# Can someone explain what "1st ed feel" is?



## Abyss (Feb 8, 2002)

I was checking out "Necromancer games" website today, and at the top of the page there is a paragraph which reads:

 "The Third Edition of the world's most popular fantasy roleplaying game is here. Are you a veteran gamer? Do you remember the good old days of fantasy roleplaying? We at Necromancer Games do, and we are committed to producing high-quality products under the D20 System for use with Third Edition but with a "classic" First Edition feel."



Now I myself never played 1st ed. Can someone explain what  a "first edition feel" is?


-Abyss


----------



## MythandLore (Feb 8, 2002)

Abyss said:
			
		

> *Now I myself never played 1st ed. Can someone explain what  a "first edition feel" is?*



The funny feeling in your tummy. 

"OMG! That woman is so good looking that I feel like first edition."


----------



## Grendel (Feb 8, 2002)

its like rappan athuk, take a look
it is old school dungeon crawl, it even has a couple of 'goofy' encounters thrown in for comedic effect.

basically its the type of dungeon you created and played 'back in the day'


----------



## Melan (Feb 8, 2002)

Here is an excerpt from an interview the Necro guys gave:



> Clark: First Edition is the cover of the old DMG with the City of Brass; it is Judges Guild; it is Type IV demons not Tanaari and Baatezu; it is the Vault of the Drow not Drizzt Do'urden; it is the Tomb of Horrors not the Ruins of Myth Drannor; it is orcs not ogrillons; it is mind flayers not Ilithids (or however they spell it); it is Tolkien, Moorcock, Howard and Lieber, not Eddings, Hickman, Jordan and Salavatore; it is definitely Orcus and the demon-princes and not the Blood War; it is Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound not Elminster's Evasion; and it is Artifacts and Relics from the old DMG (with all the cool descriptions).
> 
> I always say we want to be the VW Bug of roleplaying companies, meaning that we want to have a modern style and appeal but an obvious link to the past. One of the ways we do that is how we design the modules. For example, we use full color covers (not that funky mono-color of the old modules). But our modules have the same basic format of the old modules—inset art, module number in the upper left corner, diagonal band in the upper left corner, logo placement, etc. I guarantee you, when you look at one of our modules you will flash back to the old ones—just like when you see a new VW bug. And hopefully you will say "Man, that is just like an old module except cooler."




They are pretty faithful to their motto, their products are among the best I have seen on the d20 landscape (OK, I haven't seen that much, I admit), they offer very good product support and they have a nice forum, too. ... I can recommend them wholeheartedly.
Did I mention that they publish adventures by Gary Gygax and Rob Kuntz?


----------



## Starfox (Feb 8, 2002)

When I started playing 1ed, I was 13 years old. Now I'm 34. Perhaps what they mean is that they want to be 20 years younger? 

More seriously, I think 1 ed feeling is a game centered more around having fun with whatever you are doing than about filling out your world with filler text. Who cares if the Tomb of Horror made little sense - as long as you have fun playng it. Who cares about the social interactions in drow society - as long as the drow are sexy and hard to kill? And you've got to love those Erol-Otis-style high boots.

It might also be a reaction to all the Ed Greenwoodesque things of the Forgotten Realms - Elminster above all.

Personally, I don't particularily liked 1ed; it was simply the only game available at the time. But 2ed was definitely worse - it got me off DnD for ten years. I only recently came back with 3E. IMHO, 3E is much closer to a revision of the first edition than second edition ever was. Second edition was a patch, an attempt to correct problems that introduced more problems than it cured. So my take on the 1ed feel is that it is really more of a break with the second endition than with the third.


----------



## jasper (Feb 8, 2002)

I take my shield and bank it off the wall and strike 3 giants with it!
How come the elf look like mr spock.
There are 5 orcs in this 10 by 10 room the door number is 5 .
Yea orcs is easy the vampire behind door number 4 is trying to get the peanut butter off his fangs.

Basically is starts out with your in front of the dungeon door. Nothing on how your got there or who was your grandpappy!


----------



## Wild Karrde (Feb 8, 2002)

It means if you are playnig a wizard (magic user back then) don't expect to survive beyond first level let alone second.  Especially after you have used up all your darts.


----------



## green slime (Feb 8, 2002)

Ever had a fingernail clipping stuck under your eyelid? 

That's 1e feeling for ya!


----------



## Darklone (Feb 8, 2002)

*For me?*

Easy. When I start to dream again. Reading a story or an adventure and the personae come alive. Having an image of the scene in my head. Feeling the hairs on my neck stand up. Enjoying the adrenaline rushing through my veins when I charge to the help of my friends with my rage slowly saying goodbye and my hitpoints closing to zero...


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 8, 2002)

green slime said:
			
		

> *Ever had a fingernail clipping stuck under your eyelid?
> *




No, actually.  And I'm kinda concerned for you if you have.  How on earth...?

Ahem.  necromancer's motto is definitely not a draw for me, although I know it is for other folks.  I like story, and character, and above all culture:  some of my favorite moments as a DM are writing myths for my campaigns, or figuring out what bizarre customs the coffeegrowing lowland elves practice.  These were not priorities in first edition.

And for me, an illogical dungeon shoots my suspension of disbelief all to hell.  We were playing through RttToEE recently (VERY MINOR SPOILER), and in going through one complex, I noted the corridors that travel only in cardinal directions but that wind all around.  You go 20' north, then 50' east, then 10' north, then 20' west, then....

Digging underground is hard, even with magical help.  Why on earth would anyone make their corridors wind all over creation, when they could just make the corridors be straight shots from one location to another?  Even something that small can get under my skin.

I shudder to think what I'd be like playing through Rappan Athuk.

Daniel


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Feb 8, 2002)

*Re: For me?*

There's not a Drow on every street corner.

There was only one major published world to play in.

The ultimate test of a party was the G1-2-3--D1-2-3 series.

And you waited (and waited and waited) for T2-The Temple of Elemental Evil, which (it seemed) was never to be released.  T1-The Village of Hommlet was just a big tease!


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 8, 2002)

I agree with Pielhorino (sic?) -- I doubt I'd enjoy a game that was "1st edition feel" today.  The part about 2nd that was so bad was the system, not the "feel."  Not that I ever really played it; the last 1st edition stuff that came out, and the 2nd edition stuff that I read in the meantime turned me off of D&D for years.


----------



## Henry (Feb 8, 2002)

"1E feel" is quite simply the nostalgic feeling that was evoked by the defining characteristics of the first edition: The bare-bones room descriptions for the DM's eyes only; there was almost no pre-written flavor text, unlike what accompanied so many of the late first and most 2nd edition modules. It was the feel of modules, rather than campaign settings.

The Orcus (Clark Petersen) Quote is the best description - it is hard to quantify, and can be best seen rather than  described.

------------

In another light,

Someone on another webiste once said: "In the beginnings of D&D, you had people trading stories like "In my dungeon I have a room where..."; now, people trade stories like "In my campaign I have a town where..." There was more emphasis on setups and challenges of logic rather than situations and challenges of character.

Have you ever noticed how most reminiscences of Players are flavored by their play style or when they started playing? Whereas some stories start with _"My favorite game moment was when I rolled a critical success on my jump check and then critically hit and killed the Ogre that was threatening the party",  _others start with _"My fvorite gaming moment was when I talked the Duke of Tristram into not going to  war with our home country."_

Both are valid, but one gamer's fun is another gamer's boring, and there is a large untapped market of former players out there that remember the "Beer and Pretzels" style of gaming with fondness.


----------



## Particle_Man (Feb 8, 2002)

Back in the day...

Well, you certainly did not have every single fighter doing the two-weapon style elf with long swords.  

One thing I STILL miss from 1st ed is that the illusionists were WAY different from M-U's.  The spell lists were different, and when there were shared spells, their levels could be different too.  Of course, no two DM's agreed on how illusions actually worked.  

On the other hand, sorcerors and wizards are different in 3rd ed...


----------



## bushfire (Feb 8, 2002)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *I agree with Pielhorino (sic?) -- I doubt I'd enjoy a game that was "1st edition feel" today.  The part about 2nd that was so bad was the system, not the "feel."  Not that I ever really played it; the last 1st edition stuff that came out, and the 2nd edition stuff that I read in the meantime turned me off of D&D for years. *




Just the opposite for me! What got me about 2e was the feel, the idea that Story was more important than having fun. That following some sort of overreaching plot was more important than character (player) decisions as to what they wanted to do.

I don't mind little unrealistic items in my games involving dwarves, elves, and dragons


----------



## Psion (Feb 8, 2002)

*Re: Re: For me?*



			
				Barendd Nobeard said:
			
		

> *There's not a Drow on every street corner.*




There never was in my 2e or 3e games either... or any game I played in. Not sure what you are getting at here.



> *The ultimate test of a party was the G1-2-3--D1-2-3 series. *




Ah! GDQ! Them were good times.

Unfortunately for me, Necromancer's idea of "1e feel" seems to center around the kind of modules I try to forget like White Plume Mountain (premise? what premise?) and Tomb of Horrors (the Materhorn of Gaming can have no replacement!)

That said, I find that despite some initial misgivings about RA, I ran it on off weeks for a while, and a lot of the encounters actually are proving pretty interesting. Word of warning... keep your 1e books and, if possible, 3e conversions therof handy, because they have a habit of referring to items and creatures that aren't in the 3e rules (gas spores... wands of conjuration.)


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 8, 2002)

_



			Just the opposite for me! What got me about 2e was the feel, the idea that Story was more important than having fun. That following some sort of overreaching plot was more important than character (player) decisions as to what they wanted to do. 

I don't mind little unrealistic items in my games involving dwarves, elves, and dragons
		
Click to expand...


_Who said story was more important than having fun?  A good story was what made the fun.  I remember when I very first started playing 1e in the early 80s or so thinking that the game would be so much better if the characters could even see the dice roll, or the characters sheets, or associate their actions with numbers at all.  I don't feel so now, because few games are so number-crunchy, meta-gaming tactical wargames, like they used to be.

It doesn't have to do with realism or not, to me, it has to do with being able to submerse yourself in the game the same way you would with a book.


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 8, 2002)

bushfire said:
			
		

> *I don't mind little unrealistic items in my games involving dwarves, elves, and dragons   *




I had a pointyheaded writing professor in college who loved science fiction and who talked a lot about "imaginary objects."

His theory was that science fiction was all about the authro creating an imaginary object and seeing how characters and societies responded to the object.  For Le Guin, it was the ansible; for Gibson, it was the Net; for Asimov, it was the laws of robotics.

In some ways, that's how I approach my game.  Dwarves, elves, and dragons are imaginary objects, as are spells, magic swords, gods, and monsters.  A lot of my interest is seeing how characters respond to these imaginary objects.

A weird imaginary object won't ruin my suspension of disbelief.  A weird response to the imaginary object will.

Thus, dwarves, elves, and dragons aren't a problem.  Windy corridors are.

Daniel


----------



## daTim (Feb 8, 2002)

I think what they mean is Nolstagia, which is generaly left tucked away in your mind, because as soon as someone tries to bring it back to reality, everyone seems to have remembered everything differently.


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Feb 8, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: For me?*



> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Originally posted by Barendd Nobeard
> There's not a Drow on every street corner.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...




It's just that in the "early days" of AD&D, Drow were rare.  When you ran into them in the G3 module, player were meant to be surprised + not sure what it was.  Now, it seems every character knows what Drow are.  If a DM describes a black-skinned elf, players know it's (probably) Drow, with certain abilities, etc.

Nothing wrong with it; I think it's a natural progression.  Something exotic and mystique eventually becomes ordinary.  It's not just Drow; I think they're just the best example.  Same could be said for Yuan-ti.  I'm sure there are other "monsters" out there that have gone from 'mysterious and unusual' to 'commonly understood.'


----------



## Psion (Feb 8, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *
> Thus, dwarves, elves, and dragons aren't a problem.  Windy corridors are.
> *




The problem with your assumption is that you assume that someone dug them that way on purpose. I'm no geologist, but I do know that there is a lot of randomness in the way sedimation occurs; lava flows have bubbles in them,  diffirent types of earth and rock are easier or harder to excavate or erode. Really, how a person would LIKE the passage to go may be an entirely peripheral consideration.


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 8, 2002)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The problem with your assumption is that you assume that someone dug them that way on purpose. I'm no geologist, but I do know that there is a lot of randomness in the way sedimation occurs; lava flows have bubbles in them,  diffirent types of earth and rock are easier or harder to excavate or erode. Really, how a person would LIKE the passage to go may be an entirely peripheral consideration. *




I don't think you need to be a geologist; I just think you need to know that D&D has spells like soften earth and stone, stone to mud, and stone shape in it.  These spells don't care about which kinds of rock are easy or difficult to shape, but they do care about affected volume.

I think it's a case of people not really considering their imaginary objects carefully and how they'd be used.  It may be possible to kluge together some excuse for the windy corridors -- but I don't like it when it's necessary to make excuses for weird things in adventures.

When I run a published adventure, I spend hours and hours reworking the illogical aspects of the adventure until I have something that makes sense to me, something in which all the NPCs have motives I can believe in, something in which all the monsters are placed logically.

It's important to me.  I know it's not even important to all my players, but it's important to me.

Daniel


----------



## WanderingMonster (Feb 8, 2002)

I always imagined first edition feel being kinda squishy and sweaty with a beard.


----------



## Psion (Feb 8, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: For me?*



			
				Barendd Nobeard said:
			
		

> *It's just that in the "early days" of AD&D, Drow were rare.  When you ran into them in the G3 module, player were meant to be surprised + not sure what it was.  Now, it seems every character knows what Drow are.  If a DM describes a black-skinned elf, players know it's (probably) Drow, with certain abilities, etc.
> *




Well, yeah. But there is precious little that churning out some new products is going to do about that. So of course the solution is to come up with more things that they can say "what's that" about. So I guess if that is the 1e feel you are looking for, you might have better luck buying the CC or CCII rather than an NG module.



> *Same could be said for Yuan-ti.*




Actually, I don't know that many players that are too familiar with Yuan-Ti... except those who have played some of the BG titles.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 8, 2002)

Dungeon Crawls rule!  I run a beer and pretzels game, I tried to run something else but my players don't want long drawn out scenarios where they do more talking and political maneuvering than slaying and trap finding.   It's an adventure game where one makes ones name and fortune in the dungeon, or outside, battling monsters and coveting their treasure hordes.


----------



## WSmith (Feb 8, 2002)

Clark's quote hits it on the head. 

This is my 2 cents: to me, 1e ment location based adventuring. How the players got to the location was up to the DM. This was and is my style of DMing, so I can releate to it. How and why did the group travel from Reme to Faihill and then to Bard's Gate? Leave that part to me, and give me the locations along the way that I can use for them to encounter.

IMO, 2e adventures leaned in the direction of "Why are we out in widlerness, travelling to Waterdeep and who is the shadowy form following us, and what will happen if we don't return the totem to the barbarian tribe in time?" There is nothing wrong with this. I will say it again cause someone wants to get bent out of shape, I can tell. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS! BUT, it just doesn't mesh with the style of DMing I use when utilzing published adventures. Two notable exceptions from the 2e line, which I will never sell or give away, Vale of the Mage and Greyhawk Ruins. To me,  they are location based.  

That doesn't mean location based adventures don't have a story element, they don't emphisize it as much.


----------



## kenjib (Feb 8, 2002)

DM:  You enter a twenty by twenty room.  Cobwebs hide the ceiling.  There are some sacks of flour and a skull on the floor.  All of you tell me what you do now.
Cleric:  I light a torch and look at the webs on the ceiling.
Thief:  I'm going to check out the sacks of flour.
Magic User:  I'm going to look at the skull.
Fighter:  I get ready with my two handed sword.
DM:  Just as the cleric lights his torch something black and icky drops from the ceiling onto his shoulder.  It tries to bite you but misses.
Cleric:  Yikes!  I grab it and throw it to the floor.
DM:  Roll initiative first.  Okay you win.  Now roll to hit.  Good you throw it on the ground.  It's a giant spider!
Fighter:  Eeew.  I smash it with my sword!
DM:  You hit the spider.  Now roll for damage.  5 points - pretty good!  It looks really hurt.
Magic User:  I cast magic missile.  3 points of damage.  Did I kill it?
DM:  Yes you killed it.
Thief:  Okay, what's in the sacks of flour.  I cut them open with my dagger.
DM:  Nothing.  They are just sacks of flour.
Cleric:  I'm going to set the webs on fire just in case there are more up there!
DM:  Okay the webs burn easily.
Magic User:  How about the skull.
DM:  There is a gem in the skull worth 50 gp.
Fighter:  Alright!!!


----------



## WSmith (Feb 8, 2002)

Why stop there? Keep going with the the thief jumps into the water to grap the "bone tube' that got dislodged from the skelton's ribcage.  

One of the things I loved the most about 1e/BD&D stuff were the in game descriptions, such as the one you mentioned. 

Those were the days.


----------



## Tzarevitch (Feb 8, 2002)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> *Back in the day...
> 
> Well, you certainly did not have every single fighter doing the two-weapon style elf with long swords.
> 
> ...




Each DM had a different interpretation on how illusions worked because like most of 1e, the rules were so poorly worded that the DMs were't sure how they worked either. 

Tzarevitch


----------



## Numion (Feb 8, 2002)

For me 1e feel is also that a city is just a big dungeon. Thats what we did anyway, in the days of past. Our adventurers were a menace to any city they visited. We just systematically knocked on doors or busted them in, just like in the dungeon.  Or bought an empty house, and started digging tunnels to other houses. Or some other 'genious' plan.

For us 1e was about adventure without moral baggage, looting with no encumbrance and general mayhem and mischief.


----------



## Squire James (Feb 9, 2002)

Regarding the RtToEE comment, well dwarves dig a lot.  They were probably following that vein of mithril when they unearthed the (insert nasty uber-monster here).  I don't think mineral veins normally run straight, so there was a profit motive for digging those strange passages.

Old dwarven mines make excellent Citadels of Evil (tm), especially depleted ones.


----------



## trancejeremy (Feb 9, 2002)

FWIW, I think Fast Forward Games' stuff has more of a first edition feel, if only because some of the stuff is by Jim Ward.

Only a handful of Necromancer games stuff feels like 1e to me. They're not bad products, just not very 1e-ish.


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 9, 2002)

Squire James said:
			
		

> *Regarding the RtToEE comment, well dwarves dig a lot.   *




They do, but not generally under moathouses. 

Daniel


----------



## Cullain (Feb 9, 2002)

This question has a very easy answer to it.  If the book has badly drawn nude female figures in it, it has a first edition feel.

Was that so tough?

Cullain


----------



## EricNoah (Feb 9, 2002)

First edition feel ... that's when you look at a new "adventure module" and say "ooh, I gotta get that" because, well, there are only two other "adventure modules" in print!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Feb 9, 2002)

First edition feel is sitting on my bed reading and re-reading the books.

I don't think I played in a real group until college-- well into 2e. Up until then, never more than one player, one DM-- and sometimes they were both me. 

Wulf


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Feb 9, 2002)

Y'know, for those who keep complaining about how 1e had so little plot or story - you're missing an important point. Plot and story was provided by the DM then, and so could be dispensed with in the modules. Adventures of recent years have often been overwritten, spoon-feeding plot and story to the players and DM alike. 1e was more about individualization. _That's_ what 1e "feel" is, not lack of logic or an element of goofiness. Those old modules, with their lack of fluff text, invited everyone to think for themselves, which often resulted in some completely memorable experiences as the imaginations of the gaming group was given free rein. Heavily plotted modules of more recent times seemed more confining, less adaptable to individual whim, less open to spontaneity - in short, less like 1e.


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 9, 2002)

Colonel, I think you're not understanding quite what I'm saying.  It's not the lack of plot that makes them problematic for me -- it's their lack of plausibility.

I still have that problem with third edition modules.  I'm currently running Speaker in Dreams, which is probably about as close as you'll find to a spoon-fed plot in any published module.  And I find it so implausible, the actions of major NPCs so foolish and incomprehensible, that I've spent hours and hours completely rewriting it.

First edition, in my experience, was worse in this respect.  Plausibility simply wasn't a major consideration; and with plausibility, generally a coherent narrative was tossed out the window.

Daniel


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Feb 9, 2002)

No, I get what you're saying. The thing is, plausibility was another element the DM provided. 1e modules were so underwritten that a DM had to individualize them. 

Show me a classic 1e module, and I'll bet every DM who ran them back in the day could tell you why those 5 orcs were in a 10x10 room - I know I could. Sometimes it would be implausible, but most times what came off the tops of our heads was ultimately the most logical explanation. 

Were there bad 1e modules? Absolutely. But the classics more than made up for them, evoking a "feel" that still haunts many of us today beyond simple nostalgia.


----------



## Son_of_Thunder (Feb 9, 2002)

*1st edition feel!!*

Greetings all!!!

1st edition feel is this to me. It's getting together with your friends on a friday night (because none of you have dates . You play a game that you don't worry about character background. You're just there to have fun, and by fun I mean, slaying monsters, getting the treasure and going up in levels. In an old Dragon magazine in Dragonmirth there was a cartoon of a man running into an inn shouting something like, "Run for your lives. There's a fighter who needs just one more experience point to reach next level." That was us!!! You could stay up all night playing D&D. Drunk tons of pop, eat alot of junk food and crash all day saturday. Ah the good times. To me, that's first edition feel.

Cheers,

Son_of_Thunder


----------



## Son_of_Thunder (Feb 9, 2002)

*Almost forgot!*

Oh ya,

And 1st edition feel was simple classes uncomplicated by unnecessary rules.

Cheers,

Son_of_Thunder


----------



## Voneth (Feb 9, 2002)

1st ed feel.

Pick up Diablo or play Everquest and you have 1st Ed feel. Which may explain why some what that feeling. Every read articles from the Diablo designers.

"We had a simple plan, Let the player kill something and then reward him, it's almost Pavlovian."


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 9, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *No, I get what you're saying. The thing is, plausibility was another element the DM provided. 1e modules were so underwritten that a DM had to individualize them.
> *




I guess we agree, then, on what they were like; we just disagree on whether that's a good thing.

Daniel


----------



## Squire James (Feb 9, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *
> 
> They do, but not generally under moathouses.
> 
> Daniel *




In that particular case, they didn't.  The stuff under the moathouse was all dug by crazy evil people.  I suppose that explanation could be used for just about anything, though!


----------



## Numion (Feb 9, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *Y'know, for those who keep complaining about how 1e had so little plot or story - you're missing an important point. Plot and story was provided by the DM then, and so could be dispensed with in the modules. *




Or alternative B: There was no plot, at all. 

Just call 'em like you see 'em.


----------



## beta-ray (Feb 9, 2002)

The irony of what you said Daniel is that you explain away so easily  that the tunnels can be molded by MAGIC, but you find little else PLAUSIBLE (wind in tunnels)...

Actually almost ANYTHING taken to their logical conclusion is rather alien. Even in the real world there is a lot that is not logical, because we are not purely calculating engines...

*shrug* my opinion of course


----------



## MythandLore (Feb 9, 2002)

Squire James said:
			
		

> *
> 
> In that particular case, they didn't.  The stuff under the moathouse was all dug by crazy evil people.  I suppose that explanation could be used for just about anything, though! *



It's like a wacky madlibs.

The X under the X was dug by crazy evil people.

The basement under the Taco Stand was dug by crazy evil people.

The Taco Stand under the Castle was dug by crazy evil people.

The Castle under the basement was dug by crazy evil people.

The X X the X was X by crazy evil people. -is even better-


----------



## Melan (Feb 11, 2002)

Voneth said:
			
		

> *1st ed feel.
> 
> Pick up Diablo or play Everquest and you have 1st Ed feel. Which may explain why some what that feeling. Every read articles from the Diablo designers.
> 
> "We had a simple plan, Let the player kill something and then reward him, it's almost Pavlovian." *




Uh-oh. I have played Diablo I, but it isn't anything like 1st edition. If anything, it is a dumbed down Nethack (which, in turn, is based on OD&D).

1e feel is also the example of play from the 1e DMG. Compare it to the one in the 3e one: the latter is just four "iconic characters" underground - the former is a grand and wondrous adventure, with promises of further strangeness. Why? After all, they are almost the same, no?
IMO, no. Somehow, the mystwery isn't quite there, with you knowing that Lidda & Co will get away with it - but the other has this unease - will they be killed by the ghouls? Will their guide betray them to the bandits for some easy coins? Or swindle them out of their hard gotten riches? It is a dungeon, yes, but so much more - you almost feel there is a living world beyond it, and you can catch a glimpse from the corner of your eye... Weird.
I can't really define it, but it is * different * .


----------



## Eternalknight (Feb 11, 2002)

It's hard to put into words what 1st edition felt like.  I guess you had to be there


----------



## Henry (Feb 11, 2002)

Voneth said:
			
		

> *1st ed feel.
> 
> Pick up Diablo or play Everquest and you have 1st Ed feel. Which may explain why some what that feeling. Every read articles from the Diablo designers.
> 
> "We had a simple plan, Let the player kill something and then reward him, it's almost Pavlovian." *




I also beg to differ. To make that statement is to tell me that you do not seem to have a complete understanding of what made many 1st edition modules great.

I enjoy an occasional game of Diablo, and used to play Everquest last year, but left both. Why? Because they were boring and mindless. You performed the same activities _ad infinitum_ to get the same result. I have a friend who still plays Everquest, and he has several 30th to 50th level characters. I don't see how he does it. I have more fun with a filing cabinet.

Getting back to your statement - To coin a rather homeopathic phrase, *"Less is more."* One qualifier of 1st edition was a setup of fascinating situations and challenges, with a minimal amount of "Story fluff."

By story fluff, I mean the boxed text and reams of characterization notes that used to come with many 2E adventures - "For Duty and Deity" was one. You were told more about the environment of the High Cleric (of Waukeen)'s temple and offices than you were about the Abyss where Waukeen was held!!!

In many 1E adventures, there was an intriguing setup (for its day) and the how's, why's and wherefores of how the characters got into the situation were left open-ended to the DM, so that he would have an easier time to insert it into his campaign (and also because printing costs ain't cheap). There were usually enough notation of the basic character and his position to give the DM an idea of how to handle him as an NPC, and it was up to the DM to provide more flesh to his characterization.

It is true that it is part nostalgia, but there is a lesson there that many designers of 3E are returning to - even many designers at WotC (Look at Forge of Fury and Sunless Citadel for examples of this). They don't write in "complete" 1E style, but it is more writing in interesting situations and challenges such as....

SPOILER
The Kobolds and the White dragon, or the druid and his special tree...
SPOILER

...that makes it fun to run for players. Fans of 1E need new and fresh challenge ideas, not gobs and gobs of setting with little meat involved. I had more fun with Sir Bruto sans Pite and the mid-air kayaks in-stream, than I did with Volo and all his ramblings about "the multitudinous and miraculous magic of the Realms."


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 11, 2002)

To each his own.  The rest of the RPG industry (by which I mean non-D&D -- this is a tough call now with d20, though) is pretty uniformly anti-1st edition feel, and have the theory that the setting sells the game, not the mechanics.  Before d20, in which the name and the customizability, not to mention the user base through that theory for a loop, I'd say that was probably true.  So 1st edition feel is an anachronism and those who get all misty-eyed about it probably truly do so more from nostalgia rather than quality.  

The rather ironic subtext in all of these debates is that those who praise the 1st edition modules do so because it allowed the DMs to customize and add in all the stuff _they_ wanted.  Take that one more step, though, and what point is there for printing a module in the first place?  Just let the DM come up with his own adventure, if you're going to make him do _most_ of the work anyway.  Personally, I'm not a big fan of published adventures: the Witchfire Trilogy is the only one(s) I own (although I'm thinking about picking up the Freeport series.)  To me, the 1st edition feel is making up your own stuff because you had to.  And for that, 3rd edition is better anyway, because it's so modular in design and easily customizable, yet you have a lot more building blocks to work with.


----------



## D'karr (Feb 11, 2002)

*Conflicting Views*



			
				Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I guess we agree, then, on what they were like; we just disagree on whether that's a good thing.
> 
> Daniel *




In a previous post you mentioned _Speaker in Dreams_ and how you had spent so much time changing it.

You seem to contradict yourself.  

1E had very vague if any setting references.  Even the Classics, _Slavers Campaign, Against the Giants Campaign, Queen of Spiders Campaign_, before they were made into MegaModules had very vague setting references.  They could losely be made into a grand overarching campaign if the DM wanted to but he could also play each series individually with no connection at all.  That connection was left up to the DM to create.

In my opinion that was great.  I wasn't using a Greyhawk Campaign and I modified names and locations to fit my campaign.  Hardly any real hassle.

BTW the Slavers Campaign [A1-A4] was one of my favorites and the group that played it still reminesces about it almost 20 years after.

Now back to 3E.  I happen to like 3E better than any of the previous systems.  The reason why I like it better is because it allows me to concentrate on story over game mechanics.  The game mechanics are so simple that I can make consistent game rulings in even the most absurd of situations without much thought.  It gives me the feeling I had when I first played Basic & Expert Set D&D.

The DM provides the logic/plausibility to a published module.  Granted some modules are easier to provide this for.  However, it is still the DMs responsibility.  Speaker in Dreams was heavily modified in my campaign.  Not because it was implausible as you mentioned but because the events just didn't fit.


----------



## jasamcarl (Feb 11, 2002)

*No, Joshua*

You still don't get it....what Colonel and others are getting at (as i understand it, not having actually played 1st ed) is that the 2nd ed modules actually required MORE work because they were high on flavor (which IS very easy to do), and low on mechanics, which is much more difficult for various reasons of balance, limitations on rules, etc. Seriously, mechanics are much more marketable than fluff, because their is simply a dearth of it. Not to mention an over abundance of setting material can add a lot more work on the flavor text, in so far as the extra detail calls for too many assumptions about the grand strategic bent of a dm's campaign...


----------



## Darkness (Feb 11, 2002)

Wild Karrde said:
			
		

> *It means if you are playnig a wizard (magic user back then) don't expect to survive beyond first level let alone second.  Especially after you have used up all your darts.  *



Yeah, but _if_ you survive longer than level 9 or so, you will 0wnx0r the game. 
OTOH, if you're a thief (that's "rogue" for us youngsters), you don't have a point in surviving longer than level 5-7 or so. 



			
				Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *And for me, an illogical dungeon shoots my suspension of disbelief all to hell.  We were playing through RttToEE recently (VERY MINOR SPOILER), and in going through one complex, I noted the corridors that travel only in cardinal directions but that wind all around.  You go 20' north, then 50' east, then 10' north, then 20' west, then....
> 
> Digging underground is hard, even with magical help.  Why on earth would anyone make their corridors wind all over creation, when they could just make the corridors be straight shots from one location to another?  Even something that small can get under my skin.*



Well, if you were madder than heck, chaotic evil, and had easy access to lots of (also evil) earth elementals, you might do something like that. 



