D+D 1st edition? [Archive] - Wizards Community

D+D 1st edition? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
InsertNameHere
03-18-05, 05:15 PM Does anyone know where I could find, online, a copy of the original 1st edition rules?
grayeyes008
03-18-05, 05:19 PM http://rpgnow.com/
InsertNameHere
03-18-05, 05:32 PM thanks, but is there one with it for free?
ORC_Paradox
03-18-05, 05:44 PM Nope, and any website that does is breaking the law.
devinmdp
03-18-05, 10:27 PM Nope, and any website that does is breaking the law.

So the owners of such a site had better cast Protection from Law? Or Magic Circle Against Law?

Devin
Dyrtt
03-18-05, 11:19 PM I was actually in a game store today and they had origional 3 booklet game for sale for like 75 bucks. I started to get it just for the heck of it but decided I don't really need it. Was cool to see though.
Demon Lightfoot
03-18-05, 11:20 PM So the owners of such a site had better cast Protection from Law? Or Magic Circle Against Law?

Devin

Invisibility or Invisibility, 10' radius would be helpful, too.
Gadodel
03-18-05, 11:22 PM Er, Teleport without Error or Planeshift might be pretty helpful...
Escef
03-19-05, 08:37 AM Nondetection would also be a good idea.
Elzaban the Ethereal
03-19-05, 09:17 AM Don't forget Secret Page.
Habronicus
03-19-05, 01:45 PM thanks, but is there one with it for free?

Also keep in mind that RPGNow only has AD&D 1st Edition, which came out between 1977 and 1979. If you want the original D&D 1st Edition (non-Advanced vaersion), which came out in 1974, you're out of luck because, AFAIK, it wasn't officially converted to PDF.

You're not missing out on much, though, because the rules were too sparse and simplistic. For instance, every weapon, from a Dagger to a Greatsword, caused 1d6 of damage only, and there were only 6 classes.

IMO, the good stuff from those days are the Campaign Settings and Adventure Modules. Fortunately, most are available in PDF :)
weasel fierce
03-19-05, 02:28 PM You can download my rules *points to sig*

If you remove the Adventurer class, and the level based stuff, its basically oD&D.
Weapons doing the same damage is not a problem, IMO. D&D combat is so incredibly abstract and unrealistic, that there's little point assigning arbitrary damage ratings to different weapons

EDIT: D&D 1st edition, minus the supplements has three classes ;) Fighting man, cleric and magic user.
The supplements for it added the paladin, monk, thief, druid and assasin.
The Shaman
03-19-05, 02:36 PM You're not missing out on much, though, because the rules were too sparse and simplistic. For instance, every weapon, from a Dagger to a Greatsword, caused 1d6 of damage only, and there were only 6 classes.
I learned to play the game with those "sparse and simplistic" rules, and I can tell you from personal experience that I had just as much fun then as I do now - the 'fun quotient' hasn't changed a bit for me. The fact that there are still quite a few gamers running OD&D and 1e AD&D is a monument to their ease of play and their coverage of the essential fantasy archetypes - it's also the basis for Castles and Crusades, a 'throw-back' or 'retro' fantasy RPG released recently. I would have no problem at all joining OD&D or C&C games right now, 'simplistic' as they may be.

Habronicus, in my humble opinion more isn't always better.
Habronicus
03-19-05, 04:05 PM I learned to play the game with those "sparse and simplistic" rules, and I can tell you from personal experience that I had just as much fun then as I do now - the 'fun quotient' hasn't changed a bit for me. The fact that there are still quite a few gamers running OD&D and 1e AD&D is a monument to their ease of play and their coverage of the essential fantasy archetypes - it's also the basis for Castles and Crusades, a 'throw-back' or 'retro' fantasy RPG released recently. I would have no problem at all joining OD&D or C&C games right now, 'simplistic' as they may be.

Habronicus, in my humble opinion more isn't always better.

