D&D General Lethality, AD&D, and 5e: Looking Back at the Deadliest Edition

[Oofta]

One thing I notice is that even though "old school" D&D supposedly puts the DM in a much more authoritative position, I remember much more time spent arguing rules in the 80s. After a long break, coming back to the game with 5e, it feels like the DM has much more authority. For all the talk about collaboration and complaints I keep reading about overly entitled players, 5e seems to be played much less as game with rules than AD&D. Yes, it is partly because OD&D required you to fill in large gaps and AD&D rules were difficult to parse. But there was more of sense of game masters being referees and judges. "Rules lawyers" became a pejorative early on, but almost everyone I played with in 80s were rules lawyers to some extent. Challenging the DM on ruling now seems to be the height of poor gaming etiquette, which is a bit weird for a game when you think about it.

You wouldn't know that looking at D&D discussion threads, but in every game I've played at, whether convention games, AL games at my FLGS, or on-line games, since 2014, I can't recall a single instance of any debate over rules. It feels like a big cultural shift to me having jumped from the 80s to 2010s. I note this without any judgment either way. I enjoy both styles, though I tend to a bit more on the gamest side when I run D&D games, especially combat and am not only tolerant of some debate over the rules, I tend to rely a lot on my players to remind me of less-used rules and help adjudicate results.

Wondering whether others have the same experiences.

I've always just shut down arguments quickly during the game. I'll listen and on rare occasions look something up, but most of the time I'll simply make a ruling and we move on. If the player argues, I'll just let them know I've made a ruling and that we can discuss it after the game if they want. In my experience it's pretty common. It's not DM as dictator, it's DM as the person who keeps the game moving.

I think 5E emphasizes that approach - DM rulings over rules. It helps that the rules are relatively clear in most cases and there's less contradictory advice. But I think it also helps that they've accepted that the rules can never cover every possibility. That you don't need detailed rules for a lot of stuff because they just tend to bog down the game and different groups will want to tailor the game to their preferences anyway.

When it comes to rules lawyers, I saw them more in previous editions, then again the games I've been involved with use DndBeyond so it's pretty easy to look up a rule for a PC. It feels like there are fewer true exploits than previous editions, with a lot of the power creep stopped by simply disallowing optional rules. It helps that feats and multiclassing are optional.

So it's not that I don't occasionally see questions now and then (or raise them myself) it's more that the DM makes a call and says "That's the way I rule" and we move on.

 

[nevin]

I play mostly RAW 5E, actually one of my DMs is even a little easier with potions as a bonus action. Since 2014 as a player I have personally had 3 PCs die and have seen another 2 party members die. As a DM I lost 1 PC and the character actually heroically died by intentionally diving into a portal to Elemental water to close it from the other side and save the rest of the party (and the world).

That is a lot less than died during the 80s playing 1E (both basic and AD&D), but the lower chance of death has not dulled my enthusiasm for 5E.

I remember one 1E campaign where I was DM (and an adult) and a girl, about 15, was playing a Drow Cleric/Magic User in a neighborhood game. They were around 13th level I think, I still remember her characters name - Silversun (wierd for a Drow, I know). Anyway she died as part of a TPK to a bunch of Erinyes. She started crying and I felt horrible, I felt like I had shot her dog or something. She did not complain at all nor ask me to bend the rules but she did cry for like an hour while everyone was rolling up new 1st level characters. Six months or so later the next party also got TPKed (a naga and an Army of Orcs if I remember correctly). Second time around she did a lot better.

Given the choice between the two, I much prefer the "easy mode" of 5E ..... and if you don't like it easy you can always play an Elemental Monk.

TPK's suck for everyone if your playing to game as an ongoing story. With a few notable exceptions most of the DM's I know including me over the years have drifted away from even allowing such a thing because the whole purpose of the game is to get everyone together, play a story for as long as everyone wants too. Sucks to unintentionally end your story and have to start over.

 

[Micah Sweet]

TPK's suck for everyone if your playing to game as an ongoing story. With a few notable exceptions most of the DM's I know including me over the years have drifted away from even allowing such a thing because the whole purpose of the game is to get everyone together, play a story for as long as everyone wants too. Sucks to unintentionally end your story and have to start over.

That assumes that "playing a story" is the purpose of an RPG. I prefer to think of it as playing a role in a fantasy (or whatever) world.

 

[nevin]

I've always just shut down arguments quickly during the game. I'll listen and on rare occasions look something up, but most of the time I'll simply make a ruling and we move on. If the player argues, I'll just let them know I've made a ruling and that we can discuss it after the game if they want. In my experience it's pretty common. It's not DM as dictator, it's DM as the person who keeps the game moving.

I think 5E emphasizes that approach - DM rulings over rules. It helps that the rules are relatively clear in most cases and there's less contradictory advice. But I think it also helps that they've accepted that the rules can never cover every possibility. That you don't need detailed rules for a lot of stuff because they just tend to bog down the game and different groups will want to tailor the game to their preferences anyway.

When it comes to rules lawyers, I saw them more in previous editions, then again the games I've been involved with use DndBeyond so it's pretty easy to look up a rule for a PC. It feels like there are fewer true exploits than previous editions, with a lot of the power creep stopped by simply disallowing optional rules. It helps that feats and multiclassing are optional.

