General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
1st Edition was memorable for the adventures.
2nd Edition was memorable for the settings. 3e was memorable for the rules. 4e is memorable for the electronic support.
IMO, that's the big thing that's noticable about this edition but not the others.
I wouldn't go so far as to say 4e is "about" electronic support, but then I wouldn't say any of the previous editions were "about" those other things either.
I can't really comment on 1e and 3e since I didn't play those editions except for CRPGs (e.g. Pool of Radiance, ToEE), though I'd say that the OGL is certainly one of the strong features of 3e.
2e: An abundance of diverse settings and mechanical options (e.g. Complete X books, Tome of Magic, Player's Option books)
4e: Balance and ease of DMing
__________________ Pour le Rouse! Member of the Rouseketeers.
From a business perspective, I'd say that...
1E was all about the game
2E was all about the fans 3E was all about the brand 4E is all about the marketing
And from a player's perspective, I feel that...
1E was all about the imagination
2E was all about the stats 3E was all about the gear 4E is all about the powers
But from a DM's perspective, I think...
1E was all about the story
2E was all about the monsters 3E was all about time management 4E is all about the battlemat
1E was about fleshing out the game.
2E was about streamlining and cleaning up 1E. 3E was about creating a consistent, unified, versatile ruleset. 4E was about making the system work smoothly in actual play.
I think this is by far the best answer so far, as it addresses the question from the perspective of the designers as opposed to the perspective of the various players - which will differ from table to table depending on how they played the game.
We can say something about what the designers were trying to achieve. We can't really say anything about how the rules were used by the players except to offer opinions about how we personally perceived or use them.
So any way, my take is probably no more than a restatement of what Dausuul said using different words but:
1) 1E was about exploration
2) 2E was about clarity
3) 3E was about consistancy
4) 4E was about balance
I would say that if you ranked these four attributes in terms of there importance to you in a rules set, it would reflect fairly well how well you responded to (or still respond) to the rules set.
If you like exploration, but care nothing about clarity, consistancy, or balance (and in fact perhaps consider clarity or balance to be anthetical to the best sort of play), then you probably fondly remember or still play 1e. On the other hand, if you care about clarity, consistancy, and especially balance, but don't care that much about exploration, then you probably love 4e and despise 1e.
I should note that I'm here using 'exploration' in a rather special sense, because I suspect that the previous sentence will spark an edition war if I don't clarify. By 'exploration' I don't mean the process of characters moving from a place to some new place ('adventuring'), but rather discovering new rules, new ways to interact with the world, and new elements of the world you didn't previously know existed. Clearly, if the rules are clear, consistant, and comprehensive, then you aren't as a player in the position of discovering those rules or new aspects of the game. In 1st edition, for example, you might learn that you can research spells or create magic items and do so not knowing at first exactly how it is done. By 3rd edition, this is no longer the case. You begin the game with this vista clearly in view. Hense, the experience of 'exploration' is very different between the two editions, and you can see why the 1e idea of exploration might be despised by some people and loved by others (even with both wanted 'adventure').
For my part, I rank the attributes consistant, exploration, balance, and clarity. With consistant being a short gap ahead of exploration and then a longer gap to the other two. I don't mind my rules being esoteric - indeed to a certain extent prefer it - because I've got a good memory and evocative and enabling is more important to me than simple. I want part of the game to be hidden from view so that you are encouraged to focus on world mastery and not system mastery. Balance is important only when the lack of it threatens to stop play, but consistancy and its partner comprehensiveness is very welcome for me as a DM because it gives me the tools to quickly judge any situation that comes up without stopping play to much.
__________________ Shameless plug for my current Enworld project. Learn more than you ever wanted about the Slaad Lords here.
New updates semi-regularly. Please stop in. Feedback, positive or negative, much appreciated.
1E is about my childhood
2E is about my college years 3E is about meeting some really fantastic friends 4E is about... ?
At this point, it's "a brand new world, leaving my comfort zone and seeing where the world takes me."
__________________ "Conversely, I'm amazed at the number of people queueing up to tell people that don't like 4e that they are wrong. Why can't people just agree to disagree, and get on with actually playing the game?" --Delericho
If there's one dragon, it's a solo monster.
If there's five dragons, they're standard monsters.
If there's a dozen dragons, either most of them are minions or your DM is tired of the campaign.
--Lizard
1e was about dying to everything and your friends dying to the rotgrubs in your body
2e was about almost dying to metaplots, but being saved by a plethora of contingencies 3e was about dying to easily failed saves and critical hits or just being completely immune to all that silliness 4e was about dying as a team, if at all
1e was about dying to everything and your friends dying to the rotgrubs in your body
2e was about almost dying to metaplots, but being saved by a plethora of contingencies 3e was about dying to easily failed saves and critical hits or just being completely immune to all that silliness 4e was about dying as a team, if at all
This is the one I can identify myself with.
I actually managed to kill a character (Invoker) the other day because he cornered himself and the rest of the party was teleported down a floor. My last attack took him from 1-2 hp to more than minus bloodied in one fell swoop.
He got "rescued" by the Raven Queen.
... So now I have got a Invoker that worships the Raven Queen.
IMHO,
OD&D is about survival and adventure in a Pulp Fantasy world.
Classic D&D is about the struggle for power and immortality in the world of Medieval Romances.
1st Edition AD&D is about exploration and treasure seeking in a Swords & Sorcery world.
