D&D 3E/3.5 Jonathan Tweet: Prologue to Third Edition

The story of Third Edition D&D starts, perhaps, with Peter Adkison reading 2nd Edition AD&D (1989) and being sorely disappointed. For one thing, he felt the new system left several underlying problems in place, so players didn’t get much benefit from the effort it took to switch to a new system. For another, 2nd Ed stripped away all the charm and character of 1st Ed. No more half-orcs, arcane sigils, monks, or assassins. Demons and devils were renamed to avoid the ire of superstitious parents. The new AD&D was tamed and genericized.

116618.jpg


Peter wasn’t the only one to dislike 2nd Ed. When it came time for Mark Rein•Hagen and me to release a “second edition” of Ars Magica, our collaborator Lisa Stevens warned us that there was a great deal of hostility around that word at the time. She was involved in TSR’s RPGA program of organized play for AD&D, and the members were unhappy with the changes. As for me, I had stopped running AD&D round 1979, switching to RuneQuest and then a home-brew hack instead. D&D seemed to be behind the times, it was interesting to see TSR stumble with their 2nd Edition.


Note from Morrus: This is the first article in a monthly column from WotC alumni Jonathan Tweet. You'll know him from Ars Magica, for being the lead designer on D&D 3rd Edition, and for co-designing 13th Age, amongst many other things. Upcoming articles include My Life with the Open Gaming License, and Origins of Ars Magica. Let us know in the comments what stories and topics you'd like to hear from Jonathan! Also, don't miss Jim Ward's excellent column!


TSR’s goal in creating a generic version of AD&D was to allow an endless number of settings that could use the same basic rules system. For 2nd Edition, TSR released Forgotten Realms, Maztica, Al-Qadim, Spelljammer, Planescape, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Masque of the Red Death, Dragonlance, and Greyhawk, not to mention one-offs like Jakandor. All these incompatible AD&D lines split the market so that each line sold less and less. How did things go off-track? At TSR, the people who did the creative work did not coordinate with the people who did the business planning, and the owner of the company was an heiress, not a gamer. From outside, some of us could tell that the business model was a big problem. At Wizards in 1994, we reviewed a science fiction RPG for possible acquisition, and it featured an AD&D-style business model of one ruleset and many worlds. I said no way because that model would be a huge negative. TSR managed to hide how bad things were for years—until it all came apart in 1997. When TSR couldn’t pay its bills, Wizards of the Coast bought them out.

In 1995, two years before the acquisition of D&D, Wizards cut all its roleplaying game lines. I moved off the defunct “Alter Ego Games” team and started working on card games. Magic: The Gathering and Netrunner are two of my favorite games, and I got to work on both of them. One bright side to roleplaying lines being cut, my boss pointed out, was that I could now do my own roleplaying design on the side and it would not be considered competition. So it was that in 1997 I was working on a faux-Greek-myth RPG, inspired in part by Xena: Warrior Princess. The idea was that the gods were all oppressive jerks, and the player-characters were all rebel demigods, the half-mortal children of the bullies they’re fighting. Half-gods as player-characters seem like a good niche—powerful enough to feel formidable, aligned with the common people against the elites, connected to a recognizable deity such as Ares or Zeus, and hailed as heroes while being outsiders to everyday life. But before I got anything up and running, Wizards bought D&D and the game of Greek half-gods got shelved.

After acquiring D&D, Peter Adkison traveled around talking to AD&D players, especially RPGA players. He would ask whether they would like to see a new edition, and they all said the same thing. They did not want a Third Edition. Then he would ask what changes they might like to see if there were a Third Edition. In response, the fans talked at length about all the problems with Second Edition and what a better rule set would look like. The fans didn’t want a Third Edition, but they needed one.

We knew that the game needed a major overhaul, and we knew that players didn’t want a Third Edition. We explicitly discussed the prospect of losing players with this new edition. We figured that even if we lost 10% of our players up front, the benefits of a better game system would accrue year by year and eventually would be glad we did the Third Edition. In 1999, however, Ryan Dancey started rolling out publicity for Third Edition. He did such a good job month by month that we could see the enthusiasm build. By the time Third Ed released, we knew we had a major hit on our hands, and all thought of losing players in the short term was forgotten.

The first work I did with the new D&D system was for an unpublished project, a roleplaying game set in the world of Magic: The Gathering and using streamlined rules derived from the AD&D rules. We experimented with ways to use cards, such as putting monster stats on cards and constructing random encounters by selecting from random draws. In one version it was a board game where the characters turned off mana nodes as they pressed deeper into the dungeon, one raid at a time. In another version, it was a light RPG with D&D-style rules set in the world of Dominia. I gave characters three types of saving throws and made Armor Class the target number for your attack roll. Other game designers had independently come up with these same common-sense ideas. My work on these games turned out to be good practice for later when I ended up on the 3rd Edition design team.

