basic differences in rules per edition

[shadzar]

Oh no now everyone has options and abilities beyond "Charge and full attack"

Oh no, everyone has to metagame their characters into some min-maxing CharOp to the mechanical bonus of +1.



I don't call those "options", just another list of mechanical bonuses, where not everyone wants/wanted them.

A bonus is a bonus, not an option. That is what 4th did, give a ton more bonuses, not more options.

Options have, and always will, come from the players, until a version of the game has a finite list of what options you have and cannot do anything outside of them.


Therefore here is another difference:

2->3 more and more bonuses, 3->4 more bonuses still

 

[shadzar]

But that of course implies that there's one type of setting which is appropriate for D&D, that it has to be human-centric. And that the only way for it to be human-centric is for individual humans to be more powerful than individual demi-humans can be. Which disregards the potential for a campaign to be human-centric because humans are numerous and widespread. The logic is not exactly compelling for exceptional individuals to be limited in the level thay can attain. I suspect that many rejection of these level limits was one of the commonest house-rules in 1e/2e days; it certainly gets mentioned frequently.

Yes and No.

If using the level limits, then it DOES need to be human-centric, and that is how D&D was designed to be prior to 3rd edition.

Such as the Star Wars "anger leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side" motif.

The concept is that longer living races don't take over by gaining more levels over time than the humans can. If they did, there would be no place for humans as they would have been walked over in fights of other races ages ago.

It takes heavily from Tolkien where the age of man is upon them. This is the style that was developed and sought, a human-centric.

If you can make a world that isn't human-centric, or has no humans, then remove the level limits, but then, as you are outside of the design parameters, the game will quickly fall apart.

The balance wasn't upon classes, but the races in those human-centric editions, to allow for humans to exist.

This is true for EVERY thing where humans exist. Either humans are super powered technologically, or the other races are in some way hindered from gaining power.

Early editions, just describe it that the other races are more mature than humans for the most part and stop seeking that sort of knowledge that would gain them class levels.

So as was mentioned it IS a different kind of balance.

The balance of race in the past, and the balance of class in the more recent.

So that would be a difference in what was being balanced:

pre-3rd: Social power was balanced out.

3rd+: Combat power was balanced out.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But that of course implies that there's one type of setting which is appropriate for D&D, that it has to be human-centric.

Whether you agree with Gary or not, he was clear in the 1e DMG in expressing the opinion that human-centric was the way to go for the vast majority of gamers. You can do something else (and Gary was clear on that, too), but the main line of the game wasn't going to support it.

And that the only way for it to be human-centric is for individual humans to be more powerful than individual demi-humans can be.

Erm....no.

Remember that, in 1e, it was possible for certain NPC demihumans to be more powerful than their PC counterparts. What Gygax realized (through extensive play) was that it is exponentially more difficult to create a "human-centric" feeling to a campaign milieu when the majority of the players were not playing humans. Thus, he included mechanics to encourage human-centric adventuring parties; i.e., parties that reflected the game milieu as he saw it.

Now, one can certainly disagree with Gygax's reasoning, and one can certainly disagree with his means, but it is very clear that when he talked about "balance" he didn't mean the same thing one does when one talks about "balance" in 4e. These are two different meanings, and the only result of conflating them is confusion.

IMHO. YMMV.


RC

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The driving forces behind the changes are not entirely congruent with the various editions. There have been several broad "movements" in D&D rules:

1. Making up stuff that people find fun, more or less on demand.
2. Going gonzo for gonzo sake.
3. Avoiding gonzo stuff for some other competing claim.
4. Sub systems for mechanical variety.
5. Consolidating systems for mechanical simplification or balance (simple and balanced not always being in sync, either).
6. Adding details.
7. Removing details in the favor of abstractions.
8. Adding mechanics for "roleplaying".
9. Removing mechanics in favor of the players "roleplaying" it.

And that's just rules, albeit a lot of those rules had goals broad enough to tie into other concerns--such as "realism", "storytelling", etc."

Tracing those movements in editions is like trying to trace religious movements in, say, the last 500 years of Western Civilization. You can make some broad statements that will be generally true as long as you remember that the movement does not even come close to explaining all the changes. It contributes, it does not account.

#5, consolidation started strong in 2E, gained traction as 2E went along, stayed strong throughout most of the 3E cycle, and was still kicking pretty heavy through 4E so far. However, the exact rules target of that consolidation has varied considerably over that span--not to mention the counter-reaction to it. And the spirit of it was very much present in some 1E discussion, and even showed up a bit in the RC rules.

One of the bigger changes preceded the OP's benchmark: When Basic decided to have different die sizes for weapons. Before that, I believe it was 1d6 for each weapon. You flavored to suit yourself. (There might have been an interim period where fighters got 1d8 and wizards got 1d4. I'm not sure.) This marks, I believe, the start of movement #6 (details) as a movement with real teeth. People have been pushing it and reacting against it ever since.

