August 1, 2005 at 12:10 pm #552332
I’ve noticed a lot of gamers who have played older versions of D&D seem to yearn for 1E or even OAD&D.
In your opinion, does the system really effect the quality of the roleplaying, or is each successive rule set for a game make for more complicated rules mechanics, slowing the game down?
I have never played 3E or 3.5E so I can not make an accurate comment on my own quesiton, other than to say I played 1E then switched to 2E and stayed there because I think 2E solved some of the niggling problems I had with 1E. But the two systems are very compatible so it was not that big of a change.
Notice! I’m not saying any system is superior, I’m not trying to start an edition war and if it becomes an edition war I give the moderators full permission to lock the thread immediately. I can go to other sites for an edition war.
Thoughts?August 1, 2005 at 1:05 pm #564811Salubrai
- Posts : 2940
What?! You like 2nd Edition?! This means WAR!!!
…. kidding. 😀August 1, 2005 at 1:50 pm #564812Ffaern
- Posts : 242
We went from 1st Ed to 2nd Ed for pretty much the same reasons as your group, it seemed tidier and easier to run. In particular we appreciated the slightly more abstract combat, for example, shedding the 6 second combat segment in favour of combat resolution based on the melee round (although one of my players keeps trying to bring segments back in).
We bought the 3rd ed books when they came out and found that (in our opinions) the system seemed to add too many rules, harping back to the greater combat complexity of the 1st Ed while adding a lot of skills, feats type rules along the lines of GURPS. We use the optional 2nd Ed proficiency rules for providing an (admittedly limited) range of skills.
In the end, balancing this against some of the ease of use things in 3rd, high rolls always good etc, we decided to stay with what we knew. We also have a huge pile of 2nd Ed stuff left to play which cost very little to pick up either as second hand or pdf.
I have to say that Hasbro/WOTC’s opportunistic publication of the 3.5 edition did everything to confirm my doubts about switching to 3rd. It seemed to be a rather nasty customer squeezing marketing ploy.
Anyway, that’s what we think at moment. 🙂
BrianAugust 1, 2005 at 2:12 pm #564813WerewolfPaladin
- Posts : 418
My group has progressed from 1st to 2nd to 3rd and now we’re using 3.5. It has its issues, but it’s easier to find material and support for, which is something we like. Only one of our members really likes to write his own classes and things, so the wealth of support the rest of us can find in other books is a blessing. I’m particularly fond of Eberron right now and I’m running several games in it for various groups.
I think it’s all a matter of taste really. My group only rarely gets into the more complicated areas of 3.5 (grappling, sundering, etc) so those rules rarely bother us and there are members of our group (like myself) that are familiar enough with the rules to wing through it so that it doesn’t slow us down all that much.August 1, 2005 at 7:35 pm #564814
I make no bones about it. I like 1st edition AD&D.
I spent many formative years playing it, going through some great & classic adventures. It opened up a world of detail and potential over our previous games of Basic D&D. I owned a lot of AD&D 1st edition stuff.
– and then 2nd edition came out and I couldn’t bear to change with all the 1st edition material I had, so I kept on with 1st edition while the rest of the world mostly moved on. Many years passed in between then 3rd edition arrived and looked rather interesting (and had gained a renewed interest from many), much of my 1st edition material had gone (luckily not my copy of Up the Garden Path :)) and so the move to 3rd edition felt less painful (and fewer people around here were playing 1st edition any more). I am rather cynical about the 3.0 -> 3.5 move to say the least.
What I also liked about 1st edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons was still its comparative simplicity in combat – no “five foot steps” no “crit threats” (we just had ‘Roll nat 20’ = double damage) – you got in there and beat the hell out of the thing! Straightforward smackdown, either way 🙂
– and no worries about skills/ranks either.
– and when a +5 sword meant something!
– and… yes well, enough ranting, you get the picture.
I still have my original PHB and I will never let that go.
Yes I know that that was ‘my D&D’ from my impressionable years, but everyone has their favourites and that’s mine.
What a world it opened up. 😀 Sinister Secret of Salt Marsh, Tomb of the Lizard King, Queen of the Demonweb Pits and so many more. Great adventures.August 2, 2005 at 2:52 am #564815Anonymous
- Posts : 1113
Uh oh, looks like we have a grognard on our hands. 🙂
Don’t worry Paul, I’m a 1st fan as well. Looking back at the old mods such as Little Keep, Isle of Dread or Into the Unknown brings back such nostalgia. They had virtually no plot, but did we care? Course not.
