D&D General D&D's Utter Dominance Is Good or Bad Because...

[Micah Sweet]

Noted. But by the nature of the beast, people are going to note player-facing rules more, to the degree a game makes much distinction (I play more than one game where the distinction would be largely moot).

Really? Like what?

 

[Imaro]

Like I said, the way saves were handled was changed radically, and in practice the magic system change fairly significantly. Those were pretty core elements that hadn't moved visibly in the prior 30+ years. But yes, levels, hit points, classes--all of that was still there and meant largely the same things, even if a few numbers changed.

We got a revamp of the skill system and it was made a core part of D&D from 2e to 3e... the save system in 2e was changed and tied to attributes for the first time with 3e... Again this seems to be based around what you prefer vs. the actual changes, 3e added a unified roll over mechanic...Maybe I'm missing somethting here...

 

[Reynard]

We got a revamp of the skill system and it was made a core part of D&D from 2e to 3e... the save system in 2e was changed and tied to attributes for the first time with 3e... Again this seems to be based around what you prefer vs. the actual changes, 3e added a unified roll over mechanic...Maybe I'm missing somethting here...

Both the change from Proficiencies to skills, and the changes in saves, are a big deal that I don't see people often recognizing: they shifted shifted the burden of success away from the PC to the world. That is, when you have roll under stat proficiencies, or roll over this (admittedly arbitrary) category value, those DCs are internal to the character and a measure of their inherent competence. When you shift to a roll plus modifier vs a DC, the importance of the character's competence is lessened and potentially even nearly eliminated when you have weirdly high DCs for stuff. In pre-d20 versions, you made a save versus dragon breath because YOU were that awesome. In 3E you failed because the dragon was that awesome. That is a meaningful change.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Really? Like what?

I can't think of a single rule in the Hero System I'd consider non-player-facing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

We got a revamp of the skill system and it was made a core part of D&D from 2e to 3e... the save system in 2e was changed and tied to attributes for the first time with 3e... Again this seems to be based around what you prefer vs. the actual changes, 3e added a unified roll over mechanic...Maybe I'm missing somethting here...

But it wasn't really a revamp; it was a brand new system. Proficiencies were vaguely skill-like, but for the most part they were just permissions to use an attribute roll for some things that a GM might not have have permitted. As for the saves being attribute related--yeah, but that's largely noodling in the margins, saves were still roll high to avoid certain things based on character traits. Contrast that with the 4e approach which were, depending on your view, changing them to flat checks or changing them to attacks by an opponent. As to the roll-over, most of the basic mechanics were already that way.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Both the change from Proficiencies to skills, and the changes in saves, are a big deal that I don't see people often recognizing: they shifted shifted the burden of success away from the PC to the world. That is, when you have roll under stat proficiencies, or roll over this (admittedly arbitrary) category value, those DCs are internal to the character and a measure of their inherent competence. When you shift to a roll plus modifier vs a DC, the importance of the character's competence is lessened and potentially even nearly eliminated when you have weirdly high DCs for stuff. In pre-d20 versions, you made a save versus dragon breath because YOU were that awesome. In 3E you failed because the dragon was that awesome. That is a meaningful change.

Its a valid argument, but I doubt it was perceived that way for most people.

 

[Hussar]

Its a question of what counts. The addition of feats as a general tool, and the full integration of skills was noticeable--but note those are changes of addition; there was no significant change in any of the already extent core elements.

Rewriting the math from the ground up isn’t a big change? After all, a 16 stat in ADnD is not the same as a 16 stat in 3e and further.

Put it another way. Someone who only played 1e couldn’t read a 3e character sheet. That’s a big change.

But your original point about changes being met with considerable hostility is very true. Good grief an entire branch of the hobby -OSR- was created specifically due to the hostility to changes that 3e met. The second largest gamer community-Thunderfoot- was a reaction to 3e.

The only reason 3e managed to make the changes that it did was because social media was still in its infancy.

 

[Oofta]

Are folks maybe only talking about character creation rules? All the examples seem to be in that area.

"The only thing"? It changed pretty much everything about how the game played. Kind of like saying the only difference between a motorcycle and a car is the number of wheels.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"The only thing"? It changed pretty much everything about how the game played. Kind of like saying the only difference between a motorcycle and a car is the number of wheels.

You realize you quoted words I didn't say, right?

 

[Oofta]

You realize you quoted words I didn't say, right?

You realize that it doesn't change anything, right? In my opinion, and in the opinions of everyone I played with 4E was a radically different game.