j00t
Silver Baronet of the Realm
- 7,380
- 7,476
The D&D thread
- Thread starter Kovaks
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
- 2,821
- 3,132
The ONLY edition, the first one.
That why I tell people they need to keep it classic and go back to the original stuff.
edit: and to go further into the topic since you mentioned fighters. For all the races (except humans) the level limits for fighters are tied to the maximum strength of the character. SO for example.... A elf fighter can get to 7th level if they have a 18 str. , but female elves can only have a max of 16 strength and therefore can only reach 5th level as a fighter, max.
1st edition is more real. Who is going to kick more ass? A male navy seal or a female "navy seal"?
Last edited:
j00t
Silver Baronet of the Realm
- 7,380
- 7,476
Realistically speaking, yes, most below average men should be able to beat any above average woman in most physical contests. Obviously that's not an absolute, but it's close enough to assume it is.
That being said I don't have an issue with that not being the case in a fantasy realm.
I'm happy you enjoy 1st edition, I just think when you say things like it being "the only edition" it... Well limits you.
But back to the point of my post. Wotc didn't create DND. They had nothing to do with 1st edition. They did however have everything to do with 5th edition and in the phb, when you flip to the page on fighters, it's a picture of a black female. I'm not going to comment on whether or not that's a good idea, but it does give credence to wotc considering themselves an ally to the sjw movement
There's nothing stopping anyone from homebrewing gender limitations into their game in any edition. Not including such things makes sense for the base game because it should act as a framework. The problem comes in when things are added to the framework to discourage people from editing in what they want, or sacrificing an entire theme of a race because a few people find it problematic, when those people were perfectly free to not using that theme if they chose.
- 1
j00t
Silver Baronet of the Realm
- 7,380
- 7,476
Chanur
Shit Posting Professional
- 28,514
- 45,529
j00t
Silver Baronet of the Realm
- 7,380
- 7,476
see... here's actually the more interesting piece... in a straight up brawl, yes, red dragons are the most challenging. but blue dragons are absolutely relentless. by design, blue dragons are supreme douches. they'll just fly above you out of range and chuck lightning breath at you FOR DAYS. they won't let you rest, they won't leave you alone. they will just slowly erode your will to fight until you have nothing left but your corpse.
and clearly, blue dragons represent blue-hair sjw's, so that checks out too.
- 1
- 2,821
- 3,132
I've been watching some recent youtube video interviews with the old masters from the first generation of creators of D&D and the various supporting publications. Very fascinating stuff, especially to hear them contrast the style of the games they created in the 70s/80's and the modern stuff. I'm firmly in the camp of what they created and its neat to hear them articulate the points why.
One said something to the effect: In 1st edition the risk was so great that it forced cooperation in the party and there are no one-man shows, while in 5th edition the element of death is basically removed (he mentioned some spell called revivify or something) and you just have story-time as the players try to become monologue their heroics and be interesting centers of attention. One old guy flat out said "he is not interested in sitting there and hearing one of the other players spin some amateur story for him, there are far more interesting professional story tellers if thats what he wanted".
What i'm gathering is that 1st/2nd edition is a cooperative table top wargame and the later editions are like a group story time session. So wargame vs LARP
One said something to the effect: In 1st edition the risk was so great that it forced cooperation in the party and there are no one-man shows, while in 5th edition the element of death is basically removed (he mentioned some spell called revivify or something) and you just have story-time as the players try to become monologue their heroics and be interesting centers of attention. One old guy flat out said "he is not interested in sitting there and hearing one of the other players spin some amateur story for him, there are far more interesting professional story tellers if thats what he wanted".
What i'm gathering is that 1st/2nd edition is a cooperative table top wargame and the later editions are like a group story time session. So wargame vs LARP
- 3
It's pretty clear why. The early editions were literally derived from early tabletop wargaming where the focus was the combat and the strategy. Later editions weren't just derivative of the progression of the game, but also the video game style combat where things were simplified and refined. Also, more significantly, to appeal to the players that wanted to play characters archetypes that they were drawn to in the huge popularity explosion of speculative fiction works in the 2000's, such as LOTR, anime, etc...
1E: "Elves in LOTR were neat, and I like magic. I want to be a mystical elf that attacks from range"
5E: "I really like Thor. I want to fly around shooting lightning bolts, crushing heads with my magical hammer, and being the prince of asgard and on a quest to find and kill my evil sister, Hela"
- 2
Chanur
Shit Posting Professional
- 28,514
- 45,529
- 2,821
- 3,132
I recommend this youtube channel , they also have a podcast concentrating on 1st edition D&D. They have skype interviews with all the old masters, which is cool because a lot of them are getting up in age, and many have already passed on. I'm not "old" by any means, but I just can't get into the ezmode new style , as many of you know from my rants in the EQ threads (and Vanguard). I'm spiritually very much tied to 70's,80's,90's gaming.
www.youtube.com
GROGTALK
GROGTALK is the official podcast of GROGCon - an annual convention in the Orlando Florida area focusing on roleplaying games from the golden age (seventies a...
www.youtube.com
- 2
j00t
Silver Baronet of the Realm
- 7,380
- 7,476
On one hand, yes, 1st edition was designed as just a dungeon crawl. I want to say that it was just like a game of gauntlet, in that you don't need to know the "why" of anything. And that's totally fine if that's what your into. Later editions ARE much more focused on the "why" of it all.
