D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Mannahnin]

There's definitely been a lot of discussion over the decades about how tricky D&D can be to initially grok, and how most folks learn from other players who already know how to play it.

Ever since Holmes Basic in 1977 TSR and now WotC have tried various strategies to make it easier for new players to figure it out just from the text of a starter set or rulebook.

• Holmes with clearer writing and examples of play compared to OD&D.
• Moldvay building on and improving that approach.
• Mentzer in '83 writing two different Choose Your Own Adventure-style intros of increasing complexity in his Players' Book and putting lots more advice and guidance in his Dungeon Master's Book.
• Dennings' 1991 set including the SRA Reading Lab-inspired cards to learn the rules from bit by bit, modeled directly on educational materials.
• WotC's various starter and Basic sets, including the 4E Basic which used the same Elmore cover art of the Mentzer Basic, and ALSO started you with at least one solo tutorial adventure, as I recall.

And we know some folks have managed to learn just from the text over the years (Dan Collins of Wandering DMs and Delta's D&D Hotspot being a notable example in OSR circles, having learned from Holmes Basic and moved on to AD&D), though often with some funny lacunae and quirks that we need to resolve over years of play and when we encounter experienced players or examples from magazines and modules of how others play and run the game which contradict how we taught ourselves to.

Nowadays we talk about how streamed games make the concepts much more accessible to newbies who don't have an existing group to learn from. They can watch and learn.

 

[billd91]

Honestly though, the video is rather reductive and if everyone is playing their own heavily house ruled version of the game then not everyone is playing the same game. I had the chance to play with a D&D designer and the aforementioned buzz is interfering with my ability to recall who but the game was so different from the rules I used and the game I played that I stopped showing up after a session or two. It just wasn't D&D to me so I rapidly lost interest and quit. Was it backwards compatible? Sure, I suppose, but it didn't matter.

Editions do matter and that the video content creator is willing to exclude 4E kind of makes that point.

So much of that will depend on your style as a player/DM. There's a lot to D&D that is edition-agnostic, particularly a lot of adventure ideas. But I agree that there are aspects of individual editions of the game that may or may not annoy me as a player or as a DM or, if not annoy, at least undermine my enjoyment in playing. To the degree that happens, there are editions that I will play and ones I won't (at least not without major inducement external to the edition itself). And, as far as heavily house ruled games go, it would again depend on how I feel about those rules. Do they move things along easily? Are they nitpicky?

 

[gorice]

I'm not sure the real point of the core books is really to teach people how to play. .

I... I was going to disagree with you, vehemently, but maybe that is how WotC and a lot of players see it.

There is no rule on how to frame a scene. That's not the purpose of the rules. The DMG gives some general advice and suggestions, but every DM has to find their own style, there is no one true way. That's just not how D&D works and never has been. The rules have always just been tools to enable a narrative set in a world and reacting to the world the DM presents.

I don't think this is true. The OD&D rules summary in that Alexandrian link I posted above are very strict about moving through a dungeon and describing what's in it. The DM can't just randomly switch to a new scene where Brian, who was in the dungeon a moment ago, was just abducted by kobolds.

 

[Manbearcat]

I look for the following in a game so “complete” for me looks like something like this:

1 - Does it engage with something I’m interested in?

2 - Is it a self-contained ruleset that reliably and intuitively delivers on the experience it purports to design toward without having to go outside of it for handles/expertise?

3 - Is the game reference-heavy? If so, is it functional enough as a reference-resource (or does it have a really good cheat sheet) such that table handling and pace of play aren’t negatively impacted?

4 - If the game is cognitive-load-heavy to GM, are the above bullet points awesome enough to make the juice worth the squeeze and/or are there simple hacks to resolve or offload some of that burden?

---

It’s kind of hierarchical with a personal coefficient attached to 1 and 2. Obviously 1 is a straight-up barrier to entry (pretty important to any notion of “completeness”!) with like a 7/10 probably being the bar.

