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

[GuyBoy]

It seems strange to me that the changes in how characters are rolled, or lack of changes thereof, or whatever, is creating some pretty strong passions
If I recall accurately, the first game I ever played in 1976, we just rolled 3d6 in order and played what we got. I had a pretty average fighter, Aelric and we had a blast.
Fairly quickly we moved to 4d6, drop the worst and then place where you wanted to build the character you wanted. We had a blast.
In 3e and 5e, my group uses point arrays. We have a blast.

I can’t think of a single time in 46 years of gaming, with hundreds of different friends, that anyone has ever got upset about what character creation system we used.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That is interesting, and might represent the seed that grew into pre-gen characters being included in many old-school adventure modules.

Though I always assumed that came from them originally being convention modules.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There is no subjectivity or room for opinion on the oubjective provable fact that modern d&d omitted both the less powerful/more restrictive attribute generation methods as well as the kind of guidance that once accompanied them for how they influence the results.

Yes, but the question is why? If it was just perceived as not serving much purpose and they wanted the space, that tells a different story that if your assumption is they were discouraging that approach.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To counter - the ability scores are now so much more important to the game than they were before many of those attribute generation methods would actually break the game in many ways. Having low scores in games prior to 2e just meant you were shut out of certain classes and maybe didn't get some bonuses that others would get. Having low scores in games from 3e forward means that the probabilities that the game depends on to complete most actions are skewed in ways that the game engine just can't handle. "Making attributes matter" in 3e means that the ways that attributes can be generated now matter much more than they used to.

(2e has characteristics of both - if you were using the non-weapon proficiency rules in 2e then attributes mattered for resolving checks. If you weren't then they mostly mattered as much or as little as they did in 1e. once you start to add an ability score-backed skill system to the game ability scores are going to have a much bigger impact and that has to be accounted for).

In general, the more sloppy the math is in a game the less shuffling around expected attribute numbers has, too. At least in OD&D the math was awfully sloppy.

 

[Thomas Shey]

RAW is always fair. Simply because RAW applies to everybody.

Only if your definition of fair ignores that said "rules applying to everyone" can leave one person with a character that will consistently look substandard next to another character of the same class in ways they had no ability to do anything about.

This is part of the gig here; random rolls in games will tend to flatten out over time. During character generation one set of bad rolls can saddle you with limited options for a long time potentially. That's why a lot of people quickly lost any ability to feel bad about various ways to buffer that, whether their GMs would have liked it or not.

Paladins were rare in 1ed. The philosophy was not to prevent a player from playing a paladin. It was to make paladin a rare sight. Nothing more, nothing less. The philosophy was to roll dice, look what you were able to do, and make do with the results you had.

But that doesn't work. If someone does actually roll a paladin, they're not going to be rare in any meaningful way, because until the character gets killed (or unless there's rotating characters) you're going to see one every game. Its the same with all the other random gated options.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Only if your definition of fair ignores that said "rules applying to everyone" can leave one person with a character that will consistently look substandard next to another character of the same class in ways they had no ability to do anything about.

This is part of the gig here; random rolls in games will tend to flatten out over time. During character generation one set of bad rolls can saddle you with limited options for a long time potentially. That's why a lot of people quickly lost any ability to feel bad about various ways to buffer that, whether their GMs would have liked it or not.



But that doesn't work. If someone does actually roll a paladin, they're not going to be rare in any meaningful way, because until the character gets killed (or unless there's rotating characters) you're going to see one every game. Its the same with all the other random gated options.

One of something can absolutely be rare. How else would you define rare?

 

[tetrasodium]

It seems strange to me that the changes in how characters are rolled, or lack of changes thereof, or whatever, is creating some pretty strong passions
If I recall accurately, the first game I ever played in 1976, we just rolled 3d6 in order and played what we got. I had a pretty average fighter, Aelric and we had a blast.
Fairly quickly we moved to 4d6, drop the worst and then place where you wanted to build the character you wanted. We had a blast.
In 3e and 5e, my group uses point arrays. We have a blast.

I can’t think of a single time in 46 years of gaming, with hundreds of different friends, that anyone has ever got upset about what character creation system we used.

I think it boils down to one of two schools of thought. The smaller pool pointbuy & more restrictive rolling options* generate characters that need more magic items to reach a state of autopilot through combat quickly obtained through more generous methods with the inclusion of a few magic items. characters using those alternate methods often needed magic items to add breadth & scope to what they can excel at because their niche was somewhere they already excelled even before magic items could make them amazing at or they were pretty ok in a wide range of areas but needed magic items to be great at specific ones. One school of thought treats the gm as little more than life support & tour guide for super heroes who shouldn't have any power over things so rejects any mechanics that allowed them to do otherwise. The other leans more towards the idea that a gm should be empowered to shape things to some degree & recognizes ways that they can do so.

Yes, but the question is why? If it was just perceived as not serving much purpose and they wanted the space, that tells a different story that if your assumption is they were discouraging that approach.

