An Examination of Differences between Editions

[Celebrim]

You can't say that the DM is disempowered in this situation, as he creates the conditions that affect the Jump skill check.

Say the party is exploring a haunted manor. In first edition, I might have made a notation of the sort, "If the players specifically search behind the painting on the north wall..."

What I've set out is the terms of my negotiation. How does the player negotiate with me that his character has found the thing hidden behind the painting on the north wall? Fairly obviously, if the player describes his character searching behind the painting or doing something that causes him to search behind the painting, then he's successfully negotiated finding the hidden something.

What I've discovered is that, in 3rd edition, this negotiation is a little less obvious in ways that can create problems where there were none before. Suppose I set a difficulty on finding the hidden object behind the painting - say DC 20. Supposedly, anyone that makes a DC 20 search check in the 5' square where the painting lifts the painting and discovers what is hidden behind it. But note, the player has not said that they perform this specific action. It might be all well and good to allow the player to find the hidden wall safe behind the painting with a DC 20 search check and no one will necessarily feel cheated, but what if the thing hidden behind the painting is a symbol of death, yellow mold, or some other nasty effect? In earlier editions, the player understood the process as, "I did X. Therefore, a bad thing happened." In current editions, this clear connection between what the player did and what happened isn't apparent. Instead, what the player tends to take away from the event is, "I did X. The DM interpreted X to mean Y, and as a result bad things happened." This leads to player ill will in almost any situation where the consequences of the action aren't obvious to the player ahead of time. And this is pretty frequent, because my experience with 3rd edition players is that they negotiate on the basis of percieving B to be the natural consequence of A. They aren't asking as it were for a judgement, but rather for validation.

There is another problem here that's equally subtle. Suppose the party searches the room and finds nothing. Then one player says, "I search behind the painting." If the thing behind the painting isn't particularly concealed, that player finds the hidden thing regardless of whether they have a INT 4 and no ranks in search. This returns us to the same sort of negotiation that we had in 1st edition, but the big question is should it? Should an INT 4 character with no ranks in search be allowed to search behind the painting after no character thought to do so, and what does this say about the utility of skill ranks and intelligence if we allow it, and what does this say about player freedom if we don't? Without player freedom, what's the point in the game?

Alternately, suppose that the painting covers a concealed panel. Clearly the concealed panel is easier to find after the painting is moved or removed. This sort of 'find the secret' game is a pretty common sort of mini-puzzle from 1st edition adventure design, and I tend to include it alot in my game. To handle it, I typically set a high DC on the search check (lets say DC 30), and then include as a note that there is a +10 circumstance bonus if someone specifically says that they search behind the painting. Now, to me this is almost a perfect theoretical set up from a rules standpoint. The rules in theory have covered the situation excellently, and given me something of best of both worlds from the standpoint of adjudicating the players attempt at negoitation. I know the difficulty of finding the panel should the player say "I search the wall" (or just the general area) and I know the difficulty if they specifically proposition "I search behind the painting." But in practice, I find that this method baffles players raised on 3rd edition methodology, because what I discover is that 3rd edition methodology trains the player to only offer up the proposition "I search." They are no longer familiar with actually describing thier characters actions, so when confronted with this sort of challenge, they don't know what to do. So my proposed method of adjudicating the situation fails despite all its apparant rule elegance because the players don't understand the terms of the negotiation. In first edition, because there were few rules to abstract things, this was rarely an issue. Maybe even more importantly, because players didn't have full access to the system, they didn't think in rules abstractions only.

What I've discovered about the above sort of 'mini-puzzle' adjudication above - and I use this alot and not just with search checks but with all sorts of checks that involve abstract action - is that players trained in 3rd edition get increasingly frustrated by what I would have considered ordinary problems in earlier editions. They are trained unintentionally by the high quality of the rules to only offer simple low detail propositions. When I try to explain to them the situation and that I expect higher detail propositions, this often makes many of the players even more angry. I have in fact been accussed of 'cheating' (as a DM) for situations very much like the painting covering the concealed panel (although in the real situation it was straw covering a trap door), because it "should have been implied that the painting was searched behind". But you see from my example of finding something bad that assumption of implied action is not in general a good one to have as a basis of a ruling, and in reality this has caused me even bigger problems in a game - including a very awkward and unintended and unexpected player death.

