Maybe different versions just have different goals, and that's okay.

[Mister Doug]

So, looking at 4e and my old 3e and 1e stuff (I had abandoned D&D for other systems throughout the 2e system) and trying to understand where people feel 4e has truly departed from the older versions of the game has left me pondering various versions of the game to see where things have changed in the essential nature of the game.

So, while taking a break from preparing MA Thesis defense on Friday and my final rewrite of my thesis, I think I have come up with an appreciation of the fact tha D&D has actually changed a lot in its focus from 1e through 4e. While I don't think this is a bad thing, I think it is significant enough to warrant some though.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not arguing any version is better or worse based on these differences, though I think there are some problems with each version. Other than 2nd edition, which I played only a few times and 4th edition which I have only playtested a little bit, D&D in many additions has given me much joy and, like most roleplaying game, many doubts.

AD&D
When I played at AD&D back in the early to mid 80s as I moved into my teens, we played AD&D by the proverbial style of "kill things and take their stuff". But, looking back at the rules, I don't think that's the way AD&D was written. Looking at the abilities of characters, the way that experience points are awarded, and the looseness of the system, I think that we had gotten it backwards.

AD&D as written, with its experience awards based on gold gained, its brutal death for characters, and its support for thieves, assassins, and illusionists whose main contribution to the game are out of combat makes it clear to me now (as opposed to when I was 13) to bring the focus of the game on acquiring wealth, but not through fighting. In fact, the scarcity of healing and magical spells support the idea of trying to find ways to avoid conflict early in the game. It's not a game of killing things and taking their stuff. It's a game about finding clever and sneaky ways of getting stuff.

It also has set of clear assumptions: the rules support a human-centered world. Characters must work in groups because of narrowly-focused rules. The rules serve to resolve conflicts, but the locus of control in the game is in the DM, who serves as referee and who is intended to make ad-hoc rulings about events at the table. The game books also assume that PCs will get support in the form of henchmen, hirelings and followers rather than relying just on the PCs.

AD&D as written supports an interesting mix of restrictive rules and the assumption that players are going to regularly stray from them, and an atmosphere less of shining heroes (despite the inclusion of paladins and rangers) and more a world of cunning mercenaries seeking their fortune through wiles and daring.

AD&D 2nd Edition
I won't address this edition in detail, but 2e's settings and fairly minor revisions to the rules aimed at opening up heroic adventuring with an eye to buidling something more like literary fantasy. However, the fact that the rules were largely the same led, in my opinion, to a conflict between the rules and the change in goals.

1st level AD&D 1e or 2e characters are not well suited to action and daring -- they are too limited in power and options. They are well-suited to negotiating, sneaking, cheating or avoiding fights, using role-play to overcome their limitations. But layering on rules for skills, added spells for specialist wizards, and the later addition of kits headed the game into a different direction, away from ad-hoc DMing. IMHO, this makes it harder for PCs to find a space to succeed, and undermines the system. However, adding story awards and the like to experience points does support the use of role-play over combat, which does a lot to help reward players for avoiding combat.

3rd Edition
Third edition expands the changes begun in 2e and the Players' Option books, trying to make PCs start as more heroic characters. The increase in starring hit points, additional bonus spells, added feats, a developed skill system, all add to the ability for PCs to survive at first level, but they also change the focus of the system. PCs are not rewarded for avoiding combat at low levels, but for engaging in it. This moves the game solidly into killing things and taking their stuff.

The rules changes abandon level limits, change multiclassing, and open up character options. This adds to customization of characters and a style of play closer to literary sources, but the things that add to options also undermine the party-focused nature of character classes from earlier editions. Non-humans become more prominent due to viability over more levels. Changes in the experience system make higher levels more likely to be achieved in campaigns starting at first level, and leveling up low-level characters joining a party much harder. More codified rules make table expectations more consistent, but move the locus of control for the table away from the DM and more to the group.

I think some of the balance issues of 3e come from the fact that the game does not abandon previous paradigms, but embraces new ones, too. The addition of bonus spells and easy magic item creation, for instance, makes it easier for spellcasters to dominate the game. Multiclassing, prestige classes, and expanded classes did a lot to muddy the idea that classes each had a specialty. The fact that most characters had something to do in combat focused the game more on action and less on cunning and scheming than AD&D 1e.

4th Edition
4e takes a turn fully to action gaming. I don't think that's a problem, but it's not the game that 1e is. 1e characters needed to run away, avoid threats, or find ways to negotiate with them or they would get killed. But 4e heroes are built for action. That's an exciting game, too, but a different one.

So while I think 4e is a perfectly fine game, I also see where more old-school gamers (in style more than in age) might have issues with 4th edition. But I also see where gamers used to any given edition don't understand the appeal of the other editions. There have been some key paradigm shifts from edition to edition that change style and focus of play on some very fundamental levels.

 

[joethelawyer]

i think thats a pretty good description of the various incarnations of the game.

i think the heroic aspect of 2e was driven in large part by the novels they came out with---drizzt, etc. changed the focus from the grittier origins of lankhmar, moorcock, conan, etc which 1ed better supported.

with the 3e rules we definitely had a power shift from the dm to the players, since there was a rule for everything from combat to wiping your ass.

4e makes it even more of a tactical combat game.

just my thoughts.

 

[MerricB]

Here's my version of how the edition goals compare:

AD&D (1e) is about dungeon delving and getting treasure. It certainly assumes that the characters want wealth more than about anything. At higher levels, the focus is on territory acquisition and gaining followers. It's also assumed that once you reach 12th+ level, you'll often go on "solo" adventures with your henchmen as your other party members, with everyone teaming up only for the most amazing adventures. Gygax also was playing the game daily, and you can see in some of the discussions in the DMG that the game is designed with that in mind.

