TSR Why would anyone want to play 1e?

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Even from back in my early days of playing I never understood the arcane restriction on dwarves. I've always felt that they should be able to be arcane casters as that helps them with their crafting of magical items, cursing rings, and turning into dragons.
Could be a balance thing - Dwarves have quite a bit going for them including that they're tough (high Con), which would overwrite the great weakness of mages which is their frailty.

I've run aground on this in my current campaign. I allowed Hobbit mages - Hobbits in my game also come with high Con - and they proved to be a bit on the overpowered side. But, I'm stuck with them until I change campaigns, which ain't happening anytime soon I don't think.
 

I recall reading somewhere that 2e was meant to have ascending AC and attack bonuses but that was shot down for backwards compatibility.

True story. There's a quote from Skip Williams from years ago: "Of course we thought about ascending AC, but we wanted players to be able to keep playing all their 1e stuff."
And ironically Gary tells us in the 1E DMG that he used descending AC in AD&D "for the sake of continuity and familiarity" (DMG 164). Essentially the reason we had to wait until 2000 for ascending AC is because Gary thought, when putting together the DMG in '78-'79, that reverse compatibility for the existing OD&D player base was a higher priority than what made things easier for new players. So instead of 5 years of descending AC we had 26. :LOL:

Even from back in my early days of playing I never understood the arcane restriction on dwarves. I've always felt that they should be able to be arcane casters as that helps them with their crafting of magical items, cursing rings, and turning into dragons.
OD&D says dwarves "have a high level of magic resistance" and uses this as they explanation for them making saving throws as if they were four levels higher. Greyhawk says that NPC clerics exist among them, "Dwarf clerics are found as high as 7th level (Lama), and they can cure and resurrect their own. These clerics are also fighters."

AD&D mentions dwarf clerics in the PH only on the class level limitations chart on page 14, where it gives a limit and also tells us that it's an NPC-only option (same for gnomes and elves, actually), The DMG doesn't talk about or include them in any of the NPC or follower/henchman charts, but DOES include an entry for dwarf clerics on the starting age chart on DMG p12. AD&D complicated the save bonus and tied it to Con, and expanded on the anti-magic thing, saying:

"Because of their very nature, dwarves are non-magical and do not ever use magical spells. However, this nature gives them a bonus with regard to their saving throws (see COMBAT, Saving Throws) against attacks by magic wands, staves, rods and spells. This bonus is + 1 for every 3 1/2 points of constitution ability. Thus, if a dwarf had a constitution of 7 he or she would gain a +2 on dice rolls made as saving throws, at 14 constitution the bonus would be +4, and at 18 constitution the bonus would be the maximum normally possible, +5." There's a second paragraph giving them the same bonus against poisons.

2E both made PC dwarf clerics (and Fighter Cleric multiclass) an official PH option, and expanded on the anti-magical nature of dwarves even further, adding a 20% chance each time you used a magic item of it failing to work, unless it was a weapon, shield, armor, gauntlets, girdle, or an item specifically for clerics if you were a dwarven cleric.

I'm not sure what the fictional or mythological basis of dwarves being opposed to arcane magic was, but over the course of TSR editions D&D expanded on that, while from OD&D to 2E the clerical option went from NPC-only to PC core option. I wouldn't be shocked if there's some offhand reference in Three Hearts & Three Lions, which has Hugi the dwarf as a sidekick to the protagonist.

As Theory of Mind referenced, The Hobbit tells us in the lyrics to Far Over the Misty Mountains Cold that "the dwarves of yore made mighty spells", though the rest of the lyrics are about their craftsmanship and the wondrous things they made, so I suspect some readers have inferred that such spells were to do with crafting magical objects rather than D&D or Vance-type spells. As we know, magic in Middle Earth tends to be more subtle than a Fireball. We see Gandalf produce showy magical effects only a few times, so Tolkien may have indeed intended that dwarven magic wasn't limited just to magic items, but maybe those "spells" were meant to be subtle ones.
 
Last edited:

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.
And it was fine to change anything you wanted. To me the biggest change - that actually disturbs character advancement - is dropping gold for X.P. What's filling that gap? A lot more combat, which means the PCs have a greater chance of getting perished.

b1e6c262-3a66-49f4-b260-082fa799d99f_text.gif
 

I don't really get how ascending AC would make a product unusable with previous materials since it's just a math equation. I mean plenty of OSR material allows for using both ascending and descending AC. TSR could have done the same without sacrificing compatibility.
 

I don't really get how ascending AC would make a product unusable with previous materials since it's just a math equation. I mean plenty of OSR material allows for using both ascending and descending AC. TSR could have done the same without sacrificing compatibility.
They certainly could have, but doing it in 1E would have required ditching the attack matrices in favor of an attack bonus system, and for whatever reason they didn't have the initiative and wisdom to take that step.

Customers can also be pretty unreasonable when a change requires them to fix/ignore/patch a part of a shiny new expensive book they just bought. The 1977 Monster Manual initially sold for $9.95, which is the equivalent of a little over $50 in today's dollars.

While all it would really have required in the AD&D books is a little clarifying explanation somewhere "When using older adventures and supplements, convert the old descending armor class using the following formula", you just know that buyers would have complained. :/
 

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.
I think this is a fair point. The difference both in scale principally considered and in gamist vs. simulationist priorites. OD&D and AD&D borrow a good bit from old-school large scale miniatures wargames. The scale (including 1 minute rounds), the rules for movement speeds and for archery range, for example, are directly taken from a mass battle game (Chainmail) and while that conversion has some serious issues*, it's still drawing from real world sources and from a more simulationist wargaming tradition.

4E instead drew both from the ensuing 30+ years of RPG design and from a more gamist skirmish wargame tradition developed in the 90s and early 2000s, with clear influence from WH40k and I might say from Privateer Press' Warmachine (released 2003). The emphasis was more on what makes an exciting, easy to understand, and balanced game, with sweet narrative moments of climactic action, and less on grounding in historical realism and simulation. And as SableWyvern noted, the time scale of the WotC editions, with their 6 second rounds, is again zoomed-in much more at the individual tactical level instead of the large scale unit level. (Side note that B/X's 10 second rounds are another example of its design being arguably more advanced/intentional than AD&D's).

That being said, yeah, Sacrosanct is right that it was ironic for 1E players to complain about 3E or 4E playing slow, when 1E runs at a similar level of speed or even slower if you actually use most of the rules.

*(For example, archery ranges, or the massive value deflation of +1 bonuses or -1 penalties to hit with certain weapons or against certain foes in AD&D, which were originally +1 on a D6 in Chainmail)
 
Last edited:

And it was fine to change anything you wanted. To me the biggest change - that actually disturbs character advancement - is dropping gold for X.P. What's filling that gap? A lot more combat, which means the PCs have a greater chance of getting perished.

b1e6c262-3a66-49f4-b260-082fa799d99f_text.gif
Yeah. In my experience it wasn't replaced by anything, even more combat. The result was that once you hit 6th or 7th level, advancement just stopped. Especially when you factor in level drains and save or die effects. Most of our PCs never even made it to 5th level, let alone 6th or 7th.
 


Remove ads

Top