D&D General D&D Editions: Anybody Else Feel Like They Don't Fit In?

[Paul Farquhar]

Okay. The problem is that the 5e we were sold was specifically sold, in part, on promises that you COULD have the old experience again, exactly as it was before. Hence the "make magic feel magical again" and stuff like that. It was openly a sop to old-school fans and the """winners""" of the edition war.

Speaking as someone who, unlike you, actually played 1st and 2nd edition, 5e does a pretty good job of recapturing the feel of those editions, without actually being the same. Mostly it does that by removing the "there's a rule for everything" philosophy that came in with 3rd edition, and leaning a lot more in to DM fiat.

 

[Lanefan]

Speaking as someone who, unlike you, actually played 1st and 2nd edition, 5e does a pretty good job of recapturing the feel of those editions, without actually being the same. Mostly it does that by removing the "there's a rule for everything" philosophy that came in with 3rd edition, and leaning a lot more in to DM fiat.

In that way, perhaps, but unless the DM does some serious tweaking I have a hard time seeing how 5e can recapture the edginess and-or grittiness and-or (depending how one looks at it) just plain nastiness of 1e.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In that way, perhaps, but unless the DM does some serious tweaking I have a hard time seeing how 5e can recapture the edginess and-or grittiness and-or (depending how one looks at it) just plain nastiness of 1e.

"Evil DM" was not an aspect of 1st edition I ever liked. Like the hard-coded sexism, a reason for it not to actually be the same. Nostalgia is memory with the bad stuff edited out.

 

[Zardnaar]

In that way, perhaps, but unless the DM does some serious tweaking I have a hard time seeing how 5e can recapture the edginess and-or grittiness and-or (depending how one looks at it) just plain nastiness of 1e.

They never said you could play exactly as is.
Aubclassescwere it. Internet heard what they wanted.

 

[Minigiant]

I think for some people, they don't like the DM playing favorites.

And for most editions and spinoffs of D&D, the DM had to play favorites to warriors and expert types during play and game designers would play favorites to wizard and cleric types during design.

Then pretend that it didn't or not explain that the biases were there.

Yup. Favor the loot to the fighter 2:1. And give thieves better chances at doing sneaky stuff.

Growing up as a teen in the late 90s and having access to video game designers on forums during the late90s/early00s, I could not never get behind designers hiding crucial game design goals.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think for some people, they don't like the DM playing favorites.

Absolutely. I 100% despise it.

I do not, at all, mind if the Wizard (or Cleric, or Druid, or whateer) is given great and powerful things, artifacts, magic items, a wizard tower(/chapel church/druid grove/etc.), you name it.

Only so long as equivalent--NOT equal, EQUIVALENT--benefits, resources, and rewards are given to everyone else.

And I absolutely, ABSOLUTELY, despise game design where the designers played favorites with specific classes on the assumption that DMs will then play favorites in the reverse direction.

I really do mean "despise" by the way. This isn't hyperbole. This sort of thing boils my blood. It makes me want to literally scream in rage at the computer screen. That's how much I absolutely, utterly LOATHE this sort of """design"""--or """DMing""". My hatred of such horrendous behavior toward your players was, in fact, the very thing that finally overcame my impostor syndrome and got me to become a DM. Because I knew, I knew, down to my very bones, that I wasn't so $#!+ a DM that I would do that to my players.

And for most editions and spinoffs of D&D, the DM had to play favorites to warriors and expert types during play and game designers would play favorites to wizard and cleric types during design.

Then pretend that it didn't or not explain that the biases were there.

Yep. 100%. Usually both! They'll deny there are any biases and if you point out clear, unequivocal evidence, they'll dismiss it with "well that's a thing for DMs to resolve if they feel like they need to." Both designers and DMs will do that. It drives me nuts.

Yup. Favor the loot to the fighter 2:1. And give thieves better chances at doing sneaky stuff.

