1st vs 4th edition [Archive] - Wizards Community

1st vs 4th edition [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
techwarrior
08-29-07, 09:38 AM Ok I am struggling between 1st and 4th edition, which one I should get into.

I played 2.0 with buddies some time ago, but was fustrated by the difficulty playing the game and how long game sessions would drag on. I played 3.5 a few times recently and I found it much easier to play, understand, and the game pace was much faster. Many questions I had previously were answered in the 3.5 players handbook.So I am betting 4th edition would run even faster.

However I am attracted to the dark side of roleplaying and I think 1st edition had more of that. Unfortunatley then religous groups took it way too seriously and they eliminated those references in the game. I would enjoy playing a role playing game with a much more sinister side. I would love to summon hellish demons to do my evil bidding, having a party of adventures pillage and murder a village of innocent civilians, or sacraficing women to a god from the firey pits below. I have heard rumors about 1st edition, but have never played it. I am just itching to get a taste of what 1st edition was like.

I have heard about players meshing two versions together, I was thinking about doing this. Keeping the 4th edition rules but incorporating the darker elements of 1st edition into it. Or maybe I should just play both versions seperately.
CharlieRock
08-29-07, 09:49 AM I think you should go with 1st edition. It's available very economically in PDF version. That, and 4th edition isn't due out for ... another year? ;)
Frugal
08-29-07, 09:50 AM I think a lot of that is accomplished with flavour and adventure design, not the system itself. The big religious fallout was over 1ed and had pretty much cooled down prior to 2ed but TSR played it safe and kept certain elements out of 2ed and did the great devil/demon/daemon renaming. 3ed and 3.5 is more of a return to the "old school" in some ways with the Fiendish Codices and such. Granted I still find the way they handle some "mature topics" to be a little juvenile or over-simplified (or simply glossed over) they seem to have gotten better more recently (compare the Codices with BOVD for instance).

I'd say focus on the system that plays best for what you want to achieve and then focus on the rest through flavour and the focus of the campaign. Maybe draw on sources from other editions for flavour or inspiration but play the system that works best for you and your group.

There's nothing inherent in 3.5 that makes it not suited to what you want and nothing in 1ed that makes it inherently more suited to it.
Alex_P
08-29-07, 10:31 AM However I am attracted to the dark side of roleplaying and I think 1st edition had more of that. Unfortunatley then religous groups took it way too seriously and they eliminated those references in the game. I would enjoy playing a role playing game with a much more sinister side. I would love to summon hellish demons to do my evil bidding, having a party of adventures pillage and murder a village of innocent civilians, or sacraficing women to a god from the firey pits below. I have heard rumors about 1st edition, but have never played it. I am just itching to get a taste of what 1st edition was like.Not really like that, no. That stuff had about as much system support as it gets in the 3e core books (i.e. a few spell descriptions for how to summon stuff). Really, you're stuck either mentally editing the Book of Vile Darkness until it makes sense or trying another system.

-- Alex
tankschmidt
08-29-07, 04:07 PM So I am betting 4th edition would run even faster.

However I am attracted to the dark side of roleplaying and I think 1st edition had more of that.

I have heard about players meshing two versions together, I was thinking about doing this. Keeping the 4th edition rules but incorporating the darker elements of 1st edition into it. Or maybe I should just play both versions seperately.

Wow. You should definitely check out Castles and Crusades. It's got a streamlined mechanic like 3rd edition, it plays fast, and it retains a lot of 1st edition flavor. Plus it's very compatible with any 1st or 2nd edition stuff you already have.
Hsien
08-29-07, 04:23 PM Concur with Castles and Crusades, I looked these over at Gen Con and got to talk to Gygax some about the system and it looks very promising.
Jexil
08-29-07, 06:10 PM Take it from someone who has played a ton of both 1st edition & 3.5, 3.5 is better in every regard. If you didn't like 2nd edition, you probably won't be happy with 1st either. As for 1st edition being "darker," I think that reputation comes from the reactionary outlook some people had toward the game in the 80's, which had little basis in fact --there was nothing more sinister about the game then as opposed to now. In fact, there are more 3.5 books in print to support a "dark & evil" campaign than ever existed under any edition.
CCS
08-29-07, 08:08 PM What's the differences between 1st - 4th eds you ask?

Not as much as you're thinking.

The only REAL difference comes via the exact rules mechanics used to describe the action. Those change over time. And no, whatever occurs come 4th WON'T ruin the game....
Other than that there's NO difference in RP style - all that consits entirely of whatever YOU bring into the game, regardless of the edition.
I assure you that a thematicly super-gritty R+ rated game using 1st, 2nd, 3.0, 3.5, or in a few months, 4th ed. is entirely feesable. And it can be done using the old "Basic" sets as well.
Same for "clean" versions of high fantasy & any other style you may prefer....

