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

[Mercurius]

Only read the OP, but it made me think that long-time D&D players - like 10+ years and multiple editions - end up in one of two places: Either:

1. Happy with the game as it is (or with minor house rules) and/or just happy to go along for the ride of whatever edition is extant; or
2. Finding oneself in a similar place to the OP - unhappy with the game as it is enough to want something else (other than the rules as written).

For the latter, I see a few non-mutually exclusive options. Either:

• House rule the f out of it until you get it to your liking, and/or
• Play something else (as I'm sure has been mentioned in 60 pages, there are a ton of D&D clones and variants, not to mention non-D&D fantasy games), and/or
• Create your own game.

To be honest, I don't know why people stick with D&D if they're in camp 2. There are literally thousands of games to choose from, hundreds that are active in some form or fashion, and dozens with significant active fan-bases. Most of them aren't tied to tradition or had sacred cows to contend with when designing, so you just might find that you like a lot of them much better.

D&D is sort of like pop music, or whatever music you liked in middle and high school. Lots of folks stay just liking that music, and revisit it and follow the same bands for decades after, only varying their taste slightly as new bands emerge that fit within the general palette they developed in adolescence. But some people grow out of pop music and find other genres of music. Really, we all continue to evolve and expand our taste to some degree, adding layers of new stuff, while still liking (to whatever degree) the old stuff.

As an example, I grew up in the 80s and liked new wave and early "alternative" music like the Cure, New Order, The The, Dead Can Dance, the Smiths, etc for most of high school, with a hint of 60-70s stuff like Pink Floyd and the Doors. In my junior or senior year, I discovered King Crimson and it blew my mind, opening me to prog rock, fusion, jazz, jazz-funk, acid jazz, Indian Classical, world music, flamenco, etc. My first long-term partner in the 90s loved hip-hop and soul, so my tastes expanded again. Then, in the late 90s, I discovered electronic, downtempo, house, etc. I discovered Arvo Part and realize I even like some classical. In recent decades, I've grown to like "electro-emo" and a variety of other music. But I still revisit New Order et al on occasion, and enjoy it - even if it doesn't speak to me like it did when I was 15 or have as large a presence in my musical consumption.

D&D is, for most, home base - what got us into the hobby. But you don't need to stick with it. I know that it is easiest to find players for D&D, but if you have an established group, nudge them to mix things up. Or are if you're in a large enough community, put out a flyer for players. Again, there are lots of great games - some of which you might like a lot better. Or, if you're bold, why not design your own game? You can always revisit D&D - it isn't going anywhere. Just don't be limited to it. I think that's an unfortunate trap a lot of people find themselves in.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Only read the OP, but it made me think that long-time D&D players - like 10+ years and multiple editions - end up in one of two places: Either:

1. Happy with the game as it is (or with minor house rules) and/or just happy to go along for the ride of whatever edition is extant; or
2. Finding oneself in a similar place to the OP - unhappy with the game as it is enough to want something else (other than the rules as written).

For the latter, I see a few non-mutually exclusive options. Either:

• House rule the f out of it until you get it to your liking, and/or
• Play something else (as I'm sure has been mentioned in 60 pages, there are a ton of D&D clones and variants, not to mention non-D&D fantasy games), and/or
• Create your own game.

To be honest, I don't know why people stick with D&D if they're in camp 2.

Sorry. Reply window was broken...

now I can answer.

I am sometimes finding myself being upset about a songle rule or a spell. And I used to be very hesitant to change rules and am still, because changing rules might have unforseen consequences.

But now I also know that I am not a slave to the rules and if a rule does not work for me, I change it. And I encourage everyone to do so.

Chances that the designers create the perfect game are slim to non existent. So always waiting for the perfect game to be created is futile.
If you are in camp 2, but you still like the game overall, take responsibility for your own fate and do something about it. So yes. Your advice is great.

 

[haakon1]

This is an exaggeration. Being a level or two behind is pretty equivalent in all editions.

Agree on that part. And I find it’s not a big deal. Bigger to “balance advocates” than actual play.

 

[haakon1]

Are you lonely? That was 8 days ago.

I can’t speak for Clint, but I respond to “old” comments because I don’t login everyday. Looks like I last logged in 19 days ago, in fact.

Occasional user versus continuously here folks will read message boards differently.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Agree on that part. And I find it’s not a big deal. Bigger to “balance advocates” than actual play.

As I've said before, I don't think it matters excessively with most classes, but will go to the wall saying it does with spellcasters. The difference in spell levels is too stark with most editions.

 

[Greg K]

Quick summary of the acronyms you mentioned.

OGL = open game license. A free license allowing anyone to make and sell D&D third party products using specified content.

The OGL is not limited to making and selling D&D third party products. Mutants and Masterminds, True20, Fantasy Craft, and Spycraft are examples of games created using the OGL and are not D&D products.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I don't want the same game the OP does (more like the opposite), but I also feel like the current edition of D&D is not the one I want. So I can appreciate wanting something different.

I can also appreciate that "choose a different game" may not work for multiple reasons.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't want the same game the OP does (more like the opposite), but I also feel like the current edition of D&D is not the one I want. So I can appreciate wanting something different.

I can also appreciate that "choose a different game" may not work for multiple reasons.

I have a limited degree of sympathy, but at the end of the day, too much sympathy is just picking which people you want to be hung out to dry in that situation.

 

[Mannahnin]

More important is whether and-or how well the system can handle the presence of characters of different levels within the party. The TSR editions were quite good for this, while 3e was awful - being just a level behind the rest of the party made you close to useless.

This is an exaggeration. Being a level or two behind is pretty equivalent in all editions. More than a level or two definitely gets bad in 3e-5e, but in the TSR editions if you were more than that behind you were generally hiding in the back anyway.

Agree on that part. And I find it’s not a big deal. Bigger to “balance advocates” than actual play.

As I've said before, I don't think it matters excessively with most classes, but will go to the wall saying it does with spellcasters. The difference in spell levels is too stark with most editions.

Oh, it matters. This is one of the reasons multiclassing with spellcasters has always been a bit iffy, because being behind on caster levels can definitely hurt. And optimizing in the 3.x days meant avoiding races with a level adjustment, and picking prestige classes which wouldn't cost you any caster levels.

But being "close to useless" because you're one spell level behind the highest level character in the party or the APL is definitely overstating it. If you're the same kind of caster as another caster in the party you'll feel it more (two M-Us where one has Fireball and the other doesn't yet, sure), but you're still useful and able to contribute even if you're a spell level behind.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Oh, it matters. This is one of the reasons multiclassing with spellcasters has always been a bit iffy, because being behind on caster levels can definitely hurt. And optimizing in the 3.x days meant avoiding races with a level adjustment, and picking prestige classes which wouldn't cost you any caster levels.

But being "close to useless" because you're one spell level behind the highest level character in the party or the APL is definitely overstating it. If you're the same kind of caster as another caster in the party you'll feel it more (two M-Us where one has Fireball and the other doesn't yet, sure), but you're still useful and able to contribute even if you're a spell level behind.

As with most things, there is a real issue which was less of an issue in the past, and became more of an issue at certain points, but (a) it was never not an issue, (b) when it was less of an issue it was still a lot more of an issue than fans of that period give credit for, and (c) when it was more of an issue, it wasn't catastrophically bad the way some folks portray it to be.

Even in Ye Olden Dayse, being a 1st-level adventurer in a (say) 4th or 5th level party? Yeah, you're gonna be squishy as hell and there's a pretty high likelihood that things your friends wouldn't find too troubling could outright kill you. So that's