What the heck is "First Edition Feel"?

[TerraDave]

Baroque

First Edition AD&D had a rule in the combat chapter that you can, outside of combat, kill a helpless creature in one round automatically. Inside of combat, you can hit them at your normal rate of attacks for max damage (or was it double max damage?). It's apparently little known, but it's there.

And then there is this side of specifically 1st edition AD&D, it was Advanced becuase there where so many little known rules--I still find them when I look back at the DMG.

It wasn't "simple", "straight-foward" or "less-complex" as written. But it was played that way.

But that is returning to the edition wars...(and shouldn't this thread be locked yet)...

 

[Belen]

I think 1e needs a very good DM to make a good game. 3e can make a good game with a mediocre DM. I have at certain points in time tried to claw my eyes out when 1e/2e DMs were a stickler for the rules... especially the ones that didn't make sense - I myself WAS such a DM. Telling a DM what he needs to do is good, because the really good DMs will know what to do anyway, so can ignore this because of experience and the development of a personal style.

And the same is true in 3e. For a great game, you need a GM that knows when to stick to the rules and when to forge their own path in order to keep the game fun and moving well.

The myth that 3e is trying to create is that the GM is irrelevant because the rules for everything have been defined. That may make for a good miniatures game, but that stills make for a bad D&D game.

 

[der_kluge]

You know, this is all very fascinating to me, and if nothing else it just shows that to some people "1e feel" is a good thing.

And to some, "1e feel" means something far, far inferior to what we currently have. Marketers, take note.

 

[Belen]

You know, this is all very fascinating to me, and if nothing else it just shows that to some people "1e feel" is a good thing.

And to some, "1e feel" means something far, far inferior to what we currently have. Marketers, take note.

The funny thing is the no one seems to be saying that 3e is inferior in any way. They are just labeling a preference between two different systems.

Funny that.

 

[Ourph]

Because the 1e was less complex. It was not a gamist game.

And this is why you will never get a satisfactory answer about the "1e feel", because even people who like 1e can't agree on what it is!

IMO, 1e is the gamist game in terms of fantasy RPGs (second only to B/X D&D). To me, the gamist philosophy accepts the rules as-is and the goal is to meet and overcome challenges within the framework of those rules.

Gamism doesn't require a complex set of rules (though it can deal with them if they are present). Simulationism does, in general, require a complex set of rules; and even though it's counter-intuitive, so does narrativism at times. IMO, 3e is the antithesis of a gamist game because it seems to me the majority of the rules are designed to allow mechanical simulation of a player's narrativistic goals for his character. If you want your character to be a swashbuckler, there are rules to simulate that. If you want your character to focus on summoning magics, there are rules to simulate that. If you want your character to be a great wrestler, there are rules to simulate that. While 3e easily supports gamist style gaming, there are a LOT of things included in the game that simply aren't necessary for a pure game-playing experience.

Of course, there will be people with just as much experience with both rulesets as I have who will vehemently disagree with what I've just typed. Which is why I maintain that there's no real answer to the question "what is the 1st edition feel", because it's different for almost everyone. Gamers! When could we ever agree on anything?

 

[diaglo]

It's apparently little known, but it's there.

see my post about bad refereeing.

 

[Henry]

You know, this is all very fascinating to me, and if nothing else it just shows that to some people "1e feel" is a good thing.

Is it giving you any better understanding of the "Why", though?

 

[MonsterMash]

Personally what I'm after is more the 'Judges Guild feel' - settings where not every little thing is defined, where there are dozens of potential hooks for adventures, and the Judge (DM) is encouraged to change things to make it their own.

Actually quite rules independent as I've used OD&D, B/XD&D and 3.5 with Judges Guild stuff and been able to have a good time with any.

Oh, have I missed something or has this thread managed to get to 96 posts without Diaglo saying "OD&D(1974) is the only true game, everything else is a pale imitation"?

 

[jasper]

Bah first edition feel is….

Going into the dungeon because it is there! We don’t need no stinking dragon mountain! Trying to find out what the thieves guild is up to because that is the adventure for tonight’s GAME!

Same module, same characters, new dm because there too few modules and too few DMs and we were learning as we were doing. Finding out our tastes and finding players which grooved to our taste. Now about the guys in Misses Ah Wiggins study hall. They are a bunch of Monty Haul Munchkin losers.

An orc and pie in room 11 and forty feet down left hand door room 12 a t rex guarding a wheel of cheese which contains 100 gp.

It is Sunless Citadel and the whopping willows; it is killing all the giants in one room of G1 knowing no one will hear you.

It is 16 page modules.

It is arguing where the paladin can backstab the evil overlord who just killed Santa.

It is arguing over alignment.

It is killing the Bbeg in one round with my vorpal battle axe because I got initiative and Nat 20.

It is about the adventure and bragging rights.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

Oh, have I missed something or has this thread managed to get to 96 posts without Diaglo saying "OD&D(1974) is the only true game, everything else is a pale imitation"?

diaglo's AI that plants that statement in any 1e/od&d thread must be on the fritz.