D&D General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity

[Hussar]

Moldvay Ogre:
AC:5, HD:4+1, AT:1, D:1-10, AL:Chaotic

Gygax Ogre(MM):
AC:5, HD:4+1, AT:1, D:1-10, AL:Chaotic .... EVIL!

Funny, complaining about sarcastic, short answers and then immediately answering me with a short, sarcastic answer.

I mean, after all, let's ignore the fact that our Moldvay Fighter has, at best, a +3 damage bonus and 1 attack per round, while our 2e fighter has 5 attacks every two rounds, minimum possibly with a +4 to hit and +8 to damage, using weapons against Mr. Ogre that deal twice as much damage (Moldvay D6 damage vs Longsword d12 and Shortsword d8). But, yeah, totally compatible systems. No changes at all.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, I'll play.

The game is almost exactly the same. For anyone who isn’t an RPG fanatic they appear. Virtually identical.

• You create a character to act out adventures which are strung through into campaigns.

Ok.

• The character develops along 20 levels representing their power and progression.

Umm, that's new. BECMI allowed you to go to level 36 and beyond. AD&D had no upper limit to progression. The 20 level limitation was a 3e addition.

• Your character has 6 stats of which a score of 10 represents an average human.

Except now, those stats do entirely different things. Saving throws for example. And, the scale is entirely different as well.

• You select a race, these races have extra abilities like the ability to see in the dark or sense changes in stone revealing a secret passage. The races change some stats to represent strengths of that race - elves +Dex.

Ok.

• You have a pool of hit points that increases as you level up. When you take damage this pool is used up and when it reaches 0 you fall unconscious and possibly die.

Well, let's see. In 5e, I start with Max HP and increase in fixed increments. Up until 2e, you died at 0 HP (although the optional "death's door rule obviously existed". In 5e, you don't die unless you take your Max HP in damage beyond 0. You have multiple chances to not die purely on your own. Plus, it's a relatively simple action to stop you from dying get you back on your feet. But, sure, HP haven't changed.

• There are a number of classes that represent archetypal adventurers. Fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric. Variants like ranger or bard have been added but these follow essentially the same rules.

Ignoring, of course, that race=class in some editions of the game. The class list has changed from edition to edition. And, let's face it, you cannot possibly be serious that a 1st level OD&D Fighting Man is the same as a 1st level fighter in 5e.

• Characters select spells (whose names and general function are largely unchanged) that range from level 1 to 9. They can cast these using slots. The number increases as you level up depending on your class in a pyramidal way.

Umm, 9 levels of spells is a 3rd edition addition. Clerics only went to 7th prior. The spell lists are completely different. In Expert D&D, for example, a cleric had a choice of 6 spells (IIRC) per spell level. That was it. Never minding things like at will casting, and all the other casting changes over the years. But, sure, if we ignore all the differences, they look pretty close.

• You make 1d20 rolls and add modifiers depending on what your characters strengths and abilities are.

Except in earlier editions where I didn't. Percentile dice for thieves, for example. And, of course, no die rolls whatsoever for skills or whatnot prior to 3e because skills didn't exist. Everything was basically ad hoc, DM's fiat for determining success. Want to jump across a ditch? Maybe I make you make a petrification saving throw. Why? Because it's a nice number.

• Attacking someone requires a d20 roll to hit which is compared against armour class. If successful you roll damage and remove this from the foes hp pool.

Well, now, that's true. Of course, that's true of a lot of games.

I could go on and on. Started a group a year ago for people who had no RPG experience accept for the AD&D Baldurs Gate game. They picked it up almost instantly. Particularly the spell casters.

In everything that matters the editions are almost identical (with the exception of 4th that seems to spin off into its own orbit).

Ok, no one said it was difficult to learn, so, I'm not sure how picking a bunch of newbies with no RPG experience means that every edition is very similar. But, hey, whatever floats your boat.

Try this one on for size then. Try running a Basic/Expert game with your group. Just hand them character sheets and don't explain anything. See how far they get.

 

[TheSword]

Ok, I'll play.

Ok.

Umm, that's new. BECMI allowed you to go to level 36 and beyond. AD&D had no upper limit to progression. The 20 level limitation was a 3e addition.

Except now, those stats do entirely different things. Saving throws for example. And, the scale is entirely different as well.

Ok.

Well, let's see. In 5e, I start with Max HP and increase in fixed increments. Up until 2e, you died at 0 HP (although the optional "death's door rule obviously existed". In 5e, you don't die unless you take your Max HP in damage beyond 0. You have multiple chances to not die purely on your own. Plus, it's a relatively simple action to stop you from dying get you back on your feet. But, sure, HP haven't changed.

