D&D 4E Ben Riggs' "What the Heck Happened with 4th Edition?" seminar at Gen Con 2023

[Ondath]

AD&D monsters were generally not constructed with any regard for their role in the game. In most cases, they were put together with a "this seems about right" attitude, and then this resulted in a particular XP value and DMs were expected to be able to figure out whether a particular monster was appropriate to use on their own.

3e added the CR mechanic, which was supposed to tell DMs what sort of monsters were appropriate for what levels and how many XP they were worth. But 3.0e monsters were often 2e monsters that just got converted straight over to 3e mechanics, with CR estimated after the fact, meaning that some had a CR that got artificially increased because of one or two particular abilities but the rest of the monster wouldn't come close to matching that CR. For example, the nymph is CR 6 because they cast spells as 7th level druids, but at the same time they have 10 hp and AC 11, meaning a stiff breeze would knock them over. When making 3.5e, they made some effort into both having the whole monster conform to the CR as well as culling some "useless" abilities (usually spell-like abilities). In 3.5e, the nymph got a boost to 27 hp and AC 17, while also changing the save-or-die from Unearthly Beauty into a stun.

To be honest, I would like to see how the AD&D 2E rules evolved into the 3E rules which evolved into the 3.5E rules. I started with 3.5. The accepted wisdom nowadays is that TSR-era D&D and D&D 3E/3.5 are completely different games, with completely different fundamental math. But surely the WotC staff designing the 3E rules iterated them from the 2E rules. I'd just love to see the intermediary stages of that evolution, and your example of the Nymph basically being a straight 2E-to-3E translation, later getting "balanced" around 3.5's fundamental math, is the kind of thing I'd like to see explored with more detail.

 

[Zardnaar]

To be honest, I would like to see how the AD&D 2E rules evolved into the 3E rules which evolved into the 3.5E rules. I started with 3.5. The accepted wisdom nowadays is that TSR-era D&D and D&D 3E/3.5 are completely different games, with completely different fundamental math. But surely the WotC staff designing the 3E rules iterated them from the 2E rules. I'd just love to see the intermediary stages of that evolution, and your example of the Nymph basically being a straight 2E-to-3E translation, later getting "balanced" around 3.5's fundamental math, is the kind of thing I'd like to see explored with more detail.

3.0 was definitely influenced by late 2E material.

Mobster they often just ported ability scores onto 2E hit dice.

 

[Lanefan]

To be honest, I would like to see how the AD&D 2E rules evolved into the 3E rules which evolved into the 3.5E rules. I started with 3.5. The accepted wisdom nowadays is that TSR-era D&D and D&D 3E/3.5 are completely different games, with completely different fundamental math. But surely the WotC staff designing the 3E rules iterated them from the 2E rules. I'd just love to see the intermediary stages of that evolution, and your example of the Nymph basically being a straight 2E-to-3E translation, later getting "balanced" around 3.5's fundamental math, is the kind of thing I'd like to see explored with more detail.

That would be a fairly involved bit of research, largely because by the end 2e was a great big bloated mess of splatbooks, expansions, and new systems. TSR was kinda throwing things at the wall to see what stuck.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

To be honest, I would like to see how the AD&D 2E rules evolved into the 3E rules which evolved into the 3.5E rules. I started with 3.5. The accepted wisdom nowadays is that TSR-era D&D and D&D 3E/3.5 are completely different games, with completely different fundamental math. But surely the WotC staff designing the 3E rules iterated them from the 2E rules. I'd just love to see the intermediary stages of that evolution, and your example of the Nymph basically being a straight 2E-to-3E translation, later getting "balanced" around 3.5's fundamental math, is the kind of thing I'd like to see explored with more detail.

I've written about similar topics in the past.

The best way to understand this is to realize that while most people view a "new edition" as a complete break from the prior edition, that's not exactly true. Instead, it's more of a continuation of the very end of the last edition.

So, for example, 4e might have seemed like a "complete break" with 3e; however, it was actually not that unfamiliar to people who had been using the Book of Nine Swords. 3e might have seemed like a "complete break" with 2e, yet it wasn't that unfamiliar to the people that were unfamiliar with all of the player's options that had come out (not just the class options, but also the "Player's Options" series).

Yes, there were significant design changes, but you could see the genesis of those changes in the late-era products.

 

[Voadam]

3.0 was definitely influenced by late 2E material.

Mobster they often just ported ability scores onto 2E hit dice.

Correct, they mostly used the 2e AD&D HD base and worked from there, for example ogres in AD&D had 4d8+1 HD which in 3.0 turned into 4d8 +4xcon bonus.

HD was mostly the baseline of monster challenge/power in AD&D as modified by some powers. You could see this in the way xp for monsters was calculated as well as in some monsters by level charts in the AD&D DMGs for populating dungeons.

The 3.0 CRs were mostly HD/2 at base or character equivalent level so Ogres had a CR of 2 from their 4 HD base.

3.5 they had some experience with that system hitting the play experience and they decided some cases needed adjusting, like the ogre's hp and damage crushing lower level parties so they adjusted ogres to be CR 3 without really changing their stats.

