TSR Why would anyone want to play 1e?

[SableWyvern]

On a somewhat related note, wanna know something I always thought funny? And by funny I mean a bit odd, in a cognitive dissonance sort of way. 1e's rules were clearly pulled from early wargaming rules. Just going over these initiative rules and it's pretty obvious they make more sense when you're approaching combat as a tabletop wargame. Detailed rules for movement tracking, flanking, charging, combat order, etc.

And wanna know who the biggest critics of 4e were because it was too much of a wargame rather than RPG? Old school fans like me Saying things like, "I don't like 4e because combat is way too slow. Bring back theater of the mind!"

It's a bitter pill for me to swallow, being an old school fan, but the reality is, "1e was built that way too, just no one ever played that way so you never noticed."

I don't think it's a bitter pill at all.

One of the key things I like about 1e combat is that it supports reasonably large scale combat with multiple formations (15 - 30 combatants to side) where manouevre, formations and morale are important. If 4e was trying to do the same thing, it was only at a very superficial level. 1e, for me, supports real world, tactical infinity with fairly low fidelity at the personal level (the exact actions an individual combatant is taking in the 1 minute round are generally abstracted away). 4e supports gamified tactical combat where the individual is realised a much finer scale with much more precise actions, but higher level tactics aren't typically considered.

 

[Maxperson]

@Lanefan your group dropped:

• gold for X.P.
• RAW initiative
• RAW training system
• weapon speed
• weapon vs. armor modifiers
• racial level limits and more

Looks like you were playing 3e before it released

Almost every 1e group I played with dropped/changed all of those. There's a lot more to 1e than just those things. And a lot to 3e that 1e didn't have.