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> *First edition feel is sitting on my bed reading and re-reading the books.
> 
> I don't think I played in a real group until college-- well into 2e. Up until then, never more than one player, one DM-- and sometimes they were both me.
> 
> Wulf *



Heh. Y'know, Wulf, I started that way as well!  (I managed to get a group after a year or two, though.)





			
				beta-ray said:
			
		

> *The irony of what you said Daniel is that you explain away so easily  that the tunnels can be molded by MAGIC, but you find little else PLAUSIBLE (wind in tunnels)...
> 
> Actually almost ANYTHING taken to their logical conclusion is rather alien. Even in the real world there is a lot that is not logical, because we are not purely calculating engines...
> 
> *shrug* my opinion of course *



"Truth is stranger than fiction."


----------



## Darkness (Feb 11, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *And for me, an illogical dungeon shoots my suspension of disbelief all to hell.  We were playing through RttToEE recently (VERY MINOR SPOILER), and in going through one complex, I noted the corridors that travel only in cardinal directions but that wind all around.  You go 20' north, then 50' east, then 10' north, then 20' west, then....
> 
> Digging underground is hard, even with magical help.  Why on earth would anyone make their corridors wind all over creation, when they could just make the corridors be straight shots from one location to another?  Even something that small can get under my skin.*



Well, if you were madder than heck, chaotic evil, and had easy access to lots of (also evil) earth elementals, you might do something like that.


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 11, 2002)

Darkness said:
			
		

> *Well, if you were madder than heck, chaotic evil, and had easy access to lots of (also evil) earth elementals, you might do something like that.  *




In that case, you'd probably make the corridors curvy, dontcha think?  Not with all sorts of right angles and corridors that are perfectly 10' wide at all points.

But if you were madder than heck, chaotic evil, with easy access to lots of earth elementals, AND OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE, then you might do something like that.

Or, if you were a DM, you might think, "mapping straight passages is boring.  I'll make 'em windy, that'll be fun!"

That, to me, is 1E thinking.

Daniel


----------



## Darkness (Feb 11, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *
> 
> In that case, you'd probably make the corridors curvy, dontcha think?  Not with all sorts of right angles and corridors that are perfectly 10' wide at all points.
> 
> ...



Yeah, LOL, and that's just what the good Colonel was saying: You had to make up explanations for a lot of things 'cause nobody gave them to you. 
Heh. Seems like I'm able to grasp a bit of the 1e feel after reading this thread. Never played 1e, though; I started with AD&D in '89 or '90...


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 11, 2002)

beta-ray said:
			
		

> *The irony of what you said Daniel is that you explain away so easily  that the tunnels can be molded by MAGIC, but you find little else PLAUSIBLE (wind in tunnels)...
> *




This confused the hell out of me on the first couple of readings.  Wind in tunnels?  Who said anything about wind in tunnels?

And then I reread what I'd written about windy passages.

Aha.

Not gusty passages.  Convoluted passages.  WINE-dee passages.

Wind in passages is no problem, as long as there's a reason for it! 

Daniel
shooting the breeze


----------



## Melan (Feb 11, 2002)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *To each his own.  The rest of the RPG industry (by which I mean non-D&D -- this is a tough call now with d20, though) is pretty uniformly anti-1st edition feel, and have the theory that the setting sells the game, not the mechanics.  Before d20, in which the name and the customizability, not to mention the user base through that theory for a loop, I'd say that was probably true.  So 1st edition feel is an anachronism and those who get all misty-eyed about it probably truly do so more from nostalgia rather than quality.
> 
> The rather ironic subtext in all of these debates is that those who praise the 1st edition modules do so because it allowed the DMs to customize and add in all the stuff they wanted.  Take that one more step, though, and what point is there for printing a module in the first place?  Just let the DM come up with his own adventure, if you're going to make him do most of the work anyway.  Personally, I'm not a big fan of published adventures: the Witchfire Trilogy is the only one(s) I own (although I'm thinking about picking up the Freeport series.)  To me, the 1st edition feel is making up your own stuff because you had to.  And for that, 3rd edition is better anyway, because it's so modular in design and easily customizable, yet you have a lot more building blocks to work with. *




   On Settings:   Joshua: yes, the rest of * The Industry * (as they refer to themselves) is mostly anti-first edition feel, focusing on settings versus rules. And they, collectively, aren't much larger than D&D on its own. They never were (except for maybe White Wolf in its early years), and, most likely, never be. On the other hand, D&D and Hackmaster (which is 100% old school gaming, 1st edition feel and all) sell like, well, some really well selling stuff. One of the keys to this is precisely the holy "setting" (and the lack thereof in D&D). Gamers like to invent worlds and D&D allows, nay, encourages you to do just that. Vampire can't do that for me, and neither can Tribe 8, Blue Planet or Orkworld. Oh sure, my home setting isn't original at all (being composed of a few maps on hex sheets, another sheet that has the settlements with population figures and a few other details, other details being stored in my mind. And  the meat: lots of adventures, both stolen and home-grown.
   This is one of the core strength of 1e: it allowed the seamless integration of modules and supplements into your own world. Can you drop "Steading of the Hill Giant chief" in an average campaign? Yes, most likely. Can you use the 1e DMG encounter tables? Yes, or you can make your own based on them - just a few changes and you are set. Can you do the same to the reindeer-riding orks from Orkworld? No, you can't. Chances are, your campaign can't accomodate them. Naturally, the rest of * The Industry  (tm) can't get away with focusing on rules and modules - they must focus on something WotC doesn't do as well (and which caused the downfall of TSR, among other reasons), and that is the creation of detailed worlds (BESM might be a rare exception, or maybe FUDGE?). A significant portion of D&D players couldn't care less about cool settings - we want modules we can use in our own crappy fantasy worlds. And 1st edition adventures were nice in this respect - generic, adaptable, full of cool ideas...


   On nostalgia: I don't think it is merely nostalgia. In that case, I wouldn't enjoy it - I am younger than the G series, but I still prefer it to Terrible Trouble of Tragidore or the other zillion crappy adventures that came out in the 90s. There must surely be something that makes them attractible to me. - And also that new contestants in this area (Necromancer and Fiery Dragon) make fun modules I can run and my players enjoy...*


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 11, 2002)

I'm also gonna point out that my problems with Speaker in Dreams wasn't the need to customize it.  Changing the city's bell tower into a mosaic-covered tower with a Rapunzel-like legend attached to it was fun, and wasn't a problem with the adventure at all.  Changing the town's main industry to glassworks, changing the Baron to a Rais, changing the Stony Gaze Tavern to the Golden Veil Inn -- all these are things I expect to do in customizing an adventure.

But when I'm faced with a collection of random villains with no reason for their cooperation; when the tactics described for the villains do no credit to their intelligence; when humans villains seem to be working with critters that ought to be killing them -- that's when I have a problem.

And that's the kind of thing I think is even more rampant in 1E modules, from what I remember.  My first adventure was In Search of the Unknown -- 'nuff said?

Daniel


----------



## Melan (Feb 11, 2002)

Nitpick: * In search of unknown * was an OD&D adventure.


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 11, 2002)

True -- I shoulda said that illogical stuff like that was rampant in 1E AND OLDER D&D.

I think that for the most part it's gotten steadily better, and I think White Wolf has a lot to do with that.  In Search of the Unknown is pretty far at one end of the spectrum.

Daniel


----------



## Henry (Feb 11, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *...In Search of the Unknown is pretty far at one end of the spectrum.
> 
> Daniel *




...And B2 Keep on the Borderlands was at the other end of the spectrum.

This adventure is one of TSR's best-selling adventures EVER. It had a fully-fleshed-out Keep at the edge of civilization, it had interesting and memorable encounters scattered throughout the woodlands (who could forget the mad hermit and his Wildcat?) and it had a series of humanoid tribes in the caves of Chaos who had banded together for mutual protection (but not without a healthy dose of suspicion amongst one another). Why was the Minotaur's lair in there? Because when the Humanoids located here, the Minotaur's lair was already there, and they gave him a wide berth - occasionally making offerings to him to keep him from killing them all. The other humanoids had banded together under the influence of the Evil Priest and the place even had several hidden rooms where the tribal leaders met and dealt with one another politically. The place had it all!

Yet, one of the prime complaints I always heard on the internet were, "Why would so many different humanoids have gathered in one place like a vegetable tray?" These usually came from players who had never so much as seen the module, but had only heard of it second-hand, or from bashers who never took the time to really read the thing and note the tremendous amount of crunchy bits and behind-the-scenes stuff that made it such a good module. And all within a scant few pages! (I think 20 or so pages? Anyone have an exact count?)

Keep on the Borderlands was a mini-campaign all unto itself, and contained enough detail to keep people adventuring there for several levels, and even establish a home base there! Don't get me wrong - I loved the Dark Sun, Night Below, Council of Wyrms, Planescape etc. Setting, but In the 1990's, it took a boxed set to give someone the basics of a full-fledged campaign - something that in the 1980's was being done with one thin little book.

God only knows how many campaigns have had a "Keep on the Fringes" because of this module. 

P.S. Regarding the influence of White Wolf on setting-based campaigns - I had one unfortunate experience with White Wolf's World of Darkness setting, and decided to never return. With a better GM, perhaps I may one day give it another whirl, but if want to play that way, I'll take up either Mind's Eye or community theater. In my previous experience, that kind of influence only appeals to a narrow audience (compared to the heyday of RPG's in the 1980's), and only lasts for very short times.


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 11, 2002)

1st Edition feel.  Hmmm.


Well, I do think Nostalgia plays a large part, here.  Certainly, the phrase has different meanings to different folks.  Here are a few, I think:


a)  *The Wonder*:  The joy I personally experienced the day I cracked open the DMG that I'd bought with money I'd saved for weeks of lawn-cutting.  The imagination that was sparked looking at the listings of magic items.  The anticipation of running a game after reading the 'sample of play', section.  The evil-grin of looking at the pictures in the 'Tomb of Horrors'.

b) *The Design Ethic*:  The original modules were not _adventures_.  They were settings for adventures to take place in.  At their root level, they were even less than that...they were large, freeform puzzles that were more than a boardgame, but moderately faithful to D&D's wargame roots.  Logic often took a back seat to an interesting challenge or a clever logic puzzle.  Does 'Tomb of Horrors' or 'Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan' make much sense.  Nope.  But they're fun to run characters through, if that's the kind of game you enjoy.

c)*The Metagame*:  Some folks *liked* 1e's wargame-like mechanics.  I'm not one of them, but that's not the issue.  Some people liked the AC system, the experience point tables, the unique spells, the various races and classes.  Some folks don't want to have to deal with some of the strictures that Role-playing imposes.  If they know that their 5th-level fighter needs 10 experience to level, then you damn well bet they'll just go find it, and role-playing reasons be damned.

d)* Look and Feel*:  The artwork and layout of those old materials was far from the polished look of WOTC and other contempararies.  Compare the cover of Chainmail, the 1e DMG and 3e DMG.


That said, I think that the nostalgia, as always, often confuses the issue.  For every good 1e module, there were tons of bad ones.  I found 2e so distasteful, I never played it, and dropped out of D&D entirely, until the advent of 3e.  'Back to the Dungeon', indeed.

I think that to NG, the second and third descriptors are '1st edition feel'.  To me, it will always be the first....the thoughts of how to get my players to use a Deck of Many Things or a Rod of Wonders.  

I loved 1e at the time, but as I grew, I wanted and needed more.  Even when I ran 1e games, I filled in the blanks.  The Colonel's point is not lost on me...but I soon came to the point where the 1e modules required enough work that I might as well make my own, which is what I did (and what I found more rewarding, anyhow).  1e's rules were not pristine and untouchable...quite the opposite, IMHO.  The RPG artform has grown from it, but it is primitive by today's standards.  Does that mean it was harder to have fun under 1e than 3e?  ABSOULTELY NOT.  I have had a blast under either edition.

If you want my opinion of who is doing a good job on 1e feel, it depends on what you want.  For my money, Fiery Dragon is doing a great job, module-wise, of meeting that concept, but taking it to the next level with logical design.  The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  See 'NeMoren's Vault'.Kingdoms of Kalamar is also keeping it real, IMHO, but again, with an emphasis on logical design backing it up.  

Rappan Athuk, at least the first one, was everything I didnt like in a 1e module.  Mimic Toilet monsters are just so far and away from the kind of game I want to run, I can't tell you.  Poorly edited, little guidance in the use of the module, and multiple mistakes make it difficult for me to even look at it.  Some folks like that, which is fine, but it's not for me.

Ultimately, I think '1e feel' is to we older gamers what '3e feel' is to 12-year old DM somewhere out there right now, learning D&D for the first time.  And that's what it's really all about.


----------



## Melan (Feb 11, 2002)

Wizardru: IMO you should give Rappan Athuk II a chance. Although I had no problems with RA 1, the second part is definitely better (despite the crappy maps - but that has been rectifed since). I found that the middle levels had much stronger themes and better ideas overall - not to mention the increased size of the module. But of course, it is still a dungeon, so you should avoid it if you don't like difficult dungeon crawls.


----------



## Sammael99 (Feb 11, 2002)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *Ultimately, I think '1e feel' is to we older gamers what '3e feel' is to 12-year old DM somewhere out there right now, learning D&D for the first time.  And that's what it's really all about.  *




Amen to that !


----------



## kyuss (Feb 11, 2002)

*1st edition feel*

"The Third Edition of the world's most popular fantasy roleplaying game is here. Are you a veteran gamer? Do you remember the good old days of fantasy roleplaying? We at Necromancer Games do, and we are committed to producing high-quality products under the D20 System for use with Third Edition but with a "classic" First Edition feel." 



Now I myself never played 1st ed. Can someone explain what a "first edition feel" is? 


-Abyss


I'd say 1st edition feel was stuff like Gutboy Barrelhouse(a 1st edition "iconic") and charts like the wandering prostitute table (brazen strumpet, anyone?).  It's artwork like the great picture of Emirikol the Chaotic blasting people outside the Green Griffion tavern or the Paladin in Hell.  It was the bizzare, superfluous Gygax writing style (I still like to read my old DMG just to read his prose).  
Part of it, I think, is that 1st edition D&D was totally different from any game I had ever played before.  It was new and mysterious.   I still love the game, now more than ever, but after 16 years of playing and DMing I know all about the monsters, magic and treasures.
Unfortunately for Necromancer, part of the feel came from game mechanics like negative armor class is good, 1d6 initiative, and 1 minute rounds (a no-prize to the first person who knows how long a segment was!!).
And just a little of the mystique came from playing "Satan's Game".  Jack Chick is a poor replacement for Geraldo and 60 minutes, IMHO.

kyuss


----------



## shadow (Feb 11, 2002)

I personally hate world-based settings.  This is one reason why I love D&D and GURPS.  I enjoy creating my own worlds, no matter how crappy and genreic they may be.  With games like Shadowrun, World of Darkness, etc. the rules are subservient to the setting.  Hence, the setting is not easily modifieable without unbalancing the rules.  For example, if you want to use Shadowrun rules but remove meta-humans and make magic rarer, it completely throws the character creation process out of whack. 
I suppose that's what I really like about 1e AD&D, the fact that all the adventures were fairly generic.  You could pick up a module and throw it into your home campaign without much problem.  Sure some of the adventures were 'illogical', but no one can deny that they were really fun!


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 11, 2002)

_



			You still don't get it....what Colonel and others are getting at (as i understand it, not having actually played 1st ed) is that the 2nd ed modules actually required MORE work because they were high on flavor (which IS very easy to do), and low on mechanics, which is much more difficult for various reasons of balance, limitations on rules, etc. Seriously, mechanics are much more marketable than fluff, because their is simply a dearth of it. Not to mention an over abundance of setting material can add a lot more work on the flavor text, in so far as the extra detail calls for too many assumptions about the grand strategic bent of a dm's campaign...
		
Click to expand...


_

Oh, I get it alright, and I did play 1st edition.  Just because I'm making a different point, don't assume that I don't understand another one in the same thread.

*The Industry*, as Melan calls it, operates (or at least did unitl a year or so ago) on a very different paradigm than D&D.  Now, to listen to the posts on this thread, D&D was made great on the older paradigm -- that players didn't want setting.  However, as other games came out that offered setting, for the most part, they stole market share away from D&D something fierce.  2nd edition D&D supposedly embraced the newer philosophy of adding lots of setting to the game.  According to those in this thread, this was also a Bad Thing(tm).  Yet, Forgotten Realms is the most popular setting for D&D, largely because of the amount of setting information available.

So, although I'd agree to a certain extent with what the posters here have said, the market seems to disagree quite firmly -- setting is incredibly important to a roleplaying game in order for it to maintain sales.  The current situation, with the profligeration of d20 settings and games has so far not settled down into a predictable market pattern.

However, the point I still make is valid, although Melan offered (I think) a very good counterpoint to it: if modules without setting or story or much of anything except some monsters in rooms are so great because it allows DMs to make up there own stuff, why not just have the DM make the whole thing up and not mess around with this farce of producing modules?  Because there's a dearth of mechanics out there?  Balderdash!  There's more mechanics than anyone can possibly absorb out there, even without new mechanics in modules.  I doubt, although I don't have any of them, that modules with a "1st edition feel" are truly like 1st edition modules in many ways, because I think the market has moved beyond them except in terms of nostalgia.


----------



## Victim (Feb 11, 2002)

In my opinion first edition feel is the rulebook saying that the HPs of a 10th level fighter with 18 con are ridculous, even though the same same guy thought that the HP system was good enough to publish.  

Of course, I've just started playing 1e.

It's also about killing goblins with a rock slide.


----------



## Henry (Feb 11, 2002)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *...So, although I'd agree to a certain extent with what the posters here have said, the market seems to disagree quite firmly -- setting is incredibly important to a roleplaying game in order for it to maintain sales.  The current situation, with the profligeration of d20 settings and games has so far not settled down into a predictable market pattern.
> *




While I certainly agree there is a large market for heavy-setting adventures, It has been stated (by market research done by WotC Prior to the year 2000) that the RPG market of the time was nowhere near as large as it was back in the early to mid 1980's. Heavy-setting adventures were playing to vastly reduced crowds, and getting the majority of those crowds. It says more about the way the market segment shifted in those 10 years (from approximately 1990 to 1999)  than it does about the tastes of the majority of gamers. Modules like "For Duty and Deity" and supplements like "Volo's guide to Waterdeep" weren't exactly picking up new gamers at the time.



> *However, the point I still make is valid...if modules without setting or story or much of anything except some monsters in rooms are so great because it allows DMs to make up there own stuff, why not just have the DM make the whole thing up and not mess around with this farce of producing modules?  Because there's a dearth of mechanics out there?  Balderdash!  There's more mechanics than anyone can possibly absorb out there, even without new mechanics in modules.  I doubt, although I don't have any of them, that modules with a "1st edition feel" are truly like 1st edition modules in many ways, because I think the market has moved beyond them except in terms of nostalgia. *




The same point could be made about heavy-setting adventures - for me, atmosphere is rather (obscenely) easy to create, and in fact preferred, since my campaign's atmosphere will differ from yours - but I have a harder time setting up a really intricate mystery-plot, or a really crafty challenge for PC's to overcome. For me, older modules offered that, while "newer" ones did not.

I for one, do not wish to DM the Forgotten Realms; I do not wish tons of setting references that I will have to change and use differently. It is one thing to not want to use a pit trap that makes clever use of reverse gravity spells and acid baths, or to not use a complex interaction between a Generic Cleric and his generic minions, and the Generic Town he is hiding in as a respectable advisor to the Generic King. It is quite another thing to only change the Names and Gods involved, and the Players STILL recognize Faerun or Krynn beneath all those thinly-veiled name changes, because of the detail the setting is oozing.

My point is that both settings are valid, and "1st edition feel" has such a viable market of players behind it, it would be foolish for a company such as Necromancer Games not to take advantage of it. Clark Petersen defnitely has the right idea in how the company is headed, and how is does not intimately link their Modules to his or Bill's home campaigns, but rather provide DM's with original and memorable challenges to introduce to their players, in their own settings.

You mileage will and obviously does vary from mine. There is a definite market for both types of settings, which is proven by the wild success of D&D and its generic modules, and the modest yet quite vocal success of Hackmaster, as well as the continued health and success of White Wolf's settings.


----------



## Akunin (Feb 11, 2002)

For me, the "1e feel" is the play-by-the-seat-of-your-pants style of gaming - rushing into the room, fighting the monsters, getting the treasure, and kicking in the next door.

DM:  Okay, the treasure consists of two +2 swords, a +2 suit of armor, a +3 shield, 2500 Copper, 3000 Silver, 1500 Gold, 500 Electrum, and 500 Platinum.  Oh, and a Staff of Fireballs.

Player 1:  Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

Player 2:  Yep.  Leave the coins, and let's grab the staff, those weapons, and the armor.  It's time to go find that dragon!


----------



## Jasperak (Feb 12, 2002)

6 seconds


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 12, 2002)

_



			My point is that both settings are valid, and "1st edition feel" has such a viable market of players behind it, it would be foolish for a company such as Necromancer Games not to take advantage of it. Clark Petersen defnitely has the right idea in how the company is headed, and how is does not intimately link their Modules to his or Bill's home campaigns, but rather provide DM's with original and memorable challenges to introduce to their players, in their own settings.
		
Click to expand...


_
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with what they're doing: and I agree that there is a viable (if perhaps not the biggest) segment of gamers who want those types of adventures.  If I were one to buy adventures, and if I were one who had an interest in playing D&D where characters went down in a hole and killed some monsters (which I don't, really -- I get easily bored when games turn to that paradigm) then I would rather have the same kind of modules that you prefer.  However, I'd rather ignore both and simply make up my own stuff, but that's just my preference.

_



			You mileage will and obviously does vary from mine. There is a definite market for both types of settings, which is proven by the wild success of D&D and its generic modules, and the modest yet quite vocal success of Hackmaster, as well as the continued health and success of White Wolf's settings.
		
Click to expand...


_
I think, as I mentioned earlier, that the market hasn't shaken out the effect of a new (and good, for a change) D&D system, and even moreso, the effect of the d20 license.  There's no telling what that'll do to the companies (and games) in the market today.  However, I'd guess that when it does settle down, that setting will sell the game, just as it has for the last several years.


----------



## Talvisota (Feb 12, 2002)

6 seconds in a segment. 

"A significant portion of D&D players couldn't care less about cool settings - we want modules we can use in our own crappy fantasy worlds. And 1st edition adventures were nice in this respect - generic, adaptable, full of cool ideas... "

This is my opinion of 1e, too.  Sometime around 1990 or a little afterwards, products became intertwined in published worlds and I began to have trouble adapting products to my home campaign.  A business plan, of course, and understandable perhaps from a company whose goal is profit.

What I think the "2e feel" is? All those other gamers I met (starting about that time) who kept acting like what TSR wrote in supplements was law, even in your campaign.  One player in my group tried to tell me what Drow were all about and saying that I was doing things wrong; you see, he had the special handbook for Drow, and it said blah blah blah.  Perhaps this should be called "The Drizzt Effect."

If indeed The Industry is watching - take heed.  Why do we STILL keep referring to GDQ (well, maybe not Q) and T1-4 as the best modules?  Think about it: generic setting, one product that allows play for many levels, long, build up challenges, and just what the DM needs to surround it with his own style.

Talvisota


----------



## Voneth (Feb 12, 2002)

Henry said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I enjoy an occasional game of Diablo, and used to play Everquest last year, but left both. Why? Because they were boring and mindless. You performed the same activities ad infinitum to get the same result. I have a friend who still plays Everquest, and he has several 30th to 50th level characters. I don't see how he does it. I have more fun with a filing cabinet.
> *




Unfortuntely, most "DM"s I had never added much, if any additional reasons to our motivation for hitting the dungeon. They played it straight from the module and then it was a rumor or legend to take us to the next dugeon, which in some respects has less to it than Everquest does now.

As far as the advantage of 1st edition for it being generic and "droppable" in any game, I had that happen to me in a game last year.  The GM started very promising with his own adventures, and then suddenly he did nothing by recycled 1st ed adventures over and over. Suddenly it was the old thing again, dungeon, rumor, dungeon, fetch an item for a king, dungeon. It didn't help that we all knew the adventures already.


----------



## Ulrick (Feb 12, 2002)

For the 1st time in about 12 years I played 1ed. just yesterday (Sunday 10th).

It does have a different feel to it.

1ed isn't all flashy and edgy like latter Editions.  It doesn't have all kinds of optional rules to make uber-characters (unless you count the Barbarian and Cavalier class--but I won't get into that). 
And there were limited choices for your character.  For instance, a Thief couldn't assign his own thieving skills--there's a table for that.  And of course, Demi-humans can multiclass while humans cannot (they can dual class).

The artwork, although simpler compared to latter editions, invoked and inspired my imagination better that the artwork of latter editions.

There's a darker tone to first edition...similar to the Elric Saga, not Happy Happy Joy Joy Realms (although 1ed Realms in my opinion had that dark tone too).  The books of 1ed editon feel like tomes of "Eldritch Wizardry."   

The adventure we were one didn't feature a dungeon (as of yet).  It started off with us being captured on a yellow sailed ship of the Slave Lords!  We were 0-level and we had to escape!

Yes, the DM is going to put us through some classic modules such as the Slaver Series and even the Temple of Elemental Evil.  I can't wait.

I had a great time playing 1ed.  And I look foward to playing it again soon.

In conclusion, I have to say "Don't bash 1ed.  Bash 2ed.  And although I feel that 3e is superior to the other two, it just doesn't feel "right." 

Ulrick


----------



## Aaron L (Feb 12, 2002)

I know exactly what you mean with the "dark tone" of 1E and the 1E FR.  It had a sublimely "grey", warped Earth reality to it.  Like our world, but with a "not quite natural" element in addition to the fantasy.  Very much a Moorcock and Lovecraft feel.  The illustrations always evoked thoughts of the danse macabre with me.  I loved it.


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Feb 12, 2002)

*Old school vs. New School*

I think the guys who talk about the new school being about the setting is right. There's a thread over at the gaming report with a bunch of industry bigwigs talking about this:

http://www.gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=27

You should do yourself a favor and hop over there to read it, because I think it's a wonderful analysis about why TSR/WW floundered and actually made the industry smaller in the early 90s with the emphasis on published settings versus game product.

I've thought about some of those issues, but from the discussion over there I must say that Ryan Dancey and the rest have REALLY thought about it. I have to really applaud Ryan Dancey and the folks at WoTC for having the courage to drag D&D back to its roots. And by that I don't mean just "back to the dungeon", but with an emphasis on providing game rules, not flavor text.

Here's one product idea that Ryan talks about that makes me wish he was still running WoTC:
"The other would be the book I keep suggesting that WotC consider publishing: Core Book IV: Game Designer's Guide. The GDG would contain all the systems and mathematical analysis used to construct 3e, and explain how the system works at a low level, and how to add to it and extend it correctly. That book would be a guide to effective encounter, scenario, story and world design, all using the d20 System"

Hot damn, Ryan, make it happen! I don't care if that book cost $100, I'll buy it. Even if I was forced to relearn linear algebra and how to setup systems of differential equations again, I'd buy the book. It'd be like being given an assembly-level tool for d20.


----------



## Killer Shrike (Feb 12, 2002)

1st edition feel means all players and the DM agree to only use thier right brain for the course of the adventure. No logical left brain thinking allowed.

Most 1st edition adventures seemed to be designed so that copious amounts of alchohol or other chemicals consumed while playing would make the whole thing make much more sense.

1st edition was all about Elf, Dwarf, Fighter, and MU (names pretty much optional) wandering thru randomly assembled & populated dungeons in the pursuit of things to kill and stuff to take. And stirges hiding in the rafters. And lots of stupid giant animals, particularly poisoned rats. Kill or be killed. Stupid pointless death traps at -7. More death traps. Occasionally, an entire dungeon made of 3 encounters and a double box full of death traps. After a few months of this, you leveled up, but only got something for leveling every 3 levels or so.

Really, think Diablo minus the computer and you have a decent grasp on the majority of 1st edition games.

On the other hand, for mindless fun you couldnt beat it.


----------



## Madfox (Feb 12, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *
> And for me, an illogical dungeon shoots my suspension of disbelief all to hell.  We were playing through RttToEE recently (VERY MINOR SPOILER), and in going through one complex, I noted the corridors that travel only in cardinal directions but that wind all around.  You go 20' north, then 50' east, then 10' north, then 20' west, then....
> 
> Digging underground is hard, even with magical help.  Why on earth would anyone make their corridors wind all over creation, when they could just make the corridors be straight shots from one location to another?  Even something that small can get under my skin.
> ...




Your assumptions are wrong with this so called dungeon. It used to be a mine, not to mention that a large part of those dungeons were naturally formed. Since ore never follows a straight line, so will corridors not form a straight line. As for the moathouse, those curving corridors where recently dug by the ghould in that area as a den. Parts that had been dug by the cultists gave me the impression the dungeon was not finished when the original inhabitants where destroyed. As a player you should never be too quick to judge something that appears to be illogical. As a player you most likely miss a lot of information that your DM has. 

I must admit though that when somebody mentions 1edition feel I always think of dungeons that make no sense, but are just there to challenge the intellect of the players and the power of the PCs. There are few 1st edition adventures I would use in my campaigns except perhaps for 1 shot adventures.


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 12, 2002)

Madfox said:
			
		

> *Your assumptions are wrong with this so called dungeon. ....As for the moathouse....Parts that had been dug by the cultists gave me the impression the dungeon was not finished when the original inhabitants where destroyed. As a player you should never be too quick to judge something that appears to be illogical. As a player you most likely miss a lot of information that your DM has.*




I elided the parts of your post that I've already answered in this thread:  I'm not talking about curvy ghoul warrens, I'm talking about the parts that contained corridors that wound wihtout reason.  I disagree that my assumptions are wrong, for two reasons:
1) When I made some comment to my DM about the corridors (I was the ill-fated party-member trying to map the corridors), he got a sheepish look on his face and agreed with me that it was stupidly designed.
2) I ran the original Temple of Elemental Evil a long time ago, and I'm pretty sure that there was no construction going on at that point in the adventure.

My best guess is that Monte used a modified version of the maps from the original adventure: to do otherwise woulda POd a lot of fanboys.  And the illustrious Gygax was never known for making well-thought-out, plausibly designed dungeons:  he emphasized kewl tricks above plausibility.

Perhaps you shouldn't tell folks they're wrong unless you've got better evidence?

Daniel


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 12, 2002)

The moathouse was completely demolished during the original series.  The cultists in question have been excavating the buried ruins, and exploring them, by the time adventurers arrive on the scene.  It's implied and somewhat illustrated that there are parts of the original moathouse dungeon that are completely lost or destroyed...so any examination of the place will reveal an incomplete and possibly seemingly illogical picture.  There are several locations that don't seem to lead anywhere...and these are because the original design has been competely subverted.

If, however, you are referring to a particular series of extremely windy caves....your DM should have told you to just stop trying to map carefully.  There is a logical explanation for the design of those particular tunnels, but without giving spoilers, I can't say for sure if that's what you are referring to.


----------



## Psion (Feb 12, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *
> Perhaps you shouldn't tell folks they're wrong unless you've got better evidence?
> *




Evidence?

Sorry, Daniel, but your "evidence" is no less subjective than his. Your DM agreed with you? That is hardly objective evidence.