 

[Thunderfoot]

You raise an excellent point about the 'search' skill here Celebrim. As a player of nearly 30 years and a DM of 20+, I too have noticed a shift, but I would also point out that the pendulum swing effect is also in play.

In 1E (as has been pointed out in a most excellent way) the DM controlled all the information, to the exclusion of many parts in order to give the players a way to interact with the DM as an adjudicator and in a sense a coach. In 3E.x the player could seemingly ignore anything new the DM drops in as 'against the rules' if you have a particullarly heavy rules lawyer in the group. Both of these approachs are combat heavy for the most part.

In 2E I think that the inclusion of skills through proficiencies actually handled things in a better manor by forcing the character to still 'plan the attack' of a trap or problem, so to speak, before picking up the dice. Searches and checks are probably the most blanat example of this as pointed out in the previous post, but there were other things too. Survival checks were still based on stating I am doing X and then rolling to determine success, that nice soft middle ground in between 1E I am doing X (DM checks to see if they even made notes on it.)) I'm doing X (rolls dice) I have a total o Y with my modifier and racial bonus of Z...

Not the 2E was a bed of roses mind you, it started out as the strip it down version (four classes, 3 sub classes) and no frills, the Complete books came out and things started to degrade rapidly from there, where nowadays we have feats and PrC out the butt, then it was 'kits'. Pre-planned skill sets with a suggested path of progression. With the exception of the Cleric, I felt that most of these were pretty wonky and as one that loves rogues, that says a lot. Then the "Skills & Powers Options" came on-line and all Hades was unleashed. I think this was perhaps the Pandora's Box moment when power was transfered to the player. For the first time a DM had to ask a player what they were capable of, because the player had tweaked his character beyond recognition.

It of course has manifested in the Feats and Skills of modern 3E.X, and I completely agree that players feel the need to be informed. I remember a discussion many years ago when the 3E rules first came out about a player that complained that a DM took the Monster Manual away from him at the table. There were quite a few people on the board that agreed that the DM was being too draconian and that the player bought the book, they should be able to use it. As an 'old school' DM when I stated that only the PHB was allowed for player usage at my game (before the supps had come out) I was electronically lynched, carried off to be burned at the stake and was basically told that my birthday had been revoked and that Christmas was cancelled... I still feel that players that don't allow themselves to be surprised by things are doing themselves a disservice; THAT is what attracted me to D&D all those years ago, the aspect of problem solving in an unkown environment that could be altered still further at any time. Many players just don't have that same experience anymore.

I have very loudly argued that PrC have ruined the game for me only to be shouted down as somewhat of an ogre, my point however fits in more here than in those discussions, I think. The original PrCs were in the DMG, so how did players know about them in the first place? If the DMG was verbotten (forbidden) and you had DMG knowledge, you were cheating. I think this is one way that the 'attitude' of the game has changed. The DM is less of a 'needed' equation at the table, except to have someone role for NPCs and against the players. Of course this is an over generealization, but then all such conversations are; I'm sure there are exceptions, I know of several, but the majority of what I see in 3E.X that differs from the previous is the DM/player confrontation level has increased dramatically when newer players are involved.

This style has led to the willing acceptance of rules lawyers and powergamers to tables where before their exclusion was a must (for the most part) in order for a DM to maintain control and order. I would hope that there would be a happy medium somehwere and that if indeed a 4th edition is to be created, that it would be recified there. Not neccessarily rules light, but not so player knowledge dependant. I still can and will play any version available, because frankly, I still like D&D. I've tried other systems, even the clones of the original, and they just aren't the same (Sorry C&C and HM folks). The differences between each edition were put in place for a reason; I firmly believe the intention was to increase enjoyablility all around, and to that fact I will say that for the most part, the designers have succeeded, but in a few 'key' areas I feel that the baby was tossed out with the bathwater along with the rag, the tub and possibly the person doing the scrubbing.

