Whatever happened to the 1st Edition Basic DND Mentality?

[Angcuru]

You can, if you can find the players, have your cake and eat it too.

As opposed to sitting and staring at it for 3 and a half hours?

 

[Calico_Jack73]

While going through some of my old RPG books, I came accross my old Basic DND rulebooks, the red "Basic" set, the blue "Companion" set, etc. These are the ones that came out around the mid-80s and early-90s.

This brought back memories of my first DND games and campaign. It wasn't "story" driven and didn't have "character development", but these were some of the best times I had playing DND. I believe what I miss, was the whole feeling of being able to play a game where you could virtually do almost "anything" you wanted.

One correction, the Companion set was green... it was the Expert set that was blue.

I feel your pain my friend. I was looking through a used book bin at a game store and came across the old red series with the Erol Otis artwork on it and I felt that same rush of nostalgia (which is why I bought them). I think part of the reason I loved it so much is because there wasn't a rule for every situation which was what Dave Arneson intended (AD&D was Gygax's idea). If something came up the DM would make the call and you'd press on. You didn't have rules lawyers searching for some obscure rule in some handbook to find out exactlly how far their character could jump or to determine something as silly as what the current weather was. I've been considering going back to basics with those old sets for some time to see if I could recapture that old magic. Finding players willing to do that is the fun part. Nobody want to play just an Elf or Dwarf anymore. They don't like the idea that all elves are Fighter Mages and all Halflings are Thieves. Everyone wants total character flexibility which I can't fault since I like it too. I just miss the nostalgia. <<sigh>>

 

[dreaded_beast]

This has changed? How come my group and I didn't get the memo!?

Hehe, your right in this regard.



I didn't mean that the game has changed in the context of no longer requiring creativity or imagination, just that, in my opinion, it seems that campaigns nowadays tend to be more concerned about staying within the boundaries of a set storyline or character concept, rarely attempting to deviate or stray from it.

Not that there is anything wrong with that, since I have played and enjoyed many campaigns with that style, but I also enjoy playing the aforementioned style as well, but finding very few players or DMs who still or want to play in such a manner.

In my ideal campaign, it would probably be a mesh of the two styles.

 

[DrZombie]

Aaaah, i remember my first game ever, wich I mastered. You see there was this big box in the shop wich i thought was filled with miniatures. What a rip-off. These were cut-out figures. But wait what's this silly book? Rules? Allright, let's play a game then.


Aaah, the sweet memories.

One thing has't changed though. Very seldomly do I drive the plot. Why should I ? The players get into goofy stuff by themselves. They pick a fight with the city guard and then elope with the princess they've just saved. Who needs an enemy when you've got friends like that? Adventures write themselves without any problem. I do try to keep'em away from dungeons, that takes way too much preparation .

 

[Ottergame]

The classic D&D mentality consists of "I don't care what it is, I kill it and take it's loot". Like all new things, tastes change and become more refined as the novelty of it wears off. It's not just enough to be there, there has to be a purpose for it to keep the intrest.

 

[Silver Moon]

While going through some of my old RPG books, I came accross my old Basic DND rulebooks...This brought back memories of my first DND games and campaign....I believe what I miss, was the whole feeling of being able to play a game where you could virtually do almost "anything" you wanted....

Interesting post. Two things - The game doesn't have to have any limits to it, the only limitations are those that the DM and players impose on it. This is fantasy role playing - you can do almost anything you want, regardless of the edition you are using.

Second point - The older out-of-print editions are still alive and well. Check out the www.dragonsfoot.org message board to confirm this fact.

 

[Wormwood]

When it comes to D&D, my DMing motto is: "Games, not stories."

I provide obstacles and challenges---but I avoid plots like the plague. Nothing glazes a player's eyes as fast as realizing that his DM is trying to lead him through a story.

ps. When I play, the only character development I care about is when I level.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I agree that a lot of the imaginative qualities have disappeared as the rules have become more defined.
I have run into this alot:
PC1: I want to jump over the railing of the balcony and land on the horse below
DM: Make a jump check to clear the railing, DC=15. Make a charge attack on the horse with a -4 penalty. Then make a modified grapple attack on the horse, you have to beat a 35 or else it bucks you off. Now make a Ride check, DC=65.

That's the DM being an ass. I'd say it's a DC 10 jump check, take 2d6 damage, then make a dc 20 ride check (ie - mount as free action), then you can ride off.
IOW - you take 10 on the lot, and just do it (although it takes you an entire move action more, because you have to mount as a move action if you don't get the 20...)

Or:
PC1: I want to pick the guy up and throw him into the flaming sphere next to me.
PC2: You need the Power Throw feat to do that. Or Great Throw, but you won't have the prereqs for it, being only at 2nd level. You will sustain an AoO at the minimum to even grab him. Nope, no way. You gotta plan ahead for those things and show that you have the prequalifying feats and skills before you do 'craaaazy' things like tha-
PC1: Oh. Well, I just attack then.

Grapple check (with an AoO), then another grapple check. However I agree that there's a lot of feats out there that are really dumb - because they represent combat maneuvers that shouldn't be restricted.

Naturally of course you can just ignore them. And punch PC2...

I think a lot of this comes down to the style that your DM has - if he plays fast and loose, then it's not a problem - the rules give a good guideline to how the game runs. If he's a punitive DM (ie - one who likes to make you roll for everything, and who probably thinks that you can't take 10 most of the time) then you'll feel restrained by the rules - although those same restrictions are also stopping him from handing out lots of damage arbitrarily etc.

In short: Adversarial relationship with DM = bad (no matter how slight).

 

[evileeyore]

Dood, that is sooo not the game I remember.

Back in the day there was like plot and consequences to our actions and storyline and character development and stuff. Now its just "10 x 10 room, Orc with Pie. Kill Orc, enjoy Pie. Rinse, Repeat."



Okay its not that way for everyone. But it seems that with 3.x (atleast with my group) its less about the characters, and more about the characteristics. Like how these kewl feats and spells and magic items will work together to make my minature the baddest "whatever-class-race" on the mat. It just seems to me that 3.x brings out the wargamer in deep inside, and leaves no room for character portrayal.

And it really is just D&D. We recently switched to Shadowrun and I am having a lot more fun. Of course the DM (or whatever Shadowrun calls them) did outlaw the mat. So it could just be the allure of the square grid...



TTFN

EvilE (pinning for the lost LARP)

 

[Felon]

Don't let all the role-playing fans on these boards fool you--a lot of people still play like they're in an issue of KotDT. Just last session a ranger/rogue had to be convinced not to exact his brilliant plan to thwart the villain by killing the helpless sacrifice with a well-placed bowshot.