----------



## adndgamer (Feb 12, 2002)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *Dungeon Crawls rule!  I run a beer and pretzels game, I tried to run something else but my players don't want long drawn out scenarios where they do more talking and political maneuvering than slaying and trap finding.   It's an adventure game where one makes ones name and fortune in the dungeon, or outside, battling monsters and coveting their treasure hordes. *




Exactly.

Dungeon crawls are great, because they're easy and fun.  Maybe someday I'll change my mind and decide that I want to have political intrigue and such, but as for now, my players and I are happy to go around doing dungeon crawls.  After all, isn't that what D&D was named for?

And as for the original topic...It's been explained by many already, but here's my 2¢.  The 1st edition feel is the rough and wooly feel of the game.  It's the dungeon-crawl atmosphere.  And it's the simplistic approach.  

1st edition was more complicated than OD&D, but it's nothing compared to 3e in terms of complication.  Our gaming group is having a little meeting soon and we'll be changing some mechanics of 3e (probably taking out skill points, for example) and bastardizing it and simplifying it until newbies are able to make up a new character in roughly 15 minutes.

Anyways, there's my little rant.


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 12, 2002)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> Sorry, Daniel, but your "evidence" is no less subjective than his. Your DM agreed with you? That is hardly objective evidence. *




Well, exactly.  That's why I didn't tell him HE was wrong, but rather said that I disagreed with him.  I don't tell people they're wrong unless I got irrefutable evidence.

I know, I know, I know about the tunnels that curl around, Wizardru, and them ain't what I'm talking about.

It's strange to me that defenders of adventures seem unable to see any flaws in them at all.  So far, I think RttToEE has some very cool stuff in it, and I'm enjoying playing it.  Do you guys think it's flawless?  If not, what do YOU see as flaws in it?

The problem with the maps (perfectly 10' wide corridors which turn at perfect 90 degree angles at random) is a common one from 1E adventures.  Those of you who've been playing for awhile:  do you disagree?

1E has a lot going for it.  Plausibility isn't one of those things.  Neither is character-rich story.  That's my point.

Daniel


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 12, 2002)

Maybe we just aren't tunnelling experts but issues like that have NEVER come up in any games I've played in or run.   I guess we are too busy fighting for our lives to wonder if the layout of the underground temple to the dark gods is layed out in a perfectly logical way.


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 12, 2002)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *Maybe we just aren't tunnelling experts but issues like that have NEVER come up in any games I've played in or run.   I guess we are too busy fighting for our lives to wonder if the layout of the underground temple to the dark gods is layed out in a perfectly logical way. *




(I'm guessing your DM doesn't make you map the damn thing! )

Daniel


----------



## Neqroteqh (Feb 12, 2002)

Killer Shrike said:
			
		

> *1st edition feel means all players and the DM agree to only use thier right brain for the course of the adventure. No logical left brain thinking allowed.
> 
> Most 1st edition adventures seemed to be designed so that copious amounts of alchohol or other chemicals consumed while playing would make the whole thing make much more sense.
> 
> ...




Here, here!  Now, to all you 2nd Edition bashers out here, here's what I like about it:

The Modules.  Crappy?  Heck no!  Return to the Tomb of Horrors, Axe of the Dwarvish Lords, The Night Below, A Paladin in Hell, The Rod of Seven Parts, For Duty and Deity, Hellbound: The Blood War, Faction War, Undermountain, Undermountain II, Die Vecna Die, The Ravenloft Grand Conjunction series, The Lost Shrine of Bundashatur, Tale of the Comet, Dead Gods, The Vortex of Madness, The Apocalypse Stone, Hellgate Keep, the condensed version of the DL 1-16 series that was released for 2e (Dragonlance Classics), Dragon Mountain- had enough yet?  All fantastic adventures, many of which are getting converted for my 3E campaign.  Sure, there were some dogs... many of the campaign-specific adventures to come out were pretty weak (the Volo Trilogy and Four from Cormyr, The Deva Spark, Caravans), and there were some weak non-specific ones as well (the Beholder trilogy, the Illithiad adventures...)... but there were many great ones as well- and they had more than the mere dungeon that would come in a 1E adventure.  Return to the Tomb of Horrors wasn't just a deathtrap with a demilich- it had a plot, a city and school full of vampires and necromancers, giants, the creepiest city ever seen in a D&D product (Moil), and many encounters that test the wits of the best players.

Rules- Guess what, folks?  Unlike 1e, the AD&D Skills and Powers system (which was a godsend for my campaign) let characters truly customize their characters with skills and abilities, not just with kits.  I'm also a fan of the complete books series- Complete Bards, Elves, Paladins, and Druids among my favorites.  Spells and Magic allowed all kinds of variations to the magic system- and new stuff for players, as well... and Combat and Tactics made D&D combat make more sense than it did previously.

Campaign Settings- admittedly, 2nd Edition Realms was a bit weak... but other than that, what does 3E have that's better?  Planescape, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Spelljammer- all gone, and Ravenloft has been reincarnated as a shadow of it's former self.  The settings I've seen so far either strike me as completely bland (Kalamar), uninspired (Dragonstar), or fairly decent places to steal ideas from (Scarred Lands)- nothing that really excites me like the old settings did.

As for 3rd edition adventures, I've only seen three (excluding several excellent Dungeon Magazine adventures) which are up to par with the ones I've listed above- Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, The Demon God's Fane, and Lord of the Iron Fortress.

However, 3rd Edition is the clear winner for rules... they're far superior to 1E, Skills and Powers, or any other system I've ever seen.  Just give me something good to play with!


----------



## Psion (Feb 12, 2002)

Neqroteqh said:
			
		

> *Here, here!  Now, to all you 2nd Edition bashers out here, here's what I like about it:
> 
> The Modules.  Crappy?  Heck no!  Return to the Tomb of Horrors, Axe of the Dwarvish Lords, The Night Below, A Paladin in Hell, The Rod of Seven Parts, For Duty and Deity, Hellbound: The Blood War, Faction War, Undermountain, Undermountain II, Die Vecna Die, The Ravenloft Grand Conjunction series, The Lost Shrine of Bundashatur, Tale of the Comet, Dead Gods, The Vortex of Madness, The Apocalypse Stone, Hellgate Keep, the condensed version of the DL 1-16 series that was released for 2e (Dragonlance Classics), Dragon Mountain- had enough yet?*




While I agree that there is some good stuff in 2e, you are just digging your own grave here. You have named several modules on my "crap" list... Faction War, Die Vecna Die, the Apocolpyse Stone, the railroad-fest DL modules, and book two of the Night Below, just to name a few.

Now Undermountain, Squaring the Cirlce (from Hellbound) and Dead Gods, on the other hand, are good stuff. Better than anything published for 1e, AFAIAC. (I am still slowly working on an undermountain conversion.)



> *Return to the Tomb of Horrors wasn't just a deathtrap with a demilich- it had a plot, a city and school full of vampires and necromancers, giants, the creepiest city ever seen in a D&D product (Moil), and many encounters that test the wits of the best players.*




Yep. Will really have to play that some day.



> *Rules- Guess what, folks?  Unlike 1e, the AD&D Skills and Powers system (which was a godsend for my campaign) let characters truly customize their characters with skills and abilities, not just with kits.*




Actually, skills and powers was one of my fave 2e books. That said, it had major balance problems and required a great degree of personal intervention. I still think 3e can use a class customization system somewhat like a stripped down S&P, but most of the things S&P did, the 3e feats and skill system does much better, cleaner, and with less confusion.



> *I'm also a fan of the complete books series- Complete Bards, Elves, Paladins, and Druids among my favorites.*




I liked many of them on the basis of the ideas they provided. Theives and Wizards were my favorites. However, the books had no consistency of vision or quality control; they were all done by freelancers with little guiding influence. As a result, they varied wildly in approach and quality. Rules-wise, this made them nigh-unusable. Especially three of the ones you have named: Paladin's, Druid's, and Bard's. (That said, I think that song & silence could have taken a few more notes from the bard book...)



> *Spells and Magic allowed all kinds of variations to the magic system- and new stuff for players, as well... and Combat and Tactics made D&D combat make more sense than it did previously.*




More material from Combat & Tactics got used in 3e than nearly any other 2e book. No complaints there!



> *
> Campaign Settings- admittedly, 2nd Edition Realms was a bit weak... but other than that, what does 3E have that's better?  Planescape, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Spelljammer- all gone, and Ravenloft has been reincarnated as a shadow of it's former self.
> *




Dragonlance - glad its gone. It never really served as well as a game setting as it did a literary property.
Spelljammer - had no vision of its own, no underlying conflict to the setting, and forced some lame changes in the cosmology. Glad its gone (that said, it will be making a cameo soon.)

Planescape & Dark Sun will be missed by many. (But in a way, Dark Sun dug its own grave by means of its all-encompassing resolve-everything-at-once metaplot, BID.)

Ravenloft - I loved the old Van Richten books. But I really must Vehemently disagree with you that the 3e RL is a shadow of its former self. Have you read the 3e RL book? I think it is a far stronger offering than any previous incarnations of the setting.


----------



## Neqroteqh (Feb 12, 2002)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> While I agree that there is some good stuff in 2e, you are just digging your own grave here. You have named several modules on my "crap" list... Faction War, Die Vecna Die, the Apocolpyse Stone, the railroad-fest DL modules, and book two of the Night Below, just to name a few.
> 
> Now Undermountain, Squaring the Cirlce (from Hellbound) and Dead Gods, on the other hand, are good stuff. Better than anything published for 1e, AFAIAC. (I am still slowly working on an undermountain conversion.)
> *




Faction War, Die Vecna Die, and Apocalypse Stone are all "destroy the campaign setting" modules, so they won't appeal to some.  But since I don't think a campaign is complete without it being destroyed (Moorcock and Final Fantasy influence), these modules are indespensable. 

As for the DL modules, they're only a "railroad fest" if you run them as such... they make for great epic play.  I'd love to see someone come out with another world-spanning epic, "save the world" quest like that one again. (Once again, the influence of Final Fantasy on my conception of gaming is shining through).

As for book 2 of Night Below, it looked just as good as Book 1 and Book 3... I'll be running it shortly.  The Rockseer Elves will be interesting, interacting with my Elven/Elven-Multicultural party...



> I liked many of them on the basis of the ideas they provided. Theives and Wizards were my favorites. However, the books had no consistency of vision or quality control; they were all done by freelancers with little guiding influence. As a result, they varied wildly in approach and quality. Rules-wise, this made them nigh-unusable. Especially three of the ones you have named: Paladin's, Druid's, and Bard's. (That said, I think that song & silence could have taken a few more notes from the bard book...)




Thieves and Wizards were way to vanilla for my taste.  Paladins, Druids, and Bards actually added something to the game- and made my friends want to play characters with those classes for once!




> Dragonlance - glad its gone. It never really served as well as a game setting as it did a literary property.




Okay, I'll agree with you there.  But I loved the tinker gnomes.  And I'd like to see another huge "save the world" quest module.



> Spelljammer - had no vision of its own, no underlying conflict to the setting, and forced some lame changes in the cosmology. Glad its gone (that said, it will be making a cameo soon.)




I never played it, all I know was that it was different from most any other setting.



> Planescape & Dark Sun will be missed by many. (But in a way, Dark Sun dug its own grave by means of its all-encompassing resolve-everything-at-once metaplot, BID.)




What is it that you people don't like about metaplots?  I like metaplots!



> Ravenloft - I loved the old Van Richten books. But I really must Vehemently disagree with you that the 3e RL is a shadow of its former self. Have you read the 3e RL book? I think it is a far stronger offering than any previous incarnations of the setting




I'll admit, I haven't read it, I'm just going by hearsay.  I would take a look at it, but since I run my own setting and none of the new ravenloft stuff looks very good for cannibalization and absorption into my campaign, I don't plan to buy it any time soon.  However, my next campaign is going to take on a darker tone than the current one, so I may take a look.

Part of my appreciation of 2nd edition is romantic- that's what I started out playing, after all, back in 1997. (Not counting the few games of oD&D I played back in 1991-1992, when I was nine years old.)  Although I'm 20 now, and a loyal 3e/d20 player, I cut my teeth on 2nd, so it still defines what D&D is to me.


----------



## Henry (Feb 12, 2002)

Killer Shrike said:
			
		

> *1st edition feel means all players and the DM agree to only use thier right brain for the course of the adventure. No logical left brain thinking allowed.
> 
> (SNIP REST OF VITUPEROUS RANTING)
> 
> On the other hand, for mindless fun you couldnt beat it. *




Did you play it? Have you ever played it?

If you have, then as you wish.  You experience was obviously different from mine. I had many exciting, chilling, and challenging 1st ed. adventures when I grew up.

If not, then you have no grounds to make your claims. But do not insult that which you have no knowledge of.


----------



## Henry (Feb 12, 2002)

It's a fascinating thing that, while 90% of the general D&D playing public accepted the 3E rules as a step forward and a good thing, we as a public are VERY divided on the style of D&D we prefer. If WotC tried to cater to one rules style, they would have been assassinated. It is a strength that D&D can still resolve many different styles of play.


----------



## Psion (Feb 12, 2002)

Neqroteqh said:
			
		

> *As for book 2 of Night Below, it looked just as good as Book 1 and Book 3...*




Well, book 1 has some interesting investigation and encounters, and book three (and the end of book 2) had some interesting tactical and diplomatic scenarios, most of book two seemed like drudgeing through combat encounter after combat encoutner to me. It needs something more.

And BTW, my disdain for Faction War and Die Vecna Die go beyond the fact that they are campaign ending scenarios (but pretty much spot on for Apocolype Stone...). Faction War is a spectator sport with some irrational story flow (half the time I was thinking "just why would these people do this now...?) And I understand there was a lot of editorial gaffes and exclusions that would have made FW tolerable.

And Die Vecna Die blithely cast aside longstanding conventions of the setting just to accomodate its feeble plot. What made them more disappointing is that they are by authors I respect in other venues. Heck, two of the best written adventures for 3e/D20 are by the same authors IMO. (Not to mention I have already said that Dead Gods is pretty much the best epic adventure romp ever.)



> *
> As for the DL modules, they're only a "railroad fest" if you run them as such... they make for great epic play. I'd love to see someone come out with another world-spanning epic, "save the world" quest like that one again. (Once again, the influence of Final Fantasy on my conception of gaming is shining through).*




Oh, I love FF, especially III (US). FF has probably been the greatest influence on my gaming in recent years. I'm almost shocked that you sully it by comparing it to DL. 

The real problem with the DL series wasn't the adventure/story that they represented, but the way that they were written. They pretty much paced you through the story and provided few alternatives or room for deviation. They were a monument in railraod design. Sure, a DM could correct for that, but that hardly makes the modules worthy of accolades. I could keep my dad's old truck with a screwed up alignment on the road... that doesn't make it a good truck.


----------



## Neqroteqh (Feb 13, 2002)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Oh, I love FF, especially III (US). FF has probably been the greatest influence on my gaming in recent years. I'm almost shocked that you sully it by comparing it to DL.
> 
> The real problem with the DL series wasn't the adventure/story that they represented, but the way that they were written. They pretty much paced you through the story and provided few alternatives or room for deviation. They were a monument in railraod design. Sure, a DM could correct for that, but that hardly makes the modules worthy of accolades. I could keep my dad's old truck with a screwed up alignment on the road... that doesn't make it a good truck.  *




Actually, there are quite a few different paths and deviations presented in the Dragonlance Classics tome... but even at that, it kind of ends up looking like a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book, and not a D&D adventure.  The reason I liked the module, however, was because I had so much fun using it as an outline for a Dragonlance campaign I designed, expanding on elements (I added tactical mass combat scenarios, side plots involving a PC archmage who was cursed before the Cataclysm and was on a quest to redeem himself, an elven princess who was posessed by Fistandantilus (since Raistlin didn't exist)... etc... I even found ways to work in some of my favorite other scenarios).  Also, just reading the tome gave me that feeling that I had after reading a good book or playing through a good computer game- no other module (with the exception of Return to the ToH) did that for me.  And, although I'm not the fondest of the writing style of Hickman and Weis, I enjoyed the novels.  I give the Dragonlance Classics tome a thumbs up for trying, which is more than I can say about any 3rd edition/d20 adventure that I've seen to date, excluding perhaps Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. (However, Prophecies of the Dragon and the upcoming FR "Super adventure" will hopefully force me to eat my words)


----------



## Henry (Feb 13, 2002)

Psion said:
			
		

> *The real problem with the DL series wasn't the adventure/story that they represented, but the way that they were written. They pretty much paced you through the story and provided few alternatives or room for deviation. They were a monument in railraod design. Sure, a DM could correct for that, but that hardly makes the modules worthy of accolades.*




Despite their Amtrak-like qualities, the DL adventures had one huge redeeming quality: You couldn't beat the settings. Everything from the Ruined City of Xak Tsaroth, to the dwarven hold of Pax Tharkas (the best Moria clone I ever saw), to the Carved Dragon where the Pools of Dragonmetal and the finished Dragonlances were held - all were fantastic to drop almost wholesale into anyone's campaign. The maps alone make most of the DL1 - DL14 series worthwhile to buy - If you can get the DL digest of all of the adventures, I recommend it, for the maps if nothing else - though those gatefold covers were truly fantastic.


----------



## Orcus (Feb 13, 2002)

First edition feel...

I guess I dont see it as anything like Diablo. Instead, I consider Diablo to be a mind-numbing influence of computer gaming on table top playing. I hate Diablo and I hate its influence on roleplaying. For example, in Diablo, the goal was to clear out every room on every level. That isnt the point to me.

In addition to echoing all the points made by the good Colonel, I want to add the following:

First edition is about heroic roleplaying. And if there is a lack of story, that is because the DM sucked. 1e gave people breathing room. It didnt do all your thinking for you. D&D is a creative exercise. That is the fun. Fill in the blanks with your OWN imagination. 

Also, 1e was a time when we actually made our own campaign worlds. With 2e, that all changed.

For those of you who think 1e didnt have story, I use this analogy:

Think of Star Wars. That is classic 1e roleplaying: a band of heroes with a noble objective, descend into a pit of evil (death star) against overwhelming odds (tons of stormtroopers), to retrieve a princess (you know who) and a legendary artifact (death star plans) with a dramatic encounter with an evil cleric at the end (Vader).

That is a classic 1e adventure. How can you say there is no story there? Or that story is irrelevant?

Here is what we do in making modules: we detail the death star. The fact that the user decides to say "ok you land at the death star and start killing stuff" doesnt mean there is no story. It means they opted NOT to have any. And that is OK.

We just dont do your story thinking for you. 

A dungeon (like the death star) is a setting for high fantasy sword and sorcery adventure. 

You have breathing room to think for yourself and make it what you want it to be.

I know there are many who would say "then why buy it if I have to do that work." I guess I would say "why play D&D if you dont want to do that work?" For me, the fun of D&D IS doing that work. I dont presume to know what your players or your world or your campaign is like--and 1e products didnt either. Only you can fill that in. It isnt unreasonable of us to leave that to you. In fact, I always found it insulting when designers forced stuff on me.

So think about it like this:

First edition: We provide the death star, you provide Luke, Han and company and the reason they are there.

Another key factor is the source of the "feel". For example, go read Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser stories. Or the original REHoward's Conan. Or Moorcock's Elric. THAT is what we are trying to recreate with 1e feel.

Certainly it is a divisive issue. When I started Necromancer I considered riding the fence and risking pleasing no one. I chose to make the type of products I liked (cause, hey, I wanted to have fun  ) and decided to take a focused approach. I like challenging adventures of heroic proportions. I have absolutely no desire to worry about coffegrowing elves. To me that is a sociology experiment, not D&D. 

But hey, that is the joy of d20! To each his own! I fully respect all who dont like 1e. They are just as "correct" in liking what they like as I am in liking what I like. 

Perhaps one day there will be a company that is "Third Edition Rules, Second Edition Feel" that will make really setting specific adventures with forcefed stories that arent very challenging and are written for a party of rapier wielding bards with no combat skills. But that isnt my cup of tea.

By the way, whoever mentioned Emerikol the Chaotic gets two thumbs up from me. That was one of the most evocative pictures ever (plus by my all time favorite artist Trampier).

Clark


----------



## WSmith (Feb 13, 2002)

Ah, yes, my mentor chimes in.  

This is why I am drawn to NG, give me the location, and the players and I will figure out how and why they are there. It may not fit everyone's sytle of DMing, but it sure fits mine. Just as story based published adventures are not my thing, I am sure others find them very useful.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 13, 2002)

Orcus said:
			
		

> *First edition feel...
> 
> <part of great post snipped>
> Perhaps one day there will be a company that is "Third Edition Rules, Second Edition Feel" that will make really setting specific adventures with forcefed stories that arent very challenging and are written for a party of rapier wielding bards with no combat skills. But that isnt my cup of tea.
> ...




But then again the "real" roleplayers will say that is what RPG's are about.   Roleplaying your characters at a dinner party with plenty of Charisma checks and no action.  

Gimme Vault of the DROW!!!


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 13, 2002)

Maybe I'm taking out out of context, Orcus, and I apologize.  But here's what stood out most in your post to me:



> I have absolutely no desire to worry about coffegrowing elves. To me that is a sociology experiment, not D&D.




See, if coffeegrowing elves aren't D&D, then I don't want to be playing D&D.  Is it a mark of distinction that the founder of Necromancer games has made fun of my campaign setting?  heheh.

I'm all about the Ursula LeGuin approach to fantasy.  People have real motivations, cultures are in upheaval, death is sad, morality is tenuous.  Window-dressing is as important as mechanics. Characters come with half a dozen pages of background.  Religions are fleshed out, and aren't just limited to polytheism or monotheism.  Reality itself is uncertain, but its nature is central to the game.

I love that my players can discuss the merits of elvish coffee over dinner with the head of their religious order, and that the conversation can continue in that vein for fifteen minutes before the boss gets around to blackmailing them.

That's certainly possible in 1E, but it's not First-Edition Feel.  As you suggest, first-edition feel doesn't have a whole lot of sociological thought in it.

It is, as you say, a different style of playing, and it's good that D20 can accommodate so many different styles.  But if you think that the alternative to bare-bones, plausibility-challenged dungeons is railroading adventures, then I think your scope of gameplay is limited.

Daniel


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 13, 2002)

Ursula LeGuin fantasy isn't what Gygax had in mind when he wrote D&D.  I sure don't want my games to be as boring as her books!


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 13, 2002)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *Ursula LeGuin fantasy isn't what Gygax had in mind when he wrote D&D.  I sure don't want my games to be as boring as her books!  *




And I for damn sure don't want my games to be as stupid as an RE Howard story.  Each to his own! 

Daniel


----------



## Orcus (Feb 13, 2002)

Wow! I love Le Guin. Earth Sea is definately a must read for any 1E enthusiast! In fact, I once ran a D&D campaign set in that world. I love the maps.

I think LeGuin is a perfect example. Imagine a dungeon module detailing the Tombs of Atuan or of the Isle with the ruins and the dragon that Ged goes to slay.

Those modules wouldnt have the story. You have to provide that.

You could take the beer and pretzels approach and say "ok, you land on an island with ruins, what do you do?" Or you could fit the story to your campaign.

Either way, I prefer the 1e way of presenting the setting and letting you figure out how to use it. The lack of story in a 1e module is not an endoresment that there should be NO story, it is instead the freedom to tailor your own.

Now I want to go reread Wizard of Earthsea. By the way, if that doesnt make you want to come up with a cool alternate spell system for D&D you need medication.

Clark


----------



## mmadsen (Feb 13, 2002)

> And I for damn sure don't want my games to be as stupid as an RE Howard story.  Each to his own!




I caught the smiley, but I'm still obliged to point out that not every Conan story is an REH story.  In fact, most aren't -- just the good ones.


----------



## Orcus (Feb 13, 2002)

So true that the good REH Conan stories are the best! In fact a british publisher just put out a two volume compendium of the original REH only Conan stories in their original form (unedited by Mssrs de Camp and Carter).

Clark


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 13, 2002)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I caught the smiley, but I'm still obliged to point out that not every Conan story is an REH story.  In fact, most aren't -- just the good ones. *




That's cool.  I've not read much Howard, actually -- not since the seventh grade, anyway.  I don't have much patients with most sword&sorcery fiction.  I was just being bratty to someone who called Le Guin boring, is all!

Daniel


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 13, 2002)

Orcus said:
			
		

> *Wow! I love Le Guin. Earth Sea is definately a must read for any 1E enthusiast! In fact, I once ran a D&D campaign set in that world. I love the maps.
> 
> I think LeGuin is a perfect example. Imagine a dungeon module detailing the Tombs of Atuan or of the Isle with the ruins and the dragon that Ged goes to slay.
> *




The Tombs of Atuan, as a 1E adventure, would have included the traps that held Ged and the Nameless girl down below.  It would have included a pack of ghouls, feasting on the flesh of the cult's prisoners.  Earth Elementals would have appeared out of the ground to defend the Tombs; in caskets beyond the elementals would have been +2 swords.  One room would have been trapped with water filling the room slowly, and a magic mouth would have provided a riddle whose answer would stop the water from flowing in.  And before they could finally escape, Ged would have had to solve a giant chess puzzle.

The cult above would not have been detailed in great depth.  The PCs would have been too busy slogging their way through the corpses of their fallen enemies to angst about their roles relative to one another.    After escaping from the tomb, Ged probably would have confronted the high priestess (the older one who looked after the girl -- it's been awhile since i read the books) and had to kill her messily.  Kill her and the several demons she summoned.

Then he would have looted her body, leveled up, and gone looking for the next adventure.  He would hear about some lich lord to the South who was stealing magic users' powers....

Daniel


----------



## mmadsen (Feb 13, 2002)

> So true that the good REH Conan stories are the best! In fact a british publisher just put out a two volume compendium of the original REH only Conan stories in their original form (unedited by Mssrs de Camp and Carter).




Own 'em.  

Seriously, they're must-own compilations -- despite all the typos that snuck in during the non-editing.  They're available from Amazon UK.


----------



## bardolph (Feb 13, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *Thus, dwarves, elves, and dragons aren't a problem.  Windy corridors are.
> 
> Daniel *




Umm... hate to break it to you, but "cardinal" corridors are made that way because...

*it's easier to draw on graph paper!!!*

Having to calculate the distance in feet of a _curved_ corridor is just too much math for me during a game session.  I have other things to worry about.

And if one of the PC's is the designated "mapper" (ahh... remember those days, where a party had a "leader," who declared all party member actions, and a "mapper," who was responsible for cartography?), trying to explain that 30-degrees-from-north corridor in such a way so that he could actually map it would be a pain.

-----

"1st-edition feel" means "leaders" and "mappers."

It means "declaring your actions" before rolling initiative.

It means looking at that funny "AC vs. Weapon Type" table and ignoring it.

It means wishing you were that thief trying to pry the demon-eye out of that big statue.

It means wondering why those dead lizard-things were draped across that altar.

It means flipping through _Deities and Demigods_ and deciding which goddesses you wanted to do.

It means staring at the "Disease and Parasitic Infestation Table" and wondering when you could use it next.

It means TEMPLE OF ELEMENTAL EVIL!!!

It means AGAINST THE GIANTS!!

It means DESCENT INTO THE DEPTHS OF THE EARTH!!  (and, yes, the corridors all bended at exactly 30-degree angles, to conform to the hex paper...)

It means VAULT OF THE DROW!!!

It means getting polymorphed into a pig, and then losing your character because the DM ruled that you now had the mind of a pig and didn't want to change back.

It means thinking that 400 hit points was an _awful lot_ of hit points.

It means advancing to 6th level and becoming a "Myrmidon" (whatever that is...)

It means being thrilled because your Armor Class was zero.

It means thinking "50 feet of rope," a "ten-foot pole," and "12 iron spikes" were things an adventurer simply couldn't do without.

It means making a "Bend Bars/Lift Gates" roll.

It means hoping that maybe, one day, you can be a "Grand Master of Flowers."

It means wandering the land in search of an Archdruid to fight, because you couldn't get to 12th level without fighting him.

It means carefully considering the subtle differences between a bec-de-corbin, mancatcher, ranseur, partisan, lucern hammer, guisarme, bill, bill-hook, bill-hook-guisarme, fauchard, fauchard-fork, awl pike, and fauchard-fork-guisarme-bill-hook-hammer, and finally deciding to buy a longsword.

It means reading the description of the _cacodemon_ spell and losing sanity points.

It means staring blankly at the new "Non-Weapon Proficiency" rules, and promptly ignoring them.

It means being deathly afraid of "poison needles."


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 13, 2002)

bardolph said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Umm... hate to break it to you, but "cardinal" corridors are made that way because...
> 
> ...




You are very confident in your opinions, young grasshopper.  I respectfully disagree.

The complex that I described, with the illogically winding-but-90-degree-angled corridors, also contains a section with curving corridors.  If the concern was that it was harder to draw curving corridors, it wouldn't have contained that other section.

And if you're gonna nitpick me, I'll nitpick you right back:  it's actually harder to draw straight corridors than to draw curvy corridors, if you don't have a ruler.  But it's easier to DESCRIBE to someone how to draw straight corridors.

If you put Occam's razor to work, I believe, you'll get one conclusion:  the map's original designer thought that describing how to map straight corridors was easy, but that mapping corridors that went in random directions was more fun.

I'm guessing, though, that people would rather eat broken glass than admit that old-school dungeons weren't always plausible.  So maybe I should let it drop, eh?

Daniel


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 13, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *
> 
> (I'm guessing your DM doesn't make you map the damn thing! )
> 
> Daniel *




I'm DM'ing now and they map.  But nobody even puts thought into how realistic the orc filled temple to the evil god is.   It's just not what we focus on, they are more worried about a nasty monster that may be around the bend than a illogical corridor design.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 13, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'm guessing, though, that people would rather eat broken glass than admit that old-school dungeons weren't always plausible.  So maybe I should let it drop, eh?
> 
> Daniel *




It's just that we didn't care!  That wasn't what we were playing the game for.  It was for the feeling of adventure and danger and the wonder of magic and demons and the rest.   I never looked at the map of Oerth and thought, "this isn't logical, the migration patterns should have put people here...", or questioned why the ancient builders of the Tomb we were exploring had so many crazy tunnels.   1e AD&D was an adventure game, not a sociatial and geopolitical simulator with perfectly accurate and logical dungeon construction.   It was about fun and adventure, and that does not preclude roleplaying or having a history for a particular place or person.


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 13, 2002)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *It's just that we didn't care! *




Okay, and cool!  I think you and I agree:  plausibility isn't so important in a particular style of game.  Heck, I enjoy playing Diablo, which is way less plausible than most 1E modules.

I've no problem with people who value adventure and fun over plausibility.  Sometimes I can even let go enough to prioritize like that.  Most of the time, though, I prefer games in which everything makes sense, and when I DM, I agonize over that, searching for plot holes and filling them.  But hey -- some folks like quiche, some folks like pahd thai.  What do I care?

Where I get a little flummoxed is where people deny what seems to me to be obvious:  that 1E valued adventure and fun over plausibility.  It seems a peculiar thing to deny, from where I stand, and a little pointless -- for the same people that deny 1E's occasional lack of plausibility are often the same folks that deride gamers who value plausibility.  Do the folks that like quiche talk about how gross peanuts are, and then claim that quiche has just as many peanuts in it as pahd thai has?