And I didn't say it was. There's desperate need for a clarification here:

I was *not* trying to imply that the new rules are better than the old ones. I was just stating a fact... the rules *were* sparse and simplistic. If that's better, worse, or just different, it's for each to decide.

I apologise if that came off as a negative comment, but it was not intended as such.

EDIT: D&D 1st edition, minus the supplements has three classes

I repeat: There were 6 classes. Fighting-Man, Magic-User and Cleric were Human classes. Then you had Elf (a cross between Fighting-Man and Magic-User), Dwarf (a Fighting-Man with special racial bonuses), and Hobbit (a Fighting-Man with special racial bonuses).

That's all without supplements.
Red Knight
03-19-05, 04:15 PM Hm.. I have a bunch of D&D 1st ed books somewhere. Wish I could find them.
weasel fierce
03-19-05, 04:27 PM I repeat: There were 6 classes. Fighting-Man, Magic-User and Cleric were Human classes. Then you had Elf (a cross between Fighting-Man and Magic-User), Dwarf (a Fighting-Man with special racial bonuses), and Hobbit (a Fighting-Man with special racial bonuses).

That's all without supplements.

If you count the demihumans as separate classes, yeah, there were 6. Sorry about that.

Using Greyhawk and Blackmoor, the numbers get higher, as some of those classes were also opened to demihumans, particularly the thief.

Cheers
Habronicus
03-20-05, 06:56 AM If you count the demihumans as separate classes, yeah, there were 6. Sorry about that.

Well, they are considered Classes in the rules.

Using Greyhawk and Blackmoor, the numbers get higher, as some of those classes were also opened to demihumans, particularly the thief.

:confused:

I don't have those books with me, but are you sure about that? As far as I remember, the Thief was human only. Only in AD&D did the concept of mixing Race and Class first appeared. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
weasel fierce
03-20-05, 01:36 PM I love having a discussion about something written 30+ years ago :D

I dug out the "men and magic" booklet and Greyhawk and here goes:

Page 6 of "M&M" states that there are 3 classes. Dwarves and hobbits are restricted to fighting man only, while elves can pick at the start of each game session

From Greyhawk, from 4 "Furthermore, dwarves, elves, halfelves, or hobbits may be thieves, and in this class, there will be no limit to their continuing to advance to the highest level"

It wasnt untill the basic D&D sets (moldway/cook and later Mentzer) that class = race was made solid. And AD&D of course, separated the two completely

Cheers!
VirgilCaine
03-20-05, 01:40 PM Don't forget Secret Page.

No point in putting it online then, since no one can access it. ;)
Habronicus
03-21-05, 09:34 AM I dug out the "men and magic" booklet and Greyhawk and here goes:

Page 6 of "M&M" states that there are 3 classes. Dwarves and hobbits are restricted to fighting man only, while elves can pick at the start of each game session

From Greyhawk, from 4 "Furthermore, dwarves, elves, halfelves, or hobbits may be thieves, and in this class, there will be no limit to their continuing to advance to the highest level"

It wasnt untill the basic D&D sets (moldway/cook and later Mentzer) that class = race was made solid. And AD&D of course, separated the two completely

I stand corrected. As I pointed out in my previous message, I didn't have the books, so I was going by memory.

Thanks for the clear-up :thumbsup:
weasel fierce
03-21-05, 01:52 PM No worries man. Glad to be of assistance.
Arrowhen
03-21-05, 03:26 PM You can download my rules *points to sig*

If you remove the Adventurer class, and the level based stuff, its basically oD&D.
I downloaded your rules a couple of days ago and was very much impressed. I'd highly recommend them to anyone who wants to recapture that "old school" D&D feel while still retaining some of the character customization options that we've come to expect from 3rd. ed.

Weasel, are you still working on them? Can we expect the magic and monster books to come out soon?
weasel fierce
03-22-05, 12:59 AM I downloaded your rules a couple of days ago and was very much impressed. I'd highly recommend them to anyone who wants to recapture that "old school" D&D feel while still retaining some of the character customization options that we've come to expect from 3rd. ed.