Sometimes though you'll find instances where arts been changed (Ex: no more efreet clutching a 1/2 naked woman on the 1e DMG), creatures have been renamed (Ex: though not actually changed/eliminated - all the demons etc were still during 2nd ed., just called something else), or removed for some legal reason (Ex: the Cthulu & Elric stuff was removed after the initial printings of the 1st ed Dieties/Demi-gods book. :().
But none of that's ever actually affected much of anything. Especially within my 1e groups back then - we just photo-copied those missing Cthulu/Elric pages & passed them out to any who wanted them..... And then we simply kept using the terms demons/devils in 2nd ed.....
Frugal
08-30-07, 07:40 AM And in terms of flavour, didn't 1ed just have demons and devils as just "Type I demon", "Type III demon", etc? Oooo, talk about your dark and sinister flavour! :D
CharlieRock
08-30-07, 09:45 AM And in terms of flavour, didn't 1ed just have demons and devils as just "Type I demon", "Type III demon", etc? Oooo, talk about your dark and sinister flavour! :D
That was a classification. But it was more of a game mechanic designation then an actual description. Kind of like the Sword+1s. Yeah it is magic, and adds +1. But you really shouldn't try to say things IC like "Behold, Type II fiend! My Longsword +1 does double damage to evil creatures."

Edit: Orcs went through a lot of changes through the editions though. :rofl:
Frugal
08-30-07, 10:59 AM That was a classification. But it was more of a game mechanic designation then an actual description. Kind of like the Sword+1s. Yeah it is magic, and adds +1. But you really shouldn't try to say things IC like "Behold, Type II fiend! My Longsword +1 does double damage to evil creatures."

Edit: Orcs went through a lot of changes through the editions though. :rofl:

True, but how many demon entries are their in 1ed monster manuals? I'm pretty sure that 3.5 offers a far richer set of materials to draw on with every monster manual having a few fiends as well as the fiendish codices, etc.
StormKnight
08-30-07, 03:22 PM Based on the original post, I'm thinking 'play whatever edition keeps you as far away from this hobby as possible'.
High Octane
08-30-07, 04:27 PM If you are attracted to the dark side of roleplaying, you actually may be better suited to a non-D&D game. Ive been playing Shadowrun for example, and that game is much more willing to have the protagonists be amoral. Unlike D&D, the game involves stealing, espionage, even assassination from the "heroes".

In D&D you are generally rewarded for "selfless" deeds. The game supports an altruistic outlook. Other games can support a more selfish outlook more.
Frugal
08-30-07, 04:54 PM If you are attracted to the dark side of roleplaying, you actually may be better suited to a non-D&D game. Ive been playing Shadowrun for example, and that game is much more willing to have the protagonists be amoral. Unlike D&D, the game involves stealing, espionage, even assassination from the "heroes".

In D&D you are generally rewarded for "selfless" deeds. The game supports an altruistic outlook. Other games can support a more selfish outlook more.

I'd still be inclined to argue that it's a more a matter of campaign style, you could easily run a D&D campaign that involved darker themes, and if that's what the OP knows then I'd say stick with that system unless you find there is something you really feel lacking in it. About the only issue I can really see is that the alignment system is pretty absolute so it doesn't allow for much in the way of shades of grey.
Stormonu
08-30-07, 05:07 PM I could never go back to play a 1E game (and I doubt you could get me to play a 2E game again). Too many glaring holes in the rules. That, and characters feel like cardboard props in 1E - there's no depth to the characters as far as mechanics go.

I've heard quite a bit about Castles & Crusades, and I myself am thinking about looking into this. If I'm going to have to learn a whole new game with 4E, might as well take a look at alternate systems, aye?
Alex_P
08-30-07, 07:37 PM In D&D you are generally rewarded for "selfless" deeds. The game supports an altruistic outlook. Other games can support a more selfish outlook more.I'd say "heroic" rather than "selfless." The game assumes that the good guys are still all about cracking skulls and accumulating treasure. Robin-Hood selfless but not Ghandi selfless.

-- Alex
High Octane
08-31-07, 01:56 AM I'd say "heroic" rather than "selfless." The game assumes that the good guys are still all about cracking skulls and accumulating treasure. Robin-Hood selfless but not Ghandi selfless.

-- Alex

Thats why I added the quotation marks.
arderkrag
09-02-07, 07:13 AM I'd still be inclined to argue that it's a more a matter of campaign style, you could easily run a D&D campaign that involved darker themes, and if that's what the OP knows then I'd say stick with that system unless you find there is something you really feel lacking in it. About the only issue I can really see is that the alignment system is pretty absolute so it doesn't allow for much in the way of shades of grey.