I'm glad folks like 1E-style adventuring; it's just usually not for me.

Daniel


----------



## Someguy (Feb 13, 2002)

1st edition feel...

it's that feeling between your toes when you finish running...
it's that feeling when you breathe really really fast
it's that feeling when you look at fluffy bunnies...

fluffy bunnies....



happy land...




weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


----------



## Orcus (Feb 13, 2002)

"plausibility"

OK, you do realize we are talking about a game that has elves and dwarves and orcs and magic works and there are clerics of pagan gods and magic swords and that doest even begin to go into the oddities of any particular campaign world.

I guess I have always viewed it that if I can accept there are elves and dwarves and magic swords and spells called magic missile that work then a straight or curvy corridor isnt exactly the type of "plausibility" that is going to bother me. I think you are way too hung up on some sort of wierd plausibility problem. Should a dungeon make some degree of sense? Sure, it helps. But this is a fantasy world.

Clark


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 14, 2002)

_



			I guess I have always viewed it that if I can accept there are elves and dwarves and magic swords and spells called magic missile that work then a straight or curvy corridor isnt exactly the type of "plausibility" that is going to bother me. I think you are way too hung up on some sort of wierd plausibility problem. Should a dungeon make some degree of sense? Sure, it helps. But this is a fantasy world.
		
Click to expand...


_You do realize this exact point was covered in some detail earlier in the thread, right?


----------



## hong (Feb 14, 2002)

1st ed feel is kicking the door in, killing monsters and taking their treasure, and not taking things too damned seriously. Sorta like this:

http://www.enworld.org/messageboards/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3856


----------



## Fade (Feb 14, 2002)

Simple answer: The corridors are built that way for ritual signifigance. Help channel power for the Dark Ritual (tm).


----------



## bushfire (Feb 14, 2002)

Fade said:
			
		

> *Simple answer: The corridors are built that way for ritual signifigance. Help channel power for the Dark Ritual (tm). *




1st Edition is when the DM comes up with the above explaination on the fly if a player should question the corridors in the game, not devoting an entire page in the module to describing the personal lives of the builders.


----------



## Simon Magalis (Feb 14, 2002)

*Can't we all just get along?*

I am going to have to join the frey and give in to the temptation (along with everyone else here) to write the definitive post that will settle this. My question is why can't you just take the good points of whatever system you happen to be playing and make the most of it? If you didn't like the settings offered in 2nd Ed. then you certainly could have ignored them; there were still plenty of stand-alone modules to plug into your custom world. If you didn't like the lack of settings in 1st Ed. you certainly could have come up with your own. Don't get me wrong, I see everyone's point and the point is... you are all right in a way. However, we all bring our own baggage to the gaming table and there is nothing you can do to change that. I like all three editions of the game for very different reasons, though 3rd Ed. is my favorite simply because of the system itself, not the perfume that goes along with it. When you get right down to it, at least in our group, the DM is 99% of the game, not the gaming company or the module. I have many types of gamers in my group and I try very hard to give them all something they can enjoy. To me, the one common factor in good gamers is that they don't want to be spoon-fed. I have never met a gamer that enjoys being forced down a particular path or "given" something they didn't earn. All other debates aside, I feel that if the DM creates a sense of the characters' actions being vital to WHATEVER is going on in the session, that players of all types will be  content, if not overjoyed. The trick is to have SOMETHING in each session that intrigues each player, if possible. Anyhow, this is getting too long (especially for my first post). Imagine how long this thread will be in 30 years after another two editions or so!


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 14, 2002)

Fade said:
			
		

> *Simple answer: The corridors are built that way for ritual signifigance. Help channel power for the Dark Ritual (tm). *




You're, uh, you're not a big believer in Occam's razor, are you?

A very cool dungeon could be designed with twisty corridors that spelled out a rune.  This wasn't one.  I mapped it.  Or, if it was a rune, it was a darned ugly one, not one that was fun to map.

If you take that very cool idea -- that a dungeon's paths map out a rune -- then it's an obvious cool corrollary that as players map the dungeon, they should begin to see the rune unfold on their map, and should feel a growing sense of horror about the fact that they're in one mammoth Evil Symbol.

Orcus, thanks for pointing out that this game has elves and dwarves in it.  That hadn't occurred to me, and now that it has, I agree with you completely.  My previous style of play was inferior; now that I see that plausibility of any sort isn't a reasonable expectation, I'll go buy lots and lots of your implausible product and play it till my fingers bleed.

Daniel
with a pre-coffee crank going on


----------



## dcollins (Feb 14, 2002)

Abyss said:
			
		

> *Now I myself never played 1st ed. Can someone explain what  a "first edition feel" is?*




A little late for me to enter this discussion, but there's an essay I wrote on basically this subject, online here: www.superdan.net/grtdnd/grtdnd1.html


----------



## Neqroteqh (Feb 14, 2002)

"1st-edition feel" means "leaders" and "mappers."

Not Cool.

It means "declaring your actions" before rolling initiative.

Not Cool.

It means looking at that funny "AC vs. Weapon Type" table and ignoring it.

Not Cool.

It means wishing you were that thief trying to pry the demon-eye out of that big statue.

Cool.

It means wondering why those dead lizard-things were draped across that altar.

Cool.  I always wondered that, myself.

It means flipping through _Deities and Demigods_ and deciding which goddesses you wanted to do.

Cool.  Is that what Elminster does in his spare time?

It means staring at the "Disease and Parasitic Infestation Table" and wondering when you could use it next.

Very Cool.  I'm an evil DM, so....

It means TEMPLE OF ELEMENTAL EVIL!!!

Cool, but I like the new version better. 

It means AGAINST THE GIANTS!!

Cool, but I like the new version better. 

It means DESCENT INTO THE DEPTHS OF THE EARTH!!  (and, yes, the corridors all bended at exactly 30-degree angles, to conform to the hex paper...)

Cool.

It means VAULT OF THE DROW!!!

Cool.

It means getting polymorphed into a pig, and then losing your character because the DM ruled that you now had the mind of a pig and didn't want to change back.

Cool.

It means thinking that 400 hit points was an _awful lot_ of hit points.

It still is, isn't it?  Even the baddest 20th level Barbarian probably only has a little over half that, after all!

It means advancing to 6th level and becoming a "Myrmidon" (whatever that is...)

Cool.

It means being thrilled because your Armor Class was zero.

Cool.

It means thinking "50 feet of rope," a "ten-foot pole," and "12 iron spikes" were things an adventurer simply couldn't do without.

Cool. 

It means making a "Bend Bars/Lift Gates" roll.

Cool.

It means hoping that maybe, one day, you can be a "Grand Master of Flowers."

Cool.

It means wandering the land in search of an Archdruid to fight, because you couldn't get to 12th level without fighting him.

Cool.

It means carefully considering the subtle differences between a bec-de-corbin, mancatcher, ranseur, partisan, lucern hammer, guisarme, bill, bill-hook, bill-hook-guisarme, fauchard, fauchard-fork, awl pike, and fauchard-fork-guisarme-bill-hook-hammer, and finally deciding to buy a longsword.

Very Cool.

It means reading the description of the _cacodemon_ spell and losing sanity points.

Hehe... Cool as well.

It means staring blankly at the new "Non-Weapon Proficiency" rules, and promptly ignoring them.

Eh... Not Cool.

It means being deathly afraid of "poison needles." 

Yes!

1e, 2e, oD&D, Hackmaster, 3e, d20, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Planescape, Dragonlance, Kalamar, Scarred Lands- It's all D&D to me!


----------



## Orcus (Feb 14, 2002)

"Orcus, thanks for pointing out that this game has elves and dwarves in it. That hadn't occurred to me, and now that it has, I agree with you completely. My previous style of play was inferior; now that I see that plausibility of any sort isn't a reasonable expectation, I'll go buy lots and lots of your implausible product and play it till my fingers bleed."

My pleasure! I figured anyone actually hung up on corridors might need a little help with the basics.

Clark


----------



## Orcus (Feb 14, 2002)

First edition feel is like the old definition of pornography: "I cant describe it, but I know it when I see it."

Clark


----------



## diaglo (Feb 14, 2002)

Orcus said:
			
		

> *First edition feel is like the old definition of pornography: "I cant describe it, but I know it when I see it."
> 
> Clark *




and these guys will never get that.


----------



## Psion (Feb 14, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *I'm guessing, though, that people would rather eat broken glass than admit that old-school dungeons weren't always plausible.  So maybe I should let it drop, eh?
> *




Sort of like you would rather eat broken glass before you admit that you don't have a bead on all the possible reasons and motivations that cause one to make a curved corridor.


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 14, 2002)

Psion said:
			
		

> *Sort of like you would rather eat broken glass before you admit that you don't have a bead on all the possible reasons and motivations that cause one to make a curved corridor. *




Had I ever complained about the corridors that curved, you might have a point.  Indeed, if I hadn't explained three times already in this thread that curving corridors weren't the problem, you could at least claim that I was being vague about what I object to.  At least the person that accused me of hating breeze-filled corridors could blame the vagaries of written English.

Interestingly, of all the people that have jumped on me for disliking illogically-designed dungeons, none have made the claim that 1E held plausibility to a high standard.  Instead, they've claimed that 1E's plausibility was the DM's responsibility, not the writer's responsibility -- or they've conflated motivational plausibility with scientific plausibility and then accused me of being foolish for not realizing that the game lacked scientific plausibility.  And then they've claimed that my one example of implausibility was really plausible, with a variety of explanations that would put a scandal-plagued politician to shame.

What nobody has mentioned yet is that obviously the mad cultists dug their tunnels with a strange gelatinous cube that was unable to rotate and was oriented along the cardinal directions and whose side faces could dissolve stone but whose bottom face couldn't, and who tended to wander off course as the mad cultists poked and prodded it in their efforts to get their passages dug.

That falls somewhere, in terms of likelihood, between "mad cultists were SO crazy that they dug their 10' wide, cardinal-directions, 90-degree angle passages in really long switchback patterns because they were crazy" and "a map designer decided it was most fun to map corridors that fit on graph paper but that didn't go straight from one room to the next."

Daniel
annoyed


----------



## Henry (Feb 14, 2002)

*Re: Can't we all just get along?*



			
				Simon Magalis said:
			
		

> *I am going to have to join the frey and give in to the temptation (along with everyone else here) to write the definitive post that will settle this. My question is why can't you just take the good points of whatever system you happen to be playing and make the most of it? If you didn't like the settings offered in 2nd Ed. then you certainly could have ignored them; there were still plenty of stand-alone modules to plug into your custom world. If you didn't like the lack of settings in 1st Ed. you certainly could have come up with your own.*




Hi, Simon! Welcome to the Fray. 

I think the original point of the thread was that someone didn't understand what separated a 1st edition campaign from a newer one (other than "the rules.") - The "feel" that is being described in Necromancer Games credo. I agree, take what is best from each style and blend them - it's the age-old idea. However, many people still seem to think (and this thread proves it) that 1st edition was about nothing more than beer-and-pretzels roleplaying. Despite pointing out numerous example of the "feel" we are referring to, many people seem to think "Diablo" when they think First Edition. It's enough to drive you to Cthulhu!!! 

As I said before, all styles are viable, and by describing what made the old modules great we are not denigrating every single thing that has come since - we are pointing out that to many, many gamers out there, having a good adventure set-up with minimal "campaign flavor" involved, so as to insert as much or as little story as desired into the module, is a preferable thing.

Give me a good challenge over loads of boxed text and flavor any day. Atmosphere is easy for me; complex set-ups and challenges are what I am pressed for time for.

If the Temple of the Lobster God is well-designed and has many creative challenges inside, then I can drop it into any campaign I wish. If, however, the temple is decribed in detail by every 10' x 10' section, and I get the entire life history of the high priest, followed by the compiled exploits of his temple and deeds, along with an in-depth character study of WHY he is plotting someone's downfall, then I don't need it nor want it. I can make that  myself, and my players are more interested in razing a temple of evil than in becoming its guidance counselor. Many 2nd edition modules had a similar problem - you become so embroiled in the politics of the situation, it left almost no room for actual heroics.

Personally I can think of no better descriptive trinity than Howard, Leiber, and Moorcock (except make it a quartet - Jack Vance). That's a good 1st edition stock reading list.

P.S. - Just to clear a point that Pielorhino made - consistency is important, this is true. However, having mysteries in a scenario are quite useful too. I sometimes in my group's adventure put things that make no sense whatsoever, just to (A) tick them off, (B) keep them guessing, (C) leave that sense of wonder in a game but putting something in there that may never be explained. However, if the dungeon has 100 cultists in it, and I only found enough bedding for 10 people, or if it had a dragon stuck in a 10' x 10' room, I would be concerned.


----------



## diaglo (Feb 14, 2002)

1ed feel. each adventure was like Christmas Eve. sorry to the non-Christians out there.

anticipation. worry. excitement. thrills. chills.


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 14, 2002)

*Re: Re: Can't we all just get along?*



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> *
> P.S. - Just to clear a point that Pielorhino made - consistency is important, this is true. However, having mysteries in a scenario are quite useful too. I sometimes in my group's adventure put things that make no sense whatsoever, just to (A) tick them off, (B) keep them guessing, (C) leave that sense of wonder in a game but putting something in there that may never be explained. However, if the dungeon has 100 cultists in it, and I only found enough bedding for 10 people, or if it had a dragon stuck in a 10' x 10' room, I would be concerned.  *




I'm with you on that, Henry, and I'm not one of the people that equates 1E with Diablo.  Your example of teh dungeon with 100 cultists and 10 beds might be a better example of what I'm talking about than my ill-fated corridor example (although I'm sure you'll get twenty responses pointed out the free love the cultists obviously espouse, or how their religion makes them sleep standing up, or how they each sleep 2.4 hours a day in shifts).

And mysteries are great.  My PCs may never know what happened to the ship full of ghouls that disappeared during the storm.  They may never know what kind of being it was that appeared in the temple and seemed impervious to their attacks.  They may never know why the aye-aye demon seemed to be cooperating with a priest of vermin.

But I know.  As a DM, that's my job.

I had a writing instructor, when I was younger, who insisted that I should always know what kind of underwear my characters wore.  I should know what they liked to eat for breakfast, I should know their favorite joke, I should know what they thought about when they couldn't sleep.  None of that might appear in the story -- but if I didn't know it, my readers could tell.

To a lesser degree, that's something really important to me in a game.  My PCs may never talk with the aye-aye demon:  six seconds after meeting it, it's busy summoning rings of fire around them and implanting suggestions in their minds with its groping mental fingers.  But if I don't know why it's there, what it wants, what it fears, then the players can tell -- and the story will lose some of its cohesion.

(in case you're wondering, aye-aye demons wear bikini briefs)

Daniel


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Feb 14, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Can't we all just get along?*



			
				Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *
> 
> (although I'm sure you'll get twenty responses pointed out the free love the cultists obviously espouse, or how their religion makes them sleep standing up, or how they each sleep 2.4 hours a day in shifts).
> *




I guess what's important is that such inconsistencies often stimulate creativity, like in your example, and make individualization of adventures not only likely, but essential. All three of your examples are good, and would make great rationalizations for that dungeon set-up. If the hypothetical dungeon had been clearly delineated by the writer, such creativity would have been effectively quashed.

I've been thinking - is it possible that we are simply not quite finding the common ground here? I mean, I like consistency, for the most part. That was always one of the things I strove for in my own adventure design. I simply don't like overwritten modules/adventures, where the author is too strong a presence in my campaigns. I'm not really against your conceptions of what a game should be, and I don't think you're really against mine. I think the difference is in how we perceive 1e modules. Where I saw a framework around which to build my own saga, you see implausibility. Many of the old modules _did_ have consistency; it's just that the authors didn't waste a lot of space telling you about it. But it was there for those who looked.


----------



## Psion (Feb 14, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *Had I ever complained about the corridors that curved, you might have a point.*




You certianly groused about them not being straight and when I and others brought up geophysical factor and mining veins as reasons why they might not be straigh, you justified that they would be so because of the presence of magic. Using all-too-convenient magic as an excuse is something normally reserved for _illogical_ dungeon design.

Given that, I hope you will excuse me if I didn't follow up on the subsequent mincing of words to protect your case.

How would you like your broken glass cooked? 



> *Interestingly, of all the people that have jumped on me for disliking illogically-designed dungeons, none have made the claim that 1E held plausibility to a high standard.*




I imagine they want to pick fights they can win.


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 14, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't we all just get along?*



			
				ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *
> I've been thinking - is it possible that we are simply not quite finding the common ground here? I mean, I like consistency, for the most part. That was always one of the things I strove for in my own adventure design. I simply don't like overwritten modules/adventures, where the author is too strong a presence in my campaigns. I'm not really against your conceptions of what a game should be, and I don't think you're really against mine. I think the difference is in how we perceive 1e modules. Where I saw a framework around which to build my own saga, you see implausibility. Many of the old modules did have consistency; it's just that the authors didn't waste a lot of space telling you about it. But it was there for those who looked. *




I think you're mostly right, Colonel.  I *do* like the adventure-writer to give me something plausible and wonderful to start with; I'll already plan on modifying the adventure heavily for my own campaign, but if it starts off so that I can believe it, it saves me work.

Often I find that adventures are so implausible to begin with, however, that it's an overwhelming amount of work to get them to the plausible point.  It'd almost be simpler for me to start from scratch.

But I expect that we could enjoy playing in one another's games; we just approach DM prepwork differently, it sounds like.

To continue with the 100 cultists/10 beds situation, if an adventure includes that, then my players are likely to notice (in a recent adventure, they did just that: they counted cultists' beds and tallied up the cultists they'd killed, to make sure they hadn't missed anyone).  When they notice that, if it hasn't occurred to me first, then I can either retrofit the adventure (uh, you guys noticed that the cultists were all huggy-kissy when you were fighting them), or I can act mysterious ("how odd," I'll say, and then the players will go off and spend two frustrating game hours looking for the beds for the remaining cultists), or I can tell them ("don't look at this too closely, guys, this adventure has a first-edition feel!")

If the author had started off with a plausible scenario, I wouldn't have the problem.

Daniel


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 14, 2002)

Psion said:
			
		

> *You certianly groused about them not being straight. Excuse me if I fail to see your subsequent mincing of words as significant. You certianly groused about them not being straight. Excuse me if I fail to see your subsequent mincing of words as significant.  *




If you insist, I'll excuse you.  But since I distinguished three times in this thread between the curvy corridors (which could be accounted for by everyone's explanations) and the corridors that broke my suspension of disbelief, I do believe the failure to see a failure.

Daniel


----------



## WSmith (Feb 14, 2002)

The 100 cultists with 10 beds ...

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! 

Ok, it was teh funny thinking how to fit 10 into each bed. 

More seriously, these were the sort of things that I was great at. "Where did the other 90 come from?" Then my wheels would start turning in microseconds, I had a side plot of a secreted  portal somewhere in the dungeon that lead to a cultists safehouse in the coastal city.  

THAT is what I think the good Col. is talking about.  Taking an omission or glaring error and turning it into story.


----------



## Ulrick (Feb 14, 2002)

Orcus said:
			
		

> *First edition feel is like the old definition of pornography: "I cant describe it, but I know it when I see it."
> 
> Clark *




"It's like warm apple pie..."


----------



## WSmith (Feb 14, 2002)

Ulrick said:
			
		

> *
> 
> "It's like warm apple pie..."
> 
> *










"Then there was this one time, at band camp, we were playing dungeons and dragons, and this was the first edition, and there was a demon on the cover of the rulebook, and I thougt it was about worshiping the devil, but I found out it was about fighting evil monsters, and the girl was almost naked, and I wanted to play a vampire hunter and it reminded me of this one time, at band camp..."


----------



## Grazzt (Feb 14, 2002)

> *Originally posted by Orcus
> First edition feel is like the old definition of pornography: "I cant describe it, but I know it when I see it."
> 
> Clark *





It's about "Dave, get the barbarian in the corner another drink, quick!."


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Feb 14, 2002)

WSmith said:
			
		

> *THAT is what I think the good Col. is talking about.  Taking an omission or glaring error and turning it into story. *




Yes, exactly! I just assume that there is a logical reason for what is given, and then work it into my story.

There are a lot of things in life that are not logical or seem to have no reason behind them, but we don't notice until we start to think about them.

Let's say we designed an adventure for a modern game on World War II warship - say a submarine. Now, some will probably notice that there aren't enough bunks for the crew; that's because they used "hot bunking," in which more than one crewman uses each bunk, and they are rotated on duty shifts. 

Sure, it takes a bit more to explain the 10 bunks/100 cultists scenario, but hey, how much sleep does an evil cultist need? 

Babylon 5 had a great little monologue by the character Londo about how he noticed at the Imperial Palace there was a guard stationed in the middle of a courtyard, with nothing to guard. Eventually he found out that a princess from centuries before had seen a flower growing there and had posted the guard to keep it from harm, and then forgot about it. Bureaucracy and tradition had kept the guard there long after even the princess was dead, let alone the flower. 

Dungeons are very often forgotten or ruined strongholds from centuries before. Human nature (and the nature of human-like beings) always results in some quirks of design. Take the Winchester Mystery House, or the palace of that "Mad Prince" in Bavaria (never can remember his name!) - wouldn't they seem illogical as dungeons?

Now, I'm not defending things like monsters bigger than the rooms they're in or orcs trying to do a "Stand on Zanzibar" scenario in a 10x10 room or flying creatures stuck hundreds of feet below the surface or ecosystems without any water or food access. I really don't remember any of the classic 1e modules having a lot of stuff like that. Homebrew dungeons had stuff like that all the time, but that isn't really an essential ingredient for 1e feel.


----------



## mmadsen (Feb 15, 2002)

> Take the Winchester Mystery House, or the palace of that "Mad Prince" in Bavaria (never can remember his name!) - wouldn't they seem illogical as dungeons?




FYI: The mad prince is Ludwig II, and his wild castle is Neuschwanstein.


----------



## adndgamer (Feb 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: Can someone explain what "1st ed feel" is?*



			
				dcollins said:
			
		

> *
> 
> A little late for me to enter this discussion, but there's an essay I wrote on basically this subject, online here: www.superdan.net/grtdnd/grtdnd1.html *




I've only read the 1st page so far, but I like it  Very nice.

Oh, and Orcus, you're my hero!


----------



## adndgamer (Feb 15, 2002)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> *
> 
> FYI: The mad prince is Ludwig II, and his wild castle is Neuschwanstein. *




I've just heard of him as Mad King Ludwig, but whatever.. basically the same thing .  I love castle Neuschwanstein.. very fairy tale-like.  It's in Germany, right?

Sorry bout that.. back on topic (is there one anymore?)...


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Can someone explain what "1st ed feel" is?*



			
				adndgamer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I've only read the 1st page so far, but I like it  Very nice.
> 
> *




That was a great article.


----------



## dcollins (Feb 15, 2002)

Neqroteqh said:
			
		

> *It means "declaring your actions" before rolling initiative.
> Not Cool.
> *




Maybe that was introduced in 2nd Ed., but it wasn't in 1st Ed. In the 1st Ed. DMG, p. 61, "determining initiative" (step #3) comes before "determing actions" (step #4).


By the way, thanks so much to those who complimented my online essay. I appreciate your comments!


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Feb 15, 2002)

dcollins said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Maybe that was introduced in 2nd Ed., but it wasn't in 1st Ed. In the 1st Ed. DMG, p. 61, "determining initiative" (step #3) comes before "determing actions" (step #4).
> 
> ...




You wrote that? I didn't know the author of the stuff on that site posted here! Damned impressive work. I saved it all due to its quality. Very nice indeed.


----------



## NeghVar (Feb 15, 2002)

Just thought I would add some cool stuff I found on both the Winchester Mystery House and Neuschwanstein...

For the Winchester Mystery House:
http://www.winchestermysteryhouse.com/

For Neuschwanstein:
http://www.neuschwanstein-interactive.com/

The Neuschwanstein CDROM looks like it might be of some value to the gaming community...

Later!
Art


----------



## WSmith (Feb 15, 2002)

I have been to the WMH. If anyone is ever in San Jose, I highly recomend going. It will give many ideas.


----------



## froggie (Feb 15, 2002)

*1st Ed; straight from Tsathogga's mouth*

Ok; Hi all; Bill Webb here. The Colonel has it very well stated. 1st edition can have as much/or as little "fluffy" bits as the individual DM wishes. The main difference i see is two-fold. One--its low fantasy. No godlike PCs saved by godlike NPCs at every turn. The exception to this is simple; the PCs are the heroes; and must do the good deeds; no one else will save the world for them. The second point is that the PCs, not the DM decides what the PCs do. The game is much more opened and much less channeled. No "good day young one" bs from Elminster. Think instead of Conan greeting/leaving a princess; he is an ADVENTURER, not a princeling. I could rant on this all day. In deference to several posts here; you are 100% correct. We are not for everyone. 2E FR was a popular setting; but its not what we do. Patrick gets a poiunt right on the "location" based concept. the PCs determine direction after the DM provides the location. Like caves of chaos. B1 is perhaps the best example of what i feel 1E is all about.


----------



## froggie (Feb 15, 2002)

*RE Howard Stupid!!!*

Ok them's fightin' words!!!!
lol and jk

Yup; If you think that; we are not for you. Howard is at least my primary inspiration. 
Bill


----------



## bardolph (Feb 15, 2002)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *You are very confident in your opinions, young grasshopper.  I respectfully disagree.
> 
> The complex that I described, with the illogically winding-but-90-degree-angled corridors, also contains a section with curving corridors.  If the concern was that it was harder to draw curving corridors, it wouldn't have contained that other section.*



Man!  You read my whole post, and you had to respond to _that??_

Hmm... lemme try to refute this one... maybe ole Monte Cook drew _some_ of these corridors, then got lazy and drew the rest to match the graph paper.


> *And if you're gonna nitpick me, I'll nitpick you right back:  it's actually harder to draw straight corridors than to draw curvy corridors, if you don't have a ruler.*



Not if the player has graph paper in front of him.


> *But it's easier to DESCRIBE to someone how to draw straight corridors.*



Righteo!



> *If you put Occam's razor to work, I believe, you'll get one conclusion:  the map's original designer thought that describing how to map straight corridors was easy, but that mapping corridors that went in random directions was more fun.
> 
> I'm guessing, though, that people would rather eat broken glass than admit that old-school dungeons weren't always plausible.  So maybe I should let it drop, eh?
> *



 Depends on the consistency of the glass, and how transparent it is.  By the way, I'm hungry...


----------



## der_kluge (Feb 18, 2005)

I knew I wasn't imagining that we'd had a very similar thread in the past.

*casts spell*

mmmm, thread necromancy.

Enjoy.


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 18, 2005)

Oops!


----------



## Aethelstan (Feb 18, 2005)

1st Edition feel: Well...for starters, the rules were clunky, inconsistant and riddled with Gygaxian quirkiness.  But in the beginning no one really cared because the whole concept of the RPG was so new and exciting.  A DM could whip up a dungeon with an architectually absurd collection of rooms filled with an illogical mish-mash of monsters (room #1: Unicorns, room #2: Displacer Beasts, and on and on...) and players would hack and slash their way through it with glee, never question the hows and whys.  Everything about the game had a slightly rough and ready feel.  Players did not need intricate hook laden plotlines and novel-like campaign worlds.
Just playing the game, an game unlike any they had ever concieved of, was reward enough.


----------



## Torm (Feb 18, 2005)

In my mind, "1E feel" and to a large extent "2E feel" (since I never really even understood there was a difference until late in 2E - the DM always handled the parts that made that matter) is PRE-INTERNET feel. Not to say that I don't enjoy the way things are now - ENWorld, a global D&D community, and gaming resources galore are great! But there was a certain feel to the game when you just had a few books and a few friends, and you didn't tell anyone you played because they might think you were Lucifer , and your game, even though it was run from the books, was more homebrew than anything else because the rules were incomplete, self-contradictory, and your Dungeon Master's word was FINAL - to the extent that you may have had one or two notebooks or Trapper Keepers of notes and rulings about the way things worked in your little shared world.

It's the difference between that secret spot you used to go to to think, that no one or maybe just your best friends knew about, and the coffee shop you sometimes stop at with friends now - just like lots of other people. Both are good things, but there's something that just feels... (lost? commercialized? blasphemed? overthought? brighter? pedestrian?) Well, something that just _feels_.

It's probably something about getting older, period, rather than anything about the game - I get irritated and nostalgic for Doritos back when they were "Nacho Cheese" instead of "Nacho Chees*ier*" and tasted better, too. At least, in my mind, they did. And I'm sure in twenty years there will be people who feel that way about 3E, too.

But I miss Egghead. I miss Atari - the _real_ one, not this software distributor wearing their name tag. And I want *MY* MTV back, dammit.


----------



## kenobi65 (Feb 18, 2005)

Orcus said:
			
		

> First edition feel is like the old definition of pornography: "I cant describe it, but I know it when I see it."




Long live Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart.

Legend has it that, when the Supreme Court deliberated on a pornography case, they would always have to screen the material in question.  Stewart's law clerks would sit behind him during the screening, and, when anything particularly naughty showed up on the screen, they would yell, "I see it!  I see it!"


----------



## Mythmere1 (Feb 18, 2005)

Is this a duplicate of an identical thread?  There was one where MerricB suggested closing it in the first page and Piratecat said not to be insulting - this isn't the same thread...


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Feb 18, 2005)

Mythmere1 said:
			
		

> Is this a duplicate of an identical thread?  There was one where MerricB suggested closing it in the first page and Piratecat said not to be insulting - this isn't the same thread...




die_kluge used his necromantic abilities to ressurect a dead thread with a similar topic. He can also use his power to kill bunnies.  Don't mess with die_kluge, man.  He'll mess you up.


----------



## shilsen (Feb 18, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> Despite pointing out numerous example of the "feel" we are referring to, many people seem to think "Diablo" when they think First Edition.




And I thought the problem was that people seem to think "diaglo" when they think First Edition


----------



## jester47 (Feb 18, 2005)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Thus, dwarves, elves, and dragons aren't a problem.  Windy corridors are.
> 
> Daniel




Why can't windy corridors be imaginary objects?  Things that don't make sense can be and most likely are imaginary.  The imaginary object generates a non-sequiter which yeilds a surreal situation and thus a fantasy is created.  Makes me think the weirdness is ok...

Aaron.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 18, 2005)

First edition feel is the feelling of gaming I had when I was in my early teens.  And this feeling was not limited to First edition D&D, all the games we played back then had that same feel.  Gaming was different back then, the games design philisophies, players thoughts, DM's duties, all a bit different.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 18, 2005)

Usually starting a new thread on the same topic as a closed one isn't permitted. Considering the circumstances in which the last thread was closed, we'll let this one stay open so long as folks don't start insulting editions.