If thats what you got from reading them, then its EXACTLY what I set out to do

Weasel, are you still working on them? Can we expect the magic and monster books to come out soon?
I write a bit every night, and yeah. Monsters and spells are on the way. Im a bit torn though, between doing something original (new spells and monsters) or using the old school D&D critters that we know and love (or hate, as the case may be). Copyright is also an issue here for some items.
RagnarokBlade
03-22-05, 10:26 AM I have the original box set, because my dad gave it to me.
Trust me, it's not worth the effort, so many restrictions it's stupid. Clerics can't use bladed weapons, they're 100% without spells till the second level. Etc. etc.
Don't bother.
rogueattorney
03-22-05, 12:55 PM I have the original box set, because my dad gave it to me.
Trust me, it's not worth the effort, so many restrictions it's stupid. Clerics can't use bladed weapons, they're 100% without spells till the second level. Etc. etc.
Don't bother.

I have the 3.5 PHB because my wife gave it to me.

Trust me, it's not worth the effort. So many rules. Combat so complicated. Over 100 pages of spells alone. It doesn't in the least resemble the D&D I grew up with.

Just sayin'... It goes both ways.

R.A.
Cthulhu
03-22-05, 01:40 PM I have the original box set, because my dad gave it to me.
Trust me, it's not worth the effort, so many restrictions it's stupid. Clerics can't use bladed weapons, they're 100% without spells till the second level. Etc. etc.
Don't bother.

Depends on what you want. Those restrictions also simplify the rules so its much faster to play. You can actually roll up characters and complete an entire standard adventure in just a couple of hours. No obnoxious amounts of rules lawyering. No constant back and forth page flipping to make sure you can do that action.

Third Edition is a good game. But its also complex and slow in those areas where earlier editions of D&D were much faster. Play Castles & Crusaders for instance and you can see exactly where those strengths lie.
weasel fierce
03-23-05, 01:12 AM I have the original box set, because my dad gave it to me.
Trust me, it's not worth the effort, so many restrictions it's stupid. Clerics can't use bladed weapons, they're 100% without spells till the second level. Etc. etc.
Don't bother.

I dont see a problem with clerics not using edged weapons. Neither with him having no spells at level 1 (which actually balances him out very nicely with the magic user)

Of course, playing a were-dragon-drow paladin is hard to do with oD&D, so it may fall somewhat outside some of the current target audience
Arrowhen
03-23-05, 04:48 AM I write a bit every night, and yeah. Monsters and spells are on the way. Im a bit torn though, between doing something original (new spells and monsters) or using the old school D&D critters that we know and love (or hate, as the case may be).
No reason you can't do both. As long as the classics monsters and spells are in there (orcs and dragons, magic missiles and fireballs), no one's going to lynch you if you add your own touches as well. There's no such thing as too many monsters or spells.
Copyright is also an issue here for some items.
For fantasy staples like goblins and dragons, this shouldn't be an issue. For the rest, I'd just settle for a set of conversion guidelines to use with my 1st or 2nd ed. Monster(ous) Manuals.
Habronicus
03-23-05, 10:14 AM Weasel, I just looked at your rules and, though I haven't read everything yet, I have a couple of comments:

1 - You could use an Editor. Not that important, but it makes reading easier.

2 - Kind of linked to the first point above, I suppose. Your "Clerics turning undead" section left me confused. You say that "free willed undead are at a penalty". Don't you mean, they add a penalty to the Cleric roll? It makes little sense that a Vampire will have a harder time with Clerics than a Zombie.
weasel fierce
03-24-05, 01:06 AM I may use a bit of both. More interesting that way.

Editor ? YES. Any takers ? ;) I speak english as my second language, so it sometimes comes out a bit quirky.

