D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Imaro]

So D&D now delivers a wider range of possible adventures, right? A greater number of experiences (adventures) versus a core experience (site-based exploration).

I think so but I think (because some of these I wasn't old enough to play when they came out) the only edition of D&D that ever focused solely on site-based exploration was possible OD&D? BECMI took you beyond site-based exploration with Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal. AD&D 1e had the Wilderness Survival Guide, AD&D 2e had too many settings/adventures outside the realm of site-based exploration for me to list. 3e had rules beyond site-based exploration as did 4e and 5e. So when you say "now" do you mean starting in the 70's/80's?

Does that wider range require a greater number of structures to help deliver those experiences?

While certainly a possibility... I don't think that's a requirement. You can have a general structure which the DM then uses as a basis to extrapolate for other situations. As an example the skill usage structure can be applied across numerous situations.

Has the game delivered that? Are the suggestions in the DMG on how to do these things sufficient?

I can only answer for myself...Yes and yes (with the caveat that the "game" encompasses more than the DMG). I have been running 5e for years now and there hasn't been a situation that arose where I was at a complete loss on how to handle it. The game has, IMO a robust structure around combat and magic, as well as a suitably flexible structure concerning skill usage along with enough suggestions in the DMG and supplemental material that I would argue it's sufficient for the vast majority of things that arise... Though admittedly said answers, suggestions, etc. may not suit everyone's particular tastes.

Does "the GM gets to decide" suitably replace any and all such structures?

If we consider "GM decides" as a structure, then aren't all games that follow that structure similar in the same way as all site-based exploration games are similar? Have we simply replaced one core experience (site-based exploration) with another (GM's-fiction exploration)?

Nope... since individual GM's will decide how to implement their structures differently.

Not solely, no, but I'd say it's a big factor. Take a player from Critical Role and have them jump in on Dimension 20, and they'll hit the ground running. Take them and put them into a B/X game and they'll need some adjustments.

Though I don't know if this is actually GM style... as @Vaalingrade pointed out, Dimension 20 is more madcap than Critical Role. That's more a tonal difference. And there are differences in genre between the two, as well. Those seem more about style.

What I'm talking about is the actual structure of the game and how it works and how I as a player experience it.

This seems to be implying that rules differences are the determining factor? So would you agree to the statement that all PbtA games feel the same? What about FitD games? If not... what's the difference?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

If lunchables are a type of sandwich, and open-faced sandwiches are a type of sandwich, then I think nachos can also be considered a sandwhich. #sloppinessdoesnotmatter

Well!

D&D 5E - Is D&D 5e a Sandwich?

That's right. You read the title. Search your feelings. You always knew that the internet would throw this at you, with the inevitability of your uncle forwarding you an email that you don't want to read. The ancient hotness: Is a hot dog a sandwich? Yesterday's hawt taek: Is a taco a...

www.enworld.org

Since 5e is a sandwich, and all editions are the same, then by the transitive properties of irrefutable logicks and maths …

All D&Ds are sandwiches.

And since system doesn’t matter …

All TTRPGs are sandwiches.

 

[Oofta]

Would you describe D&D combat as the same? People taking turns rolling dice to see what happens, and trying to angle to do what they're good at?

Does that structure that the combat rules provide chafe in the same way as skill challenges did for your group?

I would have no clue how to run combat encounters without rules. I only need a basic core set of rules for everything else. If compared to skill challenges, combat has far more strategy. I think skill challenges was an interesting concept, it just wasn't ready for release in the state we got it IMHO.

Please drop the "inherently better" stuff. No one is saying that. Not better or worse, just different.

Umm ... that's what @gorice has been saying for several pages now. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding!

I think a more procedural approach is different and for most things outside of combat I want a light touch.

 

[MichaelSomething]

And if you think about it, nachos are just a kind of mini-sandwich.

Isn't a PopTart just another form of ravioli?

 

[niklinna]

Isn't a PopTart just another form of ravioli?

Only if you boil it in water

 

[Older Beholder]

In scenario (a), we use traditional exploration procedures, reaction rolls, supply tracking, the whole works, all imported from Basic or AD&D. Since we're going old-school, there will be no dice fudging.

• I am, of course, painting a picture of (a) in which the rules lead to interesting outcomes. Dull rules, a dull adventure, or bad luck might lead to rote boredom, and different people will get differing enjoyment out of different rules. So, it's not just a case of more procedure = better.

Your example a) is still using 5th edition, you’ve just added some house rules to make it more like AD&D. Which is great, but I kinda feel this supports the video saying that edition doesn’t matter. How would your example a) be any different if you were just playing AD&D?

As a side note, you could add a 4th example where the DM plans the dungeon pretty much as a railroad ahead of time and still had the Carrion Crawler sleeping when the players encounter it, because the DM thought that would be the most interesting option. With notes that if they don’t kill it first they will run the risk of it waking and joining the fight when the characters encounter the Lich.

From the players perspective there’s no difference if you planned it ahead of time or rolled randomly. None of things are right or wrong, different approaches work better for different groups. There are people out there that might not enjoy example a) given one of the characters died and by the sounds of it the next session is going to start with a TPK.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Isn't a PopTart just another form of ravioli?

A pop tart is a calzone.

 

[Fifth Element]

I would have no clue how to run combat encounters without rules. I only need a basic core set of rules for everything else. If compared to skill challenges, combat has far more strategy.

Surely a huge part of the reason that there is far more strategy in combat is because there are detailed rules for it. If you only had very basic rules for it, the possibility for strategy (or tactics, rather) would be greatly reduced.

 

[Malmuria]

View attachment 262263


A pop tart is a calzone.

Calzones are circle-based, and thus a type of pie.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So, before I reply to this very good post, I apologize if my last reply to you came across poorly. I just didn’t know how to move forward with the discussion from what you said.

There are better ways to express that, though, so I’m sorry for choosing the method I did.

@Imaro

I love D&D. I love multiple versions of D&D. I have 4 different versions on my bookshelf. Of course there is variety in how things are done from table to table. There is still far more that is similar from table to table then is different. The same is true for damn near any game I have direct experience with.

Agreed. Not to the same extent, with the same level of work required, though. Surely we can agree on that?

Look at any two Blades in the Dark APs (even the two different ones John Harper has run). You will see the same sort of differences in tone and style.

The same sort of difference? Really? The same difference as a classic dungeon crawl vs a heist where PC death isn’t really on the table? Because I’m pretty sure Blades proceduralizes a lot more of the tone and story beats and assumptions than D&D does. I’ve seen Blades used to run a cyberpunk game where your crew are from the same slum and are trying to stop a megacorps from buying the whole hood to build a tower on top of, but enough was changed that it was about as different from actual Blades as any recognizable fitd game, so that it was a custom fitd game more than it was a “Blades with some houserules” game.

You will also see that the fundamental structure of play does not differ very much from table to table. Just like modern D&D.

Oh man here we are gonna reeeally disagree. A lot of the arguments that happen online about D&D come from how differently two tables can run the same game. it’s a point that 5e critics love to point out ad naseum.

No one is saying there's no difference from table to table. Just that D&D is not particularly special in this regard. I don't see why we feel I need to raise D&D up by continually putting other games down or putting forward the idea that D&D can achieve the same sorts of play you find in games like Sorcerer or Blades.

Who is putting other games down?