The best adventure hands down was Tomb of the Lizard King. Oh the memories, the monsters, that damn black dragon,aahh the TPKs brings a tear to my eye.
As for myself I fell out of the hobby for a number of years missing most of the 2nd edition hoopla, though I did play some at the beginning. It was CoFC that brought me back to the game table.
I was dragged kicking and screaming to 3. whatever by my gaming group, but even with the endless option I hasn’t inspired the same sense of wonder AD&D once captured.
In fact, a recent convention game furthered my ambivalence toward 3.0-3.5. A simple move to defend a comrade incurred no less than 5 AOO. WTF I was out from nearly full hits for “helping someone.” Gaah don’t get me started on prestige classes.
In my day fighters were fighters not Bladesingers, Dwarven Defenders, or Weapon Masters. No we were fighters. We hit things with sharpened pieces of metal and we were happy.
One aside Paul, you have the Fabled “Up the Garden Path”, aye. Did you stumbled upon this gold mine or were you at the con?August 2, 2005 at 2:55 am #564816TomBedlam
- Posts : 220
Oops that was me BTW.August 2, 2005 at 7:41 am #564817Wellard
- Posts : 194
1stE lives on in Hackmaster of course.I think I have said elsewhere that my only real Beef with the older editions was the way in which the XP system penalised Mages and ClericsAugust 2, 2005 at 8:56 am #564818
I bought Up the Garden Path (mint) at the Con for Â£2.50 and sold it a few years ago for the better part of $2000. Helped solve some of my Student Debt. 8)
I was very happy that day, mind you later that same day I was attacked by a pack of feral dogs, so karma I guess!August 2, 2005 at 9:49 am #564819PaulofCthulhu wrote:I was very happy that day, mind you later that same day I was attacked by a pack of feral dogs, so karma I guess!
Attacked by feral dogs…………….that’s what you get for going up the garden path.
Having never seen the module, what was the story and what makes it so valuable? Scarcity?August 2, 2005 at 10:40 am #564820
Here’s some more info on ST1:August 2, 2005 at 11:38 am #564821
Thanks, a lot of info at that site. I admit I’m not a big fan of parody or funny modules, but the rare aspect from a collectible viewpoint is intriguing.
I don’t think I would ever spend so much money on a module, but hey, I’m not a millionaire either.August 3, 2005 at 4:55 am #564822Shug
- Posts : 118
Although I cut my teeth on 2e, I converted my fair share of 1eAD&D and D&D modules while DMing.
I’m the ultimate sucker for dungeon crawls and fantasy cliche. I mean, that’s what it’s all about, isn’t it? Cliche? When Good Guys wore White and Bad Guys wore Black and stuffed princesses up in towers and Secret Sect Cults kidnapped villagers to sacrifice to their reptile god? Isn’t that the attraction of RPG in general – a type of reality that fits into easily boxed and codified archetypes, unlike the moral grays of real life?
I think when they started playing around with mood and themes in later 2e, like political intrigue, high brow intellectualism and complicated intertwining story lines, the genre as a whole suffered… I mean, how many times has a party actually figured out all the subtleties of some grand scheme plot, instead of just jaggernauting through the story and disregarding increasingly glaring plot hints and not relying on a villian revealing the entire scheme at the climax?
Maybe I was just playing with stupid players who loved hackNclash and humour-based RPG… we were all teenagers at the time. We loved the low brow.August 3, 2005 at 1:35 pm #564823ENoa4
- Posts : 746
- Gelatinous Cube
I have not played much 3ed or 3.5 but think it seems more balanced. Still I tend to favor 1st edition and 2nd edition. It’s what I learned on and it had a rough and edgy feel. I added a few custom rules along the way and I just can’t seem to let it go.August 4, 2005 at 5:57 am #564824mchvlichldprdgy
- Posts : 1168
I started on 3.0, so I like it the most. I think that it is more flexible in many ways that work with plot, but rigid enough in the areas like combat to remain effective and fun.
I’ve only sat in on 1e and 2e sessions, not actually played, but I really don’t like them that much. I think 3e worked out a number of problems that 2e had, and 1e, though fun, has too many problems with it. It disbalances too much, or so the DM I sat in on complained.
And I think 3.5 is a piece of s**t, and a money grab to boot. I’ll wait for 4.0, if it ever come.
I think it has more to do with what you started on, than which system is really better. For instance, I can’t stand most of the other games, like vampire and stuff. SciFi systems are better, but all of the systems which were made because D&D didn’t work for actual roleplaying well enough, just bug me. It is all in what you start with.
- The forum ‘General RPG Stuff’ is closed to new topics and replies.