Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kichwas" data-source="post: 9738178" data-attributes="member: 891">I highly suspect this thread isn't meant for me - a person who actually does NOT want to play 1E. I suspect the thread is more meant as humor and fond memory digging for those who do want it.But... here I go anyway. Oops.I've never understood people who said it was confusing and hard to learn. We played it RAW when I started in this hobby in 1980 because we didn't know any other choice and there were articles from Gygax over the years telling us we were 'wrong' if we even looked at the book from the wrong angle.Well, I did know other options. I knew redbox basic D&D which I found more fun because I didn't have a thousand charts and different rules for males and females bogging me down.That all said...I just mentioned those reasons why I didn't care for it. I soon developed others. The moment I found 'The Fantasy Trip' by accidentally spending my allowance on a book I thought was just a module in a weird little box called 'Melee' I realized there were options. That game was too simple though - but it's why when it became known as GURPS and got it's edition number 'rebooted' to 1.0 with a lot more structure added in I got that.And with the combo of that and Autoduel Champions (which then resulted in my buying Champions because I'd bought Autoduel Champions for the Car Wars side) I encountered games where you could design a character rather than roll one, and had a skill system instead of classes.- That's still something a lot of people pick over D&D, especially 1E: non-random characters with depth on the sheet. Oh, that also have the same stat caps regardless of penis size because back them most of my players didn't have one.The monsters is another thing. I really don't like how some of them are ---> this close <--- to something in mythology, only the part that's off is too much for me to not keep seeing. Like how D&D made Naga evil when they're actually benevolent river spirits in India. I've had multiple friends and co-workers named Naga now that I know so many South Asians. That's just the 'obvious one' for me. There's a lot more out there and I was and still am a 'global mythology geek'. I got random bits of lore from all over the world in my head - rather than being expert in any one culture.I never really cared for Elves, Hobbits, and Orcs in my fantasy. I've played stacks of them - but I prefer creatures from mythology that are closer to their bases. Elf, Goblin, Gnome, and Troll all meant the same thing before TSR changed that - though what that thing was often varied. Hobbit just means 'Englishman', and Orc was 'I need a bad guy and here's a made up word' that turned out to not actually be made up, but also not mean the same thing.Give me Fauns / Satyr, or Firbolg / Minotaur if we're going European. If we land somewhere else, there are many other choices. Naga would even be a good one.- And this has all happened in later editions.To me AD&D had way to much detail in all the areas I didn't care about, and no where near enough detail in the places I wanted more.Also... I'm not too big on Nostalgia. I still can't even re-read The Lord of the Rings because I read it and The Silmarillian in the summer after middle school in 84 and that means if I open the book, it's all already old to me. The appeal of OSR flies right over me because been there done that and didn't care for it when it wasn't false memory but was instead present reality.I could probably go on for many pages, but this is already kinda long.</blockquote>

Verification