Planescape 1e

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
Beelzebub's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2009-01-14
Planescape 1e

 Greetings planewalkers.

 

  It has come to my attention, though I doubt it has only occured to me to try to run planescape with the first edition of AD&D rather than the second for which it was written.

  Given the overall lesser number of books 1e has (less than 12) for the whole edition vs the 20+ for either 2e or 3.x, as well as the far greater similarity of 1e to 2e over 4e. I believe the idea is an intriguing one.

  Has anyone tried to run planescape 1e ? How was your experience if you did ? If you have both 1e and Planescape experience. What do you think about the feasibility of the concept.

 

 

  

Jack of tears's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2005-12-13
1 E was an alright system,

1 E was an alright system, but I feel 2E improved upon it fairly well.  While I still make use of some 1E materials, certainly some of the survival guides and the god books, 2E had a friendlier and more flexible feel overall.  The spells tend to be better, the thief progression is certainly better, the inclusion of proficencies is something I'd sorely miss - especially in Planescape ... personally, I feel you'd be missing something using the older system ... but then, I haven't used any of the 3+ edition materials either, so some might say the same about me.  Certainly translating material from second edition back into first would be fairly easy ... but why?

Mind you, I've done much more 2E and took a fair ammount of material from thier when designing my own system, so I may be biased.

 

Zsu-Et-Am's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2007-12-02
[Oh my, it seems that it's

[Oh my, it seems that it's time to delurk once again. And I haven't posted even once since the change of Planewalker's engine.]

'Lo berks. Frankly, I think it's quite good idea, but why stay with 1e and don't go further? Maybe you could make use of pre-AD&D version of games: 3LBB (i.e. Three Little Brown Booklets or Original Dungeons & Dragons, plus maybe official Supplements III & IV, i.e. Eldritch Wizardry & Gods, Demigods, and Heroes; I suppose that Supplements I & II, Greyhawk & Blackmoor, wouldn't be necessary), the "0e" from 1974? I'm serious with that one.

Personally, I have never played 0e, though I'm recently lively interested in it, and find it quite approbriate for use with PS, although somewhat different from almost anything I'm used to. Nevertheless, no matter how strange it would seem (remember, back then there were no "Great Wheel" or anything - just few suggestion that some kind of planes exists), it actually should work well. Ideas like "guidelines, not rules (and even if so, rather simple ones, except maybe all that messy "how-to-hit" mechanic Wink)", "skills of player, and not his character", and the whole "sandboxes/wilderness" conception (which should be easilly converted to use in some planes-oriented game)...

Oh, and be sure not to miss that it would be "from zero to some-kind-of hero; mortal one, actually" play. Also, remember about the Rule of Threes; i.e.: there were only three classes to choose from (Fighting-Man, Cleric & the Magic-User; no Thief or anything - everyone has to be cautious). The most important drawback that comes to my mind is that without some serious modifications, it has to be a "human-only" (or "mostly-human") game.

Those who speak Polish can read more about 0e, old school, retro-gaming etc. on the Demons & Dragons, a blog by Polish grognard Jarl Frå Oslo, and everyone else have many fabulous websites to choose from, just to mention the Grognardia. For some good retro-propaganda you should check A Quick Primer For Old School Gaming, and maybe also the What Made Original D&D Great article. If you (or anyone else) will go with that idea, I'd love to read some game report, actual play, or whatever.

[PS: Sorry for any errors in my post, now it's 4:25 AM here in Poland.]

Thanael's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2008-05-27
Beelzebub wrote:Given the

Beelzebub wrote:
Given the overall lesser number of books 1e has (less than 12) for the whole edition vs the 20+ for either 2e or 3.x, as well as the far greater similarity of 1e to 2e over 4e. I believe the idea is an intriguing one.

This I don't understand.  You do mean rulebooks right? You can easily run 2E on the PHB, DMG, and MMs. Just as easy as 1e. But then you'd loose so many options and flavour, no kits so you can only play vanilla classes. No specialty priests or wizards. Granted I would always run 2E with the inclusion of some 1E things (halforcs & monks for example, some stuff from DMG, WSG, DSG). But i would never loose all the many options the complete books and different settings gave you. And imho PS thrived on those. 

But surely you don't need to have <i>all</i> of the books. Pick and choose. Anyways both 1E and 2E books are available for very cheap nowadays so i don't really see the point at all. 

