D&D General Expectations of Play by Edition (and How You Actually Did It)

[Retreater]

My wife and I were having a conversation last night about what I see as shifting expectations of play as 5e progresses. The conversation mostly sprang from the changes in Monsters of the Multiverse, based on what I can tell from the previews. More or less it ended with her laughing and telling me I'm a jaded grognard.
This got me thinking about what the corporate written (or intended) expectations of play have been throughout D&D's history and how it might've been different based on how we actually played the game. So I'll write my own experiences here and welcome you to do the same.
1. OD&D
Perceived expectations: Dungeons and adventure sites are presented before expendable characters, who seek treasure for greed and power.
My play: I didn't play this edition at the time and only recently in the form of retroclones. I can say that I ran it as a rules-lite version of 3.x or 5e era D&D, with story, roleplaying, and dungeon exploration, using all the pillars of play.
2. D&D (B/X, BECMI, etc.) [Note: I've had the same experience with this edition as OD&D - just differentiating it because it's another edition.]
Perceived expectations: Dungeons and adventure sites are presented before expendable characters, who seek treasure for greed and power.
My play: I didn't play this edition at the time and only recently in the form of retroclones. I can say that I ran it as a rules-lite version of 3.x or 5e era D&D, with story, roleplaying, and dungeon exploration, using all the pillars of play.
3. AD&D 1e
Perceived expectations: "Get good, bro" style tournament modules, adversarial DMing. More character options than previous editions to allow greater customization for more dangerous adventures.
My play: I didn't play this edition at the time and haven't ever played it (even as a retroclone). I have read the books and modules. I have played several adventures for more recent editions based on the design philosophy of 1e, and they seem to match my perceived expectations.
4. AD&D 2e
Perceived expectations: The characters are part of a large, epic story, narrated by the DM. Otherwise the rules are similar to 1e, just a lot of the "teeth" have been taking from the adventures and monsters. The era of massive campaign settings also implies large, story-driven campaigns.
My play: My first edition I played when it was released. I followed the perceived expectations, only in my own campaign world. Very narrative-focused, kept a running tally of character HP behind my screen so I could fudge dice rolls to never kill characters.
5. D&D 3.x
Perceived expectations: "Back to the dungeon." Take the flavor and adversarial design of AD&D 1e, codify the rules into a unified mechanic and give loads of customization options to players to "get even more good, bro."
My play: I totally followed the perceived expectations. Became a Killer DM, ran my adventures like tournaments.
6. D&D 4e
Perceived expectations: Keep the dungeon theme from 3.x, but put all power based in class abilities that can be easily balanced. Instead of an adversarial DM, you're there to run challenging/exciting encounters that the characters can win. The rules are even more unified to the point where nothing will come as a surprise. Welcome new players into the hobby, including MMORPG players.
My play: Since most of my play was at organized events, I definitely followed the expectations.
7. D&D 5e
Perceived expectations: Take the theme from 2e, with the characters being part of a large, epic story - only instead of sprawling campaign guides, WotC produces campaign adventures (which reinforces the epic story concept even more strongly). Take the rules codification from 3.x but be welcoming to new players like 4e by simplifying everything you can. Don't give many character build options or splats, because that's confusing.
My play: Most of my developmental time as a DM was during the 3.x era. As a result, I try to run 5e more tactically (on a grid) and firm with the rules - but I think my problem is that I need to run it more like 2e.

 

[Monayuris]

My expectations for OD&D and B/X match yours. I also probably play them the same way. I use all three pillars of play with dungeon and wilderness exploration, combat, and social interaction.

My current B/X group is dungeon crawling now, but are at the cusp of name level and have some domain stuff going on. There has been plenty of role-playing and social interaction as they are maneuvering politically against some of the power bases in the region. Their characters have relationships with important NPCs in the world and are a growing power.