2nd Edition is about character development in worlds of Epic Fantasy.
3rd Edition is about developing personal powers in a world of Fantasy Super-Heroes.
4th Edition is about combat in a world of Hong Kong Action Movies.
1E is about the dungeon. Your classic dungeon crawl.
2E is about the setting and the story. We moved out of the dungeon and started exploring Planescape, Dark Sun, and Forgotten Realms, as a whole. 3E is about the choices. More varied multiclassing. More varied methods of casting. More varied game mechanics. 4E is about the math. Heavy emphasis on balancing things out, keeping everything numerically guided.
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
As some others have mentioned, I think it is about balance.
That's what I have told friends who have not tried it yet (but who have played previous editions). I think there are good and bad aspects to that, but balance is the answer imo.
__________________
Dark Water Campaign run in the Last Lands
----=====----
1st Edition was memorable for the adventures.
2nd Edition was memorable for the settings. 3e was memorable for the rules. 4e is memorable for the electronic support.
IMO, that's the big thing that's noticable about this edition but not the others.
I wouldn't go so far as to say 4e is "about" electronic support, but then I wouldn't say any of the previous editions were "about" those other things either.
You have a bit of a point here. If you are looking for something memorable that 4E has added, its hard to top the Character Builder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celebrim
I think this is by far the best answer so far, as it addresses the question from the perspective of the designers as opposed to the perspective of the various players - which will differ from table to table depending on how they played the game.
We can say something about what the designers were trying to achieve. We can't really say anything about how the rules were used by the players except to offer opinions about how we personally perceived or use them.
So any way, my take is probably no more than a restatement of what Dausuul said using different words but:
1) 1E was about exploration
2) 2E was about clarity
3) 3E was about consistancy
4) 4E was about balance
What is more interesting that different versions ranked these four in different order. I would say:
1E was arbitrarily yet effectively balanced. 2E varied in Balance and Consistency, with the supplement material having a negative impact on both. 3E isn't very clear cut, as it focuses on Consistency to the max, far more than the other three. 3E both possesses and lacks Clarity at the same time, as the rules tend to be clear and specific yet the significance and impact of these rules in play are anything but clear. 4E on the other hand while primarily about Balance is also fairly high on Clarity and Consistency, and doesn't focus much on Exploration at all.
If I would rank the systems on a scale of 1-10 in these areas:
I should note that I'm here using 'exploration' in a rather special sense, because I suspect that the previous sentence will spark an edition war if I don't clarify. By 'exploration' I don't mean the process of characters moving from a place to some new place ('adventuring'), but rather discovering new rules, new ways to interact with the world, and new elements of the world you didn't previously know existed. Clearly, if the rules are clear, consistant, and comprehensive, then you aren't as a player in the position of discovering those rules or new aspects of the game. In 1st edition, for example, you might learn that you can research spells or create magic items and do so not knowing at first exactly how it is done. By 3rd edition, this is no longer the case. You begin the game with this vista clearly in view. Hense, the experience of 'exploration' is very different between the two editions, and you can see why the 1e idea of exploration might be despised by some people and loved by others (even with both wanted 'adventure').
In 4E terms, exploration is what is going on when not engaged in either combat or a skill challenge dicefest. In other words about .00012% of a published 4E module.
For my part, I rank the attributes consistant, exploration, balance, and clarity. With consistant being a short gap ahead of exploration and then a longer gap to the other two. I don't mind my rules being esoteric - indeed to a certain extent prefer it - because I've got a good memory and evocative and enabling is more important to me than simple. I want part of the game to be hidden from view so that you are encouraged to focus on world mastery and not system mastery. Balance is important only when the lack of it threatens to stop play, but consistancy and its partner comprehensiveness is very welcome for me as a DM because it gives me the tools to quickly judge any situation that comes up without stopping play to much.
Missed this part. I'd have to rank mine Clarity, Balance, Exploration and then Consistency. The exact opposite of yours, actually. Ranking them on a 1-10 scale I would say I'm after Clarity(10), Balance(8), Exploration(5), and Consistency(3).
This is true. I've seen more players make the swap to DM because of 4e than any other edition.
I'd also say that 4e is about the party more than ever, since the roles are balanced for rough parity within their niche, and teamwork is the order of the day while playing.
__________________ If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him... and take his stuff.
We don't see things as they are. We see things as we are.
In 4E terms, exploration is what is going on when not engaged in either combat or a skill challenge dicefest. In other words about .00012% of a published 4E module.
I just grabbed the free Keep on the Shadowfell off WotC's website and flipped through it. By my count, 20 pages (out of 70) were filled with things that were what you would call "exploration".
So, about 30%, actually. Let's leave the hyperbole at the door, shall we?
__________________ Tales from the Rusty Dragon - A 4th Edition Conversion Blog Covering Paizo's Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path
1E was about making the game into a hobby.
2E was about broadening the scope of the game (settings, classes, kits, skills, and so on) 3E was about applying real design principles to a game. 4E.... we shall see.
I think that rings pretty close to my opinion. But, I will change it thusly with my guess:
1E was about making the game into a hobby.
2E was about broadening the scope of the game (settings, classes, kits, skills, and so on) 3E was about broadening the scope of the designers (OGL). 4E is about broadening the scope of the players (DDI - once the digital gametable is up and functioning).
Pour le Rouse! 
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
