I probably spend too much time thinking about the differences -- both in play mechanics and the assumed setting/fluff -- between the various editions of D&D, so I thought it might be a change of pace to concentrate on the things that are the same, to actively consider the common ground between the editions. Even when I find myself embroiled in them, I don't much like edition wars. D&D is fun, and while I have my personal preferences, I have fun with every edition. Moreover, I like EN World and I like the fact that there's fans of every edition here.
Anyway, to start: This is fairly obvious, but sometimes we overlook the obvious in our nitpicking -- the DM/Player relationship.
No matter what edition, there's one person behind the screen and a handful of players on the other side. In every edition, the DM's job is to run the game: playing NPCs, providing the adventure, serving as narrator (not in a story sense, but in a players' senses way) and adjudicating the rules. Even way back in the 1st edition DMG, it was acknowledged that the DM served at the pleasure of the PCs -- the most succinct method of dealing with a poor DM was to find another to play under.
On the other side of the table you have the players. While they might not be in direct competition with the DM, they are a team competing against the adventure and the obstacles thrown at them by the DM. Despite changes in rules and focus of play, each edition asks the players to work together to face the challenges presented by the DM, to serve one another's goals as well as their own and to engage the adventure with at least a little suspension of disbelief and willingness to participate (even if the DM is obviously cribbing that movie that came out last week because he didn't have time to prepare).
Those player and DM roles haven't really changed much in 30 years. One can put on the viking hat running 4E as easily as one can hand the reigns to the PCs in 1E, and vice versa. Perhaps more tellingly, and ultimately more illustrative of the point, no matter what the edition, it is the players that ask the DM "What do we see?" and the DM that, upon responding, asks, "What do you do?"
Anyway, to start: This is fairly obvious, but sometimes we overlook the obvious in our nitpicking -- the DM/Player relationship.
No matter what edition, there's one person behind the screen and a handful of players on the other side. In every edition, the DM's job is to run the game: playing NPCs, providing the adventure, serving as narrator (not in a story sense, but in a players' senses way) and adjudicating the rules. Even way back in the 1st edition DMG, it was acknowledged that the DM served at the pleasure of the PCs -- the most succinct method of dealing with a poor DM was to find another to play under.
On the other side of the table you have the players. While they might not be in direct competition with the DM, they are a team competing against the adventure and the obstacles thrown at them by the DM. Despite changes in rules and focus of play, each edition asks the players to work together to face the challenges presented by the DM, to serve one another's goals as well as their own and to engage the adventure with at least a little suspension of disbelief and willingness to participate (even if the DM is obviously cribbing that movie that came out last week because he didn't have time to prepare).
Those player and DM roles haven't really changed much in 30 years. One can put on the viking hat running 4E as easily as one can hand the reigns to the PCs in 1E, and vice versa. Perhaps more tellingly, and ultimately more illustrative of the point, no matter what the edition, it is the players that ask the DM "What do we see?" and the DM that, upon responding, asks, "What do you do?"
