TSR Why would anyone WANT to play 1e?

[Weiley31]

Honestly, if I was gonna go that route, I'd just stick with Basic+OSE+Advanced and/or 2E.

 

[Nikosandros]

saving throw charts or weird saving throw types again.

I, on the other hand, much prefer the saving throw categories of older editions that are classified by effect to avoid and not by avoidance method. I've even added a sixth category (for my house-ruled AD&D).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So it sounds weird to say, but 1e's complicated and hard to follow rules was a good thing because it gave us more freedom to make the game our own. Easier to make it how our table preferred to play.

Yes, I do agree that this is....difficult to understand. Because, in simple terms, this argument reads like this:

"The rules were bad, and we disliked them. Since we knew the rules were bad and disliked them, that made it easier to ditch them and do something else. Thus, the rules were actually good, because by being bad and easily disliked, they taught us to ignore rules."

That...doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand why one would want bad rules, even in order to make it so they learn that the rules are bad. That just seems like massive overcomplication to reach exactly the same end-goal, namely...actually good rules?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I, on the other hand, much prefer the saving throw categories of older editions that are classified by effect to avoid and not by avoidance method. I've even added a sixth category (for my house-ruled AD&D).

I mean, IF those categories were actually consistent and well-defined, then sure. The big problem with them was that they weren't. They were, like so much in early D&D, the equivalent of sedimentary rock: something accreted from the grit of years, rising out of little more than pure accident rather than intentional design.

The concept, saving throws defined by what effect-type one is resisting, is perfectly sound, and there may even be an argument that it is better than saving throws based on what method one is using to resist the effect (for example, by being abstracted in this way, it allows greater freedom for the player to narrate how they, personally, are resisting it.) It was just...never actually that thing, and instead a hodgepodge of clumped together stuff with little visible rhyme or reason.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

OK folks, that thread I posted to in the OP? That's the thread about why would anyone want to play 1e. This one is about why would anyone NOT want to play it. If you want to post why you wouldn't, the original thread is perfect for that. Thanks

I assume for your second sentence, you mean "why you would", rather than "why you wouldn't", so I'm going to roll with that.

I would not play 1e for three key reasons.

1. The "amoral murder-hole heister" playstyle, and the ruleset designed to incentivize that, isn't for me. I don't care for the particular brand of amoral treasure-hunter behavior that these rules are designed to develop. I don't enjoy games which treat "story" as an icky bad thing unless it's someone cobbling together past session notes into summaries long after the fact. I (really REALLY) don't like "gotcha" mechanics, level drain, GM-player arms races, racial level limits (more on that later), or really just a whole swathe of deeply-rooted elements of 1e design. It just...isn't for me.
2. The specific, inherently humanocentric way the game is set out, just rubs me the wrong way. (And it's not just the fact that Gygax was a pompous ass advocating some of the most dickish, passive-aggressive behavior I've ever heard as standard GMing practice.) I don't generally play humans. I don't find them very interesting, personally. The closest to human I ever play now is half-elf. Generally, I prefer reptilian or feline characters, which rarely get any support in early systems like this. So the game just already tends to lean unsatisfying in terms of the kinds of play-experiences I'm seeking.
3. I strenuously dislike the "bad rules were actually good rules, because by being bad, we made our own rules instead" mentality. If I'm paying for a system (which I believe people should do, if they think the system is worthwhile), then I expect the rules to actually be good and worth using. If I later find that those rules have any serious faults, I emphatically do not need the rulebook to tell me that I can decide to do differently. I always have that power (or, rather, as I see it, the group collectively has that power.) Full stop. End of discussion. If there's a rule that is actually bad, I will amend it, unless it is so bad that it cannot be amended, then I will replace it. If that has knock-on consequences, so be it; we'll cross those bridges as we come to them. Not one part of that makes it better for me to be given crappy rules I hate!

I think that neatly covers the vast majority of why I would not play 1e.

There is one last note, which is not exactly the same as 1 but related to it. I don't like the culture-of-play for 1e that I have seen. It has elements that bother me greatly. As a result, I am disinclined to ever want to interact with 1e. Even if the rules were utterly unobjectionable, I am of the opinion I would be very, very likely to have a bad time when trying to play it.

 

[Nikosandros]

I mean, IF those categories were actually consistent and well-defined, then sure. The big problem with them was that they weren't. They were, like so much in early D&D, the equivalent of sedimentary rock: something accreted from the grit of years, rising out of little more than pure accident rather than intentional design.

They work fine for me, I've been using them for decades. Honestly, I I'm not too concerned if something is - in general - good game design. It just has to work at my table.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I would never play any edition that contains the following sentence (or a variation thereof): "A "no" indicates that the race cannot become the character class in question".

Really. D&D came to age when you were able to play dwarven druids. And half-orc wizards.

 

[Willie the Duck]

OK folks, that thread I posted to in the OP? That's the thread about why would anyone want to play 1e. This one is about why would anyone NOT want to play it. If you want to post why you wouldn't, the original thread is perfect for that. Thanks

Read this back to yourself.

 

[Mannahnin]

Or the surprise rules. Particularly once you start working with creatures surprised on dice other than d6s.

If you didn't want to do the math of converting to percentages and reconciling all those, you might be fortunate enough to get a copy of Dragon issue #133, in which Leigh Krehmeyer did that work for us. Sadly, that didn't come out until the year before 2E did, so DMs before that were left to work it out for themselves.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Isn't the most important thing for playing 1E a DM who already has been playing it for decades already???

This is a very underrated comment!