people had, and it fulfilled it in a way that was wonderful and magical at the time. When we gamers first say say the 1st edition Player's Handbook, we gawked like a bunch of rural farmers staring at our first flying machine. It was amazing stuff the like of which we had never seen before. The idea of an open ended fantasy simulation in which you'd take on the roles of fighters, wizards, clerics and rogues? Amazing! What a fantastic world that we live in! I can go down into a hole, kill some orcs, and take thier treasure!! Why its like being the star in your own book! It's like playing cops and robbers and always knowing who shot who first! I can make my own worlds and fill them with cities and people and histories!! Sign me up!

But that doesn't mean that the mechanics of the thing were solid at the time, and it took alot of work to keep it going.