So if 3 is just yes/so-so (reference-heavy and only ok) and the answers to 4 are yes/no…that isn’t great. So then it really just comes down to is 1 and 2 tracking toward a 9 or 10? If yes, then it’s sufficiently “complete” because I’ll sacrifice cognitive load and great reference-source for the pinnacle of 1 & 2. Besides, as I run the game more and upload the ruleset into my brain, I’ll become my own referebce-source and cognitive load will naturally reduce.

There is an ideal for 1 and 2 (10 and 10), but there is no ideal for 3 and 4. Sometimes I want a reference heavy and/or cognitive load heavy game. Other times, I don’t. If all games were one way, that would get boring. However, if something is indeed reference-heavy there is an ideal for that; easily sourced via books or cheat sheet. If it is cognitive load heavy there is an ideal for that; when I do need/want to offload something is there a hack/procedure for that?

 

[Oofta]

I... I was going to disagree with you, vehemently, but maybe that is how WotC and a lot of players see it.


I don't think this is true. The OD&D rules summary in that Alexandrian link I posted above are very strict about moving through a dungeon and describing what's in it. The DM can't just randomly switch to a new scene where Brian, who was in the dungeon a moment ago, was just abducted by kobolds.

There have been many changes, evolution and refinements of the game. I can't find the link you mentioned, but I don't remember any edition giving explicit instructions on framing. There have been examples and suggestions (including mini starter adventures) throughout all editions, but no hard and fast rules on framing. Or I'm just totally missing the point. Then again, OD&D was kind of a mess and more a suggestion of a game and we played pretty loose and fast with the rules like most people.

But even if OD&D did have specific direction, so what? Obviously it's a good idea to have narrative consistency in your game (except when you don't because magic/chaos) but a rule that explicitly tells you how to play? The pendulum has swung a bit on that topic a bit with 3.x and 4E trying to lock down exactly how the game works and it's swung back in 5E. I prefer 5E's approach.

 

[Imaro]

I'm not sure the real point of the core books is really to teach people how to play. When there are so many other options from starter sets to streaming video to adventurer's league to joining someone else's game. If I ever get stuck in a video game (or a technical programming issue for that matter) there are answers a quick search away.

This is a really good point and begs the question...should the core rulebooks be considered the main instructor/example of how to play D&D and is that even desirable in an age where information can be more quickly and visually transmitted via other means?

I mean as some examples... how many people know GoT via reading the books vs. watching the HBO series? How many professions rely on in person training or apprenticeships? How many people quickly turn to Youtube, Tik Tok or an internet search in order to quickly figure out how to perform tasks or process information? If anything I feel, for the vast majority of new players and people interested in D&D, relying on them to read through 3 200+ page books, absorb the information and apply it in order to play D&D would be an outdated and detrimental model.

Truth be told I think expecting someone brand new to ttrpg's in general to sit down and read a 100 page book to play a game would be detrimental... it's an outdated (though preferable by some including myself at times) way of expecting people to absorb and process information. Honestly with the added benefit that streaming, podcasts, shows like Vox Machina and even programs like Adventurers League can also serve as marketing... I would argue more ttrpg games need to invest (and rely more) on alternative methods (streaming, networking, organized play, etc.) of disseminating how to play their games if they want more people to play their games...

 

[payn]

This is a really good point and begs the question...should the core rulebooks be considered the main instructor/example of how to play D&D and is that even desirable in an age where information can be more quickly and visually transmitted via other means?

I mean as some examples... how many people know GoT via reading the books vs. watching the HBO series? How many professions rely on in person training or apprenticeships? How many people quickly turn to Youtube, Tik Tok or an internet search in order to quickly figure out how to perform tasks or process information? If anything I feel, for the vast majority of new players and people interested in D&D, relying on them to read through 3 200+ page books, absorb the information and apply it in order to play D&D would be an outdated and detrimental model.

Truth be told I think expecting someone brand new to ttrpg's in general to sit down and read a 100 page book to play a game would be detrimental... it's an outdated (though preferable by some including myself at times) way of expecting people to absorb and process information. Honestly with the added benefit that streaming, podcasts, shows like Vox Machina and even programs like Adventurers League can also serve as marketing... I would argue more ttrpg games need to invest (and rely more) on alternative methods (streaming, networking, organized play, etc.) of disseminating how to play their games if they want more people to play their games...

