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

[Lanefan]

The game would need to be able to handle disparate levels of stats well, and D&D never has.

I disagree, from experience.

In general (and I've run the numbers on this using a rather large sample size of characters from our games) we've found that a) our games tend to have a generally similar degree of lethality and b) while starting stats make some difference to a character's expected lifespan that difference on average isn't nearly as great as one might expect.

Then again, luck plays a bigger role in our games (beyond just stat-rolling) than the modern standard would tend to accept; and luck can be a great equalizer - which is one of the reasons I like it.

 

[payn]

I disagree, from experience.

In general (and I've run the numbers on this using a rather large sample size of characters from our games) we've found that a) our games tend to have a generally similar degree of lethality and b) while starting stats make some difference to a character's expected lifespan that difference on average isn't nearly as great as one might expect.

Then again, luck plays a bigger role in our games (beyond just stat-rolling) than the modern standard would tend to accept; and luck can be a great equalizer - which is one of the reasons I like it.

Im not talking about lethality only. Folks don't want to play Iolaus next Hercules. GMs dont want to prep adventures for that gap either. I know you been doing it this way forever, but sorry it aint popular anymore.

 

[tetrasodium]

Everyone could get these items though, so its not really an equalizer.

They could, but if it conflicted with their prize $whatever by using the same slot the interest in actually using it was likely zero

Sure, the gap is not much of a gulf in theory.

the important part was that in ad&d stats were less important to a character because only the most extreme of extreme really did much if anything. 3.x changed that & 5e kept the change but tossed the safeguards the gm had at their disposal

The math is built around stat caps and expected starting places. It works well, if you ditch random rolling.

The post you quoted was talking about players "insisting on the perfect character rather than accepting the challenge of making the best of what the game gives you." if you discard all of the safeguards that once existed and double back to just giving everyone the perfect character right out of the gate by ditching randomization it seems like you've come full circle from disagreeing into agreeing with or supporting Lanefan's point in 424. The near nonexistent lethality of modern d&d goes hand in hand with that insistence if you go back a couple more posts in the discussion

 

[Thunderfoot]

Objectively D&D changed not with video games per se. I would say the first inklings of something in the air was altered was 1992... I started to notice the change in art work from realistic to cartoonish, weapons went from swords to giant meat cleavers hefted over the shoulder. Armor went from medieval styled protection to pieces of stylized metal and capes billowing in the breeze while wearing headbands on spikey hair. In a word...Anime killed the feel of old style gritty D&D. Video games, which were also mostly made in Japan at the time, just followed suit.

Gone were the heroes that started as the everyman of pulp fantasy, replaced with wise cracking, loud-mouthed punks who were hot shots from birth. Gone were the myriad of unique fantasy worlds and in were homogenized fantasy settings. The state of mind of D&D is less the system and more the reflection of the players, community and society as a whole.

As they years progressed fewer and fewer players were influenced solely by the volume of literature they read and more and more influenced by the amount of pop culture they consumed. This morphing of the 'nerd culture' more than anything lead to the changes in the system. This is why older players tend to have the 'nostalgia' for the old ways and newer players call older players 'dinosaurs' or worse.

The rules, the settings, the tropes all tend to mirror whatever is currently 'popular' among the players. None of the systems are perfect in that respect, but different systems tend to highlight or focus on certain aspects more than others. AD&D was more gritty 4e more 'cartoonish/videogamey' or what have you. 2e more story driven, 3.X and 5e kind of mishmash of all of the above. As stated earlier 3.5 went from fantasy to more of a dungeonpunk vibe.

Moreover, we all need to recognize that neither forward progress nor old school ways are 'better' they are subjectively acceptable based on your own circumstance. BECMI and 2e will always be more 'my game' and 4e will always be an 'abhoration' in my mind, simply because of what the were meant to accomplish and who their target audience was. It doesn't mean 4e is a bad system, just bad for me. Neither does it mean 2e is the best system, just good for me. And the more we acknowledge that fact, the more we can get back to gaming.