 

[Rothe]

Say the party is exploring a haunted manor. In first edition, I might have made a notation of the sort, "If the players specifically search behind the painting on the north wall..."
....There is another problem here that's equally subtle. Suppose the party searches the room and finds nothing. Then one player says, "I search behind the painting." If the thing behind the painting isn't particularly concealed, that player finds the hidden thing regardless of whether they have a INT 4 and no ranks in search. This returns us to the same sort of negotiation that we had in 1st edition, but the big question is should it? Should an INT 4 character with no ranks in search be allowed to search behind the painting after no character thought to do so, and what does this say about the utility of skill ranks and intelligence if we allow it, and what does this say about player freedom if we don't? Without player freedom, what's the point in the game?
.....

Reduced quote to save space. I know exactly what you are talking about. In earlier editions this could also become annoying where DMs required you to explain everything in nitty-gritty detail, forget to say we look at the ceiling when we enter the room and you could die. Hence the creation of mutlii-paged "standard-operating-procedures" detailing which character looks where when walking down the hallway, how we check a door or item before actually touching it, etc. As a player having to resort to such was tiring. Especially once you got to some respectable levels. Experienced adventurers don't forget to look at the ceiling or behind things, unless maybe they are INT 4. .

Then and these days I simply let players know on their first adventure that they are inexpereinced, I'll assume they do very little as standard operating procedure unless told otherwise. Once they get a few forays in I'll assume they are more cautious and will just ask how cautious they wish to be. Caution takes time, so monsters can wander by, spells can run out etc., it's not an easy choice to always be super-cautious.

On the old INT 4 character, which frankly I'd strongly discourage for the very reasons you mention, if the player choses INT 4 then they should live with the consequences, just like if they chose STR 4. Conversly, if a player choses INT 18, then I've always given them benefits to reflect this, more clues, far less chance of forgetting standard operating procedures or even suggesting things. There is no lack of player freedom in prohibiting an INT 4 character from thinking of something incredible (of course looking behind a picture is not too incredible) they freely chose to place that score there and should complain about it later. They want all the benefits of their choices but not of the detriments. Yet people will whine, so I haven't had an INT 4 character and wouldn't allow one unless your willing to play as INT 4.

 

[Reynard]

Thinking more on this, I think one place where you see a great deal of difference between editions is levelling. All versions of D&D have been class and level, and all versions made levelling the ultimate "carrot". However, each version has treated levelling in a different manner.

In B/X or -- to a lesser extent -- RC D&D, levelling was one half of the equation. You found items to make you more capable, and you gained levels to make you more capable, in pretty much equal measure. There was relatively little "benefit" in levelling -- better THAC0, better saves, more spells, etc... -- and those benefits came more slowly (in both XP required and between levels). Any other special benefits you gained were gained through play and at the discretion of the DM. yet, when you levelled, you still got better, more competent, more confident. In that version of D&D, your opposition didn't necessarily inflate as you levelled. High powered dragons still only had 20 hit dice, and fighting orcs was still viable at level 10 or 12. There was no "sweet spot", nor were there "dead levels" as all levels were equally "dead". With the inclusion of a progression of skills and weapon choices, Companion/RC D&D changed this somewhat.

In AD&D, things changed a little. Levelling was still slow, and most benefits were standard and gradual, but it added the component of increased and varied abilities over levels for most classes. Suddenly, the process of levelling had high points and low points and "dead levels" were introduced. Moreover, the nature of the design, where those extrabenefits for levelling usually finished out by 10th level or so, changed the view toward higher levels. Suddenly, levels past 10 were sort of pointless -- a few hit points, minor save increases, minor combat capability increase -- and many people didn't bother rising to 20th or 36th level anymore. That's a major shift in paradigm and in the way the game plays. 2nd Edition did more of this, and also included proficiencies as an attempt to fill the dead levels. but extra proficiencies weren't really enough to make post level-10 advancement seem worth the huge XP costs.

