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

[Samuel Leming]

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

If everybody, players & DM, are on the same page with that, I’d be surprised if anyone in that game would be interested in playing 1st edition style.

If a player says his character turns over the plate that the DM has decided has a map stuck to it does that character need to make a Search check to find it? A matter of group style I suppose.

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

I think this has more to do with player preferences than on the system. The more robust skill & feat systems of 3.x is an advance for traditional simulation as well as for a game where players just optimize their characters for encounters.

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

It’s certainly possible to play a less meta-gamed and more simulation/‘being there’ game in 3.x where character progression is more organic and molded to what’s going on in the game world.

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

You don’t have to go out to space to include traps and puzzles in your game that require a bit of player planning before they start making rolls.

I think what you’re talking about is a group that’s already happy with their style of play and isn’t really part of the Necromancer target audience.

Sam

 

[shilsen]

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

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

(Inspiration moves in mysterious ways.)

I was thinking of stealing that as soon as I read it. Eberron game. Silver Flame. Lords of the Under-Flame. It all makes so much sense.

 

[Delta]

You thought that the mechanics of 3E were closer to 1E than the 2E mechanics were? I can't even fathom that.

Yes, I do. Not that I have any chance of convincing you, but as a personal exercise, here's some stuff that drew me back in to 3E:
- Class options matching 1E.
- Racial options matching 1E.
- Optional miniatures rules built into the core book.
- Magic items with specified gold values & crafting techniques.
- Demons and devils and other potential adult themes.
- Statistics available for deity figures.
- Specifics on dungeon dressing and environmental hazards.
- Clerics defaulting to access to all core spells.
- Designer commentary in DMG on motivation behind rules.
(plus "back to the dungeon" philosophy, old DMG sample dungeon, etc.)
- Focus on player-driven adventuring instead of NPC-driven narrative plots.

There's some stuff in 3E, like the d20-rolling mechanic, which looks cosmetically different but is really mathematically equivalent (and I'd already done in my 1E game). Plus, the release of the OGL definitely excited me for 3E. So, I don't know how much of the above you'd personally call "fluff" or "mechanics", but that's general arc of what kept me out of 2E.

 

[Delta]

Incidentally, this isn't nostalgia. For one thing, I never played OD&D(1974), back in the day. For another, I'm a better DM that I was when I played older-editions, before. Lots better. I've brought that 3E notion of system mastery/knowledge to OD&D, and that's made a big difference in how I view and run the game; I understand the older-editions better than I did, before, so I play them better, too.

I have to point out how startlingly similar this is to something I read yesterday in a totally different context. On the O'Reilly Network blog, the guy who runs CD Baby (indie CD sales website) posted about trying to upgrade his website backend from PHP to Ruby on Rails, ultimately giving up, to go back and write a much better version in old PHP. His culiminating observation was this ( http://www.oreillynet.com/ruby/blog/2007/09/7_reasons_i_switched_back_to_p_1.html ):

PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES ARE LIKE GIRLFRIENDS: THE NEW ONE IS BETTER BECAUSE *YOU* ARE BETTER

Rails was an amazing teacher. I loved it’s “do exactly as I say” paint-by-numbers framework that taught me some great guidelines. I love Ruby for making me really understand OOP. God, Ruby is so beautiful. I love you, Ruby. But the main reason that any programmer learning any new language thinks the new language is SO much better than the old one is because he’s a better programmer now!

You look back at your old ugly PHP code, compared to your new beautiful Ruby code, and think, “God that PHP is ugly!” But don’t forget you wrote that PHP years ago and are unfairly discriminating against it now. It’s not the language (entirely). It’s you, dude. You’re better now. Give yourself some credit.

Agree or disagree... serendipity's a wierd thing.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I have to point out how startlingly similar this is to something I read yesterday in a totally different context. On the O'Reilly Network blog, the guy who runs CD Baby (indie CD sales website) posted about trying to upgrade his website backend from PHP to Ruby on Rails, ultimately giving up, to go back and write a much better version in old PHP.

I'm a programmer, by trade (mainly Java, these days, but also C++ and C#). I read the article your're referring to, here, although I wasn't consciously thinking about that connection when I posted. Funny.

 

[Rechan]

Since 1e is so directly tied to the mechanics, can someone give an example of 1e Mechanics that makes it 1e versus other editions? How is the mechanics so directly tied to "feel"?

 

[Rechan]

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

*(A subsidiary of Verizon.)

Verison? You really are trafficking with fiends.

 

[CaptainChaos]

With the advent of OSRIC, why doesn't Necro just start publishing straight up 1E material? Who go through the contortions of dealing with 4E when what you like is available to you?

 

[Rechan]

With the advent of OSRIC, why doesn't Necro just start publishing straight up 1E material? Who go through the contortions of dealing with 4E when what you like is available to you?

Because as much as some people liked their first car which was a 1968 Ford Truck and they loved how it made them feel, they're not going to go out now and buy a 1968 Ford Truck because it's forty years old and crap compared to today's models?

I'm willing to suspect that those who pine for 1e also are quite aware of the system's flaws and want those flaws addressed, so they can have their cake and eat it too.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Because as much as some people liked their first car which was a 1968 Ford Truck and they loved how it made them feel, they're not going to go out now and buy a 1968 Ford Truck because it's forty years old and crap compared to today's models?

I'm willing to suspect that those who pine for 1e also are quite aware of the system's flaws and want those flaws addressed, so they can have their cake and eat it too.

That's why it was "third edition rules, first edition feel."