What *feel* did OD&D/Basic D&D/1E/2E have compared to 3E?

[dead]

Just wondering if anyone has noticed a different *feel* to each incarnation of D&D. Here's how the different versions felt for me:

OD&D: Dunno. Never played it. (Diaglo, can you help here?)

Basic D&D: Full of wonderment. Colourful. Fascinating and dreamy.

AD&D 1E: Grim. Gritty. Dark. Battles . . . lots of battles.

AD&D 2E: Light-hearted. Many worlds. Cosmopolitan and vibrant.

D&D 3E: Cinimatic, innovative and glossy.

I've only summed up the *feel* I can remember and I'm not sure if the different feelings I experienced were a result of *rules changes* or a result of *context* in which I played the particular edition (ie. the year in which they were released and the age I was at the time).

Have the various editions changed the *mood/feel* of your D&D game?

Or does upgrading to a new edition go unnoticed by you?

 

[Saeviomagy]

Basic D&D: Full of wonderment. Colourful. Fascinating and dreamy.

Lots of what you've got here - it was new, it was exciting. That's because it was my second roleplaying game (after fighting fantasy). And even then, there was stuff I liked from FF better...

Then, after a bit, it was silly. Why is every elf a wizard/warrior? etc.

AD&D 2E: Light-hearted. Many worlds. Cosmopolitan and vibrant.

To start - yay! They fixed stuff from first! One or two sections or rules which were genuinely better. Then I read advanced fighting fantasy. Bummer, eh? I always found myself wishing that 2nd ed was like other RPGs.

2nd really drove me away from roleplaying - it had all the complexity and none of the benefits that should flow from that complexity. The big word that sums it up is: arcane. 2nd ed was a mire of pointless, conflicting and nonsensical rules.

D&D 3E: Cinimatic, innovative and glossy.

I wanted to like 2nd ed. I went so far as to make up house rules. The first thing that hit me about 3e is that most of my house rules (or ideas for house rules) were in it.

And I was hooked. Now I find myself wishing that my other favourite RPGs were more like 3rd ed/d20

 

[Mouseferatu]

Basic and 1E AD&D had a feel of wonder and excitement for me that nothing since has been able to match.

That said, I can recognize that much if not all of this comes from the fact that I was a kid, with these brand new games, and the imagination that even the most imaginative of us as adults cannot match.

I think that 3E is a better game, mechanically. It feels a little more tactical to me--not always a plus--but that's easily worked around. It also feels a bit more cinematic and "out there."

I'd be lying if I said I didn't miss aspects of the old versions, particularly the simplicity (which I think can be recaptured) and the true sense of wonder (which I think probably can't, since it had to do with where I was, not the game). But ultimately, I like where we are far more than I miss where we were.

(That said, I wouldn't mind a quick game of Basic D&D now and then, just as a change of pace, if anyone else in my group was interested. )

 

[Akrasia]

.... Basic D&D: Full of wonderment. Colourful. Fascinating and dreamy...

All true!

But "Basic D&D" is vague -- do you mean the original Holmes Basic Set, the classic Moldvay Basic set, or the Mentzer Basic set?

Moreover, there was the D&D system that was completely separate from AD&D in the 1980s and early 1990s: namely, the Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert system of the early 80s (the sets with the classic Erol Otus covers), the Mentzer Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters/Immortals sets of the mid-late 80s, and the Rules Cylcopledia book of 1991 (which compiled all the rules from the Mentzer sets). These various boxes/books were, essentially, the same system -- namely, "Dungeons and Dragons"!

And the Rules Cyclopedia D&D (with a few house rules) was the best system to DM of all time IMO. (Albeit with a few house rules.)

The feel was "fast and furious", and "let's let our imaginations rule!" No worries about AoOs, feats, prestige classes, and all that crap!

AD&D 1E: Grim. Gritty. Dark. Battles . . . lots of battles.

I agree with "grim and gritty." Also too rule-heavy (with completely different mechanisms to cover different activities).

However, you could easily ignore many rules (e.g. my group just used the Moldvay Basic combat rules, and ignored weapon speeds, segments, etc.) without hurting -- or "breaking" -- the game at all. Very modular.

And the Trampier PHB cover is the all-time best cover in terms of capturing the "true spirit" of D&D!

AD&D 2E: Light-hearted. Many worlds. Cosmopolitan and vibrant.

Bleah! A sanitized version of 1st edition for the kiddies. No more DEMONS and DEVILS. No more ASSASSIN class. No more half-orcs and barbarians.

Nonetheless, despite the "Mr.Clean" rules, some good worlds: Darksun, Planescape, and Ravenloft. Far more original stuff than you see nowadays (e.g. Darksun didn't give a crap about "not using all the official rules"; one of Eberron's main boasts is that it can do this).

D&D 3E: Cinimatic, innovative and glossy.

Cinematic? What? :\

If you mean turning combat into a tactical wargame "cinematic", then okay (in my books, constantly worrying about whether "doing x" will "prompt an attack of opportunity" is the antithesis of cinematic).

