TSR Why would anyone want to play 1e?

[Bill Zebub]

What it really comes down to are the philosophical & ideological differences. 2e was the beginning of the end when it came to DM control. The focus began to shift to empowering the poor, disenfranchised players, or "player agency" as it was eventually called. The second was the absence of all of those DM resources (tables, generation charts, detailed clarifications, etc.) that you say that no one even used. TBF, I come from that magical time period when all that my mentor DM had were the LBBs (+supplements), the MM(1) (finally!), the CSotIO setting, and a WHOLE lot of homebrew charts and milieu data (mostly based on Tolkien's works). We were so excited when we managed to acquire a copy of the new PH and, eventually, the DMG. We were in absolute heaven! The DM was Lord of the Manor back then, and we loved every second of every session....even when we suffered horrible fates, by the capricious fate of the dice, the stupidity and/or arrogance of character action/inaction, or () having the actual temerity (as a player) to disrespect the DM. This is how it should be. This is what we lost.

Boy, the way Glen Miller played....

(EDIT: I mean, I'm nostalgic for those early days of RPGing, too, which is why I play Shadowdark. But I manage to do so without a litany of grievances.)

 

[howandwhy99]

1E is still the unparalleled best game design in RPGs. I think there are a number of flaws in it and it can certainly be improved upon, but the entire endeavor was quit with 2e. This made very obvious with the edition change rancor, more than any other change in RPG history. Story gaming didn't really even start until the 90s and the divided community. It was a sorry time in gaming. I think most everything people think is RPGs today is the anti-rpg hobby started at the turn of the millennium. If you want to have the actual strategic simulation game played in your imagination that D&D is, one's best option will always remain AD&D.

 

[Voadam]

Even doing so, there were some rules we missed because we never even thought to look for and others we thought were there but weren't that were all revealed in a later read through of the DMG.

The DMG was notorious for having secret rules. Most thief skills have lots of rule aspects only stated in the DMG and there is a whole section of extra aspects of spells.

It also did not help that even reading the DMG rules could be scattered in there in multiple parts, some obvious and some not.

Having them in PDF now with bookmarks and search options can help when trying to figure out what the applicable RAW rules are.

Of course some are still ambiguously written so there is DM interpretation at work as well.

 

[DammitVictor]

1E is still the unparalleled best game design in RPGs.

It's not even the best game design by TSR.

Subjective opinion is subjective, but I couldn't pass up the Beatles joke. 1E has its merits compared to 2E and especially OD&D, but I'll save the arguments about why it's the runt of the litter for a thread that isn't specifically about why 1E is great.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It's not even the best game design by TSR.

Subjective opinion is subjective, but I couldn't pass up the Beatles joke. 1E has its merits compared to 2E and especially OD&D, but I'll save the arguments about why it's the runt of the litter for a thread that isn't specifically about why 1E is great.

I look forward to that thread, at least the early days before it bogs down into "yes, it is"/"no, it isn't" for the last 20 pages.

 

[Sacrosanct]

1E is still the unparalleled best game design in RPGs.

Really? Of all RPGS of all time? What makes it so?

I think there are a number of flaws in it and it can certainly be improved upon, but the entire endeavor was quit with 2e. This made very obvious with the edition change rancor, more than any other change in RPG history.

The change to 2e was minimal. There was certainly a bigger shift from 2e to 3e, and 3e to 4e, and that's not even talking about non-D&D games. It was also intentional to keep it compatible. It's weird for me to hear a game that was designed to be compatible to be labeled as "more than any other change in RPG history." Can you elaborate?

Story gaming didn't really even start until the 90s and the divided community. It was a sorry time in gaming.

What does the "R" in "RPG" stand for?

 

[DammitVictor]

The change to 2e was minimal.

It really, really wasn't. The changes to the class system and combat systems were fairly minor and largely beneficial. The bowdlerization and homogenization marked a major philosophical shift in the game's identity.

The most overlooked mechanical change is probably the most impactful-- 2E marked when the primary source of XP wasn't obtaining treasure, it was achieving story goals. It was a sea change on par with 3e and later WotC editions awarding XP based on completing "encounters" based on CR.

2E is my era and my game (and I  prefer story XP) but mechanical compatibility aside, it was trying to be an entirely different game than its predecessors. And my preference for 2E over 1E is largely predicated on the fact that 2E's modularity makes it easier to use 1E content (and playstyles) in 2E than vice versa.

 

[Voadam]

The most overlooked mechanical change is probably the most impactful-- 2E marked when the primary source of XP wasn't obtaining treasure, it was achieving story goals.

The biggest source of xp in 2e was defeating monsters. My memory is that the story xp stuff was optional.

 

[DammitVictor]

The biggest source of xp in 2e was defeating monsters. My memory is that the story xp stuff was optional.

You might be correct--and I'll assume you are, thank you-- but that only lines it up further with WotC editions rather than the "Old TSR" editions. It's still a  major departure from the assumed/intended playstyles of 1E and Classic.

You can also look at the difference between 80s D&D modules and 90s D&D modules.

It's easily overlooked until you don't, and then it's almost impossible not to notice.

 

[cbwjm]

You might be correct--and I'll assume you are, thank you-- but that only lines it up further with WotC editions rather than the "Old TSR" editions. It's still a  major departure from the assumed/intended playstyles of 1E and Classic.

You can also look at the difference between 80s D&D modules and 90s D&D modules.

It's easily overlooked until you don't, and then it's almost impossible not to notice.

You're not wrong, once the xp awards moved from xp for gold, it changed the purpose of adventuring. While you could still dungeon delve to gain treasure, it was no longer the reward it used to be which would have led to a change in the purpose of adventures (which might have been seen at the end of 1e anyway, wasn't ravenloft and dragonlance a switch to more story based adventures?).

For 2e the default xp was the group reward whitch was killing monsters, story awards which early on I never handed out because it's easily missed in the 2e dmg. Individual rewards I think we also used, though these were optional. I've only just now gone back and checked the 2e dmg, I had it in my memory that individual rewards weren't optional and that story rewards were.