D&D 1E [For ORCUS] Convince me that I can "do 1E" with 4E

[Celebrim]

closer[/i] to 1E than the 2E mechanics were?

Well, I'm not sure mechanics are the right term, but I for one would agree that 3E was closer to 1E than 2nd edition was and that is the way I've always percieved them. I tend to look at 2nd edition as that really bad experiment which gave us improved rules for dragons and bards (two admittedly problimatic areas of 1E) and a few other minor things, but which was otherwise completely abandoned. Then the designers of 3rd edition went back to 1E and said, "Second edition showed us how not to make a game. Now, let's go back to 1st edition and figure out the game that we should have made, and make that instead."

My initial impression of 4E is that it's like 2E, another ill-fated design and flavor side treks under taken on more on whims rather than reasons that has insufficient respect for the material that they are working on and so will end up learning the hard way not to ignore years and years of public playtesting, not to dismiss perhaps the most influential RPG design of all time, not to fix things that aren't broken, and not to try to tell the DMs out there that the way they've been playing for 10 or 20 years is wrong. I keep asking myself, "Why are they doing this?" in a way that I never much asked about 3rd edition.

 

[Henry]

You were using a phone? I was speaking to you through a black iron goblet, inscribed with runes sacred to the Thirteen Foul Lords of the Under-Flame*, and filled with the blood of six unbaptized virgins.

*(A subsidiary of Verizon.)

Dammit, I'm switching my phone company RIGHT NOW!


...are they available in the southeast?

 

[HeinorNY]

Well, I'm not sure mechanics are the right term, but I for one would agree that 3E was closer to 1E than 2nd edition was and that is the way I've always percieved them. I tend to look at 2nd edition as that really bad experiment which gave us improved rules for dragons and bards (two admittedly problimatic areas of 1E) and a few other minor things, but which was otherwise completely abandoned. Then the designers of 3rd edition went back to 1E and said, "Second edition showed us how not to make a game. Now, let's go back to 1st edition and figure out the game that we should have made, and make that instead."

The grognards from 1999 think you are wrong.

 

[Glyfair]

*blink*

Okay, you were talking about the specifics of the mechanics, rather than the ratio of mechanics-to-flavor. I can buy that. But...

You thought that the mechanics of 3E were closer to 1E than the 2E mechanics were?

I agree. I was attracted to 3E (and brought back to D&D) because they finally "fixed" the things I felt should have been fixed with 2nd edition (which they carefully avoided changing). It was the differences that attracted me, not the similarities. I really saw nothing that was done with 3E that was in AD&D and wasn't in 2nd edition.

 

[Mouseferatu]

You know, the strangest aspect to all of this is that I came up with it entirely on the spur of the moment, and just for a joke...

But the more I think about it, the more I think "Lords of the Under-Flame" has a pretty cool ring to it. I may have to actually incorporate that somewhere.

(Inspiration moves in mysterious ways.)

 

[Pale]

A serreptitious missive delivery service, perhaps?

 

[Celebrim]

The grognards from 1999 think you are wrong.

They are handing out that title earlier and earlier now. It used to be you couldn't claim that title without a little bit of 'salt' in your beard. For a truly authentic look, you need to have salt in your beard, talk to yourself under your breath, and be thinning up top.

I'm not sure that 'grognards' from 1999 can even grow a beard.

 

[Mouseferatu]

A serreptitious missive delivery service, perhaps?

Oh, I've already got a pretty good idea of what they are, and even where they could fit into the setting Clark and I are discussing.

But I've already sent him one rambling e-mail full of ideas and suggestions. It's only fair I give him the chance to go over those before I barrage him with a second one.

 

[Gentlegamer]

What I found was that many of the things I had considered weird or broken or goofy weren't broken at all; they were just operating under a different set of assumptions.

This is exactly my view, as well. It isn't just mechanics that have changed between editions, it is the premises and assumptions underlying those mechanics. The premises and assumptions are the system elements that are actually the most important to whether the game "feels different."

 

[pemerton]

Rules of a certain sort push toward a certain playstyle, and a certain playstyle informs design. On top of those things, there's the issue of tone -- gritty dark ages sword and sorvery in 1E, high fantasy renaissance in 2E, and high octane action movie fantasy in 3e (to be extremely general about it, but I think you get my meaning).

It is certainly possible to play a dungeon that is designed in the 1E style in 3E, but that doesn't mean the experience, the feel is going to be the same.

Agreed.

Most game systems can indeed mimick 1e feel but the GM really has to be on the ball in terms of making sure that he's in tune with what the players are doing, what they are capable of doing and how he's setting up the adventure. In 1e for example, you might not need a rogue to handle some of the traps if the Gm described them to you. Ditto for secret doors and other 'hidden' aspects of the game based on the players descriptions. This requires work on the GM's part though.

Also, in a system in which character build is a big element, and players have carefully optimised every skill point, it can become a matter of contention among the players if it is possible to get the in-game benefits of those skill ranks without having to pay the metagame price of allocating one's skill points to them.

It's for this reason that I think 3E can be hard to marry with a 1st ed approach to play, in which the emphasis is on player ingenuity in response to the situation, rather than a mastery of the game's action resolution mechanics.

Well, so what if they are completely different? The feel of the module is what you're after; all the system/combat stuff is just window dressing.

There is a difference between the feel of the module - what Reynard calls "tone" in the quote above - and the nature of the play experience. System is not just window dressing - White Plume Mountain played in 1st ed AD&D will be very different to the same module played in RM2, for example, just because the latter contains a complete skill system. This encourages players to look for solutions based on their characters' in-game abilities, and thus brings into play the character build and action resolution aspects of the game - whereas in AD&D, in which the action resolution and character build rules speak to only the most basic of in-game challenges, it will mostly be the players themselves trying to come up with ingenious solutions.

It is of course possible to design a 3E module which deliberately sets out to bypass the character build and action resolution rules (eg by involving the vacuum of space, which very few skills or character abilities pertain to). But if this is what you want to do on a regular basis, why would you be using 3E as your system of choice - why not use a system where character build and action resolution mechanics don't loom so large?

We are all about the OD&D mystery and mythology and feel and style. That is what we do, and we can do it with any system (unless they totally change the game to another game, which they are not doing).

This suggests that 1st ed feel is more tone than the rules-determined aspects of play experience. No reason why that shouldn't be doable in 4e.