D&D 3.x started out a lot like AD&D in the levelling aspect, but more. Every level gave you "proficiencies" (skill points) and the classes were designed to provide the same ind of typical development over (mostly) the low to mid levels. Levelling was also faster, mainly because the designer belived -- and this is probably true -- that levelling is fun and drives people to play more. Suddenly you could reach level 20 in under a year, and gain benefits at most of those levels. More recently, there has been a push to completely eradicate the "dead level" and make sure that each step along the way provides incentive for the player to push onward, as if playing the game was not, of itself, enough reward.

How does levelling affect the overall gameplay experience? In B/X, levelling was something that happened, with time and effort and dedication and luck, and was secondary to the game itself. there was a lofty goal -- level 36 -- that wasn't appreciably better than level 18 or 9, even, but it was there nonetheless. Acquiring levels mattered less, and the game mattered more. Moreover, things that happened outside levelling -- dominions and strongholds and war and calamity -- were bigger and better than levels. The game was geared toward the "farm boy to (often quite literally) god" paradigm and that shaped not just the adventures but the worlds in which those adventures were played.

AD&D essentially killed high level play by introducing many carrots early on and removing them later. Worlds no longer included the truly mighty. Kings and Tyrants were only 8th or 12th level, and that meant player characters never needed to be greater than that to be the greatest in the world. if you did rise above, it was assumed that you were to go plane hopping. Contextually, the PCs' home world was reduced to a pit stop on the way to "real fun" for those that enjoyed high level play. For those that didn't, the world was a pler, more mundane place without veritable gods walking the earth.

In 3e, to level is the drive. There is no system for building nations and armies. The planes, even, can be visited at any time almost, and certainly by 7th or 9th level. The push is for the next carrot, and if the class your in doesn't provide a carrot, you switch to another class or a PrC or a substitution level. Strangely, there's also an illusionary cap -- 20th level -- there, where the idea is that "everything changes" when that point is reached. I say illusionary, becaue nothing actually changes. Feats, skills, PrCs, class abilities all remain essentially the same once you hit "Epic", but by caling it "Epic" the designer have created an artificial barrier. there's no functional difference between a 19th and a 21st level character, but because there is a label there, suddenly the worlds must choose -- is this an Epic world, or not. Games and campaigns assume they must make the same choice.

All in all, the changes to levelling -- how it is done and what it means -- have done much to make each edition of Dungeons and Dragons into its own game, each with its own strengths and preferred play styles.

 

[pemerton]

It's very much true that 3e takes power away from the DM. The fact that many of those holes mentioned by T Foster have been filled (or at least an attempt made to fill them) means that the DM has less wiggle room for interpretation.

However, it doesn't give the power to the players. The rules keep the power for themselves. If the rules gave the power to the players, then it would be the players who would adjudicate actions.

I am not so sure that being the interpreter of the rules is a burden. In fact, I am pretty sure that the opposite is true. Maybe it is because I mostly DM, and because I happen to consider myself a good GM, that being relieved of this "burden" by the game, and thereby having players who put their faith in the manual instead of me, mostly "relieves" the DM of his power to create the gameplay experience he wants and believes to most fun for his players.

Say the party is exploring a haunted manor. In first edition, I might have made a notation of the sort, "If the players specifically search behind the painting on the north wall..."

<snip>

What I've discovered about the above sort of 'mini-puzzle' adjudication above - and I use this alot and not just with search checks but with all sorts of checks that involve abstract action - is that players trained in 3rd edition get increasingly frustrated by what I would have considered ordinary problems in earlier editions. They are trained unintentionally by the high quality of the rules to only offer simple low detail propositions.

