An Examination of Differences between Editions

[RFisher]

And isn't that the point of buying supplements? To make my life as the DM easier?

Yeah. I don't know. I vacillate on this. Sometimes I really want to use supplements as written to make my life easier. Sometimes I want supplements to just be full of inspiration (maybe not always, but sometimes, the crazier the better) rather than to be directly used.

It seems that most often in practice, I end up not directly using supplements but just stealing random ideas from them. When I do use them directly, I'm almost never as happy with the results.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I just wanted to say: Excellent thread!

 

[Reynard]

I just wanted to say: Excellent thread!

I concur. 60 some posts and no flames in sight.

 

[The_Gneech]

The "antagonistic DM" tone of much of Gygax's D&D writing is often misunderstood, in that it's actually mock-antagonistic in the manner of a tough coach or drill instructor -- Gygax envisions that a big part of the DM's job is to "push" his players to excellence (developing their player-level tactical acumen and problem-solving skills) and that that excellence will make the game more enjoyable for players and DM alike. Gygax is not a "killer DM" and has never advocated that style (and in fact preaches against it in the 1E DMG and elsewhere) but he is a "mock-killer DM" or poses as one -- he acts like he wants nothing more than to kill your characters, and feigns frustration when the party survives and defeats the challenges and like a melodramatic movie-villain shakes his fist and declares he'll get you next time, but the reality is exactly the opposite. ... (snip)

Well said. Nice post, T. Foster!

-The Gneech

 

[Razilin]

i've only played AD&D 2nd edition and D&D 3.0 and 3.5

AD&D 2nd: It felt like what, at the time, I considered to be an RPG. Classes were not just "what you could do mechnically," but were the actual niche you filled. A Fighter fights, a wizard casts spells. You don't see fighters who sneak around like you can do in 3.5 with cross-class skills. Multiclassing and dual-classing aside, you are what your class is. I liked this. It was like playing the old Final Fantasy games--trite, but with tried and true archetypes that are readily identifiable. The problem? As time progressed, players wanted versatility. The system began to buckle. In order to incorporate fighters than could sneak, The Complete Ninja Handbook came out. To make unarmed fighters and pugilists, some kooky rules were developed for martial arts--that just. didn't. work. In short, AD&D tried to be more than what it was designed to be by adding a new table with every new product. Eventually, the system collapsed.

D&D 3.0: This system was designed to appeal to audiences who wanted the versatility AD&D was never designed for. Problem? It's still class-based. If you want versatility, you don't use a sytem that relies on sharp distinctions. The good point was that Prestige Classes added a new layer of strategic play; the downside is that it introduced a new level of number crunching. The price of "versatility."

D&D 3.5: Some of the problems of 3.0 were fixed; some were carried over (such as core rulebook feats being comparatively weak to the Complete series). A lot of "homebrew" styled material from 3.0 as well as in-play bugs were smoothed over, everything streamlined. However, 3.5 is even less niche-based than 3.0; I daresay it completely lacks the niche-flavored style of AD&D since multiclassing is so integral to survival as a melee fighter and, in some cases, as a caster. The feat system is starting to degrade due to the power incline introduced by the Complete series.

 

[Graf]

Hmm.

Tough to think about really. People played 2.0 becuase it was DnD. There wasn't another viable alternative.

Generally speaking I remember 2.0 as working best when there was another set of complex house rules and a lot of DM fiat. There was a cool setting and people just skipped or ignored the rules.
Since you couldn't really play by directly following the rules I'd expect a lot more debate. Players will probably expect to be able to use a lot of their own house rules and interpretations of things.
Since the classes aren't balanced between each other that provides some interesting character possibilities, (it's possible to have a grizzled 12th level rogue and a 7th level wizard running around together in the same game without really affecting balance).
People die a lot in 2.0. By the high levels people basically will just croak periodically in combat with no real way of preventing it (beyond the DM changing how things work).
Since there are no CR's to go by there is a much greater degree of irrritiation on the part of players. If their 6th level character was killed by a CR 6 creature they can appreciate it was a fair fight. You can't really fall back on that trust in a 2.0 game.

