D&D General Did D&D Die with TSR?

[Voadam]

Skills is a big change. Everything is codified. You are proficient in something or not. Everything is listed with your chance to jump, for example. Or your ability to recognize history. I don't feel like this would've even been a thing when I played TSR-era D&D. The DM would've told the sage what he or she recognized without a check. In this way, it's completely taken out of the DM's hands. Player makes a roll - whether or not they can identify it. They get a bad roll, and the DM can't share the information even if it's important. They get a good roll, and the DM has to give information that is unplanned or insignificant if it's unimportant.

TSR D&D varied.

The 2e Player's Handbook had jumping, ancient history, and local history nonweapon proficiencies.

Jumping: The character can attempt exceptional leaps
both vertically and horizontally. If the character has at least a
20-foot running start, he can leap (broad jump) 2d6+his
level in feet. No character can broad jump more than six
times his height, however. With the same start, he can leap
vertically (high jump) 1d3 plus half his level in feet. No character
can high jump more than 11⁄2 times his own height.
From a standing start, a character with this proficiency can
broad jump 1d6 plus half his level in feet and high jump only
3 feet.
The character can also attempt vaults using a pole. A vault
requires at least a 30-foot running start. If a pole is used, it
must be 4 to 10 feet longer than the character’s height. The
vault spans a distance equal to 11⁄2 times the length of the
pole. The character can clear heights equal to the height of
the pole. He can also choose to land on his feet if the vault
carries him over an obstacle no higher than 1⁄2 the height of his
pole. Thus, using a 12-foot pole, the character could either
vault through a window 12 feet off the ground (tumbling into
the room beyond), land on his feet in an opening 6 feet off
the ground, or vault across a moat 18 feet wide. In all cases,
the pole is dropped at the end of the vault.

Ancient History: The character has learned the legends,
lore, and history of some ancient time and place. The knowledge
must be specific, just as a historian would specialize
today in the English Middle Ages, the Italian Renaissance, or
the Roman Republic before Caesar. (The DM either can have
ancient periods in mind for his game or can allow the players
to name and designate them.) Thus, a player character could
know details about the Age of Thorac Dragonking or the Time
of the Sea-Raiders or whatever else was available.
The knowledge acquired gives the character familiarity
with the principal legends, historical events, characters, locations,
battles, breakthroughs (scientific, cultural, and magical),
unsolved mysteries, crafts, and oddities of the time. The character
must roll a proficiency check to identify places or things
he encounters from that age. For example, Rath knows quite
a bit about the Coming of the Trolls, a particularly dark period
of dwarven history. Moving through some deep caverns, he
and his companions stumble across an ancient portal, sealed
for untold ages. Studying the handiwork, he realizes (rolls a
successful proficiency check) that it bears several seals similar
to those he has seen on “banned” portals from the time of
Angnar, doorways to the legendary realm of Trolhel.

Local History: The character is a storehouse of facts about
the history of a region the size of a large county or a small
province. The character knows when the ruined tower on the
hill was built and who built it (and what happened to him),
what great heroes and villains fought and fell at the old battlefield,
what great treasure is supposed to be kept in a local
temple, how the mayor of the next town miraculously grew
hair on his balding pate, and more.
The DM will provide information about local sites and
events as the character needs to know them. Furthermore,
the character can try to retell these events as entertaining
stories. Once the subject is chosen, he can either make a
proficiency check and, if successful, add that tale to his repertoire,
or actually tell the story to other characters. If the character
succeeds in entertaining them, the player need not
make a proficiency roll for the character, since he has succeeded.
The character can tell these stories to entertain others,
granting him a +2 bonus to his Charisma for the
encounter. But telling stories to hostile beings is probably not
going to do any good.

 

[Orius]

TSR D&D varied.

The 2e Player's Handbook had jumping, ancient history, and local history nonweapon proficiencies.

Meanwhile, when AD&D was playing with NWP, D&D added its own very similar skill system in the Gazetteers, which was then later included in the RC.

D&D was playing around with skills systems 15 years before 3e was released.

 

[teitan]

Can't say that I agree. I believe that 5e courted OSR briefly at the beginning of its market life, but then reneged on that once it garnered immense popularity, particularly among more mainstream audiences. It undoubtedly brought a number of prior gamers back, but that doesn't really mean that it consumed the OSR movement. Though 5e appeals to some people who like the older editions of D&D (from which OSR draws inspiration) - mainly those with the understanding of OSR as "rulings not rules" and more streamlined classes/rules - there is a LOT about 5e that still feels antithetical to OSR movement. (Hello, adventure path design.) So I'm not really sure how much of the OSR that 5e actually consumed as the OSR indie scene is still strong and kicking. OSR is arguably stronger now than it was at the time that 5e was released.

While I agree to an extent, I don't really need more adventures, I also don't think adventures really define the D&D or OSR experience. Pinpointing adventure path design ignores T1-4 & DGQ as a complete story, especially in the compilations that collected module series together. They were proto-Adventure Paths.

I think moreso than 3 or 4e, that OSR style play is simpler and easier in 5e. Feats are an optional rule, easy to ignore, for example. There are optional rules in the DMG to change how healing works so that it is more old school and tactical combat is streamlined while also able to be robust or eliminated altogether in favor of theater of the mind.

There aren't a lot of rules supplements, they've barely changed since 5e first came out so I am not sure how they reneged on courting the OSR.

 

[Aldarc]

While I agree to an extent, I don't really need more adventures, I also don't think adventures really define the D&D or OSR experience. Pinpointing adventure path design ignores T1-4 & DGQ as a complete story, especially in the compilations that collected module series together. They were proto-Adventure Paths.