But from the sounds of it, (I'll listen to it later to make sure) I think that guy just doesn't like role playing. Which is also perfectly fine. There are a lot of tables that play like Matt Mercer's games, where they are very heavily story driven and everyone stays in character and narrates their attacks and spells. But then you have Matt colvile's games where no one does any of that. It's a tactical game, no one is ever in character, no one ever narrates anything (other than the DM to tell the players what's going on). When they cast fireball, they just go "I'm gonna fireball them. 28 fire damage, half if they save."
That's all extraneous stuff that you can do in 1st edition if you want. There's nothing STOPPING players or the DM from doing that, just like there's nothing FORCING people to do it in 5e.
Fyi, revivify is basically a defibrillator. If a player dies, and the party has access to that spell you have a minute to use it. It's generally a combat spell or JUST AFTER combat. If they don't use it within a minute after death, it auto fails. It also costs 300gp worth of diamond dust. A diamond won't work, it has to be diamond dust specifically. In the game's that I play, death is a pretty big deal. Diamonds are rare and are hoarded by the 1%. On top of that, even if you get the materials, there is a process to the spell and if you don't roll high enough, the spell fails, consuming the materials. The DM has a Homebrew rule where Everytime you fail a death save it permanently raises the DC on any future raise dead spells cast on you.
Honestly at the end of the day, you can play whatever game however you want as long as everyone at the table is having fun, who cares? If you want death to mean something, then play with a Homebrew rule that revive spells don't exist. If you don't want to RP, then don't. You know? The editions, in my opinion, have little to nothing to do with that kind of thing since the rulebook themselves say to use or not use any rule you want
But from the sounds of it, (I'll listen to it later to make sure) I think that guy just doesn't like role playing. Which is also perfectly fine. There are a lot of tables that play like Matt Mercer's games, where they are very heavily story driven and everyone stays in character and narrates their attacks and spells. But then you have Matt colvile's games where no one does any of that. It's a tactical game, no one is ever in character, no one ever narrates anything (other than the DM to tell the players what's going on). When they cast fireball, they just go "I'm gonna fireball them. 28 fire damage, half if they save."
That's all extraneous stuff that you can do in 1st edition if you want. There's nothing STOPPING players or the DM from doing that, just like there's nothing FORCING people to do it in 5e.
Fyi, revivify is basically a defibrillator. If a player dies, and the party has access to that spell you have a minute to use it. It's generally a combat spell or JUST AFTER combat. If they don't use it within a minute after death, it auto fails. It also costs 300gp worth of diamond dust. A diamond won't work, it has to be diamond dust specifically. In the game's that I play, death is a pretty big deal. Diamonds are rare and are hoarded by the 1%. On top of that, even if you get the materials, there is a process to the spell and if you don't roll high enough, the spell fails, consuming the materials. The DM has a Homebrew rule where Everytime you fail a death save it permanently raises the DC on any future raise dead spells cast on you.
Honestly at the end of the day, you can play whatever game however you want as long as everyone at the table is having fun, who cares? If you want death to mean something, then play with a Homebrew rule that revive spells don't exist. If you don't want to RP, then don't. You know? The editions, in my opinion, have little to nothing to do with that kind of thing since the rulebook themselves say to use or not use any rule you want
- 2
- 2,821
- 3,132
I get what you are saying, but there is one more thing to consider. IF you and your group want to delve back into the history of D&D and run the old modules and you DONT use the rules as written from the era they were made in, you get a lot of wackiness. The old material and modules were balanced and designed with the older edition in mind.
Of course people should play what they want. I think I am just trying to give awareness for those that don't know, that 1st edition D&D evokes the same feelings that 1999 era EQ or UO would for a MMO player. More gritty, difficult, "adult", and perhaps... meaningful/rewarding.
Do you know that in a old article in Dungeon magazine (published by TSR) there are rules for conducting a Orgy in D&D? just a small taste of how far the game as come from its very adult and gritty/dark medieval war game roots.
1st edition D&D is 1999 EQ (with the dismembered dwarf bodies in Grobb and the quest to help a dark elf honor kill the halfing female he got pregnant )
5th edition D&D is ummm hmm... I don't do modern MMOs so help me out here... maybe Archeage? (whats a big MMO where you never die and get a epic cutscene every half level?)
Most of you already know this, but the term for old-school players that want little to do with newer styles of TRPG's is Grognard. It comes from the term used for old soldiers in Napoleon's army. Much of the inspiration for creating D&D came from the old Napoleon tabletop Wargames, and those players hated D&D for the most part and thought it was childish.
A decade or so from now 5E players will be bitching about the kiddies playing 7E: Happy Equality Funtime. It's the circle of lifeeeee
A decade or so from now 5E players will be bitching about the kiddies playing 7E: Happy Equality Funtime. It's the circle of lifeeeee
- 1
j00t
Silver Baronet of the Realm
- 7,380
- 7,476
ha, there's a ruleset for orgies and sex magic for 5e too. but... you know.. it's weird...
Chanur
Shit Posting Professional
- 28,514
- 45,529
It is not just the lack of resurrection. It is also how much more deadly the diseases and poisons are and traps in general in 1st edition. Getting poisoned by a trap is a big deal. Now its like ok take 2d4 but every player has 100 hp and tons of healing so who cares.
Locnar
LOL I played with Dan once. He is great. Watching episode 1 atm.
Locnar
LOL I played with Dan once. He is great. Watching episode 1 atm. - 1