What the heck is "First Edition Feel"?

[mmadsen]

For me, one aspect of "first edition feel" is a certain simplicity and elegance in the style of play.

True, but first edition (AD&D) was actual a move away from that feel toward a more codified set of rules.

In terms of adventure and campaign design, I think adventures with a "first edition feel" are closer to primary literary sources, whether in classical mythology or the contemporary fantasy literature that spawned the game in the first place. With a few notable exceptions, fantasy writing before the Eighties eschewed literary pretensions and simply focused on action and adventure, and the early days of D&D captured that quite well.

Gygax's primary influencies were pulp swords & sorcery stories, not Tolkien and Tolkien-derivatives. I think that explains a lot of the early game's feel: hear about vast treasures, strap on your sword, and go after it. Maybe you'll die; maybe you won't.

(This explains in part why I've been reading the heck out of guys like H. Rider Haggard, C.J. Cutliffe Hyne. Edwin L. Arnold, Edgar Rice Burroughs, P.C. Wren, Rudyard Kipling and so on, to create a d20 Modern/Past game with its feet planted firmly on this literary foundation, to give it what is to me a "first edition feel.")

I second your reading recommendations.

 

[Chaldfont]

For me the difference is in the types of adventures. Eary AD&D adventures were expeditions. You had a company of expendable adventurers. PCs were easy to make, which was good because the danger level was much higher. Just look back at those great AD&D modules and it doen't take long to find overwhelming encounters or inescapable death traps. Characters who really earned high level (instead of being created at higher level or benefiting from Monte Haulism) were few and far between, and respected.

With 3rd Edition, PCs take hours to create, and a player has a lot of time and love invested in them. A player plays only one PC, not two or three (plus hirelings and cohorts), so PC death means more and occurs more infrequently. Battles are more detailed and players have many more options because there are fewer combatants and the focus can be drawn in closer to the action. PCs advance much more quickly and at the same rate.

Of course, these changes were made (wisely, I think) based on market research. How many players actually got PCs to level up from low to high level before the campaign desolved? Not many. 3e grants the goodies of high power sooner, because who has the time for multi-year campaigns? 3e just codifies and compiles all the house rules we really played with anyway and throws in few more.

I like both approaches. And you can play D&D both ways with either rule set (I've certainly done it). I like deadly games where players get multiple PCs and they drop like flies. I like games with highly detailed PCs with extensive backstories and a great epic story that relies on their heroic invulnerability. I like games where my wizard can create a +1 flaming greataxe in a matter of days, and I like games where my magic user has to go on a quest and slay seven mythical beasts in order to create a potion of longevity. I like adventures where just looting the statue of the kuo-toan goddess teleports you to her throne room on another plane and she slays you instantly with a baleful gaze with no possiblity of resurrection, let alone a saving throw vs. breath weapon. I also like games where my artificer/rogue gets a reflex save against point-blank fireball trap and if he makes it (which he will because he gets to roll a 1d8 for spending an action point), he miraculously takes no damage.

I like playing D&D, it doesn't matter what the rules currently are. I'm going to change them anyway.

 

[Ravellion]

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.

Additionally, you get DM-independent character customization nowadays. I have found that this greatly attaches certain people to the game and to advancing the story (apart from a few players who really do it only for the numbers). Again, with a GREAT DM, I can see how this could be done in 1e as well. But under a mediocre one, I was just frustrated that my fighter couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, while a buddy of mine had rolled exceptionally well for stats and hence was not only superior to me in stats, but he qualified to play a dwarf and gained even more power in this way as well (awarding power... with more power). The story was fun, but in combat I was useless next to him. Balance from DM to players is something that is often touted here, but I find the really important thing is balance between players. I think most players like to be a useful part of the team to overcome the challenges the DM pits them against. 1e failed horribly at this at times (to exaggerate: go ahead and cast your one magic missile! Next level you'll have two!). The stats was pretty much all the customization there was.