 

[Lanefan]

If you can make a world that isn't human-centric, or has no humans, then remove the level limits, but then, as you are outside of the design parameters, the game will quickly fall apart.

Just an aside here, but it certainly can be done and with minimal effort on your part as DM. I've mostly removed the level limits in my game - there's still some races cannot be some classes at all, but for the most part if you can start in it you can keep going in it - and I've managed to keep it quite Human-centred so far by:
a) making the plots and stories mostly Human-based,
b) placing most of the adventures in Human territory
c) making other races either uncommon (e.g. there are very few Gnomes left in the world as they've been mostly wiped out) or harder to play (there's lots of Elves but they're generally shunned in Human lands, can't find training, etc.)
d) making sure most of the significant NPCs either are or were Human

So far, so good.

That said, keep in mind I'm running 1e (variant) and I don't generally allow oddities like half-dragons and celestials and tieflings as PCs unless a player does some very fancy dice-rolling on some tables... Were I running a later edition I'd probably ban these sort of races, just on personal preference.

Lan-"living in the human zoo"-efan

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just an aside here, but it certainly can be done and with minimal effort on your part as DM.

Yup. One can certainly work around Gary's reasoning. In some cases, it is not even difficult. In other cases, what seems like a good idea turns out to have hidden downsides.


RC

 

[CuRoi]

To say that one edition was better or worse at it than any other without also referencing the group, the campaign/module or the situation seems a little silly.

Just to second this so maybe the thread doesn't get hijacked by an "Edition war". I think it has done a great job so far of allowing people to point out subtle and not so subtle differences between the mechanics and feel of the games.

I have my preferences for sure (and frankly, drifting a bit away from DnD entirely at the moment) but I'm not going say one version is better than another. I may have an opinion that one version supports my play style better than another, but thats just an opinion based on personal experience. I think we can all assume the same to keep any flame wars at bay.

 

[CuRoi]

Oh no now everyone has options and abilities beyond "Charge and full attack"

Well, and here is an interesting thing often overlooked about older editions. Just because there weren't rules for some combat manuver did not mean it didn't happen. That's one interesting shift in mindset from 1e/2e to 3e I think. 1e/2e had a bunch of archaic bizarre rules, some which frankly made no sense or existed just to have some odd table you could roll on. 3e wanted to codify things, streamline and make sure a rule existed for just about everything you want to do and that it all got wrapped into a neat package. Somewhere along the line, players and DMs started thinking "well if there isn't a rule for it, I can't do it".

However, I think by virtue of there -not- being rules for something, more things probably did happened. A DM was more often put on the spot to make ad hoc rulings which in turn made for a more creative flow.

If someone said to me in 2e "I want to rush that guy and put him on his arse." I'd stop, think for a second and say "Ok, roll a to hit, +2 for the charge and give me a strength check."

In 3e, I have to stop and say "Ok...hang on ummm lets see...you provoke an AoO, unless you have Improved Bull Rush, and he's exactly 20 squares away and it's not quite a straight line so you can't really charge, and he's got reach with his spear so he's going to smack you right about here on the map with an AoO anyway...let's see, he hit...ooh he has Improved Critical so let's try to confirm. No, doesn't confirm. Are you doing this unarmed? Do you need Improved Unarmed to aovid an AoO? Ahhh screw it he doesn't have Combat Reflexes anyway so it doesn't matter. Hmmm ok, now that you are finally there let's roll opposed Strength checks, and let's see...he's bigger so let me add +4 bonus...you won by 16...errrrm I guess it says here you push him back 15 or is it 20 feet? Oh, crud, forgot this guy is a centaur, he get's an addiitonal +4 against that for stability...so I guess it's just back 10 feet? Ok, ummm I was going to throw in some descriptive flavor text but, um I got a bit lost there, but you push him back."

The codification of "options" does not exactly equal the existence of said options (nor does it equal the efficacy of exercising said options).

 

[Raven Crowking]

AFAICT, there just seems to be pretty friendly edition description going on here. No edition war. Nothing to see....move along.....

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Yes, and everyone has a "spellbook" to manage whether they want one or not.

That's not how 4e works in the slightest.

Oh no, everyone has to metagame their characters into some min-maxing CharOp to the mechanical bonus of +1.

Nor is this how 4e works in the slightest.

Oh boy one of these threads! Let me get out my Bingo sheet.

I don't call those "options"... *snip*l

Literally this both makes no sense. When I adjust a bit to sorta see what you're trying to go for it starts to make sense, but continues to not apply to 4e in the slightest.

This is objectively not true.*snip*

And I can make a pacifist cleric in 4e as well! 4e also has a bunch of books that are close to nothing but fluff! And the 4e rogue - and the fighter and the paladin and the ranger and etc etc - all have more out of combat things to do then they did in previous editions!

But when you look at the core rules - you know, what we're talking about? - you find that all editions have an emphasis on two things: combat and spells. 4e just made the second part applicable to everyone.