The rule I really liked from the Dominia RPG was that the characters had to stick it out exploring the dungeon until they had accumulated a minimum amount of treasure. If they retreated to town to heal up before reaching the treasure milestone, they were penalized XP. Years later at Wizards, I would experiment with similar milestone rules for random dungeon crawls, another experimental design that never got published. 13th Age has a similar rule based on battles rather than treasure: the group suffers a “campaign loss” if they take a full heal-up before they have defeated a minimum force of enemies.

Gradually my involvement with the new D&D edition grew, from working on a parallel project to being assigned the beginner version, to landing on the design team itself and then finally getting assigned the lead role.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Jonathan Tweet

Jonathan Tweet

D&D 3E, Over the Edge, Everway, Ars Magica, Omega World, Grandmother Fish

log in or register to remove this ad





Vanveen

Explorer
THACO rhymes with Thwack-O. Easy to remember.

Now if you'll excuse me I'll find a jif that expresses this in amusing pop-culture form.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
I think each edition of D&D has its virtues and its original sin.

AD&D 1e: collected the rules in a more organized manner and explained how to run games BUT it abandoned the spirit of "It's your game, make it your own." and moved strongly toward "Play it like I write it, that's best for you." (This is rather well-described in "Dave Arneson't True Genius".)

AD&D 2e: re-balanced many parts of the game and cut down the rules hodge podge of 1e where e.g. individual monsters had their own (and in my opinion, "improvable") rules. Just as 1e was more designed than original/classical D&D, 2e took it a lot more towards a well-edited game... BUT it changed the fundamental flow of the game by rewarding killing monsters and made it the main activity. (It also introduced feat/proficiency/kit creep but at least it was optional.)(Many people commented that they removed stuff like demons and depictions of summoning circles, making the game bland. I personally wouldn't miss that because it doesn't feature much in my games, YMMV.)

D&D 3e: introduced, like the AngryGM recently wrote, the single central resolution mechanic. Quite cool stuff and most people would not want to go back before that... BUT it made feats part of the central game, making mechanical building of characters and pre-planning their advances part of D&D. In my opinion it did not add that much to variety because many options were discarded over more powerful ones, and the slew of prestige classes and feats, etc... just too much, just too mechanical. Etc...I personally don't like 3e or Pathfinder much. They certainly did matter for the evolution of D&D and RPG game design but also go away from anything remotely simple. I doubt anyone ever spent as much time looking at their character sheet before 3e as ever after. That's why I call my "BUT"s original sins. You were stuck with them after, they never went away.

Monster-killing is now core and center in D&D. Thanks 2e. And no edition since 3e has dared to keep characters even remotely as simple as before 3e. Dungeon Crawl Classics is a good example how the raw power of 3e's core can be combined with a select few mechanics to create a slim D&D experience powerhouse. Because it's 3e without exploding feat-mania on top. (Except magic. Every D&D-like game has broken magic. And 6e won't fix that.)

Every such lesson is learned the hard way. I'm glad people can take from OGL 3e and 5e what they need to build new games because many good ideas are contained within the history of D&D.I might not like playing 3e (simply because tastes vary), but I'm glad it was made and exists.

Fixed it for readability.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Aaron L

Hero
Who the heck would want to eat tacos while reading a book of that size? You're just asking to stain the pages when all the tacos stuff falls out onto it while you're eating! ;)

And yet even then the book would remain intact. Those things were built like friggin' tanks.

(In a bizarre coincidence, I am right now eating tacos as I read through my 1E DMG.)
 

Aaron L

Hero
Like, if they were these strange creatures, they wouldn't call themselves something as lame as "devils." :)

Whereas I think that any Demon or Devil worth its salt would absolutely revel in the name, and all of the historical, cultural, and religious connotations that come with it. Some rando peasant isn't going to have the slightest idea what in the Hell a Baatezu is, but he will damn well know what a Devil is and know to absolutely not cross it on peril of his immortal soul.

The trouble with the terms Tanar'ri and Baatezu is what is known as "Calling a Rabbit a Smeerp" on TVTropes. Your characters are going out to hunt small, furry creatures with long ears and cotton-puff tails that hop around. Are they hunting rabbits? Nope, they're hunting smeerps! It's an attempt to gain the benefits of all the pre-existing cultural connotations of a known creature or mythological entity except, instead of calling it what it is, calling it a weird, made up science fiction name in a lazy attempt at "adding flavor."

In other words, Baatezu "Not Devils" are a type of Evil supernatural entity known for being ruthlessly clever ultimate "evil lawyer" archetypes, infamous for making supernatural legal contracts with mortals who trade their souls in exchange for magic and temporal power... and they're from Hell where they preside over the souls of the damned (or Baator "Not Hell.") But they're not Devils... because.


I did like how 3rd Edition handled the problem by making Tanar'ri and Baatezu specific subtypes, with the terms Demon and Devil referring to any native inhabitant of the Abyss and the Hells respectively.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Remove ads

Latest threads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top