I think it's true that D&D 3E, in virtue of its (mostly) coherent and highly developed ruleset, is prone to lead to quite a different play experience from earlier editions. The GM has lost the power "to create the gameplay experience he wants and believes to most fun for his players" in the way that s/he might have done in AD&D 1st Ed, because (as Celebrim's example shows) the rules don't support that sort of experience.

That is not to say that the GM can't shape the play experience in a different way. By deploying D&D 3E's very well-developed repertoire of encounter and treasure design options, the GM can have a big impact on the details of play. I don't think that this degree of sophistication in encounter design was supported by earlier editions (eg the guidelines in ch 7 of the RC just don't compare, and AD&D had nothing at all) - hence the comparative prevalence, in those editions, of other sorts of challenges (again, like Celebrim's example).

As far as player empowerment goes, I actually see D&D 3E as a very clever combination of a game-design model and a business model. The game-design model is to empower players with the tools they need to build the characters they want to play (Feats, PrC, races etc) and to support an approach to play (detailed mechanics, comparatively rapid levelling, etc) which makes those player choices meaningful, and also allows a fairly high turnover of such choices.

The business model is to release those choices in comparatively expensive hardback books, which players then spend money on. There is a further synergy between this business model, and the game-design model: it is harder (in an emotional or social sense) for a GM to say No to a player's request to implement an option when the player has paid money for it. Thus, by releasing player options in expensive books WoTC not only makes money but further empowers players to pursue the character options that they are interested in.

Thinking more on this, I think one place where you see a great deal of difference between editions is levelling.

<snip>

In B/X or -- to a lesser extent -- RC D&D, levelling was one half of the equation. You found items to make you more capable, and you gained levels to make you more capable, in pretty much equal measure. There was relatively little "benefit" in levelling

<snip>

Moreover, things that happened outside levelling -- dominions and strongholds and war and calamity -- were bigger and better than levels.

I think this is related to the design goal of a high rate of turnover for implementing player choices in relation to character design. That is, this high rate of turnover has further consequences for play. For example, it reduces the appeal of domain-management play, because the power-level of the campaign never settles down in the way that you have described for RC play, and which seems to be a pre-requisite for domain-management play; BAB and hit points do not remain static, for example.

This high turnover of options also supports the GM in building varied encounters, because the PC parameters against which those encounters must be balanced are constantly changing. Again, the role of the GM is not necessarily diminished, but it certainly is changed.

AD&D essentially killed high level play by introducing many carrots early on and removing them later. Worlds no longer included the truly mighty. Kings and Tyrants were only 8th or 12th level, and that meant player characters never needed to be greater than that to be the greatest in the world. if you did rise above, it was assumed that you were to go plane hopping. Contextually, the PCs' home world was reduced to a pit stop on the way to "real fun" for those that enjoyed high level play. For those that didn't, the world was a pler, more mundane place without veritable gods walking the earth.

You may be referring here to AD&D 2nd Ed, with which I have had comparatively little experience. I haven't found it to be true of AD&D 1st Ed, which tends to play in the same way as you characterise RC D&D: at high levels, the players' focus tends to turn to in-game matters that are not related to their character's personal improvement.

Of course, this is a significant change in the play experience itself between low and high levels, which leads to many campaigns winding down or PCs being retired. It is a clear design goal of 3E (including its Epic rules) to avoid this aspect of earlier editions.

 

[RFisher]

In first edition, I might have made a notation of the sort, "If the players specifically search behind the painting on the north wall..."

(Springboarding off this statement...rather than directly replying to Celebrim's point.)

I find that I often skip secret door & listen rolls when running classic D&D. If the players look at their map & see an obvious spot for a secret door & ask to search there, I'm just going to let them find it. If they take the time to listen at a door & there is something on the other side, then I often want them to hear something. Even with seaching for traps, sometimes the circumstances & actions of the PCs simply warrant them actually finding the trap whether the d6 is showing 1 pip or 6.

