D&D 1E The reasons to keep the rules 1e

[Lonely Tylenol]

1st ed. was worth it just for the DMG alone. I still like to crack that one open and flip through looking for interesting bits of stuff. Lots of weird tables and odd pieces of advice. It's the only one of those books that still makes for a good read.

 

[UltimaGabe]

Having never played 1e (and my only experience of 2e was an old computer game I used to play), I'm afraid I can't add too much to the situation, but...

...It sounds to me like most of the reason you people liked 1e was based primarily on how it was run, not how the rules were actually made. Like, for example, "not knowing what's behind the next door" isn't a mechanic of the rules, it's how that person ran the game. What exactly does nostalgia have to do with rules of a game? Aside from the artwork, that is, how does one version of a game have more nostalgia than others?

And I'm sorry that sounds like an accusatory tone- I'm genuinely interested in the answer, as I love that feeling myself, and I'll admit I don't have the same nostalgia for the game now than when I first started playing a few years ago- and yet, I feel that that's primarily my own fault, for the way I play the game's set up. Why do you say that 3e doesn't allow as much room for character development? If anything, I'd feel that a game with less rules and mechanics would give less room for development- at least, less of a starting point, anyway. In my games, I allow whatever roleplaying development as the players want- and I expect the same from other DMs I play with- as long as said development doesn't interfere with others' enjoyment of the game. I played a character once who was once a titan- reduced in size and power from centuries of being frozen as a statue on a dead plane- he was really only a third-level character, but I was able to develop him however I saw fit, as long as my character development give him some sort of advantage that nobody else had.

In short, 1e does sound like it had a certain allure to it that lacks in 3e, but I believe mostly that that's an issue with the players and how the game is played, not in the rules or how it was actually set up. Any thoughts?

 

[runtime]

Why not Basic D&D?

If simplicity and nostaglia are so important, then why stop at 1E AD&D? Why not Basic D&D (BD&D)? I played BD&D and a little AD&D in junior high. When I got into 3.5E last year, I bought some old BD&D books on eBay. Yes, they are simple, but there is a reason when WotC revved the edition to 3E: the old rules are hapazard and imbalanced (and to increase sales . The 3.5E rules are much more balanced, though formulaic. In fact, I've been toying with the idea of creating a 3.5E rules engine "oracle" using Prolog/whatever for rules lawyers to query or programmatically discover rule contradictions, but that's a discussion for another day..

On the other end of the simplicity spectrum, I've been reading the HackMaster books. They are a good read, but my friends have too much time/money invested in 3.5E books to bother playing HackMaster.

 

[Mistwell]

Having never played 1e (and my only experience of 2e was an old computer game I used to play), I'm afraid I can't add too much to the situation, but...

...It sounds to me like most of the reason you people liked 1e was based primarily on how it was run, not how the rules were actually made. Like, for example, "not knowing what's behind the next door" isn't a mechanic of the rules, it's how that person ran the game. What exactly does nostalgia have to do with rules of a game? Aside from the artwork, that is, how does one version of a game have more nostalgia than others?

The reason you didn't know what was "behind the door", is because back in D&D 1e most players ONLY had a players handbook. Much of the reason for that was the way the rules were done. The DMG had a warning, repeated on the cover and inside. The organization of the DMG was so archaic that only a DM would bother to try and pour through what was in it. The monster manual had cool pictures, but it too didn't make a lot of sense without knowledge of what was in the DMG (which, as I said, players didn't generally have access to or the patience to try and figure it out).

In other words, 1e was made in such a way that it had built-in discouragements for players to easily seek out spoiler information about what could be behind a door, or how challenges mechanically worked.

In 3e, you don't have as much of an issue with that. The DMG is a valuable tool for the DM, but if you know your player's handbook you actually know already how your challenges mechanically function (as it functions almost exactly like a character or things a character can make). You are never discouraged from understanding the underlying mechanical system being used to operate the challenges the DM will throw at you - indeed, you are kinda encouraged to get a good grasp of that portion of the rules with the Player's Handbook. Nor are you nearly as discouraged from reading the DMG, Monster Manual, or expansions (which are often meant for DMs but marketed to players because that is where the money is at).

 

[Shard O'Glase]

diferent class balancing mechainc, if your mid game this will likely end up being really unfair to certain classes during the conversion. Wizards and illusionists were supposed to suck at low levels, if they managed to survive to the mid to high levels they paid for the extra power they have now many times over. Now you change to a system where the classes try to stay balanced at every level. Wow that would be frustrating.

If your stating over at level one well that excuse goes, but here I'd just go with preference and dungeons. Prefernce well which do you like better, do you like the class balance system in 1e where certain classes had more difficulties at low level sin order to be power houses in the end, do you like the different xp charts for each class, oh and the quirky rules for assasins, monks, and druids.

Now dungeons there are tons and tons of prepublished probably already owned great dungeons for 1e, trying to convert those would be a pain, and hey I'm lazy I hate writing my own adventures. d20 companies have been republishing old adventures with 3e rules but I don't know if there good or not.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Oh yeah, I loved the potion miscibility table from the 1E DMG!

Oh, and this isn't a reason not to convert, but I also loved the old cartoons that got scattered throughout the books.

that actually reminds me back them magic felt more magical, I liked wierd random rules about potions. Magic in every game I can think of seems more mechanical now, I can't say how much I hated in 3e shadowrun for example when they removed spell grounding from the rules. The magic system seemed just less magical, and more based on game rules than setting rules.(and unless I missed it in the PDF its not making a comeback in 4e shadowrun)

 

[Mistwell]

For what it is worth, we took a 3.0 party into Hall of the Giants, converted by someone here I think, and it went GREAT. I really loved that the adventure was NOT balanced for our level. Some encounters were easy, some dead-on for our level, and many were just TOTALLY INSANE for our level. And we never knew which was going to be which. Make a wrong turn, and you better be able to run very fast, because a room FULL of giants would be right behind you.

We ended up being more creative in that adventure than we had been in most 3.0-made adventure up to that time (climbing onto the roof, making some holes in the room silently, and fireballing into the hall several times before they could clear out as the building started to catch on fire).