Still, a system that enables the player a great degree of flexibility in designing her character. And it gives rules for everything for the DM who needs/likes them.

I like 3.x enough to DM and play it, but it often feels like a video game, with its focus on feats, etc. It would be insufferable to DM with players who did not ROCK like mine do (but that is pretty much true of any game/editions).

Have the various editions changed the *mood/feel* of your D&D game?

Yes. This is why I look forward to Castles and Crusades to recapture the "old school feel" of earlier editions of DnD, but with some of the "stream-lining" that d20 introduced.

But in order to prevent any tedious flames here, I do like 3rd edition. I play it and (less frequently) DM it. However, I just think it is fundamentally different than earlier editions. In some respects better, in some respects worse.

 

[Akrasia]

... Now I find myself wishing that my other favourite RPGs were more like 3rd ed/d20

Gawd, I could not disagree more.

Thank heavens there is still a BRP version of CoC, and that Buffy/Angel was not done with d20! I think using d20 for Conan was a horrible idea (though Mongoose did do about as good a job as one could, given the d20 constraints).

D20 suits a very particular RPG style. It is great for certain kinds of campaigns/worlds/milieux. But it is completely inapporiate for many others.

 

[Mouseferatu]

If you mean turning combat into a tactical wargame "cinematic", then okay (in my books, constantly worrying about whether "doing x" will "prompt an attack of opportunity" is the antithesis of cinematic).

At the risk of hijacking a thread (and it was so young! )...

There's a simple solution to this. Ignore most AoOs.

I'm in the midst of running a very cinematic Eberron game right now. (See here for a sample.) And frankly, the only time we worry about AoOs is if someone does something blatantly stupid (like digging in a backpack in the midst of melee) or if someone tries to haul butt through the middle of enemy-occupied territory. Other than that, we go with the flow, and don't worry too much about "Gee, I have to go two extra squares in this direction in order to avoid his spear." In fact, we recently ran a combat in a fairly complex, multi-level chamger, with all manner of tubes and balconies, and not once did we count squares. I knew roughly how far it was across any given point of the room, and we just decided if the characters could move that far or not, without worrying about precise routes or number of squares.

And it's been one of the most cinematic games, with some of the most exciting combats, I've ever run--in any edition.

Ignore AoOs, or else use them only when the situation really screams for it. So long as the players know the game's running this way in advance, so they can weigh the options and decide if things like Combat Reflexes are really worth it, it doesn't harm the game in the slightest. (Assuming you aren't looking for tactics and the like, but in your case, you clearly aren't.) And it does make things flow much faster and yes, more cinematically.

 

[MonsterMash]

Well to beat Diaglo to it
OD&D(1974) is the only game. Everything else is a pale imitation

Actually with the OD&D rules the feel was very open, lots of scope to do what you wanted without having to work through mountains of rules. As the rules structure was loose you could create your own rules to fit your group and your world (not that house rules, etc are impossible now, but then it was more a case of create rules to do it, rather than I don't like the rules for x so I'll change them with 3e).

What else - imagination running wild, being able to mix fantasy with SF with just about anything else you wanted. In terms of authors its Edgar Rice Burrough's Barsoom, Conan, Jack Vance's Dying Earth, and Tolkien all mixed up and baked together for that special fantasy goodness.

 

[Akrasia]

.... Ignore AoOs ... .

Fair enough, and I have been experimenting with this.

... And it does make things flow much faster and yes, more cinematically.

Relative to standard d20 perhaps -- relative to other systems, IME, no. (And I hate the way that "Eberron" has somehow laid claim to the adjective "cinematic." But that is a pet-peeve, and partially motivated by my dislike for Eberron, esp. action points.)

Now, back to the thread...

 

[Numion]

Actually with the OD&D rules the feel was very open, lots of scope to do what you wanted without having to work through mountains of rules. As the rules structure was loose you could create your own rules to fit your group and your world (not that house rules, etc are impossible now, but then it was more a case of create rules to do it, rather than I don't like the rules for x so I'll change them with 3e).

I guess it has something to do with maturity too. When I was around 10, playing D&D, missing rules for something meant it didn't happen and wasn't possible. We would've never altered the official rules. So my feel of the old editions is both wonder and restrictivity .. and later stupidity when D&D became a running joke within our group, up until 3rd ed

Nowadays I have no trouble houseruling, but there isn't much need for that in 3e. Mostly just banned few spells and the like. Feel of 3e for me is openness where anything is possible (those were my first feelings when I started to get into the game). And also taking names and kicking ass. Or something.

 

[Thanee]

I guess it's similar to the first part of a great movie series, like Star Wars, or Indiana Jones, or Matrix... no wait, scrap that, Matrix was not a series.

First part was something new, wonderful, exciting, but the second and third part were great entertainment as well, just lacking the novelty of the first, this certain something, which is hard to describe, which makes you feel special for being part of it, for having been there.

Still, many people prefer the second or third over the first.

Bye
Thanee