The differences between 3.0 and 3.5 are basically balance related.
Core 3.0 is much less balanced than 3.5. You'll have to be more organic about balancing (giving Bard's powerful magical items, prohibiting haste or just assuming it will be cast in every big battle), etc.

On the negative side the 3.0 game largely turns into an accounting chore. Everything is basically restricted, players will feel pigeon holed. Problem players will identify a broken character concept, maximize it with carefully constructed magical items, demand the extra 500 gp that they're being "Cheated of" by their character level and then cut through same CR creatures like butter (demanding full xp along the way).

If you don't have problem players you'd probably be OK with 2.0 anyway and do it with half the bookkeeping.

I think the question probably boils down to the amount of paperwork you want to do (and the volume of 3e books means it's easier to get new adventure ideas, etc -- that's less a discussion of the games and more a discussion of the current situation).

 

[Wik]

Wow, we managed to go two whole pages before someone brings up the 3e=computer games thing.

This has so much to do with experience. IME, my 1e Paladin/Cavalier was a freaking GOD. Managed to get the Hammer of Thunderbolts trio of Hammer, gauntlets and girdle care of the G series and also had a backup Holy Avenger.

Lessee, the Holy Avenger gave me instant dispel magic (100% chance) vs any spell cast at my level or lower. How's that for being able to walk through the Queen of the Demonweb pits solo?

Sorry. Call 'em like I see 'em.

1e definately had it's faults - Assassin springs to mind, and I've seen 1e monks that became damage machines. Combine that with the fact that the monsters in 1e do seem weaker somehow, and the game can turn into a cakewalk.

I can see there being conflicts (you provide a good one), but in my experience, earlier editions of D&D were much easier to survive in. 3e does seem a bit more lethal, and I think part of that has to do with the bigger numbers of the game, and the scaling of the monsters to character level - something that was seen more in computer games than RPGs before 3e came on the scene.

 

[Hussar]

*snip*

the scaling of the monsters to character level - something that was seen more in computer games than RPGs before 3e came on the scene.

I was with you until this point. Buh? Monsters have always scaled with character level. There's a rather large appendix in the 1e DMG that shows what level a given monster should be used at.

Now, granted, the scaling was pretty poor and melee combat in 1e and 2e were considerably more PC friendly in those editions, but, the idea that monsters don't scale is wrong. At 1st level, you met orcs and goblins. At 5th you met trolls and maybe small giants. At 8th and 9th you got into the bigger dragons and demons.

While the scale seemed to level out at name level, there was definitely a scale there. If there wasn't then you couldn't judge a module's appropriate levels.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I was with you until this point. Buh? Monsters have always scaled with character level. There's a rather large appendix in the 1e DMG that shows what level a given monster should be used at.

That scaled to dungeon level, not character level. The players determined what dungeon level they were ready for, and traps like chutes or gradual slopes existed to change the dungeon level without the players wanting to/knowing it had happened.

 

[Reynard]

I was with you until this point. Buh? Monsters have always scaled with character level. There's a rather large appendix in the 1e DMG that shows what level a given monster should be used at.

Now, granted, the scaling was pretty poor and melee combat in 1e and 2e were considerably more PC friendly in those editions, but, the idea that monsters don't scale is wrong. At 1st level, you met orcs and goblins. At 5th you met trolls and maybe small giants. At 8th and 9th you got into the bigger dragons and demons.

While the scale seemed to level out at name level, there was definitely a scale there. If there wasn't then you couldn't judge a module's appropriate levels.

But you didn't *stop* fighting orcs and goblins when you were high level. Those things were still there, at the same 1HD they had always been. In 3E, it is assumed that *every* encounter scales with the party. This means that the party never really gets any better. Sure, their abilities get bigger and more impressive, but the enemies' do, too, and it is an arms race.