Ignoring, of course, that race=class in some editions of the game. The class list has changed from edition to edition. And, let's face it, you cannot possibly be serious that a 1st level OD&D Fighting Man is the same as a 1st level fighter in 5e.

Umm, 9 levels of spells is a 3rd edition addition. Clerics only went to 7th prior. The spell lists are completely different. In Expert D&D, for example, a cleric had a choice of 6 spells (IIRC) per spell level. That was it. Never minding things like at will casting, and all the other casting changes over the years. But, sure, if we ignore all the differences, they look pretty close.

Except in earlier editions where I didn't. Percentile dice for thieves, for example. And, of course, no die rolls whatsoever for skills or whatnot prior to 3e because skills didn't exist. Everything was basically ad hoc, DM's fiat for determining success. Want to jump across a ditch? Maybe I make you make a petrification saving throw. Why? Because it's a nice number.

Well, now, that's true. Of course, that's true of a lot of games.



Ok, no one said it was difficult to learn, so, I'm not sure how picking a bunch of newbies with no RPG experience means that every edition is very similar. But, hey, whatever floats your boat.

Try this one on for size then. Try running a Basic/Expert game with your group. Just hand them character sheets and don't explain anything. See how far they get.

You’ve picked minor details, rather than broad strokes. Basic may be different but AD&D was the comparison I made.

% based skills for one or two classes was hardly a big part of the game.

What proportion of campaigns actually went above 20? Nonetheless campaigns in both can run 1-20. Earlier editions can just run longer.

Changing scale of stats and abilities that key of them is tinkering.

% Saving throws also a minor detail.

Adding extra spells and changing levels (clerics from 7 to 9) is tinkering.

I said that I took a group that was familiar with the mechanics of AD&D and it was very easy teaching them 5e. This was not the case when teaching a group that were experienced Vampire players two years before. Even though ostensibly both role playing games.

I accept what you say about basic... so I revise my statement to say for 31 years of the 45 years of the game it has been practically the same and for the other 14 it was just very similar.

 

[Scott Christian]

In fact, there's five.

You left out the obvious option: leave it alone and just let the debates continue.

You are correct. Thanks for pointing out the obvious one I missed.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Funny, complaining about sarcastic, short answers and then immediately answering me with a short, sarcastic answer.

I was responding to your statement that monsters needed extensive reworking.

I would further engage with you, but you’ve made your opinions clear.

 

[Hussar]

So, despite the fact that virtually none of the mechanics are the same, the definition of what a campaign is isn't the same, the approach to the table and the roles of the players and the DM have all changed drastically over the years, it's the same game.

Yeah, I respectfully disagree.

 

[Aldarc]

So, despite the fact that virtually none of the mechanics are the same, the definition of what a campaign is isn't the same, the approach to the table and the roles of the players and the DM have all changed drastically over the years, it's the same game.

Yeah, I respectfully disagree.

Much less the fact that the OSR movement existed as a rejection of the present state of the game.

 

[Oofta]

Is a Ford Mustang still the same car it was in the 60s? In some ways yes. It's got an option of a big V8 gasoline engine, it's front engine rear wheel drive with a minimal rear seat. It targets basically the same market and has similar styling and sales queues. On the other hand, look beneath the skin and most of the technology is completely different.

I think 4E was the Ford Probe of D&D. For those that don't care - the Probe was a front wheel drive small engine high displacement alternative that was originally supposed to replace the Mustang. Same basic size and shape it had radically different styling and appealed to a completely different demographic. It wasn't a bad car necessarily, but a lot of people felt it strayed to far from the heritage.

So that's my car guy analogy for D&D. The game we play isn't the same one played back in the 70s, the details are different. But at a high level it's still the same game. At a detail level it's significantly different. Both answers are right.

 

[Aldarc]

The D&D of Theseus

 

[Chaosmancer]

At a certain point though, the details start mattering more than the high level zoom.

Both Chess, Checkers and Go use two different colored pieces representing each player, and the players play by capturing each others pieces.

Both Draw Poker and Stud poker have mostly similiar rules, but playing one as if it were the other, is going to get you in trouble.


And one of the biggest differences (IMO) between the last three editions of DnD was the skill system. 3.5's skill points where you had to buy ranks in skills, with anything you did not have ranks in being essentially never worth trying gives you a vastly different feel for your character's capabilities compared to 4e's omnicompetence by adding half level to everything and having a few proficient skills.

And that is still different from the current system where proficiency is essentially all you get, but many things that used to require checks don't anymore (climbing and swimming) and if you don't have proficiency you never improve in a skill.


You can say that is a "detail" of the game, because all skill checks were still roll 1d20+ modifiers, but that detail determines whether or not a fighter in mail could run, climb a wall, and swim across a river.