D&D General How has D&D changed over the decades?

[GreyLord]

I’m not talking rules or mechanics. I mean in terms of theme, tone, and aesthetic.

To you, what are the main ways D&D has evolved it’s tone, theme, genre, and aesthetics since you first started playing?

[Note — keep any rants about how you hate inclusivity or diversity out of this thread; not interesting in the slightest].

It’s hard to pinpoint how, but I feel that the implied ‘setting’ or ‘genre’ constantly evolves. I’m not an OSR style gamer generally, and my memories of play way back then are mixed in with being a kid, so everything was different just because I had a different lens. It feels more cartoony or modern American 'Ren Faire' to me than it used to rather than anything European/medieval (which is fine — it is it’s own genre, not a documentary). In other words, the emphasis is more on fantastic heroics than 'dark ages'. I guess player empowerment is a big theme.

I also feel like the implied time period (not that it's a simulation of anything) has moved forward from medieval to renaissance. Obviously this analogy is mightily flawed, but again, I'm talking in terms of aesthetic and tone.

Well, personally speaking, it's changed quite a bit.

OD&D was sort of the wild west. Anything and everything was possible and people did all sorts of things. You want to play a Dragon (like an actual Dragon, not dragonborn, not half-dragon, and actual dragon)...go ahead. You want to play a Unicorn...go ahead. Not that many did, but it was allowed and understood that YOU COULD if you wanted to and the DM figured out how they wanted to allow you to do so.

AD&D codified things. It was a LOT stricter than OD&D. It was no longer the wild west. Sure...in many ways it was houseruled much more freely than anything we see today, but it was a LOT stricter than OD&D was. It was also STRONGLY humanocentric...and if you didn't play a human it was strongly aligned towards Dwarves and Elves (half-elves being included along with the elves here) as Demi-humans. Others played other races, but not as much as Dwarves and Elves, with Elves being more popular than Dwarves overall. It also had the feel of more sword and sorcery and dungeon crawling.

2e was still Humanocentric, but NOT quite as strongly. It was far more often that you would see Elves, Dwarves, or Halflings at the table. Also, while options opened up (Kits), options were also closed down and disappeared (where are my Half-orcs, Assassins, and Illusionists? Where are my Acrobats, Cavaliers, and Barbarians? They are Kits...not the same thing). Late 2e started to try to introduce ludicrous amounts of complexity via Player's options which translated to 3e. The campaign became more heroic focused on the high fantasy campaign where the heroes are out to save the world. Outdoors exploration and fantastical exploration became more of what it felt like the books were pushing than the dirt and grunge of 1e. I'd say it was like the clean sterilized form of Prequel Trilogy compared to the Dirty lived in atmosphere of the Original Star Wars Trilogy.

3.X changed the entire boat. It was no longer Humanocentric. In fact, there were distinct encouragments to play anything BUT a human. Magic became the defacto tour de force, anything that had been used to balance it out in prior editions was tossed out the window. Instead of others slowly becoming more resistant to magic, they became more susceptible to it in 2/3's of their saves. It became very complex to the point that some called it Rolemaster lite. It had more of a fantasypunk tone in it's art. If 2e was Star Wars Prequels, this was different in tone as to be Star Trek Deep Space Nine in comparison.

4e also felt vastly different. I liked it, but it was like it was a completely different game in how it felt. Now, any focus on humans was gone. In fact, I'd say a majority played anything BUT humans. It was all sorts of races. And it was sterile and clean. It's hard to figure a good comparison, but I suppose if I had to say something, it could be like the Andromeda or Stargate Atlantis to the Star Trek DS9 feel of 3e. Much crisper, but very different in tone and feel.

5e is sort of a return to more of a 3e feel, but also feels cleaner than 3e. Sort of like a Star Trek the Next Generation to 3e's DS9. It has many things similar, but also VERY different in tone. It feels more like what a natural progression of 3.X would have been without 4e being in between. The campaign settings feel more open, but due to lack of them and lack of information, also sort of feel more limiting (I don't really know how to put that into words). It feels more like it is pushing the homebrew campaign aspect, but one that conforms to the 5e rules rather than the wild west of OD&D.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One of the more striking differences in how the game has changed is in where the majority of the game play exists in the game.

While I'll admit that there's more useful action to be had in character creation and development than was once the case, I can't really agree with this; I saw too many people who in OD&D had the situation where the majority of their meaningful decision making at the table was "what target do I pick?" I see a hell of a lot more meaningful in-play decision making for most non-spellcasters in modern games than in older ones.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If you want a good example of how the game has evolved, this might be it.