----------



## T. Foster (Feb 18, 2005)

Following up on my previous post in the locked thread (in which I put forth that IMO "1st edition feel" is the interpersonal dynamic that comes from a friendly competitive game in an atmosphere of mutual trust -- i.e. the players are 'competing' against the DM and vice versa, but both sides have agreed to 'play fair' and trust the other side to do the same) I suppose it's worth pointing out that this feel need not be limited to any particular ruleset, and thus there's no reason why a discussion of "1st edition feel" must necessarily turn into a discussion of the pros and cons of the 1st edition rules. A game in which the participants are operating under this sort of 'social contract' will have the "1st edition feel" even if the rules being used are 3rd edition (or GURPS or HARP or whatever else); likewise a game in which the DM abuses his power in order to punish the players, or in which the players are munchkins and rules-lawyers who are constantly arguing the DM's rulings, or for that matter a game in which there is no sense of competition and the DM and players are simply engaging in a collaborative storytelling effort, won't have the "1st edition feel" even if the 1E rules are being used.

Regards,


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 18, 2005)

jester47 said:
			
		

> Why can't windy corridors be imaginary objects? Things that don't make sense can be and most likely are imaginary. The imaginary object generates a non-sequiter which yeilds a surreal situation and thus a fantasy is created. Makes me think the weirdness is ok...




Oh, yeah.  This argument was so productive last time, you better believe I'm all ready to get into it again. 

Just kidding!  Since then, I've realized that those firk-ding corridors were perfectly plausible.  I was wrong.  Ale for everyone!

Daniel


----------



## Ourph (Feb 18, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> For us 1e was about adventure without moral baggage, looting with no encumbrance and general mayhem and mischief.




YES!  WE HAVE A WINNAH!

That was beautiful dude.  You actually made me weep with the sweet remembrance of days gone by.


----------



## alsih2o (Feb 18, 2005)

I went looking for my VERY similar thread. 

 I got SOOOO confused. 

 This one seems better anyway. Can't believe I missed it.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 18, 2005)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> I went looking for my VERY similar thread.
> 
> I got SOOOO confused.
> 
> This one seems better anyway. Can't believe I missed it.



 ...its three years old. That might be why you missed it.


----------



## alsih2o (Feb 18, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> ...its three years old. That might be why you missed it.




 Like that is an excuse. *rollseyessmilie*


----------



## jester47 (Feb 18, 2005)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Oh, yeah.  This argument was so productive last time, you better believe I'm all ready to get into it again.
> 
> Just kidding!  Since then, I've realized that those firk-ding corridors were perfectly plausible.  I was wrong.  Ale for everyone!
> 
> Daniel




I thought the post seemed very familiar.  And so I decided to actually look at the Date.

Crap man.  I just replied to a three year old post!  Oh well, it helped me to further my non-sequitur-> surreal theorem by giving an object to cause it i.e. the imaginary object...

The Imaginary Object, (defined as somthing that is concievable but unlikely, such as a race of short people, a desert next to a glacier, non-sensical architechture etc.) when included in a story generates a non-sequitur.  The presence of a non-sequitur generates a feeling of the surreal.  Reactions to this surrealism is the Fantasy.  

Aaron.


----------



## maddman75 (Feb 19, 2005)

I was in the twilight zone for awhile too.  I wanted to respond to the 1e thread, but Piratecat closed it.  Hey its reopened!  But its a lot longer, and I can't find where Piratecat closed it, or any mod saying they reopened it...

Anyway, all I can say about 1e feel is what it was like when I played 1e.  Other people's experiences may be different.  Note that when I DMed it was 2e, that's what I started with.  But I fell in with some grognards...

Here's what I remember of 1e being like

- Rules were not transparent.  Don't get all upset with me, this is not a knock.  I'm sure many of you old timers would agree with me.  See, you didn't really know all the rules as a player.  You didn't need to.  You didn't even have a to hit chart or attack number or anything on your sheet!  You rolled the die and told the DM what you got, and he'd consult his books and tell you what happened.  If you wanted to do something else, you told him what you intended, and he'd consult the Ancient Tome of Forbidden Lore (ie, DMG) and tell you what's what.
- The game was harsh, man.  I played a Magic User, and got one spell and two freakin hit points.  No -10 nonsense either, you got smacked down, the DM handed you the dice and a character sheet.
- Going down into dark caves where goblins where hiding, killing them, and digging the coppers out of the pocketses.

It seemed more rough and tumble, more sword and sorcery.  Like I said, that's just what it was like for me.


----------



## francisca (Feb 19, 2005)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> It seemed more rough and tumble, more sword and sorcery.  Like I said, that's just what it was like for me.



Me too.

Still is, in many cases, even when running 3E.


----------



## Silver Moon (Feb 19, 2005)

*What is the 1st Edition Feel? * 

That depends on who you are and what you started playing with.   For old timers like me, it's the RPG that we grew up on and has a high level of comfort because of that.   I enjoy playing 1st Edition games, but I also enjoy a good game of a D20 RPG.   The key to me is having the enthusiastic players and a DM with an overactive imagination, not which set of rules are being used.

1E also has a nostalgic feel to me, but that's because it is one of the many things that reminds me of my college years.     I'm reminded of a passage from Mark Shopper's wonderful book about the Beatles titled *Paperback Writer*.  That book was a satire of the Beatles story and concludes with a reunion of the group a decade after the breakup.  When the group gets back together they are in a creative lull and put out a new album with songs that are total garbage, and they then go on tour to promote it.  They get boo's when they try to play the new material but the audience finally warms when they switch to their oldies.   After the concert John tells the others "They didn't want The Beatles.  They wanted the Sixties.  They just wanted to relive an earlier time and remember the good things with none of the baggage."

So others like me will remember all the best elements about gaming 20 years ago - being about to pull together a dozen friends for a quick pick-up game that could go in any direction.   The fast-and-loose rules that let you just move on without stopping the game for twenty-minutes to look something up and decide on how it did or didn't work in conjunction with other rules.   Basically, the fact that the game was just plain fun to play.  There were lots of negatives about that system too, many of which have been noted in the prior five pages of this thread, but for me it will always be a happy memory.


----------



## D+1 (Feb 19, 2005)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Y'know, for those who keep complaining about how 1e had so little plot or story - you're missing an important point. Plot and story was provided by the DM then, and so could be dispensed with in the modules. Adventures of recent years have often been overwritten, spoon-feeding plot and story to the players and DM alike. 1e was more about individualization. _That's_ what 1e "feel" is, not lack of logic or an element of goofiness. Those old modules, with their lack of fluff text, invited everyone to think for themselves, which often resulted in some completely memorable experiences as the imaginations of the gaming group was given free rein. Heavily plotted modules of more recent times seemed more confining, less adaptable to individual whim, less open to spontaneity - in short, less like 1e.



I agree with everything this man is saying...  Why shouldn't I?  I've said it myself many times.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Feb 19, 2005)

1st edition feel is marketing-speak aimed at nostalgia by delivering a setting with creatures that have no source of food and no real reason to be there other than to pose a challenge to the party.

They were illogical, inconsistent dungeon crawl adventures; beer and pretzel fare that ultimately failed and was passed over and left behind when players and DMs became sophisticated enough to start to think about them.

Yes, I enjoyed 1st edition a lot  - for a time.  I was a teenager. When that intial few years of falling in love with power-gaming and all the funny sided dice ended and my tastes matured, I left AD&D behind in the dust.  I never returned to it and skipped 2E in its entirety.

I have returned to 3E and I love it. But I don't confuse nostalgia with quality.  They are not the same at all.

I'll take Sovereign Press' _War of the Lance_ hardcover - which is simply the best gaming book I've ever purchased in 25+ years  - over any misplaced sense of wonderment over the Hidden Shrine of Tomoachan, revisited with refried beans.

There is a *reason* that the industry left beer and pretzel dungeons alone and put them aside as being childish fluff.  Perhaps a lot of the 2E adventure material, be it Planescape, Birthright, or 2E era material such as Harn and ICE's Middle Earth ended up going too far in the other direction. Fair enough. But I don't think its wise to throw out the baby with the bathwater on either end.  

If you like that sort of thing - ok - but to pretend that a silly nonsensical dungeon is something other than a silly nonsensical dungeon, in the name of "nostalgia", is not for me.


----------



## scourger (Feb 19, 2005)

I played 1e way back when it was new, but I can't explain the feel of it.  All I know is that Necromancer (and Goodman) put out some darn fine modules.  May they continue to do so!  And may other publishers follow their lead!  I'll still have to wade through many to find the few that speak to me, but it's fun!


----------



## D+1 (Feb 19, 2005)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Colonel, I think you're not understanding quite what I'm saying.  It's not the lack of plot that makes them problematic for me -- it's their lack of plausibility.
> 
> I still have that problem with third edition modules.  I'm currently running Speaker in Dreams, which is probably about as close as you'll find to a spoon-fed plot in any published module.  And I find it so implausible, the actions of major NPCs so foolish and incomprehensible, that I've spent hours and hours completely rewriting it.
> 
> First edition, in my experience, was worse in this respect.  Plausibility simply wasn't a major consideration; and with plausibility, generally a coherent narrative was tossed out the window.



But THAT... that thing you're talking about right there.  Rewriting the module and making it what YOU want.  THAT is 1E and it is why 1E modules DON'T really concern themselves with plausibility.  If you want more plausibility it's up to you to provide it.  Every campaign, every DM, every group is different.  Rather than spell it all out carefully 1E gives you the sound and let's you decide how to spell it.

1E gives you basic information about the contents of a room.  "There is a desk and chair, torture devices in the corner, and a locked chest with 90 gp in it."  Nowadays you get _description_. "There is a desk and chair made of dark Fruzlewood, an almost entirely melted candle and ledger on the desk written in Draconic that details expenditures for 'entertainment' costs, an iron maiden with the skeleton of a dwarf still covered in tattered rags that once were clothes, and a chest locked with a DC 35 lock and a broken needle trap containing 90 gp in a soft leather bag embossed with a flower."  The 1E "description" sort of assumes that if you CARE in the first place what the furniture is made of you'll throw that in there, that if you want something like a ledger to be on the desk to provide a clue to another adventure that you know better than a module's author what should be in it, and that if your crew is the kick-in-the-door-kill-then-loot-and-move-on type you don't need illuminating description, and if your players live for long, lovingly crafted description and detail to set moods and provide evocative mental scenery you're gonna embellish things whether it's 1 sentence or several paragraphs.   So why not go with 1 sentence and let people make of it what they want?

People's fondness for 1E *is* heavily based in nostalgia.  But it's a nostalgia that's borne of having been required to be MUCH more actively imaginative with bare-bones material, with constant revision and adaptation.  Back in the days of 1E the DM provided 90% of the material himself and bought maybe 10%.  Now I think the perception is that those percentages are reversed - 90% of adventure, setting, and rules is purchased and only 10% is of the DM's own imagination.  It may not be true - but that's the perception and that's what accounts for the lack of 1E feel.  The entire hobby, the rules and resources we have available to us are all VASTLY more plentiful and advanced.

We don't play "Duane's Campaign" which happens to use the Greyhawk setting - we play the Forgotten Realms setting wherein lies Duane's Campaign.  Even back when Greyhawk pretty much was the ONLY setting that was available we always, ALWAYS, were drawing our own maps, naming our own towns, inventing our own nations and NPC's, and we used the purchased materials as a resource to fill in occasional parts.  Now we seem to use purchased materials foremost and fill in only occasional parts with our own, much smaller, less consequential bits of invention.

That's the 1E feel for me.


----------



## maddman75 (Feb 19, 2005)

Can we not get this thread closed too guys?  Please?  I kind of like talking about different editions.  1e is only for beer and pretzel gaming like 3e is only for powergaming and tactical wargaming.  Both of those statement can be true, but that doesn't mean that this is all anyone does with it.  And saying either like its true is just plain insulting to people who like those games.  Heck, All Flesh Must Be Eaten is a great beer and pretzels game.  That doesn't mean you can't do anything else with it.

I recall Orcus from Necromancer games describing it like this - they don't give you Star Wars, they give you the Death Star.  That's what 1e modules (and Necro's modules) do.  They don't sell you a prewritten 'adventure' that railroads you into a plot about a young orphan from Tatooine that discovers he has the powers of a Jedi and goes on to destroy the planet destroying battle station.  They give you tons of deck plans and detailed encounters with stormtroopers, and leave it to the DM to figure out what to do with it.

Look at the greatest of the great, Keep on the Borderlands.  There's no premade plot hooks, railroaded encounters, and 'story' elements that serve to restrict the players.  Its the keep, and here's what's in the keep, and here's the Caves of Chaos, and here's what lives in it.  Its up to you to figure out what to do with it.  If you just want to run through the caves and kill everything that moves, go for it!  If you want to use the area as a setting for a story, its easy to do that too!

That is what to me means 1e feel.  My entire group hates adventures because almost every one we've played has tried to strongarm us into a premade plot.  When the DM runs on his own stuff the game is ten times better.  But we still talk wistfully about Keep on the Borderlands.


----------



## Virel (Feb 19, 2005)

I still run the same 1st ed AD&D GreyHawk campaign I started in 1980. Currently, there are three adventure groups, with nine players and a total of 28 active PC's. Several players are long time and have played since 1980, some joined in 1989 and three joined in late 2004.

There are several on going plots and subplots in the game. The players are aware of some of them and interact and effect how the game develops. Each character has a background and I've talked in detail with each player about their characters back ground.

While there have been a few dungeon crawls, they occured with in context of overall plots and subplots.

Many of the adventures are player generated somethings on the fly. Thanks to 1st ed's easy to improvise and create on the fly "rules light approach" an experience DM can let a decent set of players do this. 

Of course there are a few house rules etc because 1st ed is designed to be made in your own. So in our 1st ed games a few 2nd ed concepts were adapted like allow a thief to custom tailor how his abilities increase at each level etc

To me that's 1st ed feel, where the system is so flexiable a DM can run a very large group with lots of players and characters. This is easy to do with 1st because it allows for quick character generation and very fast combat resolution, thanks to it's elegant game mechanics.


----------



## maddman75 (Feb 19, 2005)

I'm of the opinion that those that stick with 1e always ran it as a rules light system.  However, there are a lot of groups that never ran it that way, and to me 1e is a very rules heavy system, just in a different way than 3e.  When we played for instance, if you weren't a thief or ranger it was *impossible* for your character to hide from someone.  That's a theif ability and you aren't a thief.  Now a flexible AD&D DM would whip up some rule, but there's a lot of us that this kind of thing never occured to.


----------



## D+1 (Feb 19, 2005)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> I'm all about the Ursula LeGuin approach to fantasy.  People have real motivations, cultures are in upheaval, death is sad, morality is tenuous.  Window-dressing is as important as mechanics. Characters come with half a dozen pages of background.  Religions are fleshed out, and aren't just limited to polytheism or monotheism.  Reality itself is uncertain, but its nature is central to the game.
> 
> I love that my players can discuss the merits of elvish coffee over dinner with the head of their religious order, and that the conversation can continue in that vein for fifteen minutes before the boss gets around to blackmailing them.
> 
> That's certainly possible in 1E, but it's not First-Edition Feel.  As you suggest, first-edition feel doesn't have a whole lot of sociological thought in it.



No, that IS 1E feel.  It's just that the module or the setting doesn't DICTATE that feel to you.  The 1E module doesn't tell you that the Boss will talk about the coffee for 15 minutes before blackmailing the PC's, it just says that the Boss will blackmail the PC's.  YOU fill in the rest to suit your taste (or lack therof as was often the case for us teens back in the day).  1E was not about 6 pages of background, it was about a full character sheet on a piece of notebook paper with background created AS needed, not whether it was needed or not.  I love that my players can discuss the merits of elvish coffee in the same way as you and yours.  I just don't need or WANT that in my gaming materials.  That is for ME to invent and play out to the degree I desire:

Scene 24.  The Boss makes small talk over dinner with the PC's and then blackmails them.  They can discuss coffee, mustard pies, the new theories of macroeconomics, or how evidence from sage research points to the notion that NOTHING in the world really should work (not economics, physics, sociology, biology, or cosmology) but it does anyway.  1E neither actively promotes nor discourages that - but it doesn't stand in the way of it either if that's what you want.


> It is, as you say, a different style of playing, and it's good that D20 can accommodate so many different styles.  But if you think that the alternative to bare-bones, plausibility-challenged dungeons is railroading adventures, then I think your scope of gameplay is limited.



No, the railroading was one alternative that was tried in the 2E era and earned a great deal of well-deserved scorn.  Even if those who place "story" as paramount over other aspects understand that players still want their characters to be more than uninvolved, utterly non-influential bystanders to the story.  The fact that they are at the table with their own characters, it unquestionably follows that their active participation and influence in the story is desired.  That requires that materials be more readily adpatible to PC influences - and that is achieved by LESS details; frameworks and minimal descriptions; not more details where the more you change things the less the intricate details make sense as a whole requiring yet more change.  I think the question of plausibility is irrelevant because there are just as many implausibilities in EVERY gaming rules era and it's products.  But the more bare-bones approach is definitely a factor in 1E "feel".


----------



## Frost (Feb 19, 2005)

> I recall Orcus from Necromancer games describing it like this - they don't give you Star Wars, they give you the Death Star. That's what 1e modules (and Necro's modules) do. They don't sell you a prewritten 'adventure' that railroads you into a plot about a young orphan from Tatooine that discovers he has the powers of a Jedi and goes on to destroy the planet destroying battle station. They give you tons of deck plans and detailed encounters with stormtroopers, and leave it to the DM to figure out what to do with it.




Well said.  I think that really about sums it up.

Anyway, the bottomline (IMHO) is that it isn't so much the edition, as the gaming group.  I've DMed 1e, 2e, and now 3e... I would say that, regardless of the actual edition, we always had "1e feel."   To use the example above, you can run a "Star Wars" campaign or a "Death Star" campaign in whatever system you want.

Personally, I'd take the Death Star anyday...


----------



## hong (Feb 19, 2005)

D+1 said:
			
		

> No, that IS 1E feel.  It's just that the module or the setting doesn't DICTATE that feel to you.  The 1E module doesn't tell you that the Boss will talk about the coffee for 15 minutes before blackmailing the PC's, it just says that the Boss will blackmail the PC's.  YOU fill in the rest to suit your taste (or lack therof as was often the case for us teens back in the day).  1E was not about 6 pages of background, it was about a full character sheet on a piece of notebook paper with background created AS needed, not whether it was needed or not.  I love that my players can discuss the merits of elvish coffee in the same way as you and yours.  I just don't need or WANT that in my gaming materials.  That is for ME to invent and play out to the degree I desire:
> 
> Scene 24.  The Boss makes small talk over dinner with the PC's and then blackmails them.  They can discuss coffee, mustard pies, the new theories of macroeconomics, or how evidence from sage research points to the notion that NOTHING in the world really should work (not economics, physics, sociology, biology, or cosmology) but it does anyway.  1E neither actively promotes nor discourages that - but it doesn't stand in the way of it either if that's what you want.




You know, it's kinda dumb to say that something is part of the "1E feel" if the books never actually mentioned it, just because they didn't encourage or discourage it either. The books also never encouraged or discouraged me drinking beer while running a game. Does that mean beer is part of the 1E feel?


----------



## francisca (Feb 19, 2005)

One thing for sure: 1e was a game.  It wasn't an excuse to put on some black turtlenecks and berets, while smoking cigarettes in a holder, while creating the avant-garde.  If "1e feel" is low brow "beer and pretzels" for the unwashed masses, then I'm glad to be counted with the luddites and terminally retrograde, whether I'm playing 1e or 3e.


----------



## Ourph (Feb 19, 2005)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> When we played for instance, if you weren't a thief or ranger it was *impossible* for your character to hide from someone.  That's a theif ability and you aren't a thief.  Now a flexible AD&D DM would whip up some rule, but there's a lot of us that this kind of thing never occured to.




This is one of the things that frustrate me the most about the edition debate.  Many people approached earlier editions with the attitude of "if the book doesn't say you can do it, you can't do it" which is exactly the opposite of the philosophy behind the game as far as I can tell from comments made by Gary, Frank Mentzer, Steve Marsh and others who have talked about their approach to the game and creating the rules.  Thieves could Hide in Shadows and Climb Sheer Surfaces.  Those are very specific abilities to which other classes didn't have access.  Nothing in the rules says that a Fighter can't hide behind a barrel or climb a tree with adequate handholds with some chance of success.  Nothing in the rules says how the DM should determine that success, but that doesn't mean it cannot or should not happen.  The fact that we had those misperceptions as kids or as inexperienced first-time roleplayers is quite understandable.  The fact that so many people still hold onto those misperceptions (not directing this at you maddman) and use them as a basis for criticizing older editions is unfortunate and, in some cases I believe, ingenuous.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Does that mean beer is part of the 1E feel?




In my case no.  Though being 12 years old and so hepped up on Dr. Pepper I can't see straight appears to be.  That might just be me though.


----------



## BJP (Feb 19, 2005)

This may be an old thread - but thought I'd put in my tuppence.

For me, similarly to so many others, first edition will always be about nostalgia. Reading this thread brought back an awful lot of memories... Happy days spent with Iuz and Zuggtmoy (after so many years of waiting), Edralve and Stalmin Klim (and the Earth Dragon), Eclavdra and Lolth; Count Strahd von Zarovich (look at the maps!); BlackRazor and Surge; those Sinister Secrets and Assassin's Knots; and that god-darned Keep (surely they installed a rotating door, the number of adventurers who must have come through). For myself, and probably many of you, we were pretty young, and we all have fond memories of childhood - besides which, at that age, we didn't need any of those pesky ecosystems to clutter our dungeons up.

My favorite moment - an adventure I wrote (my first one, I was probably only about 10 or 11) - it had a room with 6 achaierai (I only chose them 'cos I liked the name) hiding under a table waiting to jump out and surprise the party. My friend, who ran the adventure, didn't know what they were, looked them up, and found they were actually 15 foot tall.

That's one hell of a concealing table! And that, to me, is 1e in a nutshell - no consistency, no sense, just darned good fun - but probably more a function of age than anything else.

Sigh - those were the days.
Jim.


----------



## Kitsune (Feb 19, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> For me 1e feel is also that a city is just a big dungeon. Thats what we did anyway, in the days of past. Our adventurers were a menace to any city they visited. We just systematically knocked on doors or busted them in, just like in the dungeon.  Or bought an empty house, and started digging tunnels to other houses. Or some other 'genious' plan.




I must thank you, sir, for providing me with much-needed laughter.  The thought of someone doing dungeon-crawling 'business as usual' in a city full of innocent people is something I can all too easily imagine in D&D.


----------



## haakon1 (Feb 19, 2005)

Abyss said:
			
		

> Can someone explain what  a "first edition feel" is?




I think it's kinda like the difference between classic hard rock and current day rock-rap.  Which is worse -- to be a dinosaur or to be derivative of somebody else's idea?

Anyhow, the salient points of 1st Edition feel:
- No funky races for PC's.  Standard PHB races, which is to say, Tolkien races plus gnomes, and gnomes are pretty much ignored.  MAYBE in far extremes of funkyness, a lizard man or centaur or selkie or evil drow assassin in disguise -- some old school monster preferable with real mythology (instead of a game book) behind it.  Definitely no half-dragons.

- Greyhawk/Tolkien meanings of races.  Halflings are hobbits, not kender.  Gnomes are ignored, not steampunk little tinkers.

- Most classes are normal, not prestige.  Archetypal warriors and spellcasters, not blood magus of the yadda-yadda order.

- No Forgotten Realms stuff.  Rangers are not Drizzt, they are Aragorn.  Drow are not seen.  Players are supposed to pretend they don't know Drow exist.  PC elves know, but it's not something they talk about at parties.  Merchants are delivering wine, not magical bunny rabbits.  No magical street lamps -- no street lamps at all, since we're talking medieval here, but if there were street lamps, they'd burn oil -- which you can throw at folks to 1d6 damage!  

- The stuff banned in Second Edition is back.  Demons are demons and devils are devils, not whatever the euphemisms were.  Assassins and half-orcs are a normal part of the game, not secret adult-swim stuff.  (Thus, in some ways, 3rd Edition is more 1st Edition than 2nd Edition was.)

- No spikey armor.  Armor looks like armor.  (A pet peeve for me with the 3e PHB is the silly bondage-spiked plate mail.  Yeah, neato.)

- Classic storylines.  Meet in the tavern, loot the dungeon, steal the McGuffin, save the kingdom from the lizard men, that sort of things.  Not a bunch of kender droppings about the outer planes, clockwork monsters from the ancient wars, or whatever new nonsense them young kids are up to these days.

First Edition feel can be found in:
- Goodman Games
- Atlas Games
- Necromancer Games (though they mess with the rules too much for my taste -- part of First Edition ought to mean following the actual rules of the current game -- yes, a fountain that produces endless undead for no game-rule reason, and casters who are too low-level to create the effects in their lair, these things annoy me)


----------



## Maggan (Feb 19, 2005)

*Yikes*



			
				Kitsune said:
			
		

> I must thank you, sir, for providing me with much-needed laughter.  The thought of someone doing dungeon-crawling 'business as usual' in a city full of innocent people is something I can all too easily imagine in D&D.




Ouch, I've seen it happen in Cyberpunk as well... nasty stuff...   

Cheers!

Maggan


----------



## Virel (Feb 19, 2005)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> (I'm guessing your DM doesn't make you map the damn thing! )
> 
> Daniel




Daniel,

I have a question, not meant as flame etc because we all have our likes and dislikes in our D&D games. I play 3e in a friends 3e group, and I enjoy playing it:

If the corridors bother you doesn't the 3e's "cyclical/round robin" initiative system and magic item creation bother you at least as much? 

The idea that say 15 characters and monsters go in order and wait until one another finish their actions before proceeding to the next person/creatures turn pretty much in and of it's self blows the suspension of disbelief out the window. Correctly, used the quirky 1st ed initiative system allows the actions to be interleaved and various actions disrupted etc.

Likewise, the 3e group got around to crafting magic items. My PC ended up with ~5,000 gp worth of “magic powder” to make whatever he wanted. Seemed way to generic to have much “feel”.  No material components needed no spells to cast to make it, just generic skill check. Yawn. I decided to have my character give his “magic powder” to the party’s cleric rather than participate in using an ultra lame game mechanic that I found wrecked my suspension of disbelief. Did that make me anti-3e? Not in the least, I still play and enjoy it.

So I do know where you are coming from about the corridors…but I think a well ran game with good players, over comes that sort of thing for most of us regardless of if it's OAD&D or 3e. I like playing both 1st ed and 3e, and to me 3e feels more like 1st ed than 2e does.

I would also like to add the grim and gritty feel that most like in their games, is IMO hard to achieve with 3e because of the extreme concern for "balance" and fair CR's. If you adventuring in a grim world, things many things will be unfair and unbalanced, there won't be someone overseeing to make sure things are kept in line by "hatch, axe and saw" etc.  OAD&D can and has been abused by incompetent DM's. On occasion in the past there were those who were on hung up on power trips or too addle brained to actually think. The nature of the 1st ed system when DM’d properly is one of being concerned with fun, fast intense play, cool tricks and puzzles rather than "equality". This is part of what makes it a great system for getting grim and gritty. How much grimmer can you get than, save or die when put forth in the right context of the story? Likewise, an occasional encounter with level draining undead (no save if your hit) quickly create true grim and girt feel. A good DM might allow measures address unfortunate events if the party gets maimed if the players played well etc.

BTW - Daniel, I live in North Carloina and am not that far away from where your located. Your welcome to sit in and play with one of my OAD&D groups if you wish. After all we can have a character ready to game with in minutes.   

Cheers


----------



## DarrenGMiller (Feb 19, 2005)

Well, so far I think a few things have been said that really sum it up for me.  Allow me to quote:




			
				T. Foster said:
			
		

> Following up on my previous post in the locked thread (in which I put forth that IMO "1st edition feel" is the interpersonal dynamic that comes from a friendly competitive game in an atmosphere of mutual trust -- i.e. the players are 'competing' against the DM and vice versa, but both sides have agreed to 'play fair' and trust the other side to do the same) I suppose it's worth pointing out that this feel need not be limited to any particular ruleset, and thus there's no reason why a discussion of "1st edition feel" must necessarily turn into a discussion of the pros and cons of the 1st edition rules. A game in which the participants are operating under this sort of 'social contract' will have the "1st edition feel" even if the rules being used are 3rd edition (or GURPS or HARP or whatever else); likewise a game in which the DM abuses his power in order to punish the players, or in which the players are munchkins and rules-lawyers who are constantly arguing the DM's rulings, or for that matter a game in which there is no sense of competition and the DM and players are simply engaging in a collaborative storytelling effort, won't have the "1st edition feel" even if the 1E rules are being used.






			
				Francisca said:
			
		

> One thing for sure: 1e was a game. It wasn't an excuse to put on some black turtlenecks and berets, while smoking cigarettes in a holder, while creating the avant-garde. If "1e feel" is low brow "beer and pretzels" for the unwashed masses, then I'm glad to be counted with the luddites and terminally retrograde, whether I'm playing 1e or 3e.








			
				haakon1 said:
			
		

> Anyhow, the salient points of 1st Edition feel:
> - No funky races for PC's. Standard PHB races, which is to say, Tolkien races plus gnomes, and gnomes are pretty much ignored. MAYBE in far extremes of funkyness, a lizard man or centaur or selkie or evil drow assassin in disguise -- some old school monster preferable with real mythology (instead of a game book) behind it. Definitely no half-dragons.
> 
> - Greyhawk/Tolkien meanings of races. Halflings are hobbits, not kender. Gnomes are ignored, not steampunk little tinkers.
> ...




With that said, as I am getting older, I find myself trying to recapture my "glory days" of gaming.  I know it may be a futile quest, but I am hoping to at least find a group that wants to try to capture the feel outlined above.

DM


----------



## Sanguinemetaldawn (Feb 19, 2005)

*1st Ed feel*

What follows is a serious attempt to answer the question posed by the OP.
The idea of "First edition feel" is based on the supposition that something was lost after 1st Ed. AD&D.
To that extent, what follows can be construed as an attack on 3E D&D, BUT THAT IS NOT THE INTENTION.
My intention here is simply to answer the question. 

If others feel the above supposition is incorrect, it would be my pleasure to discuss the topic in a gentlemanly manner.  Topics raised in this post could serve as a suitable starting point for such a discussion.  That said, to the issue at hand...





What you are really asking for is a condensation of the art of PnP game design, applied to 1st Ed.

The art of game design is not an easy thing to articulate or even understand.  Many people play games, and they just know they "like" one game and "don't like" another.  And thats good enough for them.  But why?  They can't tell you.
Gygax mentions this on his thread running concurrently...what gives a game its "soul"?

I don't know if I can explain 1st Edition feel, I will give examples of what created the feel...

....using Conjure Elemental which summoned a very powerful servant, but a dangerous one...who could turn on you.  To protect yourself from this, you could employ a thaumaturgic triangle, or a pentagram.


.....On page 117 of the DMG, the description of how to make a scroll of Protection from Petrification.  The ingredients (1 oz. giant squid sepia, 1 basilisk eye, 3 cockatrice feathers...6 pumpkin seeds) and the preparation method (...dry the seeds over a slow fire of sandalwood and horse dung...select three perfect ones...Boil the basilisk eye and cockatrice feathers...in a saline solution...add medusa snake venom and gem powders...).