So it's not that I don't occasionally see questions now and then (or raise them myself) it's more that the DM makes a call and says "That's the way I rule" and we move on.

interesting. I deal with a lot more rules lawyers in 5e than I ever did in 1st and 2nd, Surprising with the dev's being so clearly in support of DM rules the table. In 3rd it wasn't really rules lawyers it was the players that wanted to argue if Wizards made a splat book you had to allow it.

I quit DM'ing for a few years over those players till I moved and found some sane ones. Then pathfinder saved the day and then rebuilt the same beast. LOL

 

[nevin]

That assumes that "playing a story" is the purpose of an RPG. I prefer to think of it as playing a role in a fantasy (or whatever) world.

So for clarification are we just talking about a theatre of the mind combat simulator?

 

[Micah Sweet]

So for clarification are we just talking about a theatre of the mind combat simulator?

No. Where are you getting that?

 

[Krachek]

So what you're seeing in AD&D and the DMG is Gygax at war with himself. On the one had, you'll see a lot of passages from Gygax as the hobbyist when he extolls the the virtues of making the campaign your own, playing up to the fun and the imagination of the game, and so on. On the other hand, you'll see a lot of passages from Gygax as businessman, where he talks about how AD&D is the only true game and you have to follow the rules.

Which is why the advice in the book seems to swing randomly from "make it your own" to "the rules are not mutable," sometimes within the same paragraph.

There is a similar split with regard to handling players. On the one hand, Gygax is constantly talking about engaging players, making it more welcoming, and discusses how high-level players will go to other worlds. But ... he also makes sure to continually admonish the DM to keep a tight check on players and repeatedly warns the reader that all players are power-hungry and will try to abuse the system.

In short, you can find support for almost anything within it, if you look hard enough.

I find Gygax very pragmatic in his depiction of the game.
His multiple warning usually make sense.
House rule is not a magic solution, most of the time it’s only a trade off. And the more you house rule, the more you may paint yourself in an isolated corner.
Power hungry players still exist, and can scrap the gaming experience.
His warning on DM fiat, Dm authority are still useful today. The subject is still very sensitive.

Gygax grew up and write DnD in the backlash of WW2, Korean and Vietnam war. He was a fan and a designer of war game.
It’s not surprising that the game he write include death and danger and even a taste of meat grinder like the Wars he heard about.

Today we have the Luxury to choose from many editions, even many games to fit our actual gaming needs and concerns. Sometime it’s even hard to make a choice!

 

[Oofta]

interesting. I deal with a lot more rules lawyers in 5e than I ever did in 1st and 2nd, Surprising with the dev's being so clearly in support of DM rules the table. In 3rd it wasn't really rules lawyers it was the players that wanted to argue if Wizards made a splat book you had to allow it.

I quit DM'ing for a few years over those players till I moved and found some sane ones. Then pathfinder saved the day and then rebuilt the same beast. LOL

Maybe it was just the groups I played with but the biggest rules lawyers were in 3.x. Since that was the basis for PF 1E, it's no surprise that the people who enjoyed finding exploits and loopholes in the rules migrated to that game.

I try really hard to be fair and reasonable while making sure I understand things from the player's perspective. But the buck has to stop somewhere, especially in the middle of the game. So when I DM I find the word "no" quite liberating. As in "I listened to what you said and I've made my ruling, no I am not changing my mind." "No we are not having this discussion right now." "No you cannot just have Odin find the McGuffin for you just because he sees all and you're a cleric." "No you cannot use that custom race/class/spell/feat." Worst case scenario (it came close with one player before we moved) "No, you are not welcome at this table."

Of course that last one is probably a bit tough if it's an existing group of friends. Even then "No I will not be your DM any more, let's get together and play ___ instead" may be the best option.

 

[overgeeked]

One thing I notice is that even though "old school" D&D supposedly puts the DM in a much more authoritative position, I remember much more time spent arguing rules in the 80s. After a long break, coming back to the game with 5e, it feels like the DM has much more authority. For all the talk about collaboration and complaints I keep reading about overly entitled players, 5e seems to be played much less as game with rules than AD&D. Yes, it is partly because OD&D required you to fill in large gaps and AD&D rules were difficult to parse. But there was more of sense of game masters being referees and judges. "Rules lawyers" became a pejorative early on, but almost everyone I played with in 80s were rules lawyers to some extent. Challenging the DM on ruling now seems to be the height of poor gaming etiquette, which is a bit weird for a game when you think about it.

You wouldn't know that looking at D&D discussion threads, but in every game I've played at, whether convention games, AL games at my FLGS, or on-line games, since 2014, I can't recall a single instance of any debate over rules. It feels like a big cultural shift to me having jumped from the 80s to 2010s. I note this without any judgment either way. I enjoy both styles, though I tend to a bit more on the gamest side when I run D&D games, especially combat and am not only tolerant of some debate over the rules, I tend to rely a lot on my players to remind me of less-used rules and help adjudicate results.

Wondering whether others have the same experiences.

Literally the opposite experience. I have players regularly argue with me about rules, push back on rulings, and generally gripe about how clearly worded things in the books somehow mean the opposite of what it says. It’s so bad that I stopped playing 5E a year or two ago. I’m very much one of those referees that ran into all the entitled players. Lucky me.

 

[overgeeked]

That assumes that "playing a story" is the purpose of an RPG. I prefer to think of it as playing a role in a fantasy (or whatever) world.

Exactly. The “story” is whatever happens while we play the game, TPKs included.