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

[diaglo]

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.

that's just cuz you got on the internet this morning before me.

 

[Aaron2]

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

In 1979, when I was in 6th grade, my brother who was in high school at the time told of this game they played behing the library where "you can do anything you want." From the short description of his adventure, I imagined all sorts of cool fantastic things. However, when I finally got the game, I found it full of silly restriction and limited potential (look at the 1/2 of 1 column about playing a monsters. OD&D was the same way).

3e feels more like that game I imagined in the 6th grade than any other version. Its more like D&D than original D&D.


Aaron

 

[hong]

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

Cartoony?

 

[Troll Wizard]

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

Very basic fun interesting, its new!

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

Mentzer box sets, enjoyed it for a while in high school, it was ok

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

Yes I remember this version with fondness; my first homebrew campaign was in this version. Low magic, heroes weren't stats bonus crème de la crème types; they were just normal people striving to right the wrongs of their world.
It was not pure joy though; I hated the fetish that the designers had with elves, hated level caps and racial level caps, the multi-class rules, the negative AC progression and thac0 BS. I hated that all PCs were dominated by elves, dwarves, and halflings. In college games too many parties where dominated by elves.

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

While my homebrew continued into this version the power creep in the class books and then the Player's Options books really killed it for me. I left D&D shortly after the PO books came out. Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Planescape, and several other TSR worlds were a really turn off, only Greyhawk and too a point Ravenloft did I enjoy reading and mining for ideas.

In the prior editions (OD&D, 1st, 2nd) that I played while in H.S., college, and at some bases while in the Marines. House rules were the norm, sometimes it was a “real challenge” adjusting under different DMs interpretation of the rules and their version of a "realistic" medieval world. This is one issue that I do not miss at all from the prior editions.

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

What comes to mind right of the bat for 3.0/3.5 is rules consistency; high rolls good, low rolls bad. Better balance between races and between classes, not perfect but at least the parties are not dominated by elven fighter/wizards. The rules flexibility and the skill rule set help the poor role-players immerse themselves in the campaign world.
This rule set does have the problem of easy to abuse rules and the factored in magical power requirements for the classes as you gain levels and face new and more powerful opponents.
In other aspects IMO I was and I am spoiled with the prior editions “novelty” and “uniqueness" of magical items and to a point magic spells. Its default status in the current edition robs "magic" of its rarity and potency, since everyone is expected to have magical items.
In another issue the fast pace of gaining levels reminds me too much of Diablo and other computer games. You don't get to enjoy playing at the lower levels and gaining levels is just an expected result and therefore it is not a milestone in your characters life as it was in the past.

Yet I still enjoy 3.5 and will address some of these issues by making some adjustments in my next campaign.

 

[Erekose]

I grew up with with the changing face of D&D:

13/14 - OD&D
15/16 - 1st Edition
20 - 2nd Edition - at which point I stopped roleplaying!
34 - 3rd Edition - restarted roleplaying!

I agree with everyone else who has said that my love of OD&D is probably due to my age at the time and the fact that it was my first RPG.

1st Edition was more sophisticated but I was growing more sophisticated!

2nd Edition felt like a childs game whereas the 1st Edition felt like it was a game for adults!

[I don't mean to "age-ist" in the above comment, I'm more pointing out that as a child reading a game that felt like it was for adults but was about dungeons and dragons I was really impressed - with the game and myself! As an adult reading a game that felt like it was for children really put me off.]

3rd Edition - while I like much of it, it does feel very complicated as written. Someone on another thread mentioned that it feels like a computer game and I tend to agree. However, much of the overly complex stuff can be easily house ruled away!

With all the above said, the emotional side of me will always see 1st Edition as "the game". (Apologies to diaglo )

 

[Rawwedge]

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.