As 1e developed, adventures moved past "kill or outwit things in a dungeon and take their treasure" and became more story-based.

In AD&D 2e, they removed treasure as a source of XP (it only remains an optional rule), but actually didn't replace it with anything concrete. Given that about 80% of the XP in AD&D normally came from treasure gained, that left something of a gap. I believe that 2e was meant to be a lot more quest orientated, and certainly a lot more heroic in tone that 1e. If the archetypal 1e heroes were Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, then by 2e they'd been replaced by some of the heroes popping up in the newly minted D&D novels - such as the Dragonlance heroes.

AD&D 2e? It's about the story.

D&D 3e was certainly about killing things and taking their stuff, occasionally within the constraints of a story. I definitely agree that most of the problems 3e experienced from a rules perspective were because it didn't ditch enough of 2e. More to the point, 3e experienced a bunch of problems because it didn't think through bonus stacking enough.

D&D 4e, I still need to think about.

Cheers!

 

[RFisher]

Maybe different versions just have different goals, and that's okay.

Maybe? Maybe? Nay. Clearly.

This is what makes me sad. Pre-2000 D&D, 3e, and 4e are different enough and good enough that they deserve to be presented, marketed, and sold as separate games rather than different editions of one game.

Although, with the retro-clones and Pathfinder, we’re coming as close to that as we can.

AD&D as written [...]

Yes. I think you got that pretty much spot on.

 

[Mister Doug]

i think thats a pretty good description of the various incarnations of the game.

i think the heroic aspect of 2e was driven in large part by the novels they came out with---drizzt, etc. changed the focus from the grittier origins of lankhmar, moorcock, conan, etc which 1ed better supported.

with the 3e rules we definitely had a power shift from the dm to the players, since there was a rule for everything from combat to wiping your ass.

4e makes it even more of a tactical combat game.

just my thoughts.

I think 1e was pretty much a tactical combat game, too. But one in which the dangers of combat were so clear that avoiding combat was the best way to stay alive.

When I was 13, I thought that sucked. Now, I'd actually be interested to see how to play that out with a group of players who understood the rules for what they were, and who weaseled their way around them (in a good way.)

 

[Mister Doug]

Here's my version of how the edition goals compare:

AD&D (1e) is about dungeon delving and getting treasure. It certainly assumes that the characters want wealth more than about anything. At higher levels, the focus is on territory acquisition and gaining followers. It's also assumed that once you reach 12th+ level, you'll often go on "solo" adventures with your henchmen as your other party members, with everyone teaming up only for the most amazing adventures. Gygax also was playing the game daily, and you can see in some of the discussions in the DMG that the game is designed with that in mind.

I'd forgotten about the strongholds and such as a high level character. That was a very different aspect of 1e that other versions don't really capture! It also adds a new way to drain characters of money, focuses them on doing something that leads to difficult choices about spending their time on non-adventuring pursuits, and provides hooks for adventures (dealing with their holdings, enemy armies, bandits and other threats, and getting cash to cover expenses.)

 

[joethelawyer]

deleted---double post. god this speed thing is frustrating

 

[joethelawyer]

I think 1e was pretty much a tactical combat game, too. But one in which the dangers of combat were so clear that avoiding combat was the best way to stay alive.

When I was 13, I thought that sucked. Now, I'd actually be interested to see how to play that out with a group of players who understood the rules for what they were, and who weaseled their way around them (in a good way.)

true, tactics were there in 1 ed but i think they were of a different sort. nopt the type that required a combat grid and miniatures, but the kind that required more creative captain kirk kinda ideas to weasel out of situations, or otherwise overcome them.

i've been thinking (always scary) about 3e lately and how it differs from 1 ed. if you start with 3e (or 3.5) and then take away feats, and take away attacks of opportunity, and flanking maneuvers, you're back to a 1 ed style game with good skills rules.

by taking away all those things, you take away all need for a combat grid miniature driven game. you can go back to the goold old fashioned situation where the dm tells you how many bad guys are within range, and works the battle thru a narrative, rather than thru moving around miniatures.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Here's kind of the way I view it.

1st Edition - The dungeon crawl edition. Famous dungeon crawls, classic adventures. The Greyhawk edition.

2nd Edition - The setting edition. The development of story in a ton of worlds. The Forgotten Realms edition. (Though kudos above for the Dragonlance mention!) If this was the story edition, it's no wonder I miss it so.

3rd Edition - The rules edition. Where rules take the forefront. Balance is king. The Eberron edition.

4th Edition - The Hollywood edition. It's about action and adventure! Very much about Hollywood-style action. The edition that broke off most of the final legacy items. Story...too early to tell. Setting...Points of Light. The non-setting, if you will.

I was kind of hoping 4e would bring all these elements together. Maybe it will someday, but it doesn't appear to be that way right now.

All of that being said...while each edition has had its focus, that doesn't mean that it ignores the other elements of great gaming. While WotC may present the rules a certain way, they can't control how those rules are being used. In our own games, we can combine legendary dungeons in fantastical settings with balanced rules and high adventure. (Wow, I should copyright that and put out my own game system!).

Point is, take the best of each edition, focus on the elements you like, and remember that gaming rules are a tool used to achieve a goal - conflict resolution in a game. Use whatever edition that fits the style of gaming that you do.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

This is what I've been arguing vehemently on the Steve Jackson Games boards. D&D 4E is a very well-designed game. The fact that the gaming interests of many GURPS gamers don't have much overlap with the design goals of D&D 4E doesn't change that.

Each game has its own design goals which it tries to accomplish. The design goals of D&D 4E are much more clearly stated than in earlier editions (in which there might actually have been some confusion about this issue) - and the game accomplishes them to a very large degree,