What the heck is "First Edition Feel"?

[Thornir Alekeg]

To me first edition feel is all about a sense of mystery and wonder. In the end I don't think it is something that can be captured by a rules set or system. I have played enough games now, that EVERY new game or rules set is compared to something else. Pros and cons are weighed in a rather analytical method. I no longer just play a game and go "Cool!" as each and every new thing comes along. For me the only way to recapture what I define as "1st edition feel" would be to go back to being 10 years old.

 

[der_kluge]

Sorry Piratecat. I'll try to be a good boy.

But I am a bit baffled at all the first edition nostalgia. As I made it abundantly clear in my infamous post #13, I have no love for first edition. It's a clunky, awkward system in my opinion. Oh, to be sure, 2nd edition had boatloads of problems as well. And I never could really understand the appeal of nostalgia over consistent rules.

I have a lot of nostalgia for the red boxed set, since that was my very first exposure, and very first actual game of D&D, but do I play Basic D&D? Good lord no, I'm beyond that. It's kind of like saying that the only true care is a 1914 Model T, and everything else afterwards is a pale imitation of the real thing. Let's face, there's a reason why most people don't drive Model T Fords nowadays.

I'm not intending to start a flamewar here, but I am just legitimately perplexed as to why people would choose to play 1st edition over 3rd, when 3rd is just so much more superior in so many ways. Not only are the rules more consistent, but there is easily 10 times as many supplements and modules available for it with the addition of so many 3rd party publishers.

 

[TerraDave]

We used the cavalier and anti-paladin out of the pages of Dragon. I think they were worse.

My first "serious" campaign had a high elf cavalier, a grey elf magic-user ranger and a human fighter bow specialist who might as well as used an asualt rifle, all made with Unearthed Arcana, including that books supper dooper stat generating method. And yes, they faced horrible hordes of kobolds and the two elves needed divine intervention to save them (using the rules for such in the DMG, of course).

But I loved UA and that early campaign. Stepping around the rules, 1st edition did have a distinct style that laters editions have lacked. A friend of a friend looking at some second edition books circa 1994 "but these books have no style", and he was right.

But it is hard to describe that style or "1st edition" feel. For example, take two low level adventures I have run: Sunless Citadel and NeMoren's vault. Both are pretty good, but NeMoren's vault deffinately has more of a "1st edition feel"-and it is not just some of the whacky treasure. And I like it better for that.

When Wizards bought TSR they set about trying to have more of a 1st edition feel, with the "Return to" modules and the silver anniversary box set. In 3rd edition this continued with refrences to older classes and races and its emphasis on the dungeon and in many lesser details (like the sample dungeon in both the 1st and 3rd edition DMG). And player options have always been big in D&D...

But still, something is missing. Is it a combination of the art, overly dry language, and just a sort of "generic" feeling. In any case it just doesn't quite have the same style.

 

[francisca]

I'm not intending to start a flamewar here, but I am just legitimately perplexed as to why people would choose to play 1st edition over 3rd, when 3rd is just so much more superior in so many ways.

Maybe stating things as your opinion, instead of as fact, would help?

 

[Akrasia]

Sorry Piratecat. I'll try to be a good boy.
...

A promising start...

And then ...

I'm not intending to start a flamewar here, but I am just legitimately perplexed as to why people would choose to play 1st edition over 3rd, when 3rd is just so much more superior in so many ways.

*Sigh*

Not only are the rules more consistent, but there is easily 10 times as many supplements and modules available for it with the addition of so many 3rd party publishers.

Yet people still want to play B2, X1, U1-3, G1-3, D1-3, A1-4, etc ... and convert them to the current system ... despite all the stuff for 3E ...

 

[der_kluge]

Well, according to my fairly recent "what system are you using" poll, a fair number of people were still playing 1st edition.

I'd be curious to know why, exactly. What is it about 1st edition that makes them want to play that edition. Maybe it's a simple matter of people already owning all the stuff, and so there is a lack of desire for wanting to purchase a lot of new books? I can understand that. Is it something more?