I think we have a very similar point of view in this regard. I have very fond memories of 1st edition being about slipping into the identity of a favorite character and bringing that character to life every session. I remeber it being a lot about roleplay and plot development with some fun battles for punctuation. I don't think it had much to do with the edition though. If I played first edition today it would probably feel very different as you've suggested.

For me 3rd edition is all about the crunch and an imperfect system that was rushed to market full of flaws. I hate as much as I love in third edition; some things about it are great. I love the way characters are generated and all of the options available there. I hate that there is so much rules creep and that a lot of those rules quickly introduce imbalance into a very fragile foundation. (Don't get me wrong, if forced to choose between 1st and 3rd edition right now, I'd probably pick 3rd.) But again, I think all of that becomes meaningless and insignificant if I am playing in a campaign with people who like the game for the sames reasons I do and like the same style of play I do.

IMHO the edition you play isn't nearly as important as the gaming circle you are a part of and wether you allow the rules to serve the campaign you want or you allow the rules to drive the campaign.

 

[Henry]

OD&D - rough around the edges, unmistakeable charm, so new it defies description. The simple fact of its innovation in the published game category absolves it of a multitude of sins of incompleteness.

Basic D&D - simple to use, ridiculously easy for a pre-teen child to pick up and use, a perfect gateway drug for the hobby. It was typified by simply laid out but easily expandable dungeon and wilderness crawls, laced with seeds for roleplay, though not a lot of mature themes.

Advanced D&D - The feel I got was at first one of overwhelming complexity; when I was 12, I assumed that EVERY rule in the book was supposed to be used, though I did no such thing. It has the feel of a tome of forbidden lore, written almost stream-of-consciousness by a college professor who could organize their thoughts a few days in advance, but not a few months; therefore, each topic was laid out well, but each section was quite freeform in organization. Games were piles of addendums that somehow despite the complexity seemed to fit together well.

AD&D 2nd edition - AD&D simplified, it was the first time that experience was gauged in the rules not just by conquests but by accomplishments. The feel was like Roger Moore described in a Dragon Magazine article before it was ever released - 1st edition was like a hastily put together flyer of a store, implying sweet secrets and hidden bargains; 2nd edition was like that same store flyer cleaned up, professionally laid out, and sterilized of all of its "hidden bargain" nature.

 

[Rel]

AD&D 2nd edition - AD&D simplified, it was the first time that experience was gauged in the rules not just by conquests but by accomplishments. The feel was like Roger Moore described in a Dragon Magazine article before it was ever released - 1st edition was like a hastily put together flyer of a store, implying sweet secrets and hidden bargains; 2nd edition was like that same store flyer cleaned up, professionally laid out, and sterilized of all of its "hidden bargain" nature.

I find that interesting, Henry. Like others above 2E moved me away from D&D and I didn't return until 3E. And even then I did so reluctantly because I was afraid that 3E was going to be just a slight rehash of 2E rather than the dramatic change that it was.

I never played OD&D. My first exposure was in the Boy Scouts when I was 9. I really don't know what version they were playing at the time (it was 1980). But I was instantly intrigued and asked for "D&D" for my 10th birthday. I got the "Red Box" basic set and fell in love instantly.

Shortly thereafter I got the AD&D DMG and realized that there was a whole new edition of the game out there. So, I stopped messing with Basic after I got the Expert rules and moved into AD&D. That's where virtually all of my early roleplaying was done. We played AD&D throughout our adolescent years and had tons of time to do so. This unquestionably plays into my fond memories of that version of the game.

Just about then 2E came into the picture and I sort of felt like I was being told to switch not because I wanted to but because TSR wanted me to. I didn't have to contemplate this for long though. Long about that time, the "anti-D&D" wave finally caught up with our group and one guy's parents forbid him from playing it. So, being the clever young bucks that we were, we simply switched to another system that wasn't called D&D. We started playing Rolemaster.

