Has the DMs job evolved in regard to "winging-it"?

[Sadrik]

Has there been some editions that are better at allowing DMs to wing-it? What are the consequences? How does does this play out in the editions?

I personally remember the headier game nights of my youth when winging-it was the norm in our 1e games and 2e too. Having a loose map and filling in the details and monsters on the fly. Does that same magic still exist in D&D can you do that? I don't know honestly.

 

[Cyronax]

I enjoyed my near-decade using 3.X, but it was the only edition of D&D that I've played that made winging it near impossible in many situations. It could only be done if you completely disregarded the intended guidelines, especially for monsters and classed NPCs. The big thing I remember that made winging it hard in 3.X was the inherent complexity of many monsters and NPCs -- feats and a slightly optimized spell selection.

2e (prior to Combat & Tactics and Spells & Magic) was the best AD&D edition to wing it with.

4e is good. I like its built in p. 42 style DC charts. I also really the simplified monster generation rules. Its complexity with fiddly bonuses and all the miniature-required features makes it harder to wing than all other editions aside from 3.X.

C.I.D.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It varies with DM's.

I didn't really DM 2e, but I was able to wing it early and often in 3e, and it became my preferred style.

I find it harder to do in 4e for a variety of reasons, but I don't think these are entirely insurmountable.

 

[weem]

I enjoyed my near-decade using 3.X, but it was the only edition of D&D that I've played that made winging it near impossible in many situations. It could only be done if you completely disregarded the intended guidelines, especially for monsters and classed NPCs. The big thing I remember that made winging it hard in 3.X was the inherent complexity of many monsters and NPCs -- feats and a slightly optimized spell selection.

2e (prior to Combat & Tactics and Spells & Magic) was the best AD&D edition to wing it with.

4e is good. I like its built in p. 42 style DC charts. I also really the simplified monster generation rules. Its complexity with fiddly bonuses and all the miniature-required features makes it harder to wing than all other editions aside from 3.X.

C.I.D.

I'm pretty much in the same boat.

I have played all editions -- 2e was the easiest for me, 3e was the hardest, and as far as 4e goes, I am finding it pretty good for winging it.

 

[Marx420]

I agree that the difficulty of "winging it" increased with the iterations of editions
(particularly so for 3e I found), but I find it still possible to sandbox fairly effortlessly with products such AEG's Toolbox and Ultimate Toolbox, as well as Goodman Game's Dungeon Alphabet (I loves me some tables). It helps to have a variety of stat blocks to work off on hand as well, and I have always preferred randomly rolling for treasure (though that may not be your preference). In summary, if freedom of play is your objective don't let doubts hamper you and just roll with it to the best of your ability and I find things will work out fairly well.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I've only really run 3e and my style is improvisational. I've never done published adventures, and my prep consists of monster stats and occasional worldbuilding. From my perspective I never really saw a problem with 3e in being too time-consuming or hard to run. I don't have much of a basis for comparison with earlier editions.

 

[Ariosto]

There's much greater complexity in the WotC rules sets, but here's a critical question:

Are you, the DM, going to use it all?

"Building" monsters and NPCs, "balancing" encounters on the head of a pin, and so on are possibilities the designers offer. They cannot -- and, as far as I have seen, they have not tried to -- require DMs to go through all that work in their home campaigns.

If I want sharks with freaking lasers on their heads, I can just make it so. Sure, it would be nice, if there are sample stats for sharks, to let that inform me -- but the old "MK I Eyeball" is good enough if I've got a basic grasp of the game.

After all, it's D&D, not a NASA mission.

 

[Dykstrav]

It depends on your DMing style, your desires, and the desires of your players.

If your players are comfortable with letting you do what you want and you are comfortable running without worrying about sticking to the letter of the law, you can "wing it" in any game. The players are willing to accept a certain amount of wiggle room and inconsistency for the sake of keeping the game rolling. As long as everyone around the table is having fun, you can play fast and loose with the rules and even your before-game prep. Some DMs are better at this approach than others.

On the other hand, there are several DMs that find 3.5 easy to "wing it" with. Although it has more technical complexity and more fiddly rules bits, it has rules that cover more situations in more detail--those groups who value consistency and a certain degree of DM impartiality want a robust system for that. They feel free to think outside the box because the rules are more detailed for certain situations, and they don't have to rely on DM fiat to try things. Some DMs are better at this approach than others.

What seems to really matter to me is how on-fire your imagination is. Some people get creative bursts only when the game is chugging along. For those people, prep time is a waste because they have "writer's block," or the DM equivalent, when they sit down to design adventures. Other people do their best work when they have time to plot things out more carefully, marinate an idea, and approach it from a few angles before settling on an approach. They get creative when writing their notes for the next session, and would prefer to fine-tune things rather than "wing it."

Either approach is valid. There is no one right way to DM. Only what is right for the DM in question and their group.

 

[Hereticus]

Has there been some editions that are better at allowing DMs to wing-it? What are the consequences? How does does this play out in the editions?

I personally remember the headier game nights of my youth when winging-it was the norm in our 1e games and 2e too. Having a loose map and filling in the details and monsters on the fly. Does that same magic still exist in D&D can you do that? I don't know honestly.

I'm not going to get into an edition war, but IMVHO all editions have been in the need of some house rules to both simplify and to add needed detail. The rules you modify to simplify should allow you to wing it as you wish. Whichever edition you are playing.

 

[Dalzig]

It's really a combination of your group and the edition you are using that determines how much you can/should wing it.

One of my groups is playing 3.5 and is very adamant that anything the DM uses is by the books, with little variation from the rules. My other group is playing 4e and really couldn't care either way, as long as it's not too easy or too hard.

I will put myself out there and say that I've seen 3.5 cause a sort of entitlement with certain players. They feel that if it is not in one of the books, the DM can't use it. If it is not available to a player, it is not available to an NPC. This probably comes from using the same (or very, very similar) systems for PCs and non-PCs.

Personally, if I ever DM 3.5 again, I will likely start winging it a lot more, regardless of what my players say. If they want to spend the man-hours creating monsters and NPCs, they can be the DM.