What if you brought 4E back to 1970?

[Bullgrit]

I'd like to give the 1970s the benefit of the doubt and say that even bell-bottomed lounge dwellers would think Dragonborn were lame.

They'd just need a name change: lounge lizards

Bullgrit

 

[Chainsaw]

I suspect there's loads of folks who play 4e without the DDI.

I've played in what amounts to an LFR pick-up game periodically and not everyone there has DDI - or even a PHB for that matter. I only recently got DDI myself and only because I needed to send a DM my "character file" (for a non-LFR game).

The service just doesn't appeal to me that much. I still like writing out my stuff by hand on a character sheet (call me CrAzY!) and thumbing through real books (cRaZy!). That's the way I did it growing up, so that process is part of what playing D&D means to me. Dying breed, I suppose.

 

[avin]

I'd like to give the 1970s the benefit of the doubt and say that even bell-bottomed lounge dwellers would think Dragonborn were lame.

Nothing is more lame than Hobbits/Halflings, not even (bleargh) Dragonborn

 

[ggroy]

Are we assuming that there is no "Temporal Prime Directive" in place, which forbids such an act as outlined in the OP?

Temporal Prime Directive - Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki

Prime Directive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[thedungeondelver]

Are we assuming that there is no "Temporal Prime Directive" in place, which forbids such an act as outlined in the OP?

Temporal Prime Directive - Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki

Prime Directive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm currently constructing a Tipler Cylinder out of unsold 3.5 books; when its complete (should have enough mass by next Wednesday), I'll head back and see what happens.

Note: I'm just going to tell Gary to fire Brian & Kevin.

 

[Raven Crowking]

One of the problems I note in the OP & many answers is the implied assumption that 4e is an objectivley better ruleset than 0e or 1e. I, for one, do not share in that assumption.


RC

 

[Janx]

One of the problems I note in the OP & many answers is the implied assumption that 4e is an objectivley better ruleset than 0e or 1e. I, for one, do not share in that assumption.


RC

I haven't looked at 4e, but I'm of the opinion that 2e and up were better organized and easier to read to learn how to play.

When I started, we had a mix of the wrong books (ordered 2e, got the 2E DMG and the 1E PH, had to send it back for the 2E PH). The difference in writing was night and day. Character creation was more straightforward, as was gameplay in 2e. Ultimately, I don't think there was anything in 2e that truly changed D&D from 1e, it was just better organized and written for a newcomer. Heck, we used the 1E MMs in our 2E games until we switched to 3E. Nor is this saying there weren't some good sections in the 1E books. 1E was just hard to get started with, which is why most folks learned from other folks.

You could take the 2E rules back (edit and print them out from the RTF files on the Core Rules CDs that TSR put out), and get the same effect.

I think the key effect, of bringing any game back, is that you'd jump start the RPG industry (based on when D&D actually started), and perhaps advance the state of the art a bit sooner. It's not a technology problem of bringing a cell phone to 1970 (they couldn't build or decipher most of an iphone yet). It's a matter of reading the text and getting the gist of the game, and then playing it or making variants.

You could potentially skip the chainmail phase of war-game turned into single-hero campaign, and jump right to playing hereoes from fantasy, because all the material is invented at once (assuming you sent the PH, DMG and MM).

 

[Garthanos]

4E in 1970? There would be a lot more long-haired, and bearded gamers playing it. Wait... maybe not

Hrumph....

 

[Intense_Interest]

I'd like to give the 1970s the benefit of the doubt and say that even bell-bottomed lounge dwellers would think Dragonborn were lame.

Of the two dozen players I have played with in my group(s) since 1997, six of them wanted to either be part-dragon, have dragon abilities, or be a large scalely Lizard-esque race. There has always been a demand for a race like the Dragonborn since I have played D&D. So in my opinion, by making the Dragonborn the baseline for players, the dislike you have now for Dragonborn would be as ludicrious as saying that half-orcs are lame now if you sent 4E back to the 70s

 

[Garthanos]

Of the two dozen players I have played with in my group(s) since 1997, six of them wanted to either be part-dragon, have dragon abilities, or be a large scalely Lizard-esque race. There has always been a demand for a race like the Dragonborn since I have played D&D. So in my opinion, by making the Dragonborn the baseline for players, the dislike you have now for Dragonborn would be as ludicrious as saying that half-orcs are lame now if you sent 4E back to the 70s

Yup and you want to find lizard headed people in myth and legend check out egyptian myth and people descended from dragons check out any number of cultures in the orient... but if you want half orcs.. . ummm well gee orcs are sort of... a generic monster name that was glommed on to by one literary source and he never intimated they could reproduce even on their own necessarily... they were likely created beings.