With RM, I found a vastly flexible system (also very complex though it wasn't so bad without all the various companions that would come out over the next few years) that seemed to address all the weak areas of D&D. So I spent the entirety of the 2E era playing RM and RMSS, eventually becoming a writer for some of the RMSS material. But eventually the rules complexity started to catch up with us. Our games moved away from combat to avoid the complexity of the combat rules. At first we thought this relative lack of combat (we seldom had a combat more than every other session) made us "mature gamers". But really it just made us idiots who needed a different system.

We were rescued from our doldrums by 3E and have not looked back since. Therefore I probably have a skewed affection for 3E that I don't have for previous versions of D&D because it really lit the fire back under my roleplaying habit. It put the GAME part back in "roleplaying game" for me (instead of the Amatuer Thespian shtick that I was doing before) and has reenergized our group in a way that I wasn't sure was possible. I feel all happy just thinking about it! Or maybe that's just my first cup of coffee hitting my system...

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Thinking about this, I'm not sure if there was a distinct feel to a particular edition of the game for me, it was more how I was changing as I grew up.

I came into D&D with the Basic Set (not really sure why the cover art matters, were there significant changes between the different sets?). At that time it was just so cool (in a nerdy kind of way, of course). Everything was new, I had no idea what green slime was or how I could defeat it - it was all an adventure!

With AD&D we graduated to a more, what we thought of as mature, game. More rules, more monsters, more choices, more magic. We powergamed like never before. We chose gods from Deities and Demigods to slay and took their cool weapons to kill other gods.

We all moved on to 2nd Edition when it came out. We were disapponted many of our suggestions that we submitted through Dragon magazine didn't make it into the game. Some things were a little awkward to use, but it was still D&D and we loved the game. During this time we grew up a little more - powergaming became less important, character development came to the forefront a little more. I know the mechanics sucked, but I credit the Non-Weapon Proficiencies for some of this change. The idea that our characters were more than their combat abilities was novel and started adding depth.

When 3rd edition came out it was a mixed blessing. The improved mechanics were great, but we had only recently started a new group with a bunch of newbies who we suddenly had to reteach the new rules (and my wizard lost a boatload of XP in the conversion ). We struggled to adapt for a while but in the end the game went on, and we had as much fun as we ever did playing.

I don't believe that any new product out there could recapture the feel of the earlier editions, unless it come with something to make me a kid again. I will analyze the rules, make changes, criticize things I think are stupid or broken and in the end play my characters the same way I do, just using different mechanics. Each edition of the game has affected how I play, it has been an evolution and, no matter what, I will never be able to go back to what I was.

Remember the wonder of Intellivision or Coleco-vision? It was SOOO cool - Did you get the same feeling about PlayStation2, or was it different because you have grown up and so have your expectations?

 

[Wombat]

OD&D -- a true sense of wonder, followed quickly by manic silliness. The days of Alarums and Excursions (sp?). When The Three Little Books first arrived, I thought I had found exactly what I had been looking for, a game that was an escape from AH/SPI and miniatures battles rules arguments -- much more freeform, no specific winners and losers, and a wild sense of adventure. I thought I could reenact my favourite fantasy and legendary tales! But I quickly found the system to be very, very odd and that the Run For The Gold (XP = Gold Retrieved) to be utterly at odds with all stories I knew, barring Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser. The game didn't feel heroic as much as gold-crazed (and magic-items-crazed -- I remember all the jokes about the +2 backscratchers). So in the first blush I loved the game (and still have nastolgia for it), but I quickly became discouraged with it.

Basic D&D1E/2E -- dropped out and didn't come back except for spot checks, those all quite horrible to my later gaming mind. I found RuneQuest, Chivalry & Sorcery, Harn, Call of Cthulhu, and (ultimately) Ars Magica. Had no regrets.

I only came back to D&D because of 3e, and that because a buddy of mine, who had a buddy at WotC, sent me the core rules for Christmas the year it came out. I could get into a larger discussion, but that would be beyond the scope of this question.