I think they lay the groundwork for the answer and illustrate the shift. Here are some quotes from the 3.5dmg section on 169/170:

• "1. Standard Point Buy: All ability scores start at 8. Take 25 points to spread out among all abilities. For ability scores of 14 or lower, you buy additional points on a 1-for-1 basis. For ability scores higher than 14, it costs a little more (see the table below). This method allows for maximum customization, but you should expect each PC to have at least one really good score"
• ""2. Nonstandard Point Buy: Use the standard point buy method, except that the player has fewer or more points for buying scores, as shown on the table below.
  
  Type of Campaign Points Allowed
  Low-powered campaign 15 points**
  Challenging campaign 22 points
  Tougher campaign 28 points
  High-powered campaign 32 points"
• "4. The Floating Reroll: Roll 4d6 six times, discarding the lowest die each time. Once during this process, the player can reroll the lowest die instead. Arrange scores as desired. This method results in slightly better characters than the standard Player’s Handbook method does, allowing players to either improve a particularly bad score or try to get a very good score. For example, if the player rolled 4d6 and got results of 1, 2, 6, and 6 for a score of 14, she might choose to reroll the 1 to see if she could improve the score (and possibly even get an 18 if the reroll came up 6)."
• "5. Organic Characters: Roll 4d6 six times, discarding the lowest die each time. Place in order (Str, Dex,
  Con, Int, Wis, Cha) as rolled. Reroll any one ability score of your choice, taking the new roll if it’s higher. Then switch any two ability scores. This method allows some choice but doesn’t let a player have all her ability scores exactly where she wants them. A character might have to learn to cope with unwanted clumsiness (just as in real life), or she may have a personal talent that isn’t usual for a member of her class (such as a high Strength score for a sorcerer)."
• "
• 6. Customized Average Characters: Roll 3d6 six times and arrange scores as desired. This method produces characters more like average people but still allows customization. The player may reroll all scores if his ability modifiers total –3 or lower, or if he doesn’t have any score of 12 or higher."
• "7. Random Average Characters: Roll 3d6 six times and place in order (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha). This is the strictest method. It frequently generates virtually unplayable characters, but it makes high scores very special. The player may reroll all scores if her ability modifiers total –3 or lower, or if she doesn’t have any score of 12 or higher."
• "8. High-Powered Characters: Roll 5d6 six times, discarding
  the two lowest dice each time. Arrange as desired. This is just right
  for a high-powered game where the characters need to be really good just to survive***. The player may reroll all scores if his ability modifiers don’t total at least +2 or if he doesn’t have at least one score of 15 or higher"

Modern d&d rejects the idea that characters & their players need to bring their A game to survive & triumph while making every effort to disarm the GM of tools in their toolbox to influence things. These methods all either conflict with those changes or worse provide the sort of power levels & resulting problems that occur when you add feats & a given level of magic items to a system designed to expect none of either. Without a meaningful set of crafting rules in modern d&d like 3.x & even asd&d 2e a character with weaker stats can not expect to have a crafting framework they can leverage to fill the gaps.


*4d6 drop1 is pretty darned generous
** vgtm survivors basically use attributes that fit this option
*** in modern editions players just need to show up with a character & survival is almost guaranteed

 

[Helldritch]

so the ability to walk away from a table makes it fair... but others say that even SUGGESTING you would walk away is you showing entitlement...

If you know what you are doing and you enter willingly, then it is fair.
If you have no choice then a rule might not be fair. Just as a law can be unfair/unjust.

But if you walk away because you do not want or do not accept something while others do or if you try to impose your view by walking away THEN it is self entitlement.

The point here is that when all participant are willing and agree with a set of rules, these rules are always fair. It is only when a rule or law is imposed that it has the potential to be unfair.

 

[Helldritch]

Only if your definition of fair ignores that said "rules applying to everyone" can leave one person with a character that will consistently look substandard next to another character of the same class in ways they had no ability to do anything about.

If you agreed to the method of character creation; it means you accepted the risks. It is fair. Luck can be a b**** sometimes.

This is part of the gig here; random rolls in games will tend to flatten out over time. During character generation one set of bad rolls can saddle you with limited options for a long time potentially. That's why a lot of people quickly lost any ability to feel bad about various ways to buffer that, whether their GMs would have liked it or not.

This is a philosophy in char gen. Again, if the DM presented a set of rules and everyone voted (this is what we do in my games whenever we start a new campaign) and the rules passed. Again the rules are fair. It is only when a rule is imposed or applied differently depending on the player that unfairness appears.

Being denied a choice because you have accepted a set of rules does not make the rule unfair. It makes the person appearing like an entitled person that just acts like a child. I said yes, I wanted to play at the casino, but I lost my money. That is unfair. No, you played and knew full well the possibilities.

But that doesn't work. If someone does actually roll a paladin, they're not going to be rare in any meaningful way, because until the character gets killed (or unless there's rotating characters) you're going to see one every game. Its the same with all the other random gated options.

Nope the paladin will still be rare. It is not because a paladin is at the table that makes it a common class. It stays rare. If you see a panda at the zoo and you go and see the panda everyday, it does not make the panda any rarer. It just makes you lucky to be able to see one.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One of something can absolutely be rare. How else would you define rare?

How is rare meaningful if you've got one in the game every session? What, in practice does it mean? If its just that its rare in the setting it could be that without constraining the player's choice to play one at all.