 

[Lanefan]

Im not talking about lethality only. Folks don't want to play Iolaus next Hercules.

You might be surprised at how many players are quite happy with such a role for their character(s).

As long as the Iolaus character gets to contribute to the best of its abilities (as does Iolaus) or can consistently find ways to contribute, all is good. The Hercules character keeps Iolaus alive, Iolaus has Hercules' back; and the whole ends up being greater than the sum of the parts.

GMs dont want to prep adventures for that gap either.

That "gap" is, like pretty much anything else to do with party makeup other than average character level, largely ignorable when neutrally designing/choosing adventures.

 

[Fifth Element]

1992... I started to notice the change in art work from realistic to cartoonish

This does not track, at all. Early D&D is full of cartoonish artwork. Like literal cartoons, wizards with literal pointy hats and all that.

As they years progressed fewer and fewer players were influenced solely by the volume of literature they read and more and more influenced by the amount of pop culture they consumed.

The pulp inspirations of early D&D you're waxing about are, in fact, pop culture in themselves. Conan the Barbarian is not "literature" in the way you're trying to paint it here.

 

[Thunderfoot]

This does not track, at all. Early D&D is full of cartoonish artwork. Like literal cartoons, wizards with literal pointy hats and all that.


The pulp inspirations of early D&D you're waxing about are, in fact, pop culture in themselves. Conan the Barbarian is not "literature" in the way you're trying to paint it here.

Of course there was cartoons, my point was the overarching artwork moved from the realistic to the garishly ridiculous. Stop focusing on the generality and focus on what was being pointed out. And pointing out the one non-literature reference as 'proof' is just jaded.


The overarching point, since I have to be literal, is that the 'type' of pop culture focus altered the 'style' of play. And if you can't acknowledge that, that's on you.

 

[Cruentus]

Of course there was cartoons, my point was the overarching artwork moved from the realistic to the garishly ridiculous. Stop focusing on the generality and focus on what was being pointed out. And pointing out the one non-literature reference as 'proof' is just jaded.


The overarching point, since I have to be literal, is that the 'type' of pop culture focus altered the 'style' of play. And if you can't acknowledge that, that's on you.

Look at (most of) the drawings/art in the older (1e, 2e) books, MMs, and adventures: characters usually in abject fear of whatever was strangling them, chasing them, ready to pounce on them, or breath fire on them, usually with at least one character on the ground. (Take a look at Meazles artwork in the Fiend Folio, in particular)

Now look at most of the art in 5e: characters flying/jumping into the air INTO the face of the Giant that is 10 times their size, smiling, spells, shiny armor, weapons a smiting. The art has changed from setting the tone of dark and gritty survival to Avengers Assemble. (Look no further than the cover of the Player's Handbook).

 

[Thomas Shey]

You might be surprised at how many players are quite happy with such a role for their character(s).

Or the fact your game has selected for people that have that taste, and its coloring your view. The fact its not a popular take outside the OSR doesn't suggest that in terms of overall numbers there's that many.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Yes, when compared to AD&D, 5E is more complicated. AD&D has: no subraces, no subclasses, no feats, no skills except thief, no bonus actions, no concentration, etc. Both have multiclassing, but the AD&D version is simpler. Death and dying is simpler in AD&D. Spells are simpler in AD&D. Resting is simpler in AD&D. The perceived complexity of AD&D is mostly due to optional rules almost no one used like weapon speed and weapon vs armor charts. The only things 5E does that are simpler than AD&D is AC and dis/advantage.

A quick look at the mess that is the ability score table, with one stat having nonsensical percentile values (but only for certain classes) says otherwise. There are many, many other examples, but AD&D felt like a complete jumble of subsystems that were whatever off the cuff decision was scribbled on a pizza box the night before.

Weapon speed wasn't an optional rule. But like much in AD&D, it was jettisoned by tables to get through the awkward design. Simply unifying mechanics to "roll high = good" was a huge step forward.