Yep. It's there in OD&D (favoring Fighter, ironically), it's there in 1e, it's there in 2e (which began the inexorable march of Caster Supremacy), it's there in 3e (which fully cemented Caster Supremacy).

Growing up as a teen in the late 90s and having access to video game designers on forums during the late90s/early00s, I could not never get behind designers hiding crucial game design goals.

Growing up as a human being who cares about equanimity and fairness when playing a cooperative, collaborative game, I despise anything that puts some people on pedestals and others kicking rocks unless and until the benevolent overlord deigns to rescue them. I despise anything that bakes in inherent, systematic favoritism, and then remains mum about it, expecting the benevolent overlord to fix it if anyone notices.

 

[Remathilis]

Thieves are a good multi-class option, but I've found single-class Thieves work well enough (and single-class Assassins, even better!). There is, however, an element of patience required to play one, along with eschewment of the expectation of being front and centre in every combat. Not sure if they're different in 2e than 1e.

One of the things I like with the Thief (and which 3e-and-since have really destroyed with almost-always-on sneak attack) was that you had to set up your backstrike and could only use it at best every other round.

They were different, to be sure, but to me it's an open question as to whether they were better or worse or the same as before.

Backstab required your enemy to my unaware of you, humanoid in body type with discernable vital organs and medium sized, and required successful sneak rolls. And this is where if the DM was on your side mattered. Because a generous DM would let you disengage from the battle, hide, and set up your strike again. A strict DM could read unaware as being lost once you attacked and you could not hide again in combat. (The enemy is aware you are there and won't drop their guard for such an attack again). I've seen DMs run it both ways. Sneak attack at least had finite rules for flank and surprise style strikes, guaranteeing you can do damage more consistently.

(Further, the damage was nothing to write home about. Double dice, then add bonus. A thief with a longsword did at max 2d8+2 damage at low levels. With good rolls, to might take out a lone orc, but try it on an ogre and you're a dead thief. And scaling to 5d8 at level 14 basically is too low against anything of reasonable challenge.)

Hence why I felt the rogue was a better designed class. Sneak attack is more reliable and consistent. Evasion and uncanny dodge gave access to defensive tools to help survive. The weapon finesse feat allowed for better melee ability. The thief when it wasn't sneaking was a half-level fighter with lock picks and unless your DM was good about letting him shine in stealth sequences (and was liberal with applying the rules to thief skills).

Hence why you were almost always better as a multiclass. You could do something useful when you weren't in the stealth sequences.

 

[Theory of Games]

I think for some people, they don't like the DM playing favorites.

And for most editions and spinoffs of D&D, the DM had to play favorites to warriors and expert types during play and game designers would play favorites to wizard and cleric types during design.

Then pretend that it didn't or not explain that the biases were there.

Yup. Favor the loot to the fighter 2:1. And give thieves better chances at doing sneaky stuff.

Growing up as a teen in the late 90s and having access to video game designers on forums during the late90s/early00s, I could not never get behind designers hiding crucial game design goals.

As an old B/X and AD&D1 DM, I never played favorites. I never had to. Fighters were clearly superior to Mages early on and they leveled faster to boot.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Specialty priests and specialist wizards actually predate 2e (by about 2 years) and were (in an early form) in the 1e Dragonlance Adventures book.

Okay, seriously -- I literally mentioned the wizard part of that in the text block you quoted.

As for specialty priests, yeah I'm not sure why I considered the DL wizards close enough to count but not the DL priests (which honestly show more similarity to their 2e implementations). I'll edit my text.

 

[Remathilis]

As an old B/X and AD&D1 DM, I never played favorites. I never had to. Fighters were clearly superior to Mages early on and they leveled faster to boot.

And that's great if your game ends at 6th level. (Although poor thieves still spend that entire time with skills that succeed less than 50% of the time) The problem is that if you get into higher levels where casters get better and more magic but fighters and thieves only get higher numbers. By the time you were name level, fighters had dropped from superior to bodyguard and thief from expert to "try that lock so I don't have to waste a spell slot or item charge."