That being said, I still maintain the expendable aspect of those expectations. Their characters are well developed and have a lot of hooks in the world but they are by no means 'protected by plot'. If a character dies then that's it... I'm running the game with them being just as threatened about potential death at 7th-8th level as they were at 1st.

 

[payn]

I simply cant get behind some of these perceived expectations descriptions. What I have perceived is that folks have certain playstyles they gravitate to, and how they engage in an edition depends on that perspective. Playstyle preference matters more than the supposed conceits of the edition. Where the burn happens is when the design intent of an edition makes certain playstyles difficult or impossible at the table.

The good news is that designers seem to be more mindful of this. They either go out of their way to describe the expected playstyle, or they make a system that is easy to bend (5E) for mass acceptance. I also think much of the past consternation has been relieved by the internet. Available pool of content and players ability to match playstyle is easier than ever. Also, if a past edition has a firm grasp on your heart, its easier to find folks such as yourself to play with.

 

[el-remmen]

Not sure I have ever given much thought to expected playstyles attached to editions except in an abstract reflective way, not in a "what I am currently playing" way.

Expected playstyles aside, I have played/run every edition of D&D with basically the same approach modified by age/maturity/experience.

 

[MNblockhead]

Agree with @payn

In my experience expectations and style of play are much more driven by interests, personalities, and sensibilities of the players than the system.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Agree with @payn

In my experience expectations and style of play are much more driven by interests, personalities, and sensibilities of the players than the system.

Agree with the above.

System doesn't m....

um, system is overrated.

 

[Retreater]

So most of you are saying that the following have little to do with how you play: most of the corporate promotions, the advice given in the rulebooks, the printed adventure modules and campaign supplements, the articles written on websites and print periodicals, etc.?
And you're saying that your style of playing the game has remained unchanged across the lifespan of the hobby, without regards to which edition you were playing? That the rules system has little to no bearing on if you focus on combats, exploration, social situations? That the deadliness (or not) of the system has no impact on the scope or length of your campaigns?

 

[payn]

No, those things certainly play a part of folks formation of their playstyle. If it was framed in a "what was your experience?" i'd be more likely to participate with the intended spirit. Though, the well is totally poisoned in the OP via perceived expectations which attest to my comments about playstyle. Take another look, they totally colored your entire D&D experience in a single posting.

 

[Retreater]

No, those things certainly play a part of folks formation of their playstyle. If it was framed in a "what was your experience?" i'd be more likely to participate with the intended spirit. Though, the well is totally poisoned in the OP via perceived expectations which attest to my comments about playstyle. Take another look, they totally colored your entire D&D experience in a single posting.

Not sure that I understand. Maybe I'm just being dense today with some brain fog or something? Or I'm not getting across what I'm trying to say? I'm not trying to have a venomous attack on anyone here.
Just saying that it has felt like to me the spirit of D&D has changed with every edition, that with every edition they've focused on different styles of play and types of characters/stories. Sometimes those intentions were very clearly written, and sometimes it's what I've noticed in the marketing/supplemental material/etc. Sometimes those intentions lined up with how I played the game, and sometimes not.
I don't think this is a particularly negative post, but maybe it is?

 

[dave2008]

I simply cant get behind some of these perceived expectations descriptions. What I have perceived is that folks have certain playstyles they gravitate to, and how they engage in an edition depends on that perspective. Playstyle preference matters more than the supposed conceits of the edition. Where the burn happens is when the design intent of an edition makes certain playstyles difficult or impossible at the table.

The good news is that designers seem to be more mindful of this. They either go out of their way to describe the expected playstyle, or they make a system that is easy to bend (5E) for mass acceptance. I also think much of the past consternation has been relieved by the internet. Available pool of content and players ability to match playstyle is easier than ever. Also, if a past edition has a firm grasp on your heart, its easier to find folks such as yourself to play with.

Yep, that is my experience. My group plays 5e, like they played 4e, like they played 1e. Group inertia is more important the edition intent.