Older D&D was a weird mix of hard rules (roll to find secret doors) and fiat ("I search the room for clues"). As the game moved forward, a lot of things got codified into rules with specific triggers and requirements. Third edition gave PCs very specific "I can do X" abilities with feats, and 4e explicitly gave "I do X" abilities in the form of powers. the cost, of course, was that to do X, you now needed the feat or power that gives it to you. If you don't have the dirty fighting feat, your pocket sand is never going to blind your opponent (because if it can, why would anyone waste a slot on dirty fighting?)

In that regard, I'm glad 5e dialed back the hard-, coding of abilities being needed to take specific actions. I think there might be room to allow for some additional coded abilities, especially for fighters, but I don't want to ever go back to Helpless Prisoner.

Helpless Prisoner – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

While I see the argument, sometimes this was overstated; people have frequently argued that, for example, feats function as gates to being able to do things anyone should be able to try, but that's frequently a case of confusing "this feat allows you to do this in this relatively efficient way" to "you can't do this without this feat at all." That's frequently reading too much into the feat description. I won't say its not common, but its not a flaw in the coded abilities so much as reading them as more constraining than they actually are.

 

[tetrasodium]

That's an approach that works, but even broadly applicable rules sets like Fate require a bit more constant negotiation (and are a bit too disconnected to me) for what I want. Admittedly, some of this is unavoidable barring detailed environment descriptions and/or the local game culture tolerance for players inserting environment detail, but there's some issues over and above that.

The level of "negotiation" involved is vastly overstated in order to show the system's influence. That example is pretty much the equivalent of needing to remind a player to roll a d2, ask what weapon they are using, & also remind them both what ability mod to use as well as how to calcuuate the mod/oh yea don't forget to add your proficiency bonus. D&d melts down into a mess of ask what bob sayd when players try to "insert a story detail" because it lacks the sort of robust mechanics for that sort of declaring of story details like fate & some other systems have. D&D even had a rudimentary optional method that 5e purged in favor of 5e's One True Way of ask bob

 

[Minigiant]

While I see the argument, sometimes this was overstated; people have frequently argued that, for example, feats function as gates to being able to do things anyone should be able to try, but that's frequently a case of confusing "this feat allows you to do this in this relatively efficient way" to "you can't do this without this feat at all." That's frequently reading too much into the feat description. I won't say its not common, but its not a flaw in the coded abilities so much as reading them as more constraining than they actually are.

One of the things that 3e and 4ehinted at but didn't say loud enough was that feats, powers, and class features were the better versions of many actions.

There was a Normal version of stuff and the Feat/Class/Power/Spell version of stuff. Therefore if you didn't have the feat/class/power/spell, the DM could make up a lesser version of it foryou using the feat/class/power/spell as the basis.

"You don't have the feat for that so you can do it at one third power"
"One third? Hmmm..."

In the PreWOTC days, there was no feat/class/power/spell to gauge many things. So not only did you need to ask permssion, neither the player nor DM have a reference to judge the action.

 

[LordEntrails]

However the 5th edition PC classes' in design in mechanics and lore use a basis of having actual training. The first level of every class were designed to represent trained individuals.

You really should go back and read the 5E PHB, it does not say what you think it says.

Here are some useful parts to look up;

• pg 11, section 'Level', sentence starting "A 1st-level character is..."
• pg 13, section 'Describing Your Character, sentence starting with "Your character's background..."
• pg 46, section 'A Life of Danger', note how their is no training or prerequisites?
• pg 52, section 'Creating a Bard', note again no prerequisites and it only say that you may have attended a school or mentored under a master. Not a requirement that every bard has spent years of their adult life learning the skills.
• pg 56, section 'Divine Agents', note, again, no perquisites and lots of maybe this or that.
• pg 65, druids, same thing, no requirements
• pg 70, 'Trained for Danger', ok, fighters are trained, and they learn. But it doesn't say they have to apprentice or go to school or any other requirement. Maybe they learned as a child in the yard, or are a natural. Or they learn while adventuring, at and after 1st level.

This goes on and on with every class. Please show I'm wrong with an actual rules reference, not just how you play the game.

 

[Minigiant]

You really should go back and read the 5E PHB, it does not say what you think it says.

