When did mixing editions become unusual?

[pming]

Hiya!

THAC0 = Back of the 1e DMG where you can see a list, in 'landscape' page mode, of all the MM monsters for quick access so the DM didn't have to open the MM if he was familiar enough with the monster.

Anyway...

I also started my RPG journey back in '80 (B/X) and we moved onto mostly 1e by about '83 or so (but still played B/X about 30% of the time I'd guess). I've been DM'ing 1e ever since...not constantly, but I would happily state "very VERY often" and not feel guilty. When Kenzer & Co got the "license settlement" to make Hackmaster based on 1e/2e/BECMI, we started playing that. My 1e games now frequently use bits and bobs from HM, and my HM games do likewise. Hell, I even used my HM GMG in yesterdays game...we were playing 5e. Used the Encounter tables and pulled out my GM Screen to use with, well, pretty much everything I needed really.

This, mixing 1e, HM, BECMI, and even 5e or even completely other games (like the Masterbook "Drama Deck" and "Plot Deck" for example) is pretty much par for the course. Using Dragon magazine articles WAS part of the "1e AD&D experience" in every 1e AD&D (and even 2e) game I ever DM'ed or had the pleasure of playing in. First session with a new group saw everyone holding between 3 and 10 photocopied/printed pages of all the "house rules" for the campaign. These were homebrew and Dragon articles, as well as tweaks to common things like how Initiative was going to be handled, how easy/hard it was to get healed or raised from the dead by a cleric, if there were any special rules regarding material components for spells, etc.

I agree with others here that 3e was the downfall (?) of the encouragement of "DIY D&D". In stead it fostered the idea of "Don't create it, buy it". Now, some may/will contest my statement, but that is not only my opinion, but many of my friends and other gamers I've chatted with both online and in person. The system of 3e is so tight (not 4e tight, but still), that if you want to add something, you have to do some SERIOUS work to try and account for so-o many variables that it would take dozens of hours...so it was often a better option to wait for someone else to do the work and they hand them $10. That, to me, "killed" the whole desire and idea of "DIY D&D"....it was now "BIY DYD" (Buy It Yourself).

I LOVE 1e! My go-to game system for "D&D" is my 1e/HM4 hybrid. Pretty much 1e 'serious tone', but with a lot of HM4 sub-rule sets (the Drinking and Getting Drunk rules are PLATINUM!).

Gods...now I have to go stock a Dyson dungeon map using my "Monsters & Treasure" book...

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Dessert Nomad]

THAC0 = Back of the 1e DMG where you can see a list, in 'landscape' page mode, of all the MM monsters for quick access so the DM didn't have to open the MM if he was familiar enough with the monster.

Actually, the argument of the people claiming no THAC0 before 1989 was that the table in the 1e DMG had a "To Hit A.C. 0" column, and that it would be impossible for anyone to abbreviate that to THAC0 before TSR published THAC0 in 2e in 1989, that I must be lying about having used the term myself. While it's more than silly to think that no one but TSR could create acronyms, the fact that TSR did actually use the acronym as early as 1981 caused one of them to put me on ignore and the other to stop posting entirely.

 

[Jester David]

I think there's a few reasons.

The first is that in AD&D and 2e, the rules were so similar, you could mix-and-match pretty easily.
And each rule did exist in its own little vacuum from other rules elements, so you could bring in variants without affecting anything else.
Plus, the 1e rules were such a scattershot mess organised in no particular order that looking up rules was time inefficient. If you could even understand it (looking at you initiative); it was often easier to play how you assumed the rules worked.

But then 3e came along, and made all the rules largely work the same. And the books were organised in such a way that encouraged you to look up the rules, and there were so many side options and interactions that it was hard to bring in a variant rule without affecting someone's feats or expectations.
Plus, 3e was so radically different, it caused nothing but confusion when trying to keep that in your head and 1e. It doubled the mental workload.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

The first is that in AD&D and 2e, the rules were so similar, you could mix-and-match pretty easily.
And each rule did exist in its own little vacuum from other rules elements, so you could bring in variants without affecting anything else.

Plus, 3e was so radically different, it caused nothing but confusion when trying to keep that in your head and 1e. It doubled the mental workload.