And yes, free willed undead impose a penalty to the turning attempt. I'll try to rephrase it so it becomes more intuitive to read
Eliza_Stormwhisper
03-24-05, 03:12 AM Depends on what you want. Those restrictions also simplify the rules so its much faster to play. You can actually roll up characters and complete an entire standard adventure in just a couple of hours. No obnoxious amounts of rules lawyering. No constant back and forth page flipping to make sure you can do that action.

Third Edition is a good game. But its also complex and slow in those areas where earlier editions of D&D were much faster. Play Castles & Crusaders for instance and you can see exactly where those strengths lie.

I'd actually argue the opposite. That's just my opinion, though. My opinion elaborated upon is as follows:

The earlier editions were about the fantasy role-playing aspect. Game conventions were simple because that's not really what the game was about. You were creating a character, and the other characters were reacting to your character.

3 and 3.5, I believe, cater more towards the gaming aspect of it. When playing 3.5, it's much easier to have a feeling of "I'm playing a game" than developing who your character is.
Cthulhu
03-24-05, 12:56 PM I'd actually argue the opposite. That's just my opinion, though. My opinion elaborated upon is as follows:

My original post was that earlier editions of D&D are indeed worth playing for those reasons RagarokBlade dismisses. I fail to see how your post connects with this.

The earlier editions were about the fantasy role-playing aspect. Game conventions were simple because that's not really what the game was about. You were creating a character, and the other characters were reacting to your character.

You have roleplaying in a D&D game because thats what you want to do. It doesn't really have that much to do with which edition your playing.

Frankly the earliest D&D editions were more about simulating the tactical problems of fantasy units (PCs) in a battlefield environment (dungeon). The role-playing was incidental to the game. Despite this you can still do terrific RPing.

3 and 3.5, I believe, cater more towards the gaming aspect of it. When playing 3.5, it's much easier to have a feeling of "I'm playing a game" than developing who your character is.

I won't argue with this. 3.5 has a lot of rules that give it a more gamist appoach. But you can still do decent RPing.
diaglo
03-24-05, 01:18 PM No worries man. Glad to be of assistance.