(For those who may not know & to give context for what follows: In the edition of classic D&D that I play, all PCs have a 1 in 6 chance of finding traps. Dwarfs have 2 in 6. (Although, as written, the dwarf's extra chance does not apply to all traps, though I let it.) Humans have a 1 in 6 chance of hear noise; demihumans, 2 in 6. Secret doors are similar. Thieves are the only characters who--by the book--get better at searching for traps or hearing noise, but those chances are based strictly on level--not the player allocating points.)

When running 3e, though, I'm much more cautious about such things. The players specifically choose to put ranks in Spot, Listen, & Search at the expense of other skills. I can use Take 10, give circumstance bonuses, or set DCs low. Even then, though, the players will eventually catch on that putting a lot of ranks into those skills when I'm DM doesn't pay off. Assuming they don't get annoyed enough at having "wasted" those ranks to revolt, they'll spend ranks differently with their next PC. I've unwittingly shifted the carefully crafted balance of 3e, which may be OK...or not.

What I've discovered about the above sort of 'mini-puzzle' adjudication above - and I use this alot and not just with search checks but with all sorts of checks that involve abstract action - is that players trained in 3rd edition get increasingly frustrated by what I would have considered ordinary problems in earlier editions.

& this is where these conversations get tricky. Is this an absolute about 3e? I don't think so. Is it a tendency? Perhaps. Does system matter? Only when it does. (^_^)

 

[Hussar]

but the majority of what I see in 3E.X that differs from the previous is the DM/player confrontation level has increased dramatically when newer players are involved.

This style has led to the willing acceptance of rules lawyers and powergamers to tables where before their exclusion was a must (for the most part) in order for a DM to maintain control and order.

My experience has been completely the opposite of this. 100% opposite. In earlier editions, particularly 2e, rules debates could last forever, and usually did. We spent huge amounts of time hashing out this or that ruling. Because we all shared DMing duties, it was in our interest to have coherent rules from one DM to another. The amount of rules discussion in my 3e games has dropped to almost zero. Maybe, in any given session, I might have a single question come up about a ruling I make. And, even then, the players I've seen will let it go, with only one or two exceptions that I've seen.

Because 3e tries to build the DM as moderator, rather than opponent, I think the adversarial role has been greatly reduced. Particularly that adversarial role has been reduced by the inclusion of reasonably comprehensive mechanics. Trying to second guess the DM and look behind the picture has been replaced by a simple search check. If I say that I look around, my spot check takes care of whether or not I looked up. Previously, I may have had to specifically state that I look up, down, left, right, etc. This led to some rather elaborate and IMO ridiculous systems of standard procedures for dealing with simple rooms.

Thinking about it, it's kind of funny. Combat in earlier editions was much faster. But, we'd spend ten times as much time messing around in an empty room than we would now.

 

[RFisher]

Thinking about it, it's kind of funny. Combat in earlier editions was much faster. But, we'd spend ten times as much time messing around in an empty room than we would now.

I don't know if it's good or bad, but in my current classic D&D campaign, I found myself basically saying "You search it thoroughly & it's empty" up front for the truly empty rooms. Perhaps that's wrong because I'm letting them know when a seemingly empty room isn't really, but having them spend a lot of time searching a truly empty room doesn't seem like a lot of fun.

Now, the truly empty rooms that look like they should have something interesting...those can be fun. In moderation.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't know if it's good or bad, but in my current classic D&D campaign, I found myself basically saying "You search it thoroughly & it's empty" up front for the truly empty rooms.

IIRC, my very first post at EnWorld was (among other things) a discussion of why it was just best to avoid having truly empty rooms in a dungeon in order to avoid this problem.

 

[Reynard]

IIRC, my very first post at EnWorld was (among other things) a discussion of why it was just best to avoid having truly empty rooms in a dungeon in order to avoid this problem.

Relatedly: Only describing people, places and/or things in detail when they are important is a big failing of mine. My players are like, "Huh, he spent 2 minutes describing the statue. let's check it out!"

I am trying, though. Unfortunately, players get used to these cues and it takes a while to "retrain" them.