TSR Why would anyone want to play 1e?

[Valetudo]

My older brother ran TOEE back in the day and we where using 2nd edition pcs. Plus 1st edition lore books where still good.

 

[Emerikol]

One thing about retroclones. They tend to clean up and systematize the older edition. That means most of the things bad about 1e are gone because that was the issue with 1e. The playstyle is what was good for many of us.

 

[Voadam]

That means most of the things bad about 1e are gone because that was the issue with 1e. The playstyle is what was good for many of us.

I'd agree the playstyle was good for a bunch of us and that that the organization and clarity of 1e rules was poor, but what else was good or bad about 1e varied widely from group to group.

Some hated the lack of balance, thieves sucking, the extreme vulnerability of low levels, save or die, energy drain, alignment, humanocentrism, reverse bell curve stats, etc. For others those were distinctly features.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I'd agree the playstyle was good for a bunch of us and that that the organization and clarity of 1e rules was poor, but what else was good or bad about 1e varied widely from group to group.

Some hated the lack of balance, thieves sucking, the extreme vulnerability of low levels, save or die, energy drain, alignment, humanocentrism, reverse bell curve stats, etc. For others those were distinctly features.

Agreed. Other than a preference for 'Gygaxian prose,' exactly what 1e has that is positive (especially if the point of comparison is 2e, the basic/classic line, or retroclones/OSR games) is a pretty wide and wild topic without consistent agreement.

 

[Emerikol]

I'd agree the playstyle was good for a bunch of us and that that the organization and clarity of 1e rules was poor, but what else was good or bad about 1e varied widely from group to group.

Some hated the lack of balance, thieves sucking, the extreme vulnerability of low levels, save or die, energy drain, alignment, humanocentrism, reverse bell curve stats, etc. For others those were distinctly features.

Other than thieves, I didn't mind the balance. I preferred those other things in fact I prefer the 1e versions of them which is why I'm not 100% 3e. My players tended to multi-class the Fighter and Thief.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Other than thieves, I didn't mind the balance. I preferred those other things in fact I prefer the 1e versions of them which is why I'm not 100% 3e. My players tended to multi-class the Fighter and Thief.

Same. I like level drain and vulnerability and all that because it keeps players on their toes and thinking. Not every monster needs to be fought, which is a huge difference from modern versions.

And again, I give 1e a pass because it was the first attempt. Of course things are wonky, rules wise. But now that we have more cleaned up and intuitive rules (like 2e), it's hard to play 1e over 2e unless it's aesthetic and/or nostalgia, and yet there are way more players of 1e than 2e currently. Probably because of aesthetic and nostalgia

 

[Emerikol]

Same. I like level drain and vulnerability and all that because it keeps players on their toes and thinking. Not every monster needs to be fought, which is a huge difference from modern versions.

And again, I give 1e a pass because it was the first attempt. Of course things are wonky, rules wise. But now that we have more cleaned up and intuitive rules (like 2e), it's hard to play 1e over 2e unless it's aesthetic and/or nostalgia, and yet there are way more players of 1e than 2e currently. Probably because of aesthetic and nostalgia

I think a retroclone will "fix" the 1e stuff I don't like. 2e THAC0 is not great either. I prefer the d20 system but the 1e rules interpreted into that system.

 

[Lanefan]

I'd agree the playstyle was good for a bunch of us and that that the organization and clarity of 1e rules was poor, but what else was good or bad about 1e varied widely from group to group.

Some hated the lack of balance, thieves sucking, the extreme vulnerability of low levels, save or die, energy drain, alignment, humanocentrism, reverse bell curve stats, etc. For others those were distinctly features.

I'm one for whom the bolded were and still are features rather than bugs.

That said, I'm not sure what you mean by "reverse bell curve stats". Did you mean reverse bell curve bonuses instead?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Nobody actually liked having their character drained of levels, but I also think the all-too-common mindset, for both designers and players, of "bad things that can happen to my character should never be permanent" is unfortunate. The possibility of level drain, ability score loss, etc., adds excitement to the game(s).

 

[Mannahnin]

Nobody actually liked having their character drained of levels, but I also think the all-too-common mindset, for both designers and players, of "bad things that can happen to my character should never be permanent" is unfortunate. The possibility of level drain, ability score loss, etc., adds excitement to the game(s).

I think it's also (and I might have already mentioned this earlier in the thread) that there's a missing context for most of us who learned elsewhere than at Gary's or other original tables, that levels weren't that hard to earn in the first place. If magic items grant XP, and if a Wish-granting fountain or something enabling you to gain a level all at once is a not-uncommon dungeon feature, than the occasional energy drain isn't the heinous kick in the crotch that it is if you expect it to take months of work to recover from.

Easy come, easy go makes the losses easier to roll with.