some of us still play OD&D(1974) :D

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
InsertNameHere 03-18-05, 05:15 PM	Does anyone know where I could find, online, a copy of the original 1st edition rules?
grayeyes008 03-18-05, 05:19 PM	http://rpgnow.com/
InsertNameHere 03-18-05, 05:32 PM	thanks, but is there one with it for free?
ORC_Paradox 03-18-05, 05:44 PM	Nope, and any website that does is breaking the law.
devinmdp 03-18-05, 10:27 PM	Nope, and any website that does is breaking the law. So the owners of such a site had better cast Protection from Law? Or Magic Circle Against Law? Devin
Dyrtt 03-18-05, 11:19 PM	I was actually in a game store today and they had origional 3 booklet game for sale for like 75 bucks. I started to get it just for the heck of it but decided I don't really need it. Was cool to see though.
Demon Lightfoot 03-18-05, 11:20 PM	So the owners of such a site had better cast Protection from Law? Or Magic Circle Against Law? Devin Invisibility or Invisibility, 10' radius would be helpful, too.
Gadodel 03-18-05, 11:22 PM	Er, Teleport without Error or Planeshift might be pretty helpful...
Escef 03-19-05, 08:37 AM	Nondetection would also be a good idea.
Elzaban the Ethereal 03-19-05, 09:17 AM	Don't forget Secret Page.
Habronicus 03-19-05, 01:45 PM	thanks, but is there one with it for free? Also keep in mind that RPGNow only has AD&D 1st Edition, which came out between 1977 and 1979. If you want the original D&D 1st Edition (non-Advanced vaersion), which came out in 1974, you're out of luck because, AFAIK, it wasn't officially converted to PDF. You're not missing out on much, though, because the rules were too sparse and simplistic. For instance, every weapon, from a Dagger to a Greatsword, caused 1d6 of damage only, and there were only 6 classes. IMO, the good stuff from those days are the Campaign Settings and Adventure Modules. Fortunately, most are available in PDF :)
weasel fierce 03-19-05, 02:28 PM	You can download my rules points to sig If you remove the Adventurer class, and the level based stuff, its basically oD&D. Weapons doing the same damage is not a problem, IMO. D&D combat is so incredibly abstract and unrealistic, that there's little point assigning arbitrary damage ratings to different weapons EDIT: D&D 1st edition, minus the supplements has three classes ;) Fighting man, cleric and magic user. The supplements for it added the paladin, monk, thief, druid and assasin.
The Shaman 03-19-05, 02:36 PM	You're not missing out on much, though, because the rules were too sparse and simplistic. For instance, every weapon, from a Dagger to a Greatsword, caused 1d6 of damage only, and there were only 6 classes. I learned to play the game with those "sparse and simplistic" rules, and I can tell you from personal experience that I had just as much fun then as I do now - the 'fun quotient' hasn't changed a bit for me. The fact that there are still quite a few gamers running OD&D and 1e AD&D is a monument to their ease of play and their coverage of the essential fantasy archetypes - it's also the basis for Castles and Crusades, a 'throw-back' or 'retro' fantasy RPG released recently. I would have no problem at all joining OD&D or C&C games right now, 'simplistic' as they may be. Habronicus, in my humble opinion more isn't always better.
Habronicus 03-19-05, 04:05 PM	I learned to play the game with those "sparse and simplistic" rules, and I can tell you from personal experience that I had just as much fun then as I do now - the 'fun quotient' hasn't changed a bit for me. The fact that there are still quite a few gamers running OD&D and 1e AD&D is a monument to their ease of play and their coverage of the essential fantasy archetypes - it's also the basis for Castles and Crusades, a 'throw-back' or 'retro' fantasy RPG released recently. I would have no problem at all joining OD&D or C&C games right now, 'simplistic' as they may be. Habronicus, in my humble opinion more isn't always better. And I didn't say it was. There's desperate need for a clarification here: I was not trying to imply that the new rules are better than the old ones. I was just stating a fact... the rules were sparse and simplistic. If that's better, worse, or just different, it's for each to decide. I apologise if that came off as a negative comment, but it was not intended as such. EDIT: D&D 1st edition, minus the supplements has three classes I repeat: There were 6 classes. Fighting-Man, Magic-User and Cleric were Human classes. Then you had Elf (a cross between Fighting-Man and Magic-User), Dwarf (a Fighting-Man with special racial bonuses), and Hobbit (a Fighting-Man with special racial bonuses). That's all without supplements.
Red Knight 03-19-05, 04:15 PM	Hm.. I have a bunch of D&D 1st ed books somewhere. Wish I could find them.