Same here. I tend to allow any actions, and have a point system for checks for alignment shift based on the Ravenloft source material.
smoker
09-02-07, 07:12 PM If you want to go old school, pick up the D&D Cyclopedia.

smoker

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
techwarrior 08-29-07, 09:38 AM	Ok I am struggling between 1st and 4th edition, which one I should get into. I played 2.0 with buddies some time ago, but was fustrated by the difficulty playing the game and how long game sessions would drag on. I played 3.5 a few times recently and I found it much easier to play, understand, and the game pace was much faster. Many questions I had previously were answered in the 3.5 players handbook.So I am betting 4th edition would run even faster. However I am attracted to the dark side of roleplaying and I think 1st edition had more of that. Unfortunatley then religous groups took it way too seriously and they eliminated those references in the game. I would enjoy playing a role playing game with a much more sinister side. I would love to summon hellish demons to do my evil bidding, having a party of adventures pillage and murder a village of innocent civilians, or sacraficing women to a god from the firey pits below. I have heard rumors about 1st edition, but have never played it. I am just itching to get a taste of what 1st edition was like. I have heard about players meshing two versions together, I was thinking about doing this. Keeping the 4th edition rules but incorporating the darker elements of 1st edition into it. Or maybe I should just play both versions seperately.
CharlieRock 08-29-07, 09:49 AM	I think you should go with 1st edition. It's available very economically in PDF version. That, and 4th edition isn't due out for ... another year? ;)
Frugal 08-29-07, 09:50 AM	I think a lot of that is accomplished with flavour and adventure design, not the system itself. The big religious fallout was over 1ed and had pretty much cooled down prior to 2ed but TSR played it safe and kept certain elements out of 2ed and did the great devil/demon/daemon renaming. 3ed and 3.5 is more of a return to the "old school" in some ways with the Fiendish Codices and such. Granted I still find the way they handle some "mature topics" to be a little juvenile or over-simplified (or simply glossed over) they seem to have gotten better more recently (compare the Codices with BOVD for instance). I'd say focus on the system that plays best for what you want to achieve and then focus on the rest through flavour and the focus of the campaign. Maybe draw on sources from other editions for flavour or inspiration but play the system that works best for you and your group. There's nothing inherent in 3.5 that makes it not suited to what you want and nothing in 1ed that makes it inherently more suited to it.
Alex_P 08-29-07, 10:31 AM	However I am attracted to the dark side of roleplaying and I think 1st edition had more of that. Unfortunatley then religous groups took it way too seriously and they eliminated those references in the game. I would enjoy playing a role playing game with a much more sinister side. I would love to summon hellish demons to do my evil bidding, having a party of adventures pillage and murder a village of innocent civilians, or sacraficing women to a god from the firey pits below. I have heard rumors about 1st edition, but have never played it. I am just itching to get a taste of what 1st edition was like.Not really like that, no. That stuff had about as much system support as it gets in the 3e core books (i.e. a few spell descriptions for how to summon stuff). Really, you're stuck either mentally editing the Book of Vile Darkness until it makes sense or trying another system. -- Alex
tankschmidt 08-29-07, 04:07 PM	So I am betting 4th edition would run even faster. However I am attracted to the dark side of roleplaying and I think 1st edition had more of that. I have heard about players meshing two versions together, I was thinking about doing this. Keeping the 4th edition rules but incorporating the darker elements of 1st edition into it. Or maybe I should just play both versions seperately. Wow. You should definitely check out Castles and Crusades. It's got a streamlined mechanic like 3rd edition, it plays fast, and it retains a lot of 1st edition flavor. Plus it's very compatible with any 1st or 2nd edition stuff you already have.
Hsien 08-29-07, 04:23 PM	Concur with Castles and Crusades, I looked these over at Gen Con and got to talk to Gygax some about the system and it looks very promising.
Jexil 08-29-07, 06:10 PM	Take it from someone who has played a ton of both 1st edition & 3.5, 3.5 is better in every regard. If you didn't like 2nd edition, you probably won't be happy with 1st either. As for 1st edition being "darker," I think that reputation comes from the reactionary outlook some people had toward the game in the 80's, which had little basis in fact --there was nothing more sinister about the game then as opposed to now. In fact, there are more 3.5 books in print to support a "dark & evil" campaign than ever existed under any edition.