Let's say that 1e feel exists: what is it about 3e that prohibits from copying it, while also adding fixes for the problems I listed above? That's why I think 3e is superior: it fixes problems that some found to be there (potential players), and I think feel of the game is, ultimately, in the hands of the DM (and hence edition independent).

Rav

 

[Belen]

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.

Because the 1e was less complex. It was not a gamist game. It had oddities and charm. Everything was not defined, calculated, set in stone, or molded to one strict model. Each game could be different or unique. You could do things without having to have the right feat or skill. A fighter could be good at diplomacy because he did not just have 2 skill points per level.

1e was more open-ended than 3e. Some people do not enjoy super definied and quantified games where there options were not limited to feats, spells, skills or classes.

If you wanted to charge down the stairs, jump over a table and do a death from above type of attack, then you could do it without spending a few hours trying to figure out if the rules allowed it, what rules were needed, how much movement you had, whether or not the right feats appeared on your sheet etc. The DM just said ok roll a dex for balance, strength for jump and then your attack.

There is a explanation whether it is good enough for you, I have no clue.

 

[S'mon]

I loved 1e, but the tables sucked - the to-hit tables (thank God for THACO) and especially the weird saving-throw tables. 3e's Attack Bonuses & Fort/Ref/Will saves were perhaps its greatest triumph IMO - pity they forgot to mention the save formulae in the PHB (poor 1/3 level, good 1/2 level+2).

 

[Ourph]

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.

I think this is part of rogueattorney's point (that seems to have been missed). You are looking at 1st and 3rd edition as the same game in different levels of development. I think this is a misperception on your part (but an easy one to make, given our limited temporo-spatial view of reality ). To a lot of players 1e and 3e are different enough to be entirely different games. Yes, they share a name and a historical relationship, but that doesn't make them any similar in playing experience than HARP and WHFRP or Star Wars d20 and Star Frontiers.

I think you will be less confused about why some people still prefer 1e when you realize that such a preference isn't any different than having a preference for GURPS or MERP over another roleplaying system. Put it down to nostalgia, familiarity, whatever (in actuality, it's going to be a combination of all kinds of things, including - but not limited to - nostalgia and familiarity). The fact is, some people like 1e and don't like 3e because 3e isn't 1e. That opinion is not more unreasonable than your opinion that HARP is better than 3e, or that 3e is better than 1e. Those opinions may make sense to you but you can explain until you're blue in the face and you'll never convince me that HARP has anything on either of the other two systems. Each to his own fate.

 

[Belen]

Because the features that make it superior to one person are not demonstrably superior to another. Bigger and more detailed isn't necessarily better.

Why do I use my cell phone, which has an address book, and calls people, and that's all it does? I could instead for no additional money have a cell phone that takes pictures, keeps a calendar, checks my e-mail, and plays games. But I don't need it. All the extra features, while nice, get in the way when I want to simply PLACE A CALL. I have to scroll through three other options if all I want to do is dial a number. It'd be nice to buy new batteries for my simplistic phone, if they made them; but they don't.

Any more sense, or is the example useless?

Dude, you rock. So much better and more succinct than my own reply.

 

[dagger]

We used THACO in 1st edition...

 

[Belen]

You also had a LOT of rules arguments. I remember sometimes I would talk my group into taking a break from D&D to play wargames - because the wargames at least had fixed rules and we knew what could and couldn't be done in the game. Any given D&D session was much more a guess - you could never be sure what a GM would rule.

Dude, if you think that 1e had a lock on rules arguments, then you need to sell me some of the good stuff. I can produce no less than three people from my old group who could convince you that the 3e core books actually had 100k pages worth of rules.

Rules arguments are really a personality thing. Some people do not really want to think about them. Others want to argue and interpret until passing out for want of air.

 

[MonsterMash]

You should see him with undead.

There's a lot to be said for it. Personally, I agree that adventures should be written his way. But the CR and EL should still be calculated. It's not that I object to DMs killing PCs, I just want them to do it intentionally ... with an evil smile on their face as they slowly shred the sheet before the player's crying eyes.

That's beautiful