My GM, Drife, is planning on running the WLD every other week when I can't game, and he's going to use Castles and Crusades rules because he likes the 1st edition feel. I just don't understand it. I think he's going to end up giving himself a headache trying to convert everything on the fly.

 

[der_kluge]

A promising start...

And then ...

*Sigh*


Yet people still want to play B2, X1, U1-3, G1-3, D1-3, A1-4, etc ... and convert them to the current system ... despite all the stuff for 3E ...

Ok yes, it is my *opinion* that 3rd edition is superior. Of course, it is also my *opinion* that HARP is superior to 3rd edition, but that's a topic for another day altogether.

But wanting to play an old module is a little different than wanting to play new stuff and using the 1st edition ruleset. Why do people do that? What is it about that ruleset that makes people want to use it over the new ruleset?

Maybe I'm with Alsih20 on this one. I'm as baffled about what "1st edition feel" is as he is.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Don't like 1st edition? Then leave the thread stage left. This is not the place for edition wars, and I don't want hijacking. *pokes Curtis* Clear?

Okay, back to 1st edition feel. . . but without the insults, please.

I have to say I disagree with you, Piratecat. It's impossible to give a full account of 'first edition feel' without mentioning things like lack of balance compared to 3rd ed. And comparing and contrasting editions pretty much is an edition war. In other words, an edition war is inherent in the original question.

 

[Akrasia]

... I'd be curious to know why, exactly. What is it about 1st edition that makes them want to play that edition. Maybe it's a simple matter of people already owning all the stuff, and so there is a lack of desire for wanting to purchase a lot of new books? I can understand that. Is it something more?

Yes, but it is impossible to get into this without people getting upset and angry. This might seem strange, but trust me, it will happen.
:\

My GM, Drife, is planning on running the WLD every other week when I can't game, and he's going to use Castles and Crusades rules because he likes the 1st edition feel. I just don't understand it. I think he's going to end up giving himself a headache trying to convert everything on the fly.

Actually, converting that stuff to C&C will be a snap. I wish I was in your group! Sounds like fun...

 

[rogueattorney]

But I am a bit baffled at all the first edition nostalgia. As I made it abundantly clear in my infamous post #13, I have no love for first edition. It's a clunky, awkward system in my opinion. Oh, to be sure, 2nd edition had boatloads of problems as well. And I never could really understand the appeal of nostalgia over consistent rules.

I have a lot of nostalgia for the red boxed set, since that was my very first exposure, and very first actual game of D&D, but do I play Basic D&D? Good lord no, I'm beyond that. It's kind of like saying that the only true care is a 1914 Model T, and everything else afterwards is a pale imitation of the real thing. Let's face, there's a reason why most people don't drive Model T Fords nowadays.

I'm not intending to start a flamewar here, but I am just legitimately perplexed as to why people would choose to play 1st edition over 3rd, when 3rd is just so much more superior in so many ways. Not only are the rules more consistent, but there is easily 10 times as many supplements and modules available for it with the addition of so many 3rd party publishers.

You compare role playing games to cars, as if they wear out and brake down after too much use. There is only one value judgment that determines the worth of a game an it's not its age. It's whether one has fun playing it or not. Chess is still around after about a thousand years because people still have fun playing it.

So why would anybody possibly choose to play 1e? Because they have fun with it.

Why would they possibly want to play 1e over 3e? Because they have more fun with it than with 3e.

Your real question is how anybody could possibly have more fun playing 1e than playing 3e. But fun is such a subjective thing. Considering the millions and millions of people who played 1e and the subjectivity of fun, wouldn't it be a lot stranger if there weren't a significant number of people who still loved and played 1e despite the so called superiority of 3e?

3e is not a perfect game. I could go into a litany of the problems I have with it, and the reasons I think 1e is a better game. But what would be the point of that? The real issue is that 1e is a different game than 3e, and it's completely natural that some will like it better than 3e.

R.A.