...finding a single spell scroll, you could get as many as 8 different spells of various levels (including those above your own level), and *you could cast them*.  
When you got a scroll it could be a VERY big deal.  
A scroll could be a powerful magic item in its own right...now its a 1-use spell X.
Playing through ToEE, my 6/5 grey elf cleric/mage used scrolls of Limited Wish (7th mage) and Heal (6th cleric) to Resurrect a party member.  The DM ruled that the combination of the 2 spells would let me.  


Its these trappings...the mystery, the wonder, and the fear.  The imagination.



And magic items like the Deck of Many Things or Ring of Shooting Stars.  I honestly believe that by the design philosophy of 3E, those items would never exist.  Here's why:

How do you make a Deck of Many Things?
Do you enchant each card?  Do you enchant them all at the same time?



Do you see how this affects the game?  If the system doesn't support it...it doesn't happen.  The feeling I get is:

-1st Edition is about the primacy of imagination..."if there isn't a rule for something cool, you make it up"
-3E is about the primacy of the rules..."if there isn't a rule for something you think is cool, you can't do it"

I am not asserting that these are facts.  I am saying that this is the feeling I get when I play 3E.  The above statements are really a result of looking at 3E in the worst possible light.  

Having a plentitude of rules to cover all situations is definitely helpful to a harried DM who wants a quick solution.  The problem is that "having a rule everything" means that the game is pre-defined, and the larger the structure, the more constricting the effect.  The explicitness of the system can be confining.  Especially when rules-lawyers and their rules-fu get involved.  ("My rules-fu is the best!")


First edition feel is:
-The coolness created by the odd, quirky (custom) rule outweighs the additional complexity/difficulty that results.
-Applied to the game consistently, it creates a different play dynamic than rules-fu mastery



There are definite issues with 1E...like the different bonuses to AC from armor, vs cloaks, vs rings...etc.  That was a pain, and confusing.  I wholeheartedly love the stacking rules...that is just one example of something done right in 3E.  And I have horror stories about 1E I could tell.  In the hands of a sadist DM, AD&D is a NIGHTMARE.  This doesn't doesn't seem to be as true for 3E.



What frustrates me is it feels like 3E wasn't able to keep the good while eliminating the bad.  Instead of 1 imperfect system, we now have 2...and I don't like either of them.  This looks like an unintended consequence of a laudable goal: to simplify the system.



I think the reason such anger enters these discussions is there is only one D&D.  There is only one system that is actively supported by the owner and publisher of the D&D game.  And everyone wants it to be THEIR D&D.  

For some people, clarity, simplicity, and options are most important.  For others, distinctiveness, mystery and wonder are most important.  And many of those feel left out in the cold by new D&D.  Personally, I don't have a version of D&D that I like...there are only varying levels of dislike.


----------



## maddman75 (Feb 19, 2005)

Ourph said:
			
		

> This is one of the things that frustrate me the most about the edition debate.  Many people approached earlier editions with the attitude of "if the book doesn't say you can do it, you can't do it" which is exactly the opposite of the philosophy behind the game as far as I can tell from comments made by Gary, Frank Mentzer, Steve Marsh and others who have talked about their approach to the game and creating the rules.  Thieves could Hide in Shadows and Climb Sheer Surfaces.  Those are very specific abilities to which other classes didn't have access.  Nothing in the rules says that a Fighter can't hide behind a barrel or climb a tree with adequate handholds with some chance of success.  Nothing in the rules says how the DM should determine that success, but that doesn't mean it cannot or should not happen.  The fact that we had those misperceptions as kids or as inexperienced first-time roleplayers is quite understandable.  The fact that so many people still hold onto those misperceptions (not directing this at you maddman) and use them as a basis for criticizing older editions is unfortunate and, in some cases I believe, ingenuous.




Like I said, I think its a perception thing based on the person's experience with the game.  Which led to so many arguments on Dragonsfoot.

1e is Rule Light - look how fast you make characters and how small the statblocks are!
1e is Rules Heavy - Look at the initiative rules and weapon vs armor modifiers!


----------



## mmadsen (Feb 19, 2005)

I think this statement is pretty accurate -- but more for Original/Basic D&D than for first-edition AD&D: 







			
				Sanguinemetaldawn said:
			
		

> The feeling I get is:
> 1st Edition is about the primacy of imagination..."if there isn't a rule for something cool, you make it up"
> 3E is about the primacy of the rules..."if there isn't a rule for something you think is cool, you can't do it"



The _explicitness_ of the system can definitely be confining: 







			
				Sanguinemetaldawn said:
			
		

> The problem is that "having a rule everything" means that the game is pre-defined, and the larger the structure, the more constricting the effect.  The explicitness of the system can be confining.



For many people arguing about various editions of the rules, the debate becomes partisan: are you for or against my favorite edition?  Really, we should be asking, _what did each edition get right?_  Even if you prefer 3E to 1E, I'm sure there are _elements_ of 1E you 'd prefer. (Or vice versa.)







			
				Sanguinemetaldawn said:
			
		

> What frustrates me is it feels like 3E wasn't able to keep the good while eliminating the bad.  Instead of 1 imperfect system, we now have 2...and I don't like either of them.  This looks like an unintended consequence of a laudable goal: to simplify the system.



So true: 







			
				Sanguinemetaldawn said:
			
		

> I think the reason such anger enters these discussions is there is only one D&D.  There is only one system that is actively supported by the owner and publisher of the D&D game.  And everyone wants it to be THEIR D&D.


----------



## maddman75 (Feb 19, 2005)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> I think this statement is pretty accurate -- but more for Original/Basic D&D than for first-edition AD&D:
> The _explicitness_ of the system can definitely be confining:
> For many people arguing about various editions of the rules, the debate becomes partisan: are you for or against my favorite edition?  Really, we should be asking, _what did each edition get right?_  Even if you prefer 3E to 1E, I'm sure there are _elements_ of 1E you 'd prefer. (Or vice versa.)




Okay 

For me, here's what 3e got right
- The multiclassing rules!  Finally, no more having to plan multiclassing from first level, no lame excuses for why an elf couldn't decide to become a thief, and why a human couldn't start as a fighter/mage.
- Cyclic initiative, one less thing I have to roll for.
- Feats and PrCs.  These serve an important function - premade 'slots' for expansion material to go into.  This is much less disruptive to the game system over time than adding whole new rule subsets.
- Consistant ruleset.  No more roll high for this, low for that, d20 for this, d100 for that, d6 for this weird racial ability.
- A skill system that made sense.  The proficiencies were wonky and inconsistantly applied to various AD&D rules.
- Full abilties for monsters.
- Less arbitrary unfun rules, like a chance to die everytime someone cast Haste on you.

Here's what it got wrong, that 1e did better
- Not enough flavor to the rules.  The 1e PHB is entertaining, if dense, to read.  THe 3e PHB is like reading stereo instructions.  The game rules are mostly rock solid, but they aren't as evocative.
- Stat blocks that are short and sweet.  3e benefits from having fully detailed monsters, but could greatly benefit from some mook rules.


----------



## Aris Dragonborn (Feb 19, 2005)

1st Edition feel, to me, was Stormbringer, Excalibur, the Final Answer Swords, the Regalia of Might, the Rod of Lordly Might, the Rod of Seven Parts, the Hand and Eye of Vecna, and the Sword of Kos. It was fighting the hordes of Orcus, the servants of Lolth, and armies of undead serving some Lich (good liches need not apply). It was paladins and cavaliers, assassins and thief-acrobats, wizards and illusionists, monks and bards. It was killing the guards as you ascended the tower stairs, knowing that the BBEG was waiting for you, and wondering how you were going to beat him. 

IMHO, 3E has done a good job of getting back to the basics of the dungeon crawl, of evoking the feel of 1E. It is versatile enough that you can run a campaign with that 1E feel, or a story heavy campaign where whole sessions might pass without rolling the dice. I have actually done both, and they were fun. A _lot_ of fun.


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 20, 2005)

Virel said:
			
		

> Daniel,
> 
> I have a question, not meant as flame etc because we all have our likes and dislikes in our D&D games. I play 3e in a friends 3e group, and I enjoy playing it:
> 
> ...




Okay, I'm gonna try to discuss this, but I'm not gonna argue whether the corridors make any sense.

Rules stuff doesn't bother me much, as long as there's some justification for it.  Hit points are fine, for example.  Round-robin initiative is just another way to recognize that not everything happens at once.

And I love magic item creation.  In our groups, we tend to reward creativity with item creation:  an umbrella painted with an imperial dragon that can cast Quench 1/week and provides +2 deflection AC and can be used as a disarming weapon will cost less in our games than it should by the rules, by virtue of being nifty, whereas you gain no such benefits for creating a bag of tricks.

All editions have their benefits and drawbacks.  In my own experiences, 1E adventures put a smaller priority on plausible motives than did later adventures, made you work harder to come up with plausible motives.  They put a higher priority on really cool rooms and such.

But that's just my experience with them.

Daniel


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 20, 2005)

Virel said:
			
		

> BTW - Daniel, I live in North Carloina and am not that far away from where your located. Your welcome to sit in and play with one of my OAD&D groups if you wish. After all we can have a character ready to game with in minutes.




I just saw this very kind offer--thanks!  Unfortunately, my gaming time is very limited these days; although that does sound like fun, I've gotta pass.  Maybe we can carpool to one of the NC gaming days sometime, though, and play OAD&D then? (despite how I've probably made it sound, I have tons of great memories of playing OD&D and 1E).

Daniel


----------



## DMH (Feb 20, 2005)

For me the feel had to do with the power level and rarity of the classes. 12th level people were powerful leaders and there was just a handfull of people above 15th on the whole world. Wizards (12th level+) were a small enclave of people with maybe 2-3 members per nation and 5th level rangers lead small armies to stop the orc hordes. PCs could be world shakers.

And most importantly- they stayed human (or demi-human). They may have become powerful in terms of combat and connections, but they were still fragile against powerful beings like arch devils and solars.

As much as I like Oathbound for its flexability, I do miss the days when an old dragon or lich was to be feared by all.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 20, 2005)

Virel said:
			
		

> This is part of what makes it a great system for getting grim and gritty. How much grimmer can you get than, save or die when put forth in the right context of the story?



Old skool D&D is grim, but it ain't gritty. It's a crazy pseudo-medieval funhouse where the clowns bite your head off.


----------



## francisca (Feb 20, 2005)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Old skool D&D is grim, but it ain't gritty. It's a crazy pseudo-medieval funhouse where the clowns bite your head off.



As opposed to 3e?  Besides, Grim and Gritty or pseudo-medieval funhouse styles of play have more to do with how the DM runs the game than the ruleset.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 20, 2005)

francisca said:
			
		

> Besides, Grim and Gritty or pseudo-medieval funhouse styles of play have more to do with how the DM runs the game than the ruleset.



I'd like to see someone run Toon in a Grim and Gritty style.


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 20, 2005)

I always assumed 'First Edition Feel' was just a marketing slogan; Necromancer got in the d20 game early and used that to snag fence-sitters and old edition diehards into at least looking at their stuff. Which is probably most of the battle. I generally don't buy adventures, though, so I couldn't tell you if I think they succeeded in recreating a 'first edition' feel. 

If there is such a thing. Almost every GM I've played under has emphasized different things so I can't say I've noticed a real 'feel' to the _actual playing of the game _ regardless of edition. I suppose you could say the text of the rulebooks evokes a certain feel.


----------



## scourger (Feb 20, 2005)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Old skool D&D is grim, but it ain't gritty. It's a crazy pseudo-medieval funhouse where the clowns bite your head off.




I'm not sure I agree with (or even understand) the funhouse analogy, but it sure made me laugh!


----------



## D+1 (Feb 20, 2005)

Sanguinemetaldawn said:
			
		

> What follows is a serious attempt to answer the question posed by the OP.
> The idea of "First edition feel" is based on the supposition that something was lost after 1st Ed. AD&D.



Well not so much that something was _lost_ as that things just _changed_ even as the rules and the players who use them changed, as well as the very theory behind those rules.  The result is that in looking back and comparing then and now, there's something about "then" that was good/better that we don't see as much of "now".  It was never really gone entirely, but the emphasis shifted in sometimes subtle ways that require hindsight to see the forest for the trees.


> Do you see how this affects the game?  If the system doesn't support it...it doesn't happen.  The feeling I get is:
> 
> -1st Edition is about the primacy of imagination..."if there isn't a rule for something cool, you make it up"
> -3E is about the primacy of the rules..."if there isn't a rule for something you think is cool, you can't do it"



But 3E _isn't_ about primacy of rules.  Just read the DMG.  P.14 of the 3.5 DMG covers the topics of CHANGING/ADDING TO the rules.  3.0 has similar if not identical content.  Look at the 3.0 PH, the first book of the new version that was released and the one that EVERYONE involved in the game reads.  Right after the table of contents, the very first thing presented, the first rule is the incomparably important "Rule 0" - check with the DM because he may have CHANGED the rules.

People just have a different attitude these days about "rules".  One reason for that change - and no offense intended here to anyone - is the atmosphere generated by having an "Official Rules" sage who will always give you the OFFICIAL rule for something, but never, EVER suggest that you just figure it out or make it up yourself, or that your own interpretation might be superior to the "official" rule - or even _correct_ where the official rule is not.  It gives the continual direct implication year in and year out that by there simply being "Official" answers that they are better, and perhaps even more important than the use of imagination.  Another reason - and again no offense intended here to anyone - is the use of D&D in COMPETITIVE TOURNAMENTS.  That is, I'm sorry to insist, a clear misapplication of what every version of the game is designed and intended for.  [Which is not to say that it necessarily MUSTN'T be used for it, but fair _competition_ requires sacrosanct rules.  D&D is not designed for competition, it's designed for group _participation_.  As a "game" in it's intended incarnation D&D most definitely does NOT require sacrosanct rules and the free alteration of rules is inherent to its very popularity.]

This, perhaps, can be attributed to WOTC having acquired D&D just after becoming wildly successful with collectible trading card games.  Those games ARE competitive games with vast, intricately woven effects that require detailed, HIGHLY definitive rules.  It is no surprise that they should then handle D&D in a similar manner given it's vast, intricate rules.  It's just that D&D doesn't NEED the "Official" rule all the time.  DM's just need solutions that will work for their purposes - and their purpose is not always the one promoted by an "Official" rule.

So, while 3E isn't ACTUALLY about primacy of rules, current climate and so forth simply has given that very mistaken impression to a great many players.  Because the "official" response to any question is always an "official" rule, the business about being able to CHANGE the rules as desired is overlooked - but it's always there.  _Changing_ the rules is always an "Official" rule because it is contained in the rulebooks themselves.  The ability to change the rules has never been controverted.  But it's NEVER the "official" response that is given when a question comes up.  "Officially" the RULES about being able to change the rules don't seem to exist.


----------



## francisca (Feb 20, 2005)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I'd like to see someone run Toon in a Grim and Gritty style.



Well, I was thinking in terms of differnet versions of D&D, but touche'.


----------



## Ourph (Feb 20, 2005)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I'd like to see someone run Toon in a Grim and Gritty style.




Is anyone else thinking pre-packaged ACME Tomb of Horrors with the Road Runner as the pre-gen character?

"Make your Save vs. Spring-loaded Boxing Glove or die.....birdy!"


----------



## francisca (Feb 20, 2005)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Is anyone else thinking pre-packaged ACME Tomb of Horrors with the Road Runner as the pre-gen character?
> 
> "Make your Save vs. Spring-loaded Boxing Glove or die.....birdy!"



Ever seen Grimthooth's Traps?  That's about the gist of it.


----------



## The Shaman (Feb 20, 2005)

First edition feel (and what it’s not), for me:

*1. External influences:* I believe that D&D reflects overall trends in fantasy fiction.

First edition drew much of its inspiration from classical and medieval mythology, of course, but more contemporary writers like Robert E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, J.R.R. Tolkien, and Poul Anderson exerted a strong presence as well – with the exception of the Professor, this was a swords-and-sorcery heavy group, and the early adventures and general style of play faithfully reproduced this genre.

As fantasy fiction changed, the game evolved as well – the external influences on both gamers and designers were writers like Terry Brooks, Terry Pratchett, David Eddings, Robert Jordan, George R.R. Martin. The game also began to ‘feed on itself’ by creating the genre of “D&D fiction” – Dragonlance and later the Realms novels – making the game more ‘literary’ and inspiring plot-heavy adventures and ‘deep’ campaign settings in which the implications of a world with magic became almost as important as the existence of magic itself.

The most obvious recent influences – and by influences I mean stuff the designers rip liberally from the fantasy genre (swarm shifter? _The Mummy_?) – are derived from steampunk and _anime/manga_.

Fantasy literature wasn’t the only source inspiration of course – movies also shaped the style of play. First edition gamers drew from the films of Ray Harryhausen and classics like _Robin Hood_ and _Ivanhoe_ – now gamers and designers look to Ang Lee and John Woo as the cutting edge of the genre.

For me, “first edition feel” is adventures and settings that reflect heroes and exploits like those of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, of Conan, of Sinbad.

*2. “Beer-and-pretzels” gaming:* What some posters describe as the first-edition “fun house” style of gaming – orcs in room 1, a dragon in room 2, a water elemental in the fountain in room 3, &c. – lasted roughly two years for me, if that.

By the time I was 13 I enjoyed creating dungeons and wildernesses that “made sense,” within the generous boundaries of fantasy of course, and apparently the other gamers in our group did too, since I ended up being the most frequent GM in our group.

Did I have long elaborate story arcs? No, just enough to get the players from one adventure setting to another in most cases, but there were recurring villains and the adventurers often became involved in local politics (as tends to happen when you’re the richest bad-arses in the land), so the net result was they created their own story arcs by their actions. Did I have pages and pages of cultural notes? No, but the different lands and races were distinct from one another and their economies reflected their geography enough that life in a port town was quite different from life in a desert oasis caravan stop. 

The idea that “first edition feel” is mindless collections of monsters and puzzles in improbable or implausible settings doesn’t reflect that game that I played from about 1978 on.

*3a. Edition-specific:* I picked up 3e after not gaming from more than decade and immediately created what would probably be considered a “1e feel” campaign-setting and adventures for my gaming group. Stripped down or bulked up, the rules are less of a factor for me than the setting and the adventures.

I never carried the baggage of 2e, the Realms, _Planescape_, and so on, so perhaps it was easier for me to jump right into playing the game I knew so well using the newer ruleset. In any case, “first edition feel” isn’t rules-specific for me, with one significant exception…

*3b. GM style:* The first-edition GM carried the responsibility of being much more than the arbiter of the game – the GM created many of the rules of the game, often on-the-fly.

Someone else mentioned ‘thieving skills’ in an earlier post – that only thieves could climb sheer surfaces, hear noises, move silently and so on in the 1e RAW. As GM I houseruled how other characters could perform similar tasks – for example, a fighter, paladin, ranger, or monk could climb, hide, or move silently at one-half the ability of a thief of the same level, and not in armor heavier than leather, while clerics, druids, magic-users, and illusionists could do the same at one-quarter the thief’s percentage. Is it done “better” in 3e? IMO, yes it is, but it worked in the context of the game we were playing – the absence of an “official” rule was not a constraint, and it was more-or-less universally accepted by the gamers around the table. Such was the role of the GM and the way in which the flow of the game was preserved.

I still make these sorts of calls all the time – I had a situation in my Modern game that would’ve been pretty much instant death for the PCs if I followed the RAW (twelve skill checks, failure of any one of them resulting in as much as 13d6 damage to 2nd–level characters), so I tweaked it until I got the feel I wanted for the encounter.

That probably seems like no big deal to 90% of the people reading this thread (and blasphemy to the other ten), but to me that is “first edition feel” as well.

Anyway, that’s my DC 2 Wealth check – if you’ve read this far, thanks very much!


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Feb 20, 2005)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I'd like to see someone run Toon in a Grim and Gritty style.




I'd argue _The Maxx_ did this.  _Aeon Flux_ would be a better example, people "died" in that all the time only to come back with no explanation in the next episode.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 20, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> _Aeon Flux_ would be a better example, people "died" in that all the time only to come back with no explanation in the next episode.



Like Kenny in South Park?


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Feb 20, 2005)

To me, the "1st edition feel" has several important characteristics that distinguishes it from modern products.

21st Century AD&D is about plot and character.  The DM is primarly concerned to tell a story, and may actually go so far as to write adventures in "chapters."  The player is usually playing a character which has been carefully thought-out and created in an enormous amount of detail; the effort put into playing the character is justified because the chance of character death is small.

1st Edition AD&D was created by miniatures wargamers, and is considerably closer to these roots.  The DM does not tell a story - the DM's role is merely to create an environment in which the characters' adventuring can take place.  The player does not spend enormous effort on a low-level character because character death is not merely possible, but likely.

In 21st Century AD&D the player can create exactly the character of his or her choice.  In 1st edition the character's class and development path was often ascertained by dice rolls over which the player had no control.

A "skilled" player of 21st Century AD&D is one who can create and play a character so detailed and realistic that he or she lives in the minds of the participants.  A "skilled" player of 1st Edition AD&D is one who can complete Tomb of Horrors with no casualties.

I don't believe the rules complexity has much to do with it.  Rolemaster, as originally written, was a far more complex and detailed game than D20 D&D - and yet it has an "old school feel" compared to D20.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Feb 20, 2005)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Like Kenny in South Park?




Very much so.  Except that _South Park_ has a little more continutity than _Aeon Flux_ did.  Hard to imagine, I know.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Feb 20, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I still make these sorts of [rules chaning] calls all the time – I had a situation in my Modern game that would’ve been pretty much instant death for the PCs if I followed the RAW (twelve skill checks, failure of any one of them resulting in as much as 13d6 damage to 2nd–level characters), so I tweaked it until I got the feel I wanted for the encounter.
> 
> That probably seems like no big deal to 90% of the people reading this thread (and blasphemy to the other ten), but to me that is “first edition feel” as well.




I don't think it is blasphemy to the other 10, so much as it is unfair.  Some people simply like to know what the rules are and if they're changed on the fly, they get upset.  Will the DM change how much damage a longsword can do next?  etc.  

Of course, people did do just that in 1e and in oD&D variable weapon damage was optional.


----------



## Psion (Feb 20, 2005)

I think I have expressed this earlier, but just for a quick refresh:

I think what "1e feel" was is different for differnt people. For us, it was probably a bit more story and character oriented than the norm. When Vampire came out, WW fans were acting like they invented roleplaying, I was like "so what".

As far as Necromancer seems to mean it, it is characterized by often difficult and relatively static site based adventures, as was common in the first edition published adventures.


----------



## MonsterMash (Feb 21, 2005)

shilsen said:
			
		

> And I thought the problem was that people seem to think "diaglo" when they think First Edition



Surely that would be diaglo = OD&D(1974)

Finally read through this thread. Got to admit these days I would argue that there is a *Necromancer Games feel* as there is a fairly strong house style with their products and there are not the rows of 10 ft square rooms with different creatures in, in the modules, but there is description to a certain level of detail, with a logical reason for how things are, but with plenty of scope for the DM to mould the products to fit their campaign.


----------



## Virel (Feb 21, 2005)

*Pielorinho*, sure may be on Game Day. Sounds like fun. Time there just isn't enough of it...

On another note...

Shaman's post makes a lot of sense to me. Because when I read 3e, I tend to see it the same way as you did. I was out of gaming from late 1995 until mid 2004. 

I have a different impression of 3e based on what I read when I read the books, I just looks like 3rd ed AD&D to me that "fixed" the "2e suck factor" that appears in late 2e materials. I guess this is why I don't "get" the edition war stuff that I keep hearing about. When I read ENworld many (most?) of the threads read like what I would expect a 1st ed AD&D board to read like: ideas on this, what do I do about this situation, did the dm do me wrong, etc.

When I play 3e it is in a Greyhawk setting/campaign that was planned and designed for grim & gritty feel. I like this. In fact it "feels" like my Greyhawk setting/campaign in 1st ed. The class selection & multiclassing are actually more restrictive than in it than in my 1st ed AD&D game by player and DM choice. This is fine too as it fits what they want to play etc. I know 3e can have a 1st ed feel, and 1st ed feel doesn't mean a wonky, goof ball, anti-logical type of D&D, at least not the 1st ed style that I know. Of course there were many bad 1st ed DM's...with bad 1st ed games but think that happens with any rpg.

As for gritty in 1st ed, that's part of the DM's job if that is what the players and DM want...


----------



## maddman75 (Feb 21, 2005)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> To me, the "1st edition feel" has several important characteristics that distinguishes it from modern products.
> 
> 21st Century AD&D is about plot and character.  The DM is primarly concerned to tell a story, and may actually go so far as to write adventures in "chapters."  The player is usually playing a character which has been carefully thought-out and created in an enormous amount of detail; the effort put into playing the character is justified because the chance of character death is small.
> 
> ...





Oooh, I like that idea!  I'll even go one further.

The first era could be referred to as the Wargame period.  This was the nascent period of gaming, which had just emerged from wargames.  Characterization tended to be light, because characters could and did get killed all the time.  Most DMing was done from the perspective of setting up an environment and letting the characters explore it.  Games tended to go for the wild and exotic - from adventures like Through the Looking Glass and Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, to weirdness like Gamma World, if it was cool and interesting it was in.

The second era I'd call the Storytelling period.  This is the age of 2nd edition D&D with its highly developed, internally consistant campaign settings, and when Vampire made a game that was meant to be more about playing a role than killing things and taking thier stuff.  (Until players dicovered katanas, mirror shades, and sawed-off shotguns that is)  The rule here is that if it makes sense its in.  Players were expected to make detailed backgrounds for their characters and play them to the hilt, while GMs created interesting stories for them to take part in.  

Gaming continues to evolve, and I believe we're on the beginning of the Cinematic period.  Even 3e started off with 'Back to the Dungeon' - role playing your character's angst at the pointlessness of existance could be moving (and help you score goth chicks) but dammit, sometimes you just want to kick in the door and kill some orcs.  At the same time, there's still an emphasis on characterization.  To solve this most games take the approach of rewarding coolness and letting the players have input over the flow of the game.  This is apparent in the stunting rules for Exalted, the Drama Points in Buffy/Angel, Dramatic Editing in Adventure! and so on.  Even many varieties of D&D/d20 now have some manner of hero/actio/luck points.  This style is about looking good and being cool, while still keeping to resource limitations.  The players are not longer completely at the whim of the DM, but have points where they get to say what the world is like.  

And I'm sure after we get tired of Cinematic games something else will capture the gaming public's attention.


----------



## The Shaman (Feb 21, 2005)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> The first era could be referred to as the Wargame period....
> 
> The second era I'd call the Storytelling period....
> 
> Gaming continues to evolve, and I believe we're on the beginning of the Cinematic period....



Very interesting!

It also explains, to me at least, why "cinematic" is one of the most overused terms in gaming at the moment, along with "rollplayer" and "hat of dO2."


----------



## Krypter (Feb 21, 2005)

bardolph said:
			
		

> "1st-edition feel" means "leaders" and "mappers."
> 
> [...]
> 
> It means hoping that maybe, one day, you can be a "Grand Master of Flowers."




Absolutely brill. That's it right there. For most people 1E feel is just a simpler time when everything fantastical was new, you had no idea how many hit-dice the dragon had, you had never heard of drow, and you were afraid of skeletons. SKELETONS! And if they had a bony tube in them, you had hit the motherlode! 

Not that I dislike 3E thick-story games, or even WoD, but there's something to be said for a simple bashing game that was thick on Gygaxian/Vancian flowery language and light on rules. These days every conceivable event is noted and codified in the rules. Nowadays I'm older and all for the cultural hierarchies of coffee-growing elves, but when you're jumping into D&D for the first time it's awesome to just stomp on some orcs. I doubt if any modern 1E-feel adventure could rekindle that pure feeling again, but kudos to NecroGames for trying. 


PS: *winding* - not windy - corridors, for the love of Freya!


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Feb 21, 2005)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> Oooh, I like that idea! I'll even go one further.
> 
> The first era could be referred to as the Wargame period. This was the nascent period of gaming, which had just emerged from wargames. Characterization tended to be light, because characters could and did get killed all the time. Most DMing was done from the perspective of setting up an environment and letting the characters explore it. Games tended to go for the wild and exotic - from adventures like Through the Looking Glass and Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, to weirdness like Gamma World, if it was cool and interesting it was in.
> 
> ...




Aye.

Now here's the kicker:  Despite the fact that it may at first glance seem to be a more highy-evolved form of gaming, the "Storytelling" style is one that takes most of the power and choice away from the player characters.

Probably the most extreme example of this is the Dragonlance and other early 2e adventures.  In these published modules the direction of the plot and the flow of the action is fixed in advance and certain things will happen no matter what the players do.  The players will always defeat the Big Bad Evil Dude and prevent his Evil Plans from coming to fruition, thereby Saving the World - but the Big Bad Evil Dude will always make an improbable escape (or at least his body will never be found) so that he can rematerialise in a new and even more credibility-stretching guise in the forthcoming Quest to Recover the Toothpick of The Gods.

Once the plot's predetermined to that extent, folks, there's no point playing a game.  The DM might as well just tell you what happens and give you some xp, then you can spend the rest of the evening drinking beer and talking about why "old school" games were better.

They weren't better games or systems, they were unbelievably primitive ones with many gaping holes in them.  What made them better is that they weren't pre-scripted - with the consequence that the choices made by the player had a real impact on the character's future and even the character's survival.  Skilled players' characters lived longer and reached higher level while fools died, often and regularly.  That's something that has been lost.

The enduring curse that afflicted 2e, under which the subsequent versions of AD&D still struggle, is the idea that it's okay to pre-script an entire adventure and then move the player characters around like pawns on a chessboard in accordance with this plot.

What 2e also did was to erase any possibility of anything permanently bad happening to your character.  Players no longer suffered irreversible aging effects, there were no longer any real limits on how many times you could be raised from the dead, etc. etc.  And nobody's had the guts to put these irreversible ill-effects back in - so no matter how foolish a player's choices or actions, their character can never be permanently harmed, because of the desire to excahnge Gygax's "game with no permanent winners or losers" into a game at which even the terminally hard-of-thinking were guaranteed to succeed.

I've yet to see this "Cinematic" style done well - but it has to be a step forward from the bad old days of "Storytelling."


----------



## maddman75 (Feb 21, 2005)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> I've yet to see this "Cinematic" style done well - but it has to be a step forward from the bad old days of "Storytelling."




I agree with much of this.  I happened to start gaming right at the beginning of 2e, so my entire group has a very negative veiw of modules.  "module" means being railroaded through some predefined plot most of the time.  We did manage to run into some grognard who showed us the light, and Keep on the Borderlands remains my all time favorite.

Cinematic done well...what have you seen exactly?  The best IMO is Buffy/Angel from Eden Studios.  The gameplay is fast and furious, while leaving a lot of tactical options for the players.  The rules fully support characters of vastly different power levels in the same group.  After all, you might have a Vampire Slayer or Werewolf right along side, well, a math nerd or cheerleader.  The Drama Points give this, and they are the key to what you are talking about.