Here are some useful parts to look up;

• pg 11, section 'Level', sentence starting "A 1st-level character is..."
• pg 13, section 'Describing Your Character, sentence starting with "Your character's background..."
• pg 46, section 'A Life of Danger', note how their is no training or prerequisites?
• pg 52, section 'Creating a Bard', note again no prerequisites and it only say that you may have attended a school or mentored under a master. Not a requirement that every bard has spent years of their adult life learning the skills.
• pg 56, section 'Divine Agents', note, again, no perquisites and lots of maybe this or that.
• pg 65, druids, same thing, no requirements
• pg 70, 'Trained for Danger', ok, fighters are trained, and they learn. But it doesn't say they have to apprentice or go to school or any other requirement. Maybe they learned as a child in the yard, or are a natural. Or they learn while adventuring, at and after 1st level.

This goes on and on with every class. Please show I'm wrong with an actual rules reference, not just how you play the game.

I read all the class descriptions.

Explain how a fighter gets proficincy with every weapon and armor in the game but others don't?
How does a wizard learn wizardry and multiple spell slots.
Where does a rogue's expertises come from?

D&D used to have class based age modifiers in 3e to explain the time that training for a class takes. 5e has a few limited methods of gaining profiecincies as training and it takes time.

There is a training time, either alone or via an instructor.

But if commoners, bandits, goblins, and kobolds could pick up a longsword and instantly be a fighter, D&D 5e would not the the easy mode people claim it is.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One of the things that 3e and 4ehinted at but didn't say loud enough was that feats, powers, and class features were the better versions of many actions.

There was a Normal version of stuff and the Feat/Class/Power/Spell version of stuff. Therefore if you didn't have the feat/class/power/spell, the DM could make up a lesser version of it foryou using the feat/class/power/spell as the basis.

Sometimes it was very clear, but in others it admittedly could have been emphasized more. But at worst it was ambiguous, and people insist on reading as more exclusive than it says.

"You don't have the feat for that so you can do it at one third power"
"One third? Hmmm..."

In the PreWOTC days, there was no feat/class/power/spell to gauge many things. So not only did you need to ask permssion, neither the player nor DM have a reference to judge the action.

Right. And often there was no way to get better at something specific you wanted to do more regularly at all. At best you'd get better generically (and not even necessarily that, if it wasn't viewed as related to combat or a saving throw). Occasionally you'd see something useful once NCPs came along.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I don't see it that way. What exactly is limiting your engagement as a Fighter in an older edition? The lack of "game-given" buttons to push? Action Surge? Second Wind? One pip better on criticals?

My Basic Fighter has zero "skills" on my sheet, and zero bonuses to anything. Yet he is still a fighter, has decent hit points for the party (5!), and engages in fights when he has to, not all willy nilly. But he will get in front of the caster (actually an elf, so a "capable" fighter on his own.)

But what buttons can I push other than attack? Hmm. I can tell the DM that I'm going to look around for tracks to follow. I can search for secret doors and traps the same as everyone else. I purposely put my "better" (in this case an 11 or 12) stat in CHA so I can get a few more hirelings/henchmen if need be, and have them be more loyal. And guess what, other "buttons" like talking to people, social stuff, keys off CHA, so my "Fighter" can act as a Ranger, a Face, whatever I want, BECAUSE I'm not tied to the buttons on my character sheet.

You only are really limited to what you can do to engage based on how you approach the game, and how your DM runs it.

I don't think I define Game the way you do. To me, a board game (start, play, end state and goals) are a game, ie. competitive. Role playing for me is not a "game" in the same way, though we are "playing" together mostly to build a story and enjoy the growth of (at least for me) my character, but not just on stats and raw power.

Heck, I'm playing a 5e Fighter and NOT pushing any of the character sheet buttons unless I really need to. Most of my activity has been (with a Noble background) going around and trying to assist villagers with various problems (bandits, cultists, etc.), and when I succeed, often with the help of those same villagers, I split the treasure with them, donate to them from my personal money, and return items stolen from them. None of that has anything to do with the "buttons" on my sheet, or being a fighter. Its trying to build my character in a Role, and build the story and background of the village and NPCs I interact with.

I understand what you are saying but I'm having a hard time getting across my point.

If I'm playing a Fighter in a game, then when the game mechanics kick in and I apply the functions of my Fighter to affect the world then I would like functions specific to Fighter that I can use in the game. In Basic, Fighters have no functions specific to them like thieves, clerics, and wizards do. The Fighter get to attack things with a weapon....which the other three classes get to do as well.

You are referring to things you can do improvisationally or narratively in your game which is neither specific to a Fighter class nor a particular edition of DnD, nor even to DnD itself.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Guess I live under a rock. Most anime shows hold no interest for me so...

I'm in the same boat. I love Studio Ghibli movies and that's about as far as my knowledge of the subject goes.

I'm guessing age-group is a big factor in anime familiarity.