CCS 08-29-07, 08:08 PM	What's the differences between 1st - 4th eds you ask? Not as much as you're thinking. The only REAL difference comes via the exact rules mechanics used to describe the action. Those change over time. And no, whatever occurs come 4th WON'T ruin the game.... Other than that there's NO difference in RP style - all that consits entirely of whatever YOU bring into the game, regardless of the edition. I assure you that a thematicly super-gritty R+ rated game using 1st, 2nd, 3.0, 3.5, or in a few months, 4th ed. is entirely feesable. And it can be done using the old "Basic" sets as well. Same for "clean" versions of high fantasy & any other style you may prefer.... Sometimes though you'll find instances where arts been changed (Ex: no more efreet clutching a 1/2 naked woman on the 1e DMG), creatures have been renamed (Ex: though not actually changed/eliminated - all the demons etc were still during 2nd ed., just called something else), or removed for some legal reason (Ex: the Cthulu & Elric stuff was removed after the initial printings of the 1st ed Dieties/Demi-gods book. :(). But none of that's ever actually affected much of anything. Especially within my 1e groups back then - we just photo-copied those missing Cthulu/Elric pages & passed them out to any who wanted them..... And then we simply kept using the terms demons/devils in 2nd ed.....
Frugal 08-30-07, 07:40 AM	And in terms of flavour, didn't 1ed just have demons and devils as just "Type I demon", "Type III demon", etc? Oooo, talk about your dark and sinister flavour! :D
CharlieRock 08-30-07, 09:45 AM	And in terms of flavour, didn't 1ed just have demons and devils as just "Type I demon", "Type III demon", etc? Oooo, talk about your dark and sinister flavour! :D That was a classification. But it was more of a game mechanic designation then an actual description. Kind of like the Sword+1s. Yeah it is magic, and adds +1. But you really shouldn't try to say things IC like "Behold, Type II fiend! My Longsword +1 does double damage to evil creatures." Edit: Orcs went through a lot of changes through the editions though. :rofl:
Frugal 08-30-07, 10:59 AM	That was a classification. But it was more of a game mechanic designation then an actual description. Kind of like the Sword+1s. Yeah it is magic, and adds +1. But you really shouldn't try to say things IC like "Behold, Type II fiend! My Longsword +1 does double damage to evil creatures." Edit: Orcs went through a lot of changes through the editions though. :rofl: True, but how many demon entries are their in 1ed monster manuals? I'm pretty sure that 3.5 offers a far richer set of materials to draw on with every monster manual having a few fiends as well as the fiendish codices, etc.
StormKnight 08-30-07, 03:22 PM	Based on the original post, I'm thinking 'play whatever edition keeps you as far away from this hobby as possible'.
High Octane 08-30-07, 04:27 PM	If you are attracted to the dark side of roleplaying, you actually may be better suited to a non-D&D game. Ive been playing Shadowrun for example, and that game is much more willing to have the protagonists be amoral. Unlike D&D, the game involves stealing, espionage, even assassination from the "heroes". In D&D you are generally rewarded for "selfless" deeds. The game supports an altruistic outlook. Other games can support a more selfish outlook more.
Frugal 08-30-07, 04:54 PM	If you are attracted to the dark side of roleplaying, you actually may be better suited to a non-D&D game. Ive been playing Shadowrun for example, and that game is much more willing to have the protagonists be amoral. Unlike D&D, the game involves stealing, espionage, even assassination from the "heroes". In D&D you are generally rewarded for "selfless" deeds. The game supports an altruistic outlook. Other games can support a more selfish outlook more. I'd still be inclined to argue that it's a more a matter of campaign style, you could easily run a D&D campaign that involved darker themes, and if that's what the OP knows then I'd say stick with that system unless you find there is something you really feel lacking in it. About the only issue I can really see is that the alignment system is pretty absolute so it doesn't allow for much in the way of shades of grey.
Stormonu 08-30-07, 05:07 PM	I could never go back to play a 1E game (and I doubt you could get me to play a 2E game again). Too many glaring holes in the rules. That, and characters feel like cardboard props in 1E - there's no depth to the characters as far as mechanics go. I've heard quite a bit about Castles & Crusades, and I myself am thinking about looking into this. If I'm going to have to learn a whole new game with 4E, might as well take a look at alternate systems, aye?
Alex_P 08-30-07, 07:37 PM	In D&D you are generally rewarded for "selfless" deeds. The game supports an altruistic outlook. Other games can support a more selfish outlook more.I'd say "heroic" rather than "selfless." The game assumes that the good guys are still all about cracking skulls and accumulating treasure. Robin-Hood selfless but not Ghandi selfless. -- Alex
High Octane 08-31-07, 01:56 AM	I'd say "heroic" rather than "selfless." The game assumes that the good guys are still all about cracking skulls and accumulating treasure. Robin-Hood selfless but not Ghandi selfless. -- Alex Thats why I added the quotation marks.
arderkrag 09-02-07, 07:13 AM	I'd still be inclined to argue that it's a more a matter of campaign style, you could easily run a D&D campaign that involved darker themes, and if that's what the OP knows then I'd say stick with that system unless you find there is something you really feel lacking in it. About the only issue I can really see is that the alignment system is pretty absolute so it doesn't allow for much in the way of shades of grey. Same here. I tend to allow any actions, and have a point system for checks for alignment shift based on the Ravenloft source material.
smoker 09-02-07, 07:12 PM	If you want to go old school, pick up the D&D Cyclopedia. smoker