What do you dislike about 1E?

[francisca]

You are right. I am the only person the buys the new books. I'm suprised I didn't see it before. :\

Oh come on now, you know there are plenty of people on this board, and likely way more than that who don't come here who are content with the core 3, and maybe a little more.

 

[diaglo]

Temptation and need to get them. All of the rules are not in the core books. Complete arcane has the rules for sneak attack and spells for instance something that is not covered in the core books but can come up ijn a normal game.

i somewhat agree with Crothian.

you have to be living in a box or on a desert island with no internet connection... which i guess does explain Storm Raven's angst... not to see or at least hear about other books.

the same was true back in the early days too.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I liked 1E a lot more than 2E, but 1E still annoyed me with:

18/xx Strength
Lack of rules
Level limits
Class Restrictions
Cookie-cutter characters
To Hit and Save tables (although this problem was easily remedied)
Psionics

Kane

 

[Crothian]

Oh come on now, you know there are plenty of people on this board, and likely way more than that who don't come here who are content with the core 3, and maybe a little more.

Yes I am. I never said there were none. I'm saying it was easier to play with just the core books in 1e then with just the core books in 3e.

 

[Kanegrundar]

Yes I am. I never said there were none. I'm saying it was easier to play with just the core books in 1e then with just the core books in 3e.

How is it easier to play in 1E with just the CR than 3E? I haven't had any more problems with 3E doing just that than I did in 1E or even 2E. I'm just curious as to what you see are the hurdles in using just the 3E CR's?

Kane

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Better is of course an opinion and mine are that games have improved.

*nods*

You are, of course, entitled to it.

The writing is better,

"Better" in the sense of being more entertaining to read? Higher quality prose? Wider use of vocabulary? Less spelling and grammatical errors?

In my opinion ( ) 1e AD&D was preferable to the 3.x offerings in terms of all of the above.

the layout and orgnization are better, the production values are better.

Well, let's say that everyone new school or old managed to come up with a better layout and organisation than 1e AD&D. The production values are certainly better nowadays as well: I can chuck out a .pdf that looks better than 1e did and distribute it for free. 21st century publishing technology has come a long way.

Game desingers themselves have learned a lot and that knowledge has constructed better games.

This is the nub of it: is 3.x a better game?

Personally I can't be bothered with it. In the time it takes to create a character or even just write up a stat block in 3.x, let alone resolve a combat, I could done a whole heap of things in 1e that would have resulted in a lot more fun. I don't personally enjoy creating characters or writing stat blocks or resolving three hour combats.

However, there are certainly people who do enjoy these activities, and for them I suppose that 3.x must be the ideal game.

 

[MonsterMash]

Oh come on now, you know there are plenty of people on this board, and likely way more than that who don't come here who are content with the core 3, and maybe a little more.

I started my D&D 3.5 campaign with the 3 core books and Player's Guide to the Wilderlands as the only new books (and my old Judges Guild City State of the Invincible Overlord and Wilderlands of High Fantasy set from 1978). Even now I only have a round dozen 3e books including adventures and setting books.

 

[francisca]

Yes I am. I never said there were none. I'm saying it was easier to play with just the core books in 1e then with just the core books in 3e.

Ok, maybe I'm missing your point. The mechanics of 3e were designed to cover more situations that come up in the game, witness the skill system, AOOs, etc...in an effort to reduce the practice of DM fiat and arbitrariness, or at least that is my take on it.

So, how does that make core 3e harder to run than core 1e? I mean, there should be less head scratching and approximation by the DM in 3e because more is laid out for him/her. Do you think less is more? Has 3e planted the idea in everyone's head that because so much is defined and there are mechanics for way more than previous editions that there *must* be definitions and rules for everything, causing zombie like gamers to trudge out to the store to buy more and more books? Seriously, I'm not trying to be obtuse here.

DISCLOSURE: For the record, I personally prefer to run 1e, after having run 3.x for about 3 years. I attribute it to personal preference, however. Having run 1e exclusively for the last 5 months, I find it easier to run 1e, but I think it's because I am enjoying it more, which makes the work load of running a game more palatable.

 

[Wolf72]

the 8th lvl thief had the same amount of experience points as a 5th lvl magic-user

 

[Crothian]

How is it easier to play in 1E with just the CR than 3E? I haven't had any more problems with 3E doing just that than I did in 1E or even 2E. I'm just curious as to what you see are the hurdles in using just the 3E CR's?

Kane

3e is a more complex game. 1e might have had rules problems but it was easier for the DM to hand wave them sine 1e was a DM friendly game. 3e being a player friendly game makes the rules more up frant and harder to hand wave. 3e also has new rules that should have been in the core books printed in the other books. 1e didn't have that problem as there just wasn't that many other books out there aside from the modules.

Now this is not to say it is impossible or that no one does it. I've used onlky the core books for a 3e game and know of others who have too. In most of those games I've seen players not so much complaining but commenting on using the other books. In 1e I never had a player comment about using one of the other books.