The cinematic (as I'm defining it) wants to keep the deep characterization and storylines of the Storytelling age, while returning to the autonomy and PC freedom of the Wargame age.  The way to do this is for the GM to give up some of his power.  This can be done by rewarding special actions and great description, as by Exalted Stunt rules, or with Drama Points such as in Buffy.  These points will let the player declare that *this* attack roll is dramatically important, and will thus almost automatically hit.  Or change the plot in some small way - there's convinently a wooden stake on teh ground in this alley, or a cop conviently walk by before the bad guy can start beating you up.  The player can decide that the big blow they took turned out not to be all that bad, or even come back from the dead.

But these are limited.  The player can affect any of these things they choose, but only a limited number of times.  Thus extra Drama Points can be used as an effective carrot, rewards for the kind of play you want.  For example, in Buffy you can get extra points for playing out your disadvantages or helping the Slayer cope with the angst of being a teenage superhero - things that are very 'in-genre'.

Exalted lacks drama points (unless you count willpower), but it still works because characters are SO powerful.  It will be a player driven game because the characters can do anything they darn well please.  For an example, my starting group has a character that can defeat mortal armies on his own, one that can open any lock, pick any pocket, become invisible, dodge any attack, and is a good archer to boot, and another that can heal lifethreatening wounds easily, as well as use his powerful presence to sway anyone to his position - he could very easily found a religion based on himself if the idea entered his head.  They can't help but take control of the flow of the game.

Buffy for one has really changed how I look at RPGs.  The wargame days has us thinking in terms of Encounters and Challenges.  The Storytelling Era has us thinking of plots, subplot, and plot arcs.  I now think in terms of characterization, scenes, tone, pacing, and sets.


----------



## Virel (Feb 21, 2005)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> The cinematic (as I'm defining it) wants to keep the deep characterization and storylines of the Storytelling age, while returning to the autonomy and PC freedom of the Wargame age. The way to do this is for the GM to give up some of his power.




My OAD&D group happily steals all the character expanding ideas the players can find. As DM I avoid storytelling adventures like the bubonic plauge. There are many plot themes set up and PC's encounter them from time to time while doing their PC thing but as DM I don't push them in that direction. Most the adventures have been what I call PC self generated ones. Have we been doing this since the mid 1980's. 

Is this sort of what you mean by cinematic?  



> This can be done by rewarding special actions and great description, as by Exalted Stunt rules, or with Drama Points such as in Buffy.  These points will let the player declare that *this* attack roll is dramatically important, and will thus almost automatically hit.  Or change the plot in some small way - there's convinently a wooden stake on teh ground in this alley, or a cop conviently walk by before the bad guy can start beating you up.  The player can decide that the big blow they took turned out not to be all that bad, or even come back from the dead.




I talk with the players out of game about the directions they'd like to see the game go in and award experience for neat things they do in the game. This allows them to increase their level etc so they can have more dynamic impact on the world by gaining wealth, status & power. Not sure I want players dinking with the mechanics very much with stunt points etc. However, we are testing where the player of the character voted by secret ballot the best played of the session gets the perk of being allowed to reroll any die result of the player choice in the next session.


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 21, 2005)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> Oooh, I like that idea! I'll even go one further.
> 
> The first era could be referred to as the Wargame period. ...
> The second era I'd call the Storytelling period....
> Gaming continues to evolve, and I believe we're on the beginning of the Cinematic period....




That's a pretty cool analysis, recognizing that it necessarily deals in generalities.  

Interestingly, when I was playing 1E, we dealt with characterization a lot, well before we'd ever heard of White Wolf (or before the company was formed, I think).  We didn't do anything like action dice, however.

When we played White Wolf, we worked a lot on coming up with an action-dice system.  One iteration of this idea was "plot points":  players got poker chips of various values that they could use to introduce plot twists of various seriousness.  A white one would let you notice someone's name on their luggage tag; a blue one would let you notice your bosom buddy in the Secret Service who's just entered the bar, right as you're about to get threatened by the mobster.   But we didn't really do much with stunts.

Now we do lots of stuff with stunts in our games, are always looking for ways to include them.

It's interesting how the trends you describe have happened in my own games, even when we didn't have systems in place to use them.

Daniel


----------



## maddman75 (Feb 21, 2005)

Virel said:
			
		

> My OAD&D group happily steals all the character expanding ideas the players can find. As DM I avoid storytelling adventures like the bubonic plauge. There are many plot themes set up and PC's encounter them from time to time while doing their PC thing but as DM I don't push them in that direction. Most the adventures have been what I call PC self generated ones. Have we been doing this since the mid 1980's.
> 
> Is this sort of what you mean by cinematic?




Yes, sort of.  I'm really talking about macro trends in game design, not specifics of a paticular campaign.  I'm sure there are groups using the latest games like a dungeon crawl/hackfest, and groups like yours that have been doing player-driven gaming for decades.

Cinematic means, well, like an action movie.  The emphasis not on what has already been determined or what makes sense, but what would be cool, within the confines of the genre.  A focus on visuals and descriptive play, as well as character-driving campaigning.




> I talk with the players out of game about the directions they'd like to see the game go in and award experience for neat things they do in the game. This allows them to increase their level etc so they can have more dynamic impact on the world by gaining wealth, status & power. Not sure I want players dinking with the mechanics very much with stunt points etc. However, we are testing where the player of the character voted by secret ballot the best played of the session gets the perk of being allowed to reroll any die result of the player choice in the next session.




Absolutely we're on the same page.  It can take some players awhile to get used to.  My players didn't know quite how to handle it when I said that I wasn't giving XP for monsters, but just assigning it at the rate they should advance.  Then I asked them how much they wanted to advance.  A level every three sessions?  Every four?  Or heck, a level a session?  

Your perk to reroll is very similar to a Drama/Hero point system.  To be clear on the stunt rules its a bonus decided by the GM.  Saying 'I swing my sword at the orc' gets you no bonus.  Saying "I draw my blade and lunge at the orc, driving the point towards its tender belly" would get a small bonus.  Involving the environment gets you a large bonus, such as "I draw my blade and kick a chair out of the way, then try to slam the orc agaist the wall with my blade!" would get a larger one, etc.  They should actually work in AD&D quite well.


----------



## MonsterMash (Feb 22, 2005)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> To me, the "1st edition feel" has several important characteristics that distinguishes it from modern products.
> 
> 1st Edition AD&D was created by miniatures wargamers, and is considerably closer to these roots.  The DM does not tell a story - the DM's role is merely to create an environment in which the characters' adventuring can take place.  The player does not spend enormous effort on a low-level character because character death is not merely possible, but likely.
> 
> ...




Good points, but I don't agree totally. In OD&D or 1e AD&D a player could create a realistic and detailed character, but the character would largely exist off the sheet - i.e. they're alive in peoples imaginations despite being just a few numbers on a sheet and having archetypal in game characteristics. The 3e character would have their persona existing on the character sheet to a much greater extent in addition to their existence in the players' minds. 

The other thing is WotC seem to be looking to move back towards a miniatures game, when I used to play OD&D and 1e we hardly ever used miniatures, even though as someone who came from the tabletop miniatures wargaming I had no lack to material for this, while in 3.5 it is assumed that miniatures will be used.


----------



## Ferox4 (Feb 22, 2005)

Virel said:
			
		

> ...... looks like 3rd ed AD&D "fixed" the "2e suck factor" that appears in late 2e materials.




LOL - Man did 2E turn me off. 

An interesting thread. I can't help but think that nostalgia plays a small role in 1E feel as well. Like a song of innocnce before the world of experience starts to engulf you (Swallow Whole (Ex) )

Cheers


----------



## Ketjak (Feb 22, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> For me 1e feel is also that a city is just a big dungeon. Thats what we did anyway, in the days of past. Our adventurers were a menace to any city they visited. We just systematically knocked on doors or busted them in, just like in the dungeon.  Or bought an empty house, and started digging tunnels to other houses. Or some other 'genious' plan.
> 
> For us 1e was about adventure without moral baggage, looting with no encumbrance and general mayhem and mischief.




OMFG, that is hilarious. I think I'll run something like that...


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Feb 22, 2005)

I don't agree that the "Cinematic" style is about mechanics like plot points or drama points.

As I see it, the essence of these "styles" is that they aren't rules-dependent.  You can write a scripted "storytelling" adventure for 1e AD&D (and Tracy Hickman frequently did); it's also probably possible to write a decent wargame-style adventure for 3.5e D&D (although I've never seen anyone actually do this.)

The "cinematic" style is a more free-form adventure where the players can influence the outcome at critical points.  The key here is that the DM is prepared to sublimate the dramatic "needs" of the story to the player's desire to have their character in control of events.

It's a positive step, but I do not personally believe that any of the attempts I have seen have made a real success out of "cinematic" adventuring precisely because they have depended too much on the expenditure of what one of my players calls "posing points."  In other words, in the attempts I have seen, the player has more success in influencing events by flamboyant and dramatic actions than by subtle and intelligent ones.

I think the "cinematic" style is one to watch, though, because it is presently the best hope for the game.  It is starting to give a bit of control over events back to the players, and a consequence of this is that player skill is once more starting to result in character success.

I think what's needed is for the "cinematic" style to copy the more intelligent films as well as the action ones...


----------



## mmadsen (Feb 23, 2005)

For me, a big part of that "old school" D&D flavor was going through dozens of low-level characters before getting a medium-level character -- who was then guaranteed to live a while, develop a real background, integrate into the world, etc.

Expectations have changed.


----------



## WSmith (Feb 23, 2005)

Holy Moly! This is one long thread. I have a lot to digest before I reply again.


----------



## mark_j (Feb 23, 2005)

1st Edition feel is playing for 14 hours straight fueled by Mountain Dew and only stopping because you were about to fall unconsious, 3rd Edition feel is playing for 4 hours and realizing that it wasn't fun and if one more player told you that they were going to "take a 5 foot step" you were going to punch them in the face.

J/K (sort of), 1st Edition feel is about "save or die" and "save vs. wands" and Huge Ancient Red Dragons with 88 hit points.  Those that love 1st Edition know what I'm talking about.  Those that don't, don't.


----------



## Henry (Feb 23, 2005)

Reading Mark J's post just sent a memory-chill up my spine.


----------



## mark_j (Feb 23, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> Reading Mark J's post just sent a memory-chill up my spine.




 

On a side note....I just converted a 3E campaign that I have been running for 2+ years into 1E.  The players were willing because I told them that I wasn't willing to write any new material for 3E >  Our normal 3E session was 3-5 hours long and it left me fatigued.  Our first 1E session was 7 hours long and we had to quit at midnight because we had to get up for work early the next morning.  Nobody wanted to stop! 

Of course, it could be that my DMing was better than usual because I actually had some passion to DM again (instead of running 3E, which feels more like being a referee), but my players raved about the old system (having never played 1E before).


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 23, 2005)

mark_j said:
			
		

> 1st Edition feel is playing for 14 hours straight fueled by Mountain Dew and only stopping because you were about to fall unconsious, 3rd Edition feel is playing for 4 hours and realizing that it wasn't fun and if one more player told you that they were going to "take a 5 foot step" you were going to punch them in the face.



We were playing 10-11 hour sessions of our 3.5 campaign just recently concluded. Start at 6pm, finish 4-5am. My longest 1st ed sessions were 4 hours, coincidentally. I used to play on Saturday afternoons round at friend's houses from 2-6pm.


----------



## mark_j (Feb 23, 2005)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> We were playing 10-11 hour sessions of our 3.5 campaign just recently concluded. Start at 6pm, finish 4-5am. My longest 1st ed sessions were 4 hours, coincidentally. I used to play on Saturday afternoons round at friend's houses from 2-6pm.




Just the type of response I expected!  I'm glad you have fun playing 3.5, I support D&D in all its forms.  I just can't stand to "referee" another 3.5 session of "combat chess."  I'm quite willing to play any edition though.  I just only enjoy writing material for 1E and running 1E games.

One of my players just referred to 3/3.5 as the "Monopoly" version of D&D because of the rules structure, etc.  I coudn't agree more.  It does feel more controlled and sterile than 1E.  Some people like their fantasy rpgs to be realistic and streamlined, I prefer mine with more fantasy and less tactics.

But, only my opinion.


----------



## der_kluge (Feb 23, 2005)

Hey, wait a minute, people are dissing 2e and 3e in here.  Shouldn't we close the thread now?


----------



## mark_j (Feb 23, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> Hey, wait a minute, people are dissing 2e and 3e in here. Shouldn't we close the thread now?




I am sorry, I know edition wars are a big no-no.  I don't want to cause a thread to be locked because of my big mouth.

D&D is a wonderful thing, no matter what edition you prefer.  I'll shutup now


----------



## Virel (Feb 23, 2005)

mark_j

Welcome to Enworld. Please stop by Dragonsfoot if you like 1st ed AD&D as it is an excellent site dedicated to out of print D&D. It's one of my favorite sites for older edition games as I still play & DM OAD&D

Check out www.dragonsfoot.org


----------



## mark_j (Feb 23, 2005)

Virel said:
			
		

> mark_j
> 
> Welcome to Enworld. Please stop by Dragonsfoot if you like 1st ed AD&D as it is an excellent site dedicated to out of print D&D. It's one of my favorite sites for older edition games as I still play & DM OAD&D
> 
> Check out www.dragonsfoot.org




Thank you for the invitation!  I am also a member of Dragonsfoot.  However, "mark_j" was not available there, so my handle at Dragonsfoot is "saveordie"

I've seen your posts there as well.


----------



## maddman75 (Feb 23, 2005)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> I don't agree that the "Cinematic" style is about mechanics like plot points or drama points.
> 
> As I see it, the essence of these "styles" is that they aren't rules-dependent.  You can write a scripted "storytelling" adventure for 1e AD&D (and Tracy Hickman frequently did); it's also probably possible to write a decent wargame-style adventure for 3.5e D&D (although I've never seen anyone actually do this.)




Yes, of course.  You can run any style with any game system.  You can also put screws into wood with a hammer.  Doesn't mean its a good idea.  Mechanics don't restrict the GM - he's going to do what he wants.  They *do* restrict the players, and most players will do whatever the system rewards them for.  So, to get the feel you want just reward whatever you want the players to do.



> The "cinematic" style is a more free-form adventure where the players can influence the outcome at critical points.  The key here is that the DM is prepared to sublimate the dramatic "needs" of the story to the player's desire to have their character in control of events.
> 
> It's a positive step, but I do not personally believe that any of the attempts I have seen have made a real success out of "cinematic" adventuring precisely because they have depended too much on the expenditure of what one of my players calls "posing points."  In other words, in the attempts I have seen, the player has more success in influencing events by flamboyant and dramatic actions than by subtle and intelligent ones.




This is a feature, not a bug.  I for one am bored to tears of everyone trying to do the smart thing, or the clever thing, because if they don't the GM will mash their character into putty.  I want a character to go after the Big Bad when he really shouldn't, and get beat up but survive.  I want them to charge in when they should flee.  I want them to be able to play the Stupid Card if that's what makes things more fun and not reward them with character death.



> I think the "cinematic" style is one to watch, though, because it is presently the best hope for the game.  It is starting to give a bit of control over events back to the players, and a consequence of this is that player skill is once more starting to result in character success.
> 
> I think what's needed is for the "cinematic" style to copy the more intelligent films as well as the action ones...




What do you mean by Player Skill?


----------



## migo (Feb 23, 2005)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Thus, dwarves, elves, and dragons aren't a problem.  Windy corridors are.
> 
> Daniel




Metal deposits don't lay themselves down in a straight line. The digging follows the metal.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Feb 24, 2005)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> This is a feature, not a bug. I for one am bored to tears of everyone trying to do the smart thing, or the clever thing, because if they don't the GM will mash their character into putty. I want a character to go after the Big Bad when he really shouldn't, and get beat up but survive. I want them to charge in when they should flee. I want them to be able to play the Stupid Card if that's what makes things more fun and not reward them with character death.




Personally when one of my players plays the Stupid Card, I tend to play the Roll A New Character Card.  I flatly decline to reward stupidity or recklessness with success.  The player will be allowed a roll, but the odds will be stacked against them.

This is an interesting question, often-debated on messageboards, and I suspect it won't be resolved here - but it is fun to talk about.

One view of Madman's attitude is that he is _Rewarding players for roleplaying their characters instead of min/maxing their chances of success._  People who espouse this attitude would tend to characterise my own, less forgiving approach as _Punishing roleplayers and encouraging the min/maxers._

Personally, I disagree with this.  I tend to be of the view that good roleplaying is its own reward, and doesn't need me stacking the odds unrealistically in its favour to make it worthwhile.  I also feel that flamboyantly risky actions are not necessarily the hallmark of a good or mature roleplayer.



> What do you mean by Player Skill?




There are as many definitions of Player Skill as there are players, of course, and we won't settle that question in this thread.  

Briefly, I would start by separating _a skilled player_ from _a skilled roleplayer_.  The two are not incompatible, but they certainly aren't the same thing!

Once you've separated those two concepts, I believe that most people would agree that a skilled player is one who:-

Solves problems creatively
Plans ahead
Avoids unprofitable encounters
Avoids unnecessary risks
Pick up on clues and slight hints
Tends to think before acting
Tends to take captives where feasible
Avoids traps and potential ambushes
Finds the easiest and safest way to the objective
Co-operates with the other characters
Tries to prepare tactics for high-risk situations like battles wherever possible


----------



## maddman75 (Feb 24, 2005)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> One view of Madman's attitude is that he is _Rewarding players for roleplaying their characters instead of min/maxing their chances of success._  People who espouse this attitude would tend to characterise my own, less forgiving approach as _Punishing roleplayers and encouraging the min/maxers._




Yes, this is it exactly.  I don't care about smart play, I care about play that is true to the character.  



> Personally, I disagree with this.  I tend to be of the view that good roleplaying is its own reward, and doesn't need me stacking the odds *unrealistically* in its favour to make it worthwhile.  I also feel that flamboyantly risky actions are not necessarily the hallmark of a good or mature roleplayer.




Bolded the important bit.  Realism isn't a goal for me.  My goal is emulation of whatever genre I'm going for.  Which is generally something cinematic and action-packed.



> There are as many definitions of Player Skill as there are players, of course, and we won't settle that question in this thread.
> 
> Briefly, I would start by separating _a skilled player_ from _a skilled roleplayer_.  The two are not incompatible, but they certainly aren't the same thing!
> 
> ...




I would say that a skilled player is less valued to me than a skilled roleplayer.  Does a skilled roleplayer as you've described make the game more fun?  IMO, no!  He's like an old granny, carefully plotting out every action, looking before he leaps, and always eating his vegetables.  This is not the stuff out of which heros are made.

I'd prefer a skilled roleplayer, which I would say has the following properties.
Able to think from the perspective of his character
Tends to ignore the rules and do what feels right for the character
Perfectly willing to screw his own character over if it makes a good story
Thinks on his feet and is able to make quick decisions.
Works to not overshadow other PCs, and indeed to play off them
Is Proactive rather than Reactive, willing to instigate plots instead of wait for them

Overall though I'd say the best skill is knowing what style the other players and the DM have.  I'm sure your group has a lot of fun, but I'm not sure I'd enjoy your game.  Likewise, you may not like mine all that much.

Actually, my players still have some old-school notions I'm trying to get out of them.  I want to hand them the reins, hand them the power, but they tend to be reluctant.  Still, its getting better.


----------



## rogueattorney (Feb 24, 2005)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Personally when one of my players plays the Stupid Card, I tend to play the Roll A New Character Card.




Sigged, and I agree 100% on your whole post.

P&P's post and Maddman's response do a great job delineating the differing play styles - P&P, the 'old-school' 70's D&D style - Maddman, the storytelling, Dragonlance, WW style.  Neither wrong (although I'm in P&P's camp).  The funny thing is that BOTH of these styles were pretty thouroughly explored in 1e products, so neither really tell us which is '1e feel'.

R.A.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Feb 24, 2005)

I prefer something in-between. I do want my players to take risks, gambles really, but I don't want them be stupid. Because, like maddman, I prefer playing a game with Heros. Would the end to _Star Wars_ have been the same if Luke kept his targeting computer on? Nope, he wouldn't have trusted himself and missed.

But, it took a lot of careful planing to get the run on the Death Star.


----------



## Ravellion (Feb 24, 2005)

rogueattorney said:
			
		

> P&P, the 'old-school' 70's D&D style - Maddman, the storytelling, Dragonlance, WW style.



I don't think Maddman will reply anytime soon. I think you've just given him a heart attack.

Dragonlance/storytelling style =/= cinematic!

Put me in the cinematic camp. I think the problem solving part of the game is boring, because I find the problems are never *just* difficult enough in D&D. Either they are easy, or they stump the players, who then sit around the table for an hour discussing plan after plan after plan... *yawn* I had a 2e DM who was really into puzzles, traps, having the players come up with a plan for hours even though the game-time would only allow a few seconds at most... aargh! I have plenty of meetings which don't lead to any decisions at work dagnabbit! At the gaming table I want powerful blows, cool camera angles, quick paced action and the indiana jones tune at key moments.

And I haven't met a single DM in the Netherlands who caters to that style 

Rav


----------



## T. Foster (Feb 24, 2005)

Ravellion said:
			
		

> At the gaming table I want powerful blows, cool camera angles, quick paced action and the indiana jones tune at key moments.




That's interesting, because I don't want that style _at all_, either as player or DM. I'm very much of the same school of thought as Papers & Paychecks and rogueattorney (which is no surprise, since I know both of them very well from other boards) -- I love the "wargamerly" crunch of tactics and problem-solving and players matching wits and skill with the DM. But I certainly know where you're coming from because one of the longest-standing players in my old group was just like you -- he loved coming up with great lines and lived for memorable 'heroic' scenes and would frequently start singing his character's theme song (though for him it wasn't Indiana Jones, but rather "Zorro, the Gay Blade") at key moments, and his eyes would glaze over immediately at both puzzles and big tactical-based battles. I'd never really thought of it at the time, but he and I obviously had a completely different set of 'kicks' (or, if you prefer, 'creative agenda') -- it's a wonder we were able to game together (and both have so much fun) for 12 years when we were constantly trying to steer the game in opposite directions...


----------



## The Shaman (Feb 24, 2005)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> I prefer something in-between.



I agree - too much of one or the other is, well, too much of one or the other.

If one aspect of first-edition feel is site-based, "wargamey" adventures, then I definitely create adventures that follow that model. At the same time, I want the characters to be heroes, take risks, make the bold gesture or the 'cinematic' (ugh, I'm growing to dislike that word a lot) move - the skill system of d20 makes the latter easy to resolve even as other characters are pursuing their 'tactical' approach to encounters.

Adventurers should be cagey, cunning, tactically-minded - it sort of comes with the territory. But that hardly makes for exciting play, so I reward good roleplay that includes taking chances, mostly by not using these moments to maximize opportunities to crush the player's initiative - if that means letting an AoO go by because some mook was so surprised to see the adventurer swinging from the tapestry, then so be it.

The middle of the road is where the driveable surface is - too far to either extreme and you end up in a ditch.


----------



## Ravellion (Feb 24, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I agree - too much of one or the other is, well, too much of one or the other.



Oh, even I agree there. Temple of Doom was the worst Indiana Jones movie because you simply don't get a breather: even the feast was er... thrilling 

If you jsut have the indiana Jones theme for an hour and a half, you end up with a film whch doesnt't have distinguishing action at all... and has a very monotonous soundtrack 

Rav


----------



## Virel (Feb 24, 2005)

rogueattorney said:
			
		

> Sigged, and I agree 100% on your whole post.
> 
> P&P's post and Maddman's response do a great job delineating the differing play styles - P&P, the 'old-school' 70's D&D style - Maddman, the storytelling, Dragonlance, WW style.  Neither wrong (although I'm in P&P's camp).  The funny thing is that BOTH of these styles were pretty thouroughly explored in 1e products, so neither really tell us which is '1e feel'.
> 
> R.A.




I think the best campaigns have a combination of both styles and can move back and forth between them. I agree 100% that both styles are present in 1st ed AD&D. Most of my players will stay true to character unless it's clearly a serious deadly situation. 

When majority of the current group played Tomb of Horrors they were dead serious because the rep of the ToH was known to them in and out of game. Most of them strive to stay in character the majority of the time. Fighters with and intel of 6 aren't master tacticians IMC world. If player wants a character that can be they'll arrange their stats so they at least get 13 in intel etc.


----------



## maddman75 (Feb 25, 2005)

I will step back a bit - its not that I mind tactical play _when its appropriate for the character_.  If the character in question is a grizzled veteran of many campaigns, then its perfectly appropriate to play him in a careful, cautious, tactical manner.  However, if he's a big friendly guy without much up top but has a good heart and a mean weapon arm, coming up wiht brilliant tactics or solving complicated logic puzzles is out of character and inappropriate.

And I do cater to my players, because while I like lots of action I'm more than willing to explore whatever is appropriate.  Want tactical combat challenges?  Make your character said grizzled veteran and you'll get your chance.  However, if you want to explore unknown reaches, make an explorer, etc.  The players drive the campaign.

I really don't like GNS, because its so bogged down in terminology that it isn't useful.  That and most players use all three most of the time.  I prefer Robin Laws' seven types of roleplayers - Power Gamer, Buttkicker, Storyteller, Method Actor, Specialist, Tactician, and Casual Gamer.  While most of us fall in more than one category I find it more descriptive.  I'm firmly in the Method Actor camp.  When I make a character my main interest is 'will they be interesting to role-play'.  There's a bit of tactician and Storyteller in me, as well as Casual Gamer.  

And like I said, I'm not saying one way is wrong and another is right - its that some people like different styles.  Its important to note that, otherwise you could end up with half the group playing one game and the other half playing another.  And that rarely leads to somewhere good.


----------



## Virel (Feb 25, 2005)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> I really don't like GNS, because its so bogged down in terminology that it isn't useful.  That and most players use all three most of the time.  I prefer Robin Laws' seven types of roleplayers - Power Gamer, Buttkicker, Storyteller, Method Actor, Specialist, Tactician, and Casual Gamer.  While most of us fall in more than one category I find it more descriptive.  I'm firmly in the Method Actor camp.  When I make a character my main interest is 'will they be interesting to role-play'.  There's a bit of tactician and Storyteller in me, as well as Casual Gamer.




GNS discussion usually ends up reading like a bunch of folks chatting that are trying to impress themselves and each other from what I've seen of it.

I like the Robin Law's seven types of role players.

I would be as a player in order: Tactician, Powergamer, Buttkicker - which very much fits my wargaming background.   I dislike casual, specialist & method

If a player arrays in army in game with a flank exposed and fails to plan contigency or have reserves, as DM I'll happily hit that flank. Couldn't care less if he has a 25 in intelligence and 25 wisdom and is ultra high level. That sort of stupid play gets crucified without mercy.


----------



## T. Foster (Feb 25, 2005)

The problem I have with Robin Laws' seven types of players is that I feel the definitions are too narrow and, specifically, don't feel that any of the labels describes _me_ particularly well -- I suppose the closest is probably "casual gamer," but unlike Laws' description of the Casual Gamer I'm not "uncomfortable taking center stage" and have no particular desire to "remain in the background," I just think that rpgs are primarily a social activity and that the interaction and interpersonal dynamic of the people at the table is (or at least should be) more important than either the rules or the story. That's why I like the GNS breakdown better because the way Gamism is defined in Ron Edwards' "Gamism -- Step On Up" essay seems to match my interests and desires much better, in fact almost perfectly.


----------



## CrushKillDestroy (Feb 25, 2005)

I just came across this site the other day and registered 30 minutes ago.Needless to say thats to long for me not to put my two cents in. Started in 82 with infamous red boxed set(loved it), and soon graduated to 1e. 1st ed feel can summed up as, meet in tavern, drink ale(my favorite part), go to dungeon, smash in doors(much fun),slay many,many beasts(much more fun), nearly die(not much fun), take much gold(back to more fun),go back to tavern, drink much more ale(much, much, much more fun),have to leave town(because of much more ale), go to next town, repeat. Ahhh the good ole days.


NOTHING beats a good old fashion dungeon crawl.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Feb 25, 2005)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> I'd never really thought of it at the time, but he and I obviously had a completely different set of 'kicks' (or, if you prefer, 'creative agenda') -- it's a wonder we were able to game together (and both have so much fun) for 12 years when we were constantly trying to steer the game in opposite directions...




You know, I was just thinking today that my players often seem to be playing totaly seperate games from each other. One's playing Sim Spaceship with tactical combat, one's playing Mutants and Masterminds meets Star Trek, one's playing Let's Make a Deal, and the last is playing "Uhhhh, is my turn to hit him yet?"

I'm running a combination Firefly, Farscape, and Star*Drive wondering what my player's and takeing.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 25, 2005)

Virel said:
			
		

> GNS discussion usually ends up reading like a bunch of folks chatting that are trying to impress themselves and each other from what I've seen of it.




That's Sociologists for you.    (My mother's a sociologist, I'm an academic lawyer - she's usually very unimpressed by my writing & presentations because I try to make things as clear & easily comprehensible as possible, whereas Sociology seems to value obfuscation for its own sake).

I do think the Gamist vs Simulationist distinction is a useful one to bear in mind, and for me helps clarify a lot of what I want from my games.  Narrativism in Forgespeak seems horribly over-defined (and also implicitly 'the best' style) so I find is not much use in a 'strict' or accurate GNS model, though it can be somewhat useful to distinguish Sim-realism "This is what my PC would do (if they were a real person)" from Nar-drama "This is what it would be cool if my PC did (if they were a character in a book)" and Gamist-success - "This is what my PC should do (to win/overcome the challenge)".

I guess I want excitement and drama (Nar) in a plausible world (Sim) and the thrill of players overcoming challenges through their own efforts (Gamism).


----------



## Jupp (Feb 25, 2005)

my version of 1e feeling:

-I read something like a module or a campaign setting and it creates cool pictures in me brain. 
-It is so interesting that I actually re-read it.
-I dont fall asleep when reading through it
-There is actually some humour in the books/modules/whatever
-The art is inspiring 
-When the story/plot is more important than the stat-blocks
-The ratio between the two is not 30:70 but more like 90:10
-I read the back cover text and I just HAVE to have that book
-You dont have to be a philosopher to understand a villains background
-You dont spend 2 hours to create just one NPC
-Players try things that are not written in a rulebook...and it still works
-DMs dont have to look in a rulebook every 5 minutes
-You do not really need miniatures for combat..but they are cool to have anyway
-What's a battlemat?
-You dont need CR to understand how powerfull something is
-Funny dungeon crawls with odd monsters in odd locations
-Diplomacy is good for....uhm..whats diplomacy again?...Chaaaarge!

I think I stop now


----------



## Henry (Feb 25, 2005)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> ...unlike Laws' description of the Casual Gamer I'm not "uncomfortable taking center stage" and have no particular desire to "remain in the background," I just think that rpgs are primarily a social activity and that the interaction and interpersonal dynamic of the people at the table is (or at least should be) more important than either the rules or the story.




Strangely, you sound a lot like me, and what I found myself identifying with. I myself according to Laws would be more a combination of Casual Gamer First, Storyteller second, whereas you would be closer, though not a perfect fit, to Casual Gamer / Method Actor. You enjoy the social experience more than advancement, or kicking butt, and you get your "emotional kick" from gaming just by the act of gaming itself. At least, that's what I get from your posts. 

