Hypothetical Question about future D&D

[Masked Otaku]

It's a pretty radical break. While it keeps certain 'core features' -- classes, levels, hit points, Tolkien-esque races, alignment -- it also includes a lot that breaks with previous versions of D&D. Some of the most significant changes include: feats, skills (though simpler skill systems were in RC D&D and AD&D), easy multiclassing, more common magic items (and much easier crafting rules), completely different combat system (3e is much more tactical and detailed than ealier editions), a very different power scale (level advancement is much faster in 3e; also, in pre-3e versions of D&D, the power increases per level tapered off significantly after level ten or so, whereas they do not in 3e), prestige classes (though antecedents existed in 1e and RC D&D), and many other things.

>snip<

In short, the changes were pretty radical.

I wouldn't say the changes were radical, most of them were already there in an under developed form.

 

[drothgery]

D&D 4e (or 5e or whatever) as a result of Hasbro selling of WotC to someone that shoehorned the game into a system that I don't like would probably be one of the few cases where I wouldn't at least try it. I think d20 Vampire would work a lot better than Storyteller D&D...

 

[Silverleaf]

I wouldn't say the changes were radical, most of them were already there in an under developed form.

In some cases, yes. But not always. Take the prestige classes for example... In the Rules Cyclopedia there was something similar, and you might also consider the 1e AD&D bard to be like that. But in earlier Basic editions (like '81 Basic/Expert) there was no such thing to speak of, or anything remotely like it. Nor were there anything at all like skills, feats, or non-weapon proficiencies. If you were to compare the monster and spell "stat blocks" you'd notice major differences there too, mostly you'd notice that B/X hardly has any stats to speak of. And then there's the matter of the game not caring about ability scores outside of the 3-18 range, and various other things... So you have quite a world of difference between B/X and 3e, and it's not a stretch to label them as totally separate games.

 

[Akrasia]

I wouldn't say the changes were radical, most of them were already there in an under developed form.

Well, I guess one could make that argument. But then, following that logic, one might also say that about many other RPGs -- viz. they're really just 'D&D', since the 'basic elements' were present in D&D in an 'underdeveloped form' (Rolemaster is 'D&D' because it too has classes, levels, hit points, etc.).

My point is not that there aren't strong similarities between pre-3e D&D and 3e. There are. But there are also strong similarities between 3e, Runequest, Rolemaster, GURPS, Warhammer, and many other systems. My point is that despite the similarities between 3e D&D and pre-3e versions, the differences are as great as the differences between many distinct game systems -- the name is what creates the impression of greater continuity.

I think my 'translation test' is a good indicator: translating pre-3e material into 3e terms is just as much work as translating material for one game system (e.g. MERP) into another system (e.g. GURPS). In contrast, most material is usually easy to translate between different editions -- just look at the many editions of CoC, WFRP 1e and WFRP 2e, GURPS 3e and GURPS 4e, AD&D 1e and AD&D 2e, etc.

 

[Masked Otaku]

In some cases, yes. But not always. Take the prestige classes for example... In the Rules Cyclopedia there was something similar, and you might also consider the 1e AD&D bard to be like that. But in earlier Basic editions (like '81 Basic/Expert) there was no such thing to speak of, or anything remotely like it. Nor were there anything at all like skills, feats, or non-weapon proficiencies. If you were to compare the monster and spell "stat blocks" you'd notice major differences there too, mostly you'd notice that B/X hardly has any stats to speak of. And then there's the matter of the game not caring about ability scores outside of the 3-18 range, and various other things... So you have quite a world of difference between B/X and 3e, and it's not a stretch to label them as totally separate games.

Well, your comparing the beginning to the end. D&D has evolved with each edition.

OD&D -> AD&D 1st -> AD&D 2nd -> D&D 3rd
|-------> BD&D [B/E] --> Rules Cyclopedia

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

In some cases, yes. But not always. Take the prestige classes for example... In the Rules Cyclopedia there was something similar, and you might also consider the 1e AD&D bard to be like that.

Or, say, the thief-acrobat, which explicitly worked almost identically to how prestige classes work.

And then there's the matter of the game not caring about ability scores outside of the 3-18 range, and various other things...

Which era are you defining as baseline here? Because I've been playing since '79, and I remember 19+ scores being around for nearly all that time.

So you have quite a world of difference between B/X and 3e, and it's not a stretch to label them as totally separate games.

If you're going to use the '81 game as baseline pre-3E D&D, then 2E isn't D&D, either, since there's a world of difference there, too.

 

[Silverleaf]

Which era are you defining as baseline here? Because I've been playing since '79, and I remember 19+ scores being around for nearly all that time.

There is no baseline, and that's pretty much the topic of this thread. We're talking about how D&D has changed drastically over time, and will most likely continue to do so. There is no one single game that you can point to and call "D&D", short of using D&D-the-IP as the baseline. But that's meaningless outside of its own alloted timeframe, as the game which currently happens to be used as D&D-the-IP will one day be replaced and so in the future will no longer qualify for baseline status. One is of course free to pick any edition as a baseline, but that is an arbitrary way of going about things, and totally dependant on personal preferences.

That said, my own personal preference is the '81 Basic/Expert edition. And although its contemporary AD&D game did have scores of 19+, B/X did not. In fact, if you go look at the magic item section in those books, you'll see that items don't typically award bonuses to ability scores like in AD&D. For instance the gauntets of ogre power give the wearer an effective STR of 18, rather than a bonus to his own STR score. It has to be that way because B/X D&D doesn't concern itself with scores above 18 (or below 3).

If you're going to use the '81 game as baseline pre-3E D&D, then 2E isn't D&D, either, since there's a world of difference there, too.

In some areas there is. For instance, B/X D&D doesn't allow multiclassing. The DM has to add that in as a house rule if he wants it. It's a trivial change, but the game assumes no multiclassing and that makes for a quite different experience than AD&D where you typically have lots of multiclassed demihumans...

But even more to the point: I no longer wish to play AD&D, although I used to enjoy it back in the day. I have taken a renewed fondness to B/X D&D and its great simplicity makes both AD&D and 3e look rather clunky and confusing from my perspective.

That said, see Akrasia's post about module compatibility. That is a very good point, and it alone demonstrates the great gap between TSR D&D and WotC D&D.

 

[Turjan]

Isn't Palladium just a modified version of AD&D 1e anyway? :\

That's right . From this point of view, it would probably result in the least radical change for the game. Although, if Kevin Sembieda has overhauled the system, this will finally be an excuse for me to stay with the current version .

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

We're talking about how D&D has changed drastically over time, and will most likely continue to do so.

I humbly submit that, although that may have been in your heart, it didn't make it onto the page as I read it. Your posts read like both a championing of a very specific edition of Basic D&D and making that the explicit baseline.

Despite being a former hardcore Mystara DM (and mad poster to the mailing list -- I recently had the strange experience of seeing one of my old pieces I don't remember creating quoted on RPG.net), I think that's a strange baseline to set, if one were to pick one.

If your point is that D&D has changed radically over time, meaning that 3E does not constitute much of a break, so much as a continuing evolution, I agree.

 

[Snapdragyn]

(even the prestige class debuted in 1E as the thief-acrobat)

I would humbly submit (since humble submissions seem to be all the rage) that both the 1E ranger & bard were effectively the first 'prestige classes', in that neither could be entered as a level one character. In both cases, you had to take X levels in 2 (ranger) or 3 (bard) specific base classes before you could qualify for your first level in the actual ranger or bard classes. This places the initial concept in the core books for 1E rather than the 1E UA (which also introduced the barbarian, as well as the cavalier).