Others they adjusted stats like the spellcasting nymphs mentioned above to be less glass cannons for their CR.

 

[amethal]

No rules lawyers in FKR, sure, but how many "imagination lawyers" do you see; as in players who dispute the shared fiction?

As in:
Player: "I'm by the door while people search."
GM: "There's a nasty monster coming through the door."
Player: "Oh, I'm by the window then!"
GM: "You said you were by the door."
<cue argument>

'Cause this would be my concern with how games like that might go. I mean, hell, I already see enough of it in games where there's rules and minis etc. to fall back on.

We do sometimes struggle to be on the same page when it comes to the fiction. In our last session:

Room 1
DM: Tentacles emerge from the water and attack everyone
Me: I didn't think I was near the water?
DM: You asked for more information about the shiny things on the bottom; you'd have to be by the water to see them
Me: Fair enough

Room 2
DM: Strange, ooze-like waves emerge from the water and engulf everyone
Me: This time I was definitely nowhere near the water, not after what happened in the last room
DM: Fair enough

 

[Ondath]

Correct, they mostly used the 2e AD&D HD base and worked from there, for example ogres in AD&D had 4d8+1 HD which in 3.0 turned into 4d8 +4xcon bonus.

HD was mostly the baseline of monster challenge/power in AD&D as modified by some powers. You could see this in the way xp for monsters was calculated as well as in some monsters by level charts in the AD&D DMGs for populating dungeons.

The 3.0 CRs were mostly HD/2 at base or character equivalent level so Ogres had a CR of 2 from their 4 HD base.

3.5 they had some experience with that system hitting the play experience and they decided some cases needed adjusting, like the ogre's hp and damage crushing lower level parties so they adjusted ogres to be CR 3 without really changing their stats.

Others they adjusted stats like the spellcasting nymphs mentioned above to be less glass cannons for their CR.

That to me is quite interesting. Because I know that TSR editions of D&D didn't really have a "monster math" in the way we do from 3E onwards. Nevertheless, it looks like 3E was able to use the Hit Die of 2E monsters as a baseline to reverse engineer a monster math. The reverse-engineered 3E version of the monsters were unbalanced and needed to be fixed in 3.5, yes, but the attempt was still viable.

 

[billd91]

To be honest, I would like to see how the AD&D 2E rules evolved into the 3E rules which evolved into the 3.5E rules. I started with 3.5. The accepted wisdom nowadays is that TSR-era D&D and D&D 3E/3.5 are completely different games, with completely different fundamental math. But surely the WotC staff designing the 3E rules iterated them from the 2E rules. I'd just love to see the intermediary stages of that evolution, and your example of the Nymph basically being a straight 2E-to-3E translation, later getting "balanced" around 3.5's fundamental math, is the kind of thing I'd like to see explored with more detail.

If you can find a copy of Players Option: Combat and Tactics, you'll see how they're working out the ideas of the action economy that was to come in 3e. And in Players Option: Skills and Powers you can see them working out the skill system a bit as they shift non-weapon proficiencies from being based on rolling under a related stat to rolling over a target number while adding a bonus based on the relevant stat.

 

[soviet]

To be honest, I would like to see how the AD&D 2E rules evolved into the 3E rules which evolved into the 3.5E rules. I started with 3.5. The accepted wisdom nowadays is that TSR-era D&D and D&D 3E/3.5 are completely different games, with completely different fundamental math. But surely the WotC staff designing the 3E rules iterated them from the 2E rules. I'd just love to see the intermediary stages of that evolution, and your example of the Nymph basically being a straight 2E-to-3E translation, later getting "balanced" around 3.5's fundamental math, is the kind of thing I'd like to see explored with more detail.

It wasn't really an evolution. Skills and Powers era supplements do represent a step towards 3e but fundamentally 3e was a reimagining. You have to remember that at the time D&D was seen as tired and old hat. I was at uni just before 3e and there were no games of AD&D being played, it was predominantly White Wolf with some Cyberpunk and Cthulhu. 3e was seen as sn opportunity to revitalise a diminished brand, to 'get back into the dungeon' as the advertising said. The guys at WotC had money, energy, and expertise and were finally going to make D&D 'make sense'. Hence the role of Monte Cook as a former writer for Rolemaster, and in fact a lot of 3e rules changes have clear origins in Rolemaster which along with Runequest was the original 'make D&D make sense' game.

 

[Voadam]

That to me is quite interesting. Because I know that TSR editions of D&D didn't really have a "monster math" in the way we do from 3E onwards. Nevertheless, it looks like 3E was able to use the Hit Die of 2E monsters as a baseline to reverse engineer a monster math. The reverse-engineered 3E version of the monsters were unbalanced and needed to be fixed in 3.5, yes, but the attempt was still viable.

Yes and no on TSR monster math. CR was a great innovation but it was built upon concepts existing in TSR monster and encounter design with specifics laid out in granting xp and in dungeon level charts.

Here are some TSR guidelines on judging monster challenge.

First xp based on HD and granting more for tougher monsters with special abilities.

2e DMG:

AD&D 1e DMG:

and B/X:

Second is monsters by dungeon level charts.