In truth, Robin Laws should be read less for the "ironclad description" and more for the "emotional kick" that is the goal of each gamer. It's something good GM's do all the time, often without realizing it - working to give each player what they want in the context of the overall game. It's why most PRG sessions in the world look so similar -- a little roleplay, a little advancement, a little butt-kicking. It satisfies most of the people most of the time.


----------



## diaglo (Feb 25, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> In truth, Robin Laws should be read less...





Period.

my hat of Robin Laws is almost as great as my hat of d02


----------



## maddman75 (Feb 25, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> In truth, Robin Laws should be read less for the "ironclad description" and more for the "emotional kick" that is the goal of each gamer. It's something good GM's do all the time, often without realizing it - working to give each player what they want in the context of the overall game. It's why most PRG sessions in the world look so similar -- a little roleplay, a little advancement, a little butt-kicking. It satisfies most of the people most of the time.




That's what I get from Robin's categories myself.  The Buttkicker wants to smash bad guys.  The method actor wants to play his character.  The Specialist wants to do 'his thing' - which probably is something related to ninjas.  You have to figure out what your players get off on.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 25, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Narrativism in Forgespeak seems horribly over-defined (and also implicitly 'the best' style) so I find is not much use in a 'strict' or accurate GNS model, though it can be somewhat useful to distinguish Sim-realism "This is what my PC would do (if they were a real person)" from Nar-drama "This is what it would be cool if my PC did (if they were a character in a book)" and Gamist-success - "This is what my PC should do (to win/overcome the challenge)".



Yeah. I think non-Forgites should really use the term Dramatism (from rec.advocacy's Three Fold Model) rather than Narrativism, which is, as you say, very obscure.


----------



## John Morrow (Feb 25, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I guess I want excitement and drama (Nar) in a plausible world (Sim) and the thrill of players overcoming challenges through their own efforts (Gamism).




With the rec.games.frp.advocacy Threefold (which better fits the three elements you are talking about than the GNS), it's not so much a matter of choosing and wanting only one element but which one takes priority when two or more come in conflict.  Most role-players want at least some of all three of those elements but you can't always have all three at once.

If, for example, the players tactically blow a balanced encounter with a group of NPC monsters (gamism) and the game world logic now indicates a TPK should happen (simulationism), does the GM step in and fudge things to keep the players alive (dramatism)?  Is the bad guy's hideout protected by thugs that the PCs can blow through like stormtroopers (dramatism), protected by guards who will put up a challenging resistence for the PCs (gamism), or by whatever makes sense in the setting, even if the force will lead to a TPK if the PCs attack (simulationism)?  There are times when you simply can't get all three.  If you have to sacrifice one to get the other two or two to get the third one, which is your highest priority?


----------



## DeadlyUematsu (Feb 26, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> Period.
> 
> my hat of Robin Laws is almost as great as my hat of d02




Agreed.


----------



## Orcus (Feb 26, 2005)

Hey, this thing is still alive and kicking? Wow. 

Here is another example:

1st edition feel: Classic Trek. Grittier. The government may be tricking you.
2nd edition feel: Next Gen. Shiny/happy Federation. Everyone hold hands and sing! 

Clark


----------



## Staffan (Feb 26, 2005)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Here is another example:
> 
> 1st edition feel: Classic Trek. Grittier. The government may be tricking you.
> 2nd edition feel: Next Gen. Shiny/happy Federation. Everyone hold hands and sing!



So, where does DS9 fit in this scheme? Secretive government organizations (e.g. Section 31), Federation personell providing information to agents of other governments in order to help them against one of the Federation's allies, constantly changing loyalties, and so on?


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Feb 26, 2005)

I don't want to come across as overly hostile to the Cinematic approach in general. I should make clear that I was trying to attack the Power Rangers (TM) approach where the player characters are able to solve all their problems by charging into the attack whenever they see their enemy - not the Cinematic approach in general, which is in my view the best hope for the future of gaming, since it's the only alternative on offer to the Storytelling style which has done so much damage.

The "1e feel" of the thread title goes back to a time when RPG's were very Darwinian. It wasn't quite "survival of the fittest" - at low level, it was often "survival of the luckiest" (because a few high rolls on those 3d6 certainly enhanced your character's chance of survival, and because a few good "to hit" rolls in the right places were often the make or break of the group's success.)

Once you'd got past that early stage and reached higher levels, 1e AD&D was a case of "Survival of the least stupid." Adventures like S1: Tomb of Horrors showed this perfectly, being stuffed full of traps that caused death with no save. Either you were able to think laterally and use spells creatively to solve the unique challenges posed by the dungeon, or your character died.

S1: Tomb of Horrors, incidentally, is an adventure which contains only one or two combat encounters in the entire area. There are to the best of my knowledge no published "Storytelling" style adventures which are as cerebral, or as light on dice-rolling, as S1 which was published in the 1970's.

Anyway, what I'm coming to is this: Stupidity deserves to be punished.

I mean, you wouldn't reward your players for weakness, or greed, or clumsiness, or ineptness, would you? Stupidity is not a survival trait and its wages should be punishment rather than reward.

Equally, clever play should generally be rewarded with success, wealth, experience and so forth.

The problem with the "Storytelling" style is that it doesn't reward (or punish) either kind of play. Because the outcome is fixed in advance, it really doesn't matter what the players do. No matter whether they charge in and attack at the first opportunity, or try to negotiate, or avoid the encounter, or set up a clever ambush, or in fact whether they stop paying attention to the adventure entirely and sit around drawing up plans for a new world order, they are always going to end up in the showdown with the evil necromancer which takes place on the narrow and inexplicably handrail-less bridge which swings precariously over the lava pit.

So why should they bother to play intelligently? In my experience, with the storytelling style, few players do bother.

I'd be interested to know how a DM from the Cinematic style would solve this and reward intelligent or skilled play. Is the answer to engage in "stream-of-consciousness DMing" where little is prepared in advance and the majority of what happens is made up by the DM on the spot?


----------



## Torm (Feb 26, 2005)

Orcus said:
			
		

> 1st edition feel: Classic Trek. Grittier. The government may be tricking you.
> 2nd edition feel: Next Gen. Shiny/happy Federation. Everyone hold hands and sing!



Actually, I'd say you've got that backwards:

1st edition feel: Classic Trek. Grittier. The government may be tricking you, but they aren't very good at it - usually kinda transparent.
2nd edition feel: Next Gen. Shiny/happy Federation, because they've gotten better at tricking you. And if they aren't tricking you, you may just need to go to a "rehabilitation colony" where you can be reprogrammed to be a healthy citizen.

Ever notice that by TNG, most of the humans that seem like they're doing anything worthwhile are either in Starfleet or have gone somewhere that the Federation's presence isn't so strong?


----------



## Virel (Feb 26, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> Actually, I'd say you've got that backwards:
> 
> 1st edition feel: Classic Trek. Grittier. The government may be tricking you, but they aren't very good at it - usually kinda transparent.
> 2nd edition feel: Next Gen. Shiny/happy Federation, because they've gotten better at tricking you. And if they aren't tricking you, you may just need to go to a "rehabilitation colony" where you can be reprogrammed to be a healthy citizen.
> ...




Well that's because of the MAGIC DEER...


----------



## Sholari (Feb 26, 2005)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> First edition, in my experience, was worse in this respect.  Plausibility simply wasn't a major consideration; and with plausibility, generally a coherent narrative was tossed out the window.
> 
> Daniel




Necromancer games does not have as much first edition feel as they claim to.  For me first edition feel is about an attention to asthetics, wonder, and environment that is lacking from most modules nowadays.  3.x edition is more about mechanics and a lot of the modules feel like some bad Playstation episode where you mindless hack up a bunch of monsters and then defeat the boss at the end.  Instead of having a personality every fighter is wandering around with a spiked chain or two handed long sword with power attack and cleave.  Try to run Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, Pharoah, or the Assassin's Knot and tell me why exactly they aren't plausible.  With first edition feel every module series had a unique feel and environment, whereas with third edition most modules come of as generic.  Modules which have been able to capture that sense of asthetics and environment in third edition are the Witchfire trilogy, a lot of recent Dungeon adventures, and the Freeport module series.  For many third edition modules it feels like people are just dropping monsters into yet another stereotype.

Here is my summary of each editions focus...

1st edition - Location-based Environment and Wonder
2nd edition - Story and Railroading
3rd edition - Mechanics

I'd also say that if character and monster power were spice for a some fine cuisine, that third edition tends to overdose on it to the point where the meal just doesn't taste good anymore, whereas first first edition had a more balanced approach.


----------



## Sir Elton (Feb 26, 2005)

Abyss said:
			
		

> I was checking out "Necromancer games" website today, and at the top of the page there is a paragraph which reads:
> 
> "The Third Edition of the world's most popular fantasy roleplaying game is here. Are you a veteran gamer? Do you remember the good old days of fantasy roleplaying? We at Necromancer Games do, and we are committed to producing high-quality products under the D20 System for use with Third Edition but with a "classic" First Edition feel."
> 
> ...




As you can see, everyone has a different opinion on the subject.  For me, there is no such thing as First Edition Feel.  If I can't possibly replicate it, then it doesn't exist.   If it First Edition feel does exist, then it's just a feeling that no one can really define.  Except this:

True 'first edition' feel is fun.  It's not everything and everyone's definition on this thread, it's just fun.  If you are having fun playing whatever you play, then you have caught the feel of the first edition.

Real fun, that's what it is all about.  That's why first edition feel really doesn't have one solid definition among everyone.  To capture the feel of first edition, you have to know what your players want, know when to break the rules, and know what to do.  Your players have to have faith in your game master, never obsess about the rules, and have a rip roaring time playing.

First edition feel is having and feeling fun.  That's all it is.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Feb 26, 2005)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> I mean, you wouldn't reward your players for weakness, or greed, or clumsiness, or ineptness, would you? Stupidity is not a survival trait and its wages should be punishment rather than reward.



Of course I wouln't reward thouse things. Stupidity isn't what what I, personaly, reward. What I reward is risk taking. Because RPGs aren't minatures games tactics, stratagy, planing, and such aren't the only aspect that's fun. I like it when the PCs have an emotional stake in what's going on, and I like the idea that people who are going up against not just some nameless villen, but a slaver who's enslaving their old home, it makes for a better campaign.

I do run combat heavy games, so what your talking about, skillful use a character resources to overcome challenges, is a big part of why I play D&D in the first place. PCs shouldn't be the only things that gain experance over the course of a campaign.

Like I said what I do like to reward is betting against the odds. If the PC fails, the PC fails, but death won't always be the consequence. Fortunately, I don't have to fudge anything to keep the hero's alive. I have hero points in my games that one earns for either successfully beating the odds or great roleplaying. Players spend thouse to stay alive. Occasionally a PC still dies, but usually from terminal stupidity on the player's part. 

I think the term cinematic comes from the realization that realistic simply dosen't discribe any game that includes 40ft diameter fireballs. Cinematic isn't supposed to be a style, it's just a word for people who are trying to defend their favorite rules from people who want to get into long discussions about why such and such a rule isn't realistic. I used to work at a game store, and telling people that realism was the goal was a good way to end the argument and move on to real customers.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 26, 2005)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> I think the term cinematic comes from the realization that realistic simply dosen't discribe any game that includes 40ft diameter fireballs. Cinematic isn't supposed to be a style, it's just a word for people who are trying to defend their favorite rules from people who want to get into long discussions about why such and such a rule isn't realistic.



I've always used cinematic to refer to games run in an action movie style, such as Star Wars and Feng Shui. Under this definition D&D can be run in a cinematic way (Eberron takes a step or two in this direction) but you're pushing against the system a bit to do so.

You're actually getting into the Simulationism versus other styles of gaming debate here. Your 'cinematic' seems to cover both Dramatism and Gamism. There are multiple reasons not to be realistic which is why it's useful to have multiple terms, not just lump it all under cinematic, which usually means something else anyway.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Feb 26, 2005)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I've always used cinematic to refer to games run in an action movie style, such as Star Wars and Feng Shui. Under this definition D&D can be run in a cinematic way (Eberron takes a step or two in this direction) but you're pushing against the system a bit to do so.




The system needs to be pushed, though.

"Storytelling" isn't dead but it smells that way.  In many ways it was a regressive step compared with the 1e "wargamers" feel - despite the fact that, as Mr Gary Gygax says elsewhere on this very forum, a lot of the early so-called "characters" were so rudimentary (in a role-playing sense) that they didn't even have names - because in many ways "Storytelling" isn't truly interactive.  Where the players lack the ability to make choices that can meaningfully affect the outcome of the scene, you don't really have anything which can meaningfully be called a game.

The Cinematic Style represents a way of breaking this mould and I applaud Fanboy and others for developing it.  They're finally shedding the legacy of 2e and creating a game where the players can have a more meaningful impact on the game world.

It is true to say that I'm not 100% thrilled by the picture Fanboy paints of his gaming style but it's certainly a huge leap forward compared to "Storytelling."


----------



## weasel fierce (Feb 26, 2005)

To me, 1st edition feel is a lot of things.

Its the feeling that the rules are loose and I can do what I want. Every little skill and feature doesnt have a list of 7 modifiers that players can pull out and whine about

Its the feeling of archetypical high fantasy, the stuff I read about when I was a kid, instead of superheroes in some odd fantasy-punk setting.

Its the feeling that every rule is modular and can be used or discarded, instead of everything being integrated in a "ruleslight" 300 page package.

Its the feeling of having to work for power and status, instead of being drowned in special classes, magic feats and other dung.

Its the feeling of combat where a character with 3 attacks wont have to roll them all separately, because the modifiers arent the same, and where a monster wont have 200 hit points.


Most importantly though, its the feeling of D&D


----------



## fanboy2000 (Feb 27, 2005)

I don't think D&D needs to be pushed in a cinematic direction. The origanal system was inspired by Leiber and Howard stories, the predecessors of modern action adventure movies.

Now that I'm thinking about it, in a way, the cult shows shown on cable and 4th string networks are sucsessors to pulp fiction. So an RPG system that started out emulating pulp won't have much of a challenge emulating cult TV. Also, from a campaign designing standpoint, emulating TV works well because it's open-ended, and allows for suprises alogn the way.

Anyways, my point is that the system really dosen't need pushing to do cinematic, because it did pulp first. (Does that make any sense?)



> Your 'cinematic' seems to cover both Dramatism and Gamism. There are multiple reasons not to be realistic which is why it's useful to have multiple terms, not just lump it all under cinematic, which usually means something else anyway.



Note to self: learn the distinction between Gamism, Dramatism, and Simulationism. Simulationism and Dramatism seem to be self explanitory. (I've never heard Dramatism in conjuction with a styly of game-play, but I'm familer with the word.)


----------



## jasper (Feb 27, 2005)

I like the temple of doom best because  i never laugh and scream so much and so close together. 

1 st edition is not Classic Trek or Buffy the Slayer where the stars/pc never die. It is Band of Brothers of doing the adventure not knowing if may survive or not. And leaving a messy corpse if you don't!


----------



## Ourph (Feb 27, 2005)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> I don't think D&D needs to be pushed in a cinematic direction. The origanal system was inspired by Leiber and Howard stories, the predecessors of modern action adventure movies.




Much of the atmosphere of D&D may have been inspired by Howard, Vance, Leiber, etc. but the actual play of the game was not intended to mimic a fictitious story.  When Conan walks into the Tower of the Elephant, you expect him NOT to die.  When Gutboy Barrelhouse walked into the dungeons under the abandoned monastery, his player didn't have that same reassurance.  Now, if you get to "name level", then the characters become more like characters in a fiction story.  They have the capability to survive almost anything if played intelligently (even though survival may, in some cases, simply mean escaping with their lives).

My point is, D&D wasn't originally cinematic, because beginning characters weren't meant to emulate action stars of movies, short stories or comic books until they were significantly advanced in power and level.  A game that treats all characters as action stars from the moment they are created is entirely different in approach and "feel", even if the two games happen to draw inspiration from the same sources.

While I agree with PapersandPaychecks that any move away from a Storytelling/Narrativist/Dramatist focused game is probably good, I wouldn't characterize a move toward Cinematic gaming as taking the game closer to its roots.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Feb 27, 2005)

Interesting. I wasn't thinking in terms of survival at low levels. I was think more along the lines of what a character can do in combat. Even at low levers, flashy moves and spells are the norm. And while the PCs don't generaly have exotic armor and weaponry, their foes often do. To me, that's cinematic regardless of the survival rate.


----------



## Ourph (Feb 27, 2005)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> Interesting. I wasn't thinking in terms of survival at low levels. I was think more along the lines of what a character can do in combat. Even at low levers, flashy moves and spells are the norm. And while the PCs don't generaly have exotic armor and weaponry, their foes often do. To me, that's cinematic regardless of the survival rate.




I'm not sure I see the connection between Lieber/Howard and exotic armor and weaponry or the prolific use of spells in combat.  Neither of those are featured in those particular authors sword and sorcery style.

And I don't think you can really discuss cinematic style gaming without taking into account survival rate.  Action movies, by their very nature, expect the "hero" to be able to do otherwise stupid/fatal things and have them not only survive, but actually win because of the outlandish risks they take and look "cool" while doing it to boot.  I think OD&D, with its fast and loose rules is probably more apt to support this type of gaming than AD&D, but even so I don't think the rules were intended to support cinematic gaming.

I agree with your original premise that cinematic and pulp are essentially the same thing (with a few flavor differences).  Where I disagree is the assertion that OD&D/AD&D "did" or was intended to do pulp.  Again, I think the atmosphere was greatly inspired by pulp swords and sorcery, but the purpose of the rules was to create a playable game not to emulate a certain genre of fiction.  While cinematic gaming takes a step back from the predetermined outcomes of the dramatist/narrativist style, it still places a heavy emphasis on the "heroes" winning or succeeding most of the time (because that's what's cool and exciting).  Whereas, I don't think OD&D/AD&D had any such bias and were firmly rooted in the idea that the playing field should be even between the PCs and their antagonists so as to provide a challenging game (as opposed to a cool or exciting story).


----------



## fanboy2000 (Feb 27, 2005)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I see the connection between Lieber/Howard and exotic armor and weaponry or the prolific use of spells in combat.  Neither of those are featured in those particular authors sword and sorcery style.



True. I swithched gears on you with out mentioning it. Sorry.

Sense I mine all my previous edition books and boxed sets for setting information, maps, etc... I'm going to have bow to your superior knowledge of the rules. The only old TSR rules set I'm familer with in any way is Star Frontiers, and I'm still digesting it. Either way, Star Frontiers dosen't apply.

[left turn]I was about to write that I prefer book/movies/comics where the hero survives for reason's other the being the protagonist, but then I realized I watched _Support Your Local Sheriff!_ this weekend and that's exactly what James Gardner's character does.  [/left turn]


----------



## Sanguinemetaldawn (Feb 28, 2005)

Sir Elton said:
			
		

> As you can see, everyone has a different opinion on the subject.  For me, there is no such thing as First Edition Feel.  If I can't possibly replicate it, then it doesn't exist.   If it First Edition feel does exist, then it's just a feeling that no one can really define.  Except this:
> 
> True 'first edition' feel is fun.




I beg to differ.
Not that its not fun, but that there is no such thing.

The crux of your argument is that since not everything thinks its the same thing, it doesn't exist.  This isn't a science that lends itself to measurement and definitive findings.

Nonetheless...there are clear patterns of opinion/emphasis.

1) Emphasis on evocativeness and wonder, rather than crunch engineering
2) Simplicity of rules and adaptability of rule-set (not like 3E)
3) Site-based adventures, and giving players freedom (not like 2E)

Its actually quite simple.


----------



## DeadlyUematsu (Feb 28, 2005)

Sanguinemetaldawn said:
			
		

> I beg to differ.
> Not that its not fun, but that there is no such thing.
> 
> The crux of your argument is that since not everything thinks its the same thing, it doesn't exist.  This isn't a science that lends itself to measurement and definitive findings.
> ...




Right on the mark.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 28, 2005)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Yeah. I think non-Forgites should really use the term Dramatism (from rec.advocacy's Three Fold Model) rather than Narrativism, which is, as you say, very obscure.




You're right - in future i think I'll try to speak of GDS rather than GNS, the distinction between Sim-immersion & Drama-excitement is an important one, which GNS loses because it usually tries to fold them both into Sim.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 28, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> If, for example, the players tactically blow a balanced encounter with a group of NPC monsters (gamism) and the game world logic now indicates a TPK should happen (simulationism), does the GM step in and fudge things to keep the players alive (dramatism)?  Is the bad guy's hideout protected by thugs that the PCs can blow through like stormtroopers (dramatism), protected by guards who will put up a challenging resistence for the PCs (gamism), or by whatever makes sense in the setting, even if the force will lead to a TPK if the PCs attack (simulationism)?




I guess with Dramatism one makes the opposition whatever is dramatically appropriate; eg a Saving Private Ryan style WW2 game will make Wehrmacht troopers highly likely to kill careless PC commandos, where a Where Eagles Dare style WW2 game will have the Wehrmacht troops fall over in droves as the hero's SMG blazes.  I don't think that means the Private Ryan game is more Gamist or Simulationist necessarily.


----------



## DragonLancer (Feb 28, 2005)

Eternalknight said:
			
		

> It's hard to put into words what 1st edition felt like.  I guess you had to be there




I'd only got as far as this post on page 2 of this monster thread and I had to post to say that this quote is spot on. 1st edition feel is unique to everyone, and at least for me, its not something I can adequately put into words. It was the feel of the game, and the sense of classic-ness compared to 2nd and now 3.x editions.


----------



## John Morrow (Feb 28, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I guess with Dramatism one makes the opposition whatever is dramatically appropriate; eg a Saving Private Ryan style WW2 game will make Wehrmacht troopers highly likely to kill careless PC commandos, where a Where Eagles Dare style WW2 game will have the Wehrmacht troops fall over in droves as the hero's SMG blazes.  I don't think that means the Private Ryan game is more Gamist or Simulationist necessarily.




Yeah, it does.  It means that the Private Ryan game is more compatible with a Gamist or Simulationist style of play because it's more natural and plausible than Where Eagles Dare.

Remember that I pointed out that the choice occurs when the two come into conflict.  It's quite possible to craft a setting and situation where the overlap between all three concerns is fairly substantial.  A Gamist or Simulationist would be more happy in a Private Ryan Dramatist game than an Eagles Dare Dramatist game.  But there's also usually more fundamental differences.

In a Dramatist games, the careless characters who get killed are generally NPCs and not PCs.  The Star Trek red shirt (a throwaway "NPC" who dies to show the PCs how dangerous the situation did) is a good example of the technique.  The real protagnists of movies rarely die random or meaningless throw-away deaths, nor do the PCs generally die that way in a Dramtist game.  The Simulationist game doesn't distinguish between an NPC and a PC.  In a Simulationist Private Ryan, Captain Miller might have died on the beach or been hit by a Wehrmacht sniper before ever running into Private Ryan.

In fact, if you are thinking in terms of "simulating a story", then I think you're missing the point of Simulationism in the Threefold sense, though it's a common mistake caused by the term, itself.  If you are "simulating a story", then that's Dramatism.  Simulationism is about "simulating" a world and most settings do not inherently differentiate their inhabitants into priviledged and expendable categories for story purposes.  In fact, the earlier terms for each was probably more descriptive -- "story-based" and "world-based".  Do the decisions derive from what would make the best story or what would just naturally happen in the game world if it were a real place.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Feb 28, 2005)

I like the paradigm Mr Morrow's cites of "story-based" games -v- "world-based" games, but it seems to me that the Cinematic Style described by Fanboy and others above departs from both.  It seems to have some of the characteristics of a world-based game (in that the characters can have a real influence on the outcome) and yet share some of the characteristics of the story-based game.

I don't think that the Cinematic Style as described earlier in this thread really fits terribly well into conventional models, and I'm blessed if I can see a trite way of characterising it that isn't flawed in some way.

I think the concept of "points" that a character can spend at critical moments to influence the outcome of events was probably first put in print by Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay's "Fate Points" mechanism.  I'd like to stress that you could have a "fate point" or "drama point" in a world-based game just as you could in a story-based one.


----------



## The Shaman (Feb 28, 2005)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> I think the concept of "points" that a character can spend at critical moments to influence the outcome of events was probably first put in print by Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay's "Fate Points" mechanism.



TSR's _Top Secret_ had a "hero points"-type mechanic - the actual name escapes me, but I vaguely recall that you gained points as you gained levels.

An interesting note: the _TS_ RAW indicated that to use the point, the player had to come up with an in-game reason describing how the effect worked or lose the point and the benefit. If I remember correctly, the example was something along the lines of getting shot and taking enough damage to die, but instead spending the point and deciding that the bullet was deflected off a lucky silver dollar in the character's pocket, or something like that. It was specifically geared toward what it seems would today be called a "cinematic" style of play.

(Ahh, _Top Secret_ - how I miss sneaking through the alleys and basements of _Sprechenhaltestelle_...just don't order the sausage at the butcher's...  )


----------



## T. Foster (Feb 28, 2005)

As John Morrow points out, Dramatism (which is, essentially, trying to recreate the feel of a story within an rpg) is actually a form of Simulationism -- only instead of simulating a world you're simulating a story. 'Cinematic' play, which could perhaps be defined as allowing the players to have some control over the environment/story beyond their characters, is distinct from this, and is actually (I think) closer to Narrativism as defined/discussed at The Forge (though of course they've attached a lot of additional baggage regarding 'premises' that serves to confuse and obfuscate the issue). The one Narrativist game I have actual first-hand experience with (Issaries Inc.'s _HeroQuest_) specifically allows players, by virtue of spending 'points' and good rolls, to influence the course of the game beyond their characters, and from what I understand Narrativist games like _Donjon_ take this even a step further -- when the party comes to a door if a player rolls particularly well he gets to declare what is beyond the door(!). This is very far from both pre-scripted 'storytelling' type play and also traditional challenge/tactics-oriented play (i.e. rather than the players being an audience for the DM or opponents to the DM, they are essentially collaborators with the DM).  

As for the origin of 'fate points' ('story point,' 'hero points,' etc.) in rpgs, I believe the first place they appeared was in Victory Games' _James Bond 007_ game (certainly that game predated WFRP -- 1983 vs. 1986), but of course I could be wrong.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 1, 2005)

I agree that Gamist & Simulationist WW2 games will tend to look a lot more like Ryan than Eagles - BTW I played for years in a highly Gamist WW2 RPG, PCs got 10 hit points per level so it wasn't very Simulationist though, although that was the GM/designer's intent I think.

Cinematic games that are not Narrativist tend to pastiche - eg cinematic 'action' games tend to be more like a Steven Segal movie than Die Hard IMO.


----------



## John Morrow (Mar 1, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Cinematic games that are not Narrativist tend to pastiche - eg cinematic 'action' games tend to be more like a Steven Segal movie than Die Hard IMO.




FYI, I'm purposely trying to avoid "Narrativist" and the GNS model here because it contains a lot of other baggage that goes far beyond the issue of story and setting.

I think "Cinematic" games that give the player some control over their character are an attempt at achieving Dramatist ends using Gamist means.  Similarly, settings like Torg that have setting-based justifications for treating the PCs as story protagonists or letting them bend the rules for story-based reasons are an attempt to achieve Dramatist ends using Simulationist means.  

What both Simulationist and Gamist games have in common is that both tend to thrive on unpredictable and random outcomes and dice are often (though not always) a big part of that.  Dramatist games tend to frown upon random outcomes because some outcomes often produce bad stories (e.g., Luke Skywalker fails his Dex check to catch the antenna and falls to his death from Bespin). "Cinematic" rules and settings are an attempt to skew the odds of unpredictable or random outcomes to make them more controllable by the players and GM.  But as a result, they are often forced to treat PCs and NPCs or monsters differently (e.g., the Feng Shui mook rules, D&D rating monsters by "Hit Dice", etc) as part of the rules or setting because protagonists and plot device opponents are treated differently in stories.

But I agree that without a GM or players to guide the process as a story, the result is more often than not a pastiche of a story than a story (that's a great way of putting it, by the way).  But I'm not entirely sure that distributing the authority to guide the story across multiple people (as Narrativism seems to do) doesn't have a tendency to do the same thing in a different way.  As Larry Niven points out in one of his story collections, "collaborations are unnatural," and expecting a half-dozen people to produce a coherent story in a single pass without revision or planning is a task that most professional authors are not even up to.


----------



## maddman75 (Mar 1, 2005)

John Morrow said:
			
		

> But I agree that without a GM or players to guide the process as a story, the result is more often than not a pastiche of a story than a story (that's a great way of putting it, by the way).  But I'm not entirely sure that distributing the authority to guide the story across multiple people (as Narrativism seems to do) doesn't have a tendency to do the same thing in a different way.  As Larry Niven points out in one of his story collections, "collaborations are unnatural," and expecting a half-dozen people to produce a coherent story in a single pass without revision or planning is a task that most professional authors are not even up to.




What I generally do is allow the players wide latitude in choosing the direction of the plot, while providing the specifics myself as well as trying to bring it all around to one grand finale.  The steps are generally like this

- Introductory adventure.  For me these are always the hardest to write.  Especially given my group's propensity to want to generate characters then immediately play.  The compromise we generally reach is that they give me a synopsis/concept for their character, then I make the first adventure based on that and hope no one changes their mind.
- Go Fish.  The next adventure generally takes place in a city or other crowded environment, where I can drop several plot hooks in front of them and see which ones they bite on.  They may go after several or look into this and that.
- Explore a plot.  Then we go into whatever they were interest in in detail.  I'll add allusions to whatever BBEG I'm planning for the campaign.
- Consequences.  Previous actions come back to haunt them.  We continue exploring a plot until it wears out or I run out of plot hooks, and then I go fishing again.
- Climax.  After many of these runs, the PCs get an idea who the BBEGs are and what they can do about them, and we have a final confrontation.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Mar 2, 2005)

In contrast, I don't worry about the plot at all.  I attempt to create what I believe and hope will be an interesting environment for the player characters to explore, and then I sit back and adjudicate what happens when they try to explore it.

And now we've come full circle, back to the thread title.  I believe that the single paragraph above explains succinctly and clearly what, for me, the "1st edition feel" was about.

There are other aspects to the 1e feel - the multiplicity of tables, the endearing hodgepodge of rules, Gygax's quirky prose, the sometimes poor quality illustrations, or the fact that only people with an advanced degree in Extremely Obscure Studies understood how the surprise rules apply to a ranger - which still endear it to some of us, but I strongly suspect that in order to understand that particular appeal, you had to be there at the time.


----------



## fonkin (Aug 18, 2005)

First Edition feel is...

... D6, not D20
... pages and pages of crazy tables
... characters was characters and monsters was monsters
... ZERO-levels!
... death without a saving throw
... Big Red Poppa had 88 hit points, and he was still scary!
... Bad art. I so miss the bad art! 
... Ranges: " meant 10 feet indoors and 10 yards outdoors
... 10-foot pole
... Treasure Type U and V!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------