I wonder what would have happened if someone dropped 5e back in time and the progression went 1e, 2e, then 5e, skipping 3e, Pathfinder, and 4e entirely. 5e feels a lot more like a 'modern 2e' to me than 3e did, and certainly is closer to old D&D than 4e, I wonder if that would have led to more people using 2e splat books or using Battlesystem mostly intact (other than tweaking THAC0/AC)

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Hard to say, but it’s interesting to speculate. For my part, I think much would depend on what form the OGL took. The impact of 3e’s OGL was massive. In a lesser or nonexistent state, that could have had massive repercussions – no Pathfinder, certainly, possibly no OSR, not to mention Green Ronin and all the other companies that really came to prominence with their 3rd party products for 3e.

I wonder what would have happened if someone dropped 5e back in time and the progression went 1e, 2e, then 5e, skipping 3e, Pathfinder, and 4e entirely. 5e feels a lot more like a 'modern 2e' to me than 3e did, and certainly is closer to old D&D than 4e, I wonder if that would have led to more people using 2e splat books or using Battlesystem mostly intact (other than tweaking THAC0/AC)

 

[Jester David]

I wonder what would have happened if someone dropped 5e back in time and the progression went 1e, 2e, then 5e, skipping 3e, Pathfinder, and 4e entirely. 5e feels a lot more like a 'modern 2e' to me than 3e did, and certainly is closer to old D&D than 4e, I wonder if that would have led to more people using 2e splat books or using Battlesystem mostly intact (other than tweaking THAC0/AC)

Interesting question.
I don’t think it would have done as well following 2e. There’s just so many changes to elements like spellcasting, the addition of formal subclasses, and concessions to balance that might not have worked as well if not for 3e prior. Let alone to the WotC of the era, who wanted monthly books.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Hard to say, but it’s interesting to speculate. For my part, I think much would depend on what form the OGL took. The impact of 3e’s OGL was massive. In a lesser or nonexistent state, that could have had massive repercussions – no Pathfinder, certainly, possibly no OSR, not to mention Green Ronin and all the other companies that really came to prominence with their 3rd party products for 3e.

Pathfinder required a pretty specific set of circumstances - it needed the really open OGL to allow making a game that was basically "D&D 3.75 but we can't call it that" and the release of 4e to prompt demand for "more of D&D 3x but not calling it that because Wizards owns the trademark". I think just about any change to D&D history in the early 2000s would butterfly away Pathfinder.

 

[KenNYC]

when I DM I mix 5e with 1e now. To keep the flow moving I sometimes just ask players to roll a d20 and see if it is under their stat. Its easier and done in 2 seconds. I also try to bring classes back into the game, and will impose auto disadvantage on any thievy type endeavor to anyone who isn't a rogue, and sometimes just ask "and where in your wizard background did you learn how to crack a safe?" and then just rule their character wouldn't know such a thing no matter what their dex is.

If the 5e version of a monster is weak I just go back to the 1e monster manual. Yellow Mold is save or die when I DM. If a spell is used against a party and I feel like one class should have a leg up on the others (like a fighter used to tumbing about would be quicker to notice a death ray coming their way and dodging while drawing a sword) I will break out the old 1e save table that gives the different classes different save thresholds. Same thing if an enemy wizard was whipping out a component to cast a spell, it stands to reason a PC wizard would instinctively know to dodge a moment sooner than a barbarian, so will use the 1e save vs spell tables.

Basically, I try to go with rulings, not rules, and the old way of just ignoring any rule you can't wrap your mind around, while emphasizing classes and ignoring background and stats. The goal is to keep the game moving and have no discussions with rules lawyers.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

BTW, people here may want to take a look at this thread on the 5e forum: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...(and-have-we-reached-quot-Peak-Edition-quot-) There is speculation there that the plan for D&D in the future is more like the progression that BECMI went through, where future editions are refinements that are interchangeable with the old rules and not radical, non-backward-compatible changes the way 3e, 4e, and 5e were.

 

[Shasarak]

I think 4e was the definite break point that finally separated the editions.

The process probably can be tracked back to the beginning of 2e but even then it was pretty easy to mix and match and even play your 1e Assassin if you wanted to. 3e and the d20 system tidied up things a lot but the final nail came with 4e.