I think moreso than 3 or 4e, that OSR style play is simpler and easier in 5e. Feats are an optional rule, easy to ignore, for example. There are optional rules in the DMG to change how healing works so that it is more old school and tactical combat is streamlined while also able to be robust or eliminated altogether in favor of theater of the mind.

There aren't a lot of rules supplements, they've barely changed since 5e first came out so I am not sure how they reneged on courting the OSR.

In contrast, I would say that adventure/encounter design is a key aspect of what distinguishes OSR from 5e, which is pretty clear from reading the Principia Apocrypha.

Combat in 5e tends to be more sport than war. Regardless of the dials and knobs available, the standard 5e game is not widely regarded as particularly deadly. The game attempts to create more balanced combat encounters. Adventure designs in 5e are fairly linear while OSR highly resists (and was formed in response to) "GM as author": this is one reason why OSR is obsessed with randomized tables and non-linear dungeons. If encounters, rooms, and loot are randomized or non-linear, then the GM is less able to impose a story on the PCs. While feats are optional, they are also a default part of organized play. 5e also gives preference for character skill > player skill, and OSR people would probably say that 5e encourages players to look on their character sheet for the answer. This is why I said that if one's understanding of OSR merely amounts to simplified classes or "rulings not rules," then those people may have been consumed by 5e, but not the actual OSR movement itself.

 

[teitan]

In contrast, I would say that adventure/encounter design is a key aspect of what distinguishes OSR from 5e, which is pretty clear from reading the Principia Apocrypha.

Combat in 5e tends to be more sport than war. Regardless of the dials and knobs available, the standard 5e game is not widely regarded as particularly deadly. The game attempts to create more balanced combat encounters. Adventure designs in 5e are fairly linear while OSR highly resists (and was formed in response to) "GM as author": this is one reason why OSR is obsessed with randomized tables and non-linear dungeons. If encounters, rooms, and loot are randomized or non-linear, then the GM is less able to impose a story on the PCs. While feats are optional, they are also a default part of organized play. 5e also gives preference for character skill > player skill, and OSR people would probably say that 5e encourages players to look on their character sheet for the answer. This is why I said that if one's understanding of OSR merely amounts to simplified classes or "rulings not rules," then those people may have been consumed by 5e, but not the actual OSR movement itself.

I can agree with all that but again point out that there are rules dials in the DMG to bring 5e in line with OSR style play. The emphasis on DM as author, as you call it, is a matter of style and is really just how the game has always been played anyway. WOTC has doubled down on “seasons” like video games and TV shows in the form of the adventures but that doesn’t affect the rules themself or their usability for OSR play. Much like similar criticism of 4e I think some criticisms like these fall flat. Play styles fall to the group especially in a game that does indeed have the options to support those styles of play right out of the box without buying any special supplements. It’s all right there.

 

[Shiroiken]

It didn't die; it became a lich instead.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It didn't die; it became a lich instead.

That about sums it up. I guess WotC has the phylactery hidden somewhere....

 

[Campbell]

I can only speak for myself.

From my perspective Fifth Edition is not a very good dungeon crawler. Combat is not decisive enough. Spellcasters are too flexible. Monsters do not have compelling weaknesses or many long lasting negative effects. It lacks crucial features like exploration turns, morale, and reaction rolls. It's implementation of magic items runs counter to treasure oriented dungeon crawls.

Of modern versions here's how I would rank them for dungeon crawling:

1. Pathfinder 2
2. Third Edition / Pathfinder
3. Fifth Edition
4. Fourth Edition
5. 13th Age

Of course none of these hold a candle to Old School Essentials, Beyond the Wall, DCC, Into The Odd, The Nightmares Underneath, or Freebooters on the Frontier.

 

[teitan]

I can only speak for myself.

From my perspective Fifth Edition is not a very good dungeon crawler. Combat is not decisive enough. Spellcasters are too flexible. Monsters do not have compelling weaknesses or many long lasting negative effects. It lacks crucial features like exploration turns, morale, and reaction rolls. It's implementation of magic items runs counter to treasure oriented dungeon crawls.

Of modern versions here's how I would rank them for dungeon crawling:

1. Pathfinder 2
2. Third Edition / Pathfinder
3. Fifth Edition
4. Fourth Edition
5. 13th Age

Of course none of these hold a candle to Old School Essentials, Beyond the Wall, DCC, Into The Odd, The Nightmares Underneath, or Freebooters on the Frontier.

Ya know my own rankings would be more like this, not to cause a debate but because comparing lists is fun

1. OD&D with Supplements/AD&D1e (purely nostalgia)
2. 5E (with the right dials it lets me play any of the other types of D&D)
3. 3e, as in 3.0, because it was the last time we had "pure" D&D, to my experience, until 5E came out.
4. 4e because it was a damn fine game, well thought out in it's final form. It was like the TV show Angel, started out a bit rough but with a few tweaks to the cast it became a great game but just like ANgel it was cancelled once they figured out exactly what to do with the series. The core products and lore were great! The early adventures not so much, predictable, messy and meh.
5. 3.5/Pathfinder because I got burnt out on 3.5 not long before 4e was announced.
6. 2e because it was a mess.

 

[Enrico Poli1]

One could say D&D died with Gygax being fired.
One could say D&D died with TSR, and the d20 system.
One could say D&D died with 4e.

My experience of D&D is one of roleplaying high fantasy tales. I was served well by most of the rulesets: BECMI, AD&D2, D&D3.5, 5e. Just now, D&D is - or could be - better than ever. So, it is alive!

However, all this leftist talk about inclusivity could kill the core experience. So, it is inclusivity that is currently menacing the hobby (just like Star Wars franchise was killed by woke culture).

Please some moderator label this post as non-inclusive! It would be and honor!