Beelzebub's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2009-01-14
Kits to me are something of

Kits to me are something of a double edged blade. They can easily be abused or taken beyond their intended role. Some kits like Red Wizard of Thay, Witch of Rashemen or the Monk kit for Psionicists in Athas or the one for Priests in the Priest Handbook were good kits in my opinion. That is they made modifications with real impact on the class in question and had very solid role-play backup. The rest I`m not all that crazy about. 

1e did have proficencies, they came along in the Wilderness Survival Guide and Dungeoneer`s Survival guide. As for the rest I think that a total of eight books (Player`s Handbook, Monster Manual 1, Monster Manual 2, Fiend Folio, Dungeoneer`s Guide, Wilderness Guide, Dungeon Master Guide and Unearthed Arcana) Planescape setting specific stuff is a tempting concept, specially when they felt the need to streamline much of it for 2e, which would mean that having few books doesn`t necesarily mean having little content.

The idea of doing PS 1e, came from having so much already done for 1e and wanting to try the 1e character classes. Thus I figured it would be logical just to use the 1e system rather than try to make a 1e/2e hybrid.

 Truth be told I have tried to obtain Original Edition material and have never really succeeded. Thus I cannot really try to run it, since I have never really seen it.

 

Thus my intent to use research the possibility of Planescape 1e.

 

Thanking you for your comments.

B.

Rikutatis's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2004-12-23
I have never played 1e, so

I have never played 1e, so please forgive me for the ignorance on the matter. But wasn't one of the differences between 1st and 2nd edition the way spells were split into schools of magic in 2e? Or were the schools (divination, conjuration, necromancy, etc) also available in 1e?

 I'm just thinking about the way planar travel affects magic based on which schools the spells belong to (such as illusion magic being more potent or wild in say, Arborea). In case that element is missing and/or different in 1e, you might need to tinker with the system a little bit.

Just a thought. I think playing a PS game in 1e (or any other edition for that matter) is totally feasible as long as you're willing to tinker with the system a little bit to achieve the overall feel of a PS campaign. The last two PS campaigns I ran were 3e, but I totally ignored the 3rd edition rules on planar travel and magic (enhanced, impeded and whatnot) and adapted the original 2e PS rules on it.

I actually plan to adapt and use basic D&D (Rules Cyclopedia) for my next campaign, because I'm a bit tired of how one of my players abuses the 3e system to min/max his characters. So whatever works for you.

Zsu-Et-Am's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2007-12-02
'Zebub - you can always buy

'Zebub - you can always buy them, e.g. on the DriveThru RPG. I also found on the Internet incomplete -- inter alia without spells -- OD&D Consolidated Rules (simillar in form to the nowadays SRD), though I'm not sure how accurate they are. Also, it hasn't been modified since 2000, and it seems from the introduction that the autor wasn't too "grognardish" (for example, he blames the original pictures and level-titles, calling them "silly").

Clueless's picture
Offline
Webmonkey
Joined: 2008-06-30
I would be realyl curious to

I would be realyl curious to see where this goes actually. I've played in every edition of DnD (yes that means some of the books  I've played with are older than me). So I'd be pretty curious to see what you came up with Smiling

ripvanwormer's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2004-10-05
The schools of magic

The schools of magic existed in 1st edition, but they didn't have specialist mages back then. Instead, illusionist was a completely separate class, and the other specialist mages - necromancer, enchanter, conjurer, and so on - didn't exist at all. Magic-user, which was the main arcane spellcaster class, got most of the non-illusion spells.

Arguably, 1st level illusionists were a more distinctive, more interesting class than 2e illusion specialists (and I've heard it said that 1e druids were more distinctive and interesting than 2e druids became after they were made a kind of specialty priest, with generalist clerics subsequently getting access to spells that were exclusively the province of the druid class before). 

 I only played 1e a few times, so opinions on gameplay are hearsay, mind you, though I know that specialist mages and priests were new to 2nd edition, and I know for a fact that 1st edition spell descriptions included schools of magic even though specialists of those schools didn't yet exist. The 1st edition Manual of the Planes was the first place to note spell alterations by school of magic, I think. 

Rikutatis's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2004-12-23
Thanks for the clarification

Thanks for the clarification Rip!

AlexanderDrake's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2008-11-25
Well I am using some of the

Well I am using some of the 2ed Planescape material with my Eberron campign for 3.5. But the first thing that I am trying to do is that everyone has fun.

 

Alexi

Planescape, Dungeons & Dragons, their logos, Wizards of the Coast, and the Wizards of the Coast logo are ©2008, Wizards of the Coast, a subsidiary of Hasbro Inc. and used with permission.