weasel fierce 03-19-05, 04:27 PM	I repeat: There were 6 classes. Fighting-Man, Magic-User and Cleric were Human classes. Then you had Elf (a cross between Fighting-Man and Magic-User), Dwarf (a Fighting-Man with special racial bonuses), and Hobbit (a Fighting-Man with special racial bonuses). That's all without supplements. If you count the demihumans as separate classes, yeah, there were 6. Sorry about that. Using Greyhawk and Blackmoor, the numbers get higher, as some of those classes were also opened to demihumans, particularly the thief. Cheers
Habronicus 03-20-05, 06:56 AM	If you count the demihumans as separate classes, yeah, there were 6. Sorry about that. Well, they are considered Classes in the rules. Using Greyhawk and Blackmoor, the numbers get higher, as some of those classes were also opened to demihumans, particularly the thief. :confused: I don't have those books with me, but are you sure about that? As far as I remember, the Thief was human only. Only in AD&D did the concept of mixing Race and Class first appeared. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
weasel fierce 03-20-05, 01:36 PM	I love having a discussion about something written 30+ years ago :D I dug out the "men and magic" booklet and Greyhawk and here goes: Page 6 of "M&M" states that there are 3 classes. Dwarves and hobbits are restricted to fighting man only, while elves can pick at the start of each game session From Greyhawk, from 4 "Furthermore, dwarves, elves, halfelves, or hobbits may be thieves, and in this class, there will be no limit to their continuing to advance to the highest level" It wasnt untill the basic D&D sets (moldway/cook and later Mentzer) that class = race was made solid. And AD&D of course, separated the two completely Cheers!
VirgilCaine 03-20-05, 01:40 PM	Don't forget Secret Page. No point in putting it online then, since no one can access it. ;)
Habronicus 03-21-05, 09:34 AM	I dug out the "men and magic" booklet and Greyhawk and here goes: Page 6 of "M&M" states that there are 3 classes. Dwarves and hobbits are restricted to fighting man only, while elves can pick at the start of each game session From Greyhawk, from 4 "Furthermore, dwarves, elves, halfelves, or hobbits may be thieves, and in this class, there will be no limit to their continuing to advance to the highest level" It wasnt untill the basic D&D sets (moldway/cook and later Mentzer) that class = race was made solid. And AD&D of course, separated the two completely I stand corrected. As I pointed out in my previous message, I didn't have the books, so I was going by memory. Thanks for the clear-up :thumbsup:
weasel fierce 03-21-05, 01:52 PM	No worries man. Glad to be of assistance.
Arrowhen 03-21-05, 03:26 PM	You can download my rules points to sig If you remove the Adventurer class, and the level based stuff, its basically oD&D. I downloaded your rules a couple of days ago and was very much impressed. I'd highly recommend them to anyone who wants to recapture that "old school" D&D feel while still retaining some of the character customization options that we've come to expect from 3rd. ed. Weasel, are you still working on them? Can we expect the magic and monster books to come out soon?
weasel fierce 03-22-05, 12:59 AM	I downloaded your rules a couple of days ago and was very much impressed. I'd highly recommend them to anyone who wants to recapture that "old school" D&D feel while still retaining some of the character customization options that we've come to expect from 3rd. ed. If thats what you got from reading them, then its EXACTLY what I set out to do Weasel, are you still working on them? Can we expect the magic and monster books to come out soon? I write a bit every night, and yeah. Monsters and spells are on the way. Im a bit torn though, between doing something original (new spells and monsters) or using the old school D&D critters that we know and love (or hate, as the case may be). Copyright is also an issue here for some items.
RagnarokBlade 03-22-05, 10:26 AM	I have the original box set, because my dad gave it to me. Trust me, it's not worth the effort, so many restrictions it's stupid. Clerics can't use bladed weapons, they're 100% without spells till the second level. Etc. etc. Don't bother.
rogueattorney 03-22-05, 12:55 PM	I have the original box set, because my dad gave it to me. Trust me, it's not worth the effort, so many restrictions it's stupid. Clerics can't use bladed weapons, they're 100% without spells till the second level. Etc. etc. Don't bother. I have the 3.5 PHB because my wife gave it to me. Trust me, it's not worth the effort. So many rules. Combat so complicated. Over 100 pages of spells alone. It doesn't in the least resemble the D&D I grew up with. Just sayin'... It goes both ways. R.A.
Cthulhu 03-22-05, 01:40 PM	I have the original box set, because my dad gave it to me. Trust me, it's not worth the effort, so many restrictions it's stupid. Clerics can't use bladed weapons, they're 100% without spells till the second level. Etc. etc. Don't bother. Depends on what you want. Those restrictions also simplify the rules so its much faster to play. You can actually roll up characters and complete an entire standard adventure in just a couple of hours. No obnoxious amounts of rules lawyering. No constant back and forth page flipping to make sure you can do that action. Third Edition is a good game. But its also complex and slow in those areas where earlier editions of D&D were much faster. Play Castles & Crusaders for instance and you can see exactly where those strengths lie.