It's so true, but not just for D&D. Our society has become a tactical information society. Meaning, folks are doing stuff they wouldn't have decades ago. You don't need courses in washer dryer repair to fix one. You just fire up an internet video and learn how to change that belt yourself. You still cant explain why the belt is that size, or what function exactly it serves, but your needs were met in this instance.

So, the greater discussion is if the game rule set needs to be understood like it did in the past? If its still seen as necessary, then how do you do that in a tactical information culture?

 

[Oofta]

This is a really good point and begs the question...should the core rulebooks be considered the main instructor/example of how to play D&D and is that even desirable in an age where information can be more quickly and visually transmitted via other means?

I mean as some examples... how many people know GoT via reading the books vs. watching the HBO series? How many professions rely on in person training or apprenticeships? How many people quickly turn to Youtube, Tik Tok or an internet search in order to quickly figure out how to perform tasks or process information? If anything I feel, for the vast majority of new players and people interested in D&D, relying on them to read through 3 200+ page books, absorb the information and apply it in order to play D&D would be an outdated and detrimental model.

Truth be told I think expecting someone brand new to ttrpg's in general to sit down and read a 100 page book to play a game would be detrimental... it's an outdated (though preferable by some including myself at times) way of expecting people to absorb and process information. Honestly with the added benefit that streaming, podcasts, shows like Vox Machina and even programs like Adventurers League can also serve as marketing... I would argue more ttrpg games need to invest (and rely more) on alternative methods (streaming, networking, organized play, etc.) of disseminating how to play their games if they want more people to play their games...

In addition different people learn different ways. Some people learn better if they just jump right in, some need to read a ton first, some need to watch videos or other materials, others need in-person instruction.

I can learn from just reading, but I find it easier to watch a video followed by trying to do something and screwing it up and then finding more videos or detailed instructions to read. Expecting a book, no matter how well written, to be the best introduction to the game for everyone is not realistic. Fortunately we have more options now than we've ever had.

 

[gorice]

I look for the following in a game so “complete” for me looks like something like this:

1 - Does it engage with something I’m interested in?

2 - Is it a self-contained ruleset that reliably and intuitively delivers on the experience it purports to design toward without having to go outside of it for handles/expertise?

3 - Is the game reference-heavy? If so, is it functional enough as a reference-resource (or does it have a really good cheat sheet) such that table handling and pace of play aren’t negatively impacted?

4 - If the game is cognitive-load-heavy to GM, are the above bullet points awesome enough to make the juice worth the squeeze and/or are there simple hacks to resolve or offload some of that burden?

This is really useful! I think, for me, 5e fails hard at (2) and (4), whereas I think Basic is pretty good but sometimes misses me on (1), (3), and (4).

There have been many changes, evolution and refinements of the game. I can't find the link you mentioned, but I don't remember any edition giving explicit instructions on framing. There have been examples and suggestions (including mini starter adventures) throughout all editions, but no hard and fast rules on framing. Or I'm just totally missing the point. Then again, OD&D was kind of a mess and more a suggestion of a game and we played pretty loose and fast with the rules like most people.

But even if OD&D did have specific direction, so what? Obviously it's a good idea to have narrative consistency in your game (except when you don't because magic/chaos) but a rule that explicitly tells you how to play? The pendulum has swung a bit on that topic a bit with 3.x and 4E trying to lock down exactly how the game works and it's swung back in 5E. I prefer 5E's approach.

Link is here, for reference. I think 'scene framing' as a particular thing might be leading us astray. The bigger questions are stuff like 'where are we?', 'what's here?', 'what's happening here?', and 'what happens next?'. The OD&D methods tend to provide solid answers to those questions (so long as you stay in the dungeon!). It's not only about strict rules vs. loose rules.

 

[Umbran]

But how does ship to ship combat happen in chess? That is, isn't it possible to always add a context that would make any game "incomplete"?

No, because "ship" isn't a legal piece in Chess, so there are no legal moves for it.

Meanwhile, we have prices for ships in the PHB, so ships exist, in general. Actions concerning ships should therefore be legal, in general. But the rules don't cover them.