weasel fierce 03-23-05, 01:12 AM	I have the original box set, because my dad gave it to me. Trust me, it's not worth the effort, so many restrictions it's stupid. Clerics can't use bladed weapons, they're 100% without spells till the second level. Etc. etc. Don't bother. I dont see a problem with clerics not using edged weapons. Neither with him having no spells at level 1 (which actually balances him out very nicely with the magic user) Of course, playing a were-dragon-drow paladin is hard to do with oD&D, so it may fall somewhat outside some of the current target audience
Arrowhen 03-23-05, 04:48 AM	I write a bit every night, and yeah. Monsters and spells are on the way. Im a bit torn though, between doing something original (new spells and monsters) or using the old school D&D critters that we know and love (or hate, as the case may be). No reason you can't do both. As long as the classics monsters and spells are in there (orcs and dragons, magic missiles and fireballs), no one's going to lynch you if you add your own touches as well. There's no such thing as too many monsters or spells. Copyright is also an issue here for some items. For fantasy staples like goblins and dragons, this shouldn't be an issue. For the rest, I'd just settle for a set of conversion guidelines to use with my 1st or 2nd ed. Monster(ous) Manuals.
Habronicus 03-23-05, 10:14 AM	Weasel, I just looked at your rules and, though I haven't read everything yet, I have a couple of comments: 1 - You could use an Editor. Not that important, but it makes reading easier. 2 - Kind of linked to the first point above, I suppose. Your "Clerics turning undead" section left me confused. You say that "free willed undead are at a penalty". Don't you mean, they add a penalty to the Cleric roll? It makes little sense that a Vampire will have a harder time with Clerics than a Zombie.
weasel fierce 03-24-05, 01:06 AM	I may use a bit of both. More interesting that way. Editor ? YES. Any takers ? ;) I speak english as my second language, so it sometimes comes out a bit quirky. And yes, free willed undead impose a penalty to the turning attempt. I'll try to rephrase it so it becomes more intuitive to read
Eliza_Stormwhisper 03-24-05, 03:12 AM	Depends on what you want. Those restrictions also simplify the rules so its much faster to play. You can actually roll up characters and complete an entire standard adventure in just a couple of hours. No obnoxious amounts of rules lawyering. No constant back and forth page flipping to make sure you can do that action. Third Edition is a good game. But its also complex and slow in those areas where earlier editions of D&D were much faster. Play Castles & Crusaders for instance and you can see exactly where those strengths lie. I'd actually argue the opposite. That's just my opinion, though. My opinion elaborated upon is as follows: The earlier editions were about the fantasy role-playing aspect. Game conventions were simple because that's not really what the game was about. You were creating a character, and the other characters were reacting to your character. 3 and 3.5, I believe, cater more towards the gaming aspect of it. When playing 3.5, it's much easier to have a feeling of "I'm playing a game" than developing who your character is.
Cthulhu 03-24-05, 12:56 PM	I'd actually argue the opposite. That's just my opinion, though. My opinion elaborated upon is as follows: My original post was that earlier editions of D&D are indeed worth playing for those reasons RagarokBlade dismisses. I fail to see how your post connects with this. The earlier editions were about the fantasy role-playing aspect. Game conventions were simple because that's not really what the game was about. You were creating a character, and the other characters were reacting to your character. You have roleplaying in a D&D game because thats what you want to do. It doesn't really have that much to do with which edition your playing. Frankly the earliest D&D editions were more about simulating the tactical problems of fantasy units (PCs) in a battlefield environment (dungeon). The role-playing was incidental to the game. Despite this you can still do terrific RPing. 3 and 3.5, I believe, cater more towards the gaming aspect of it. When playing 3.5, it's much easier to have a feeling of "I'm playing a game" than developing who your character is. I won't argue with this. 3.5 has a lot of rules that give it a more gamist appoach. But you can still do decent RPing.
diaglo 03-24-05, 01:18 PM	No worries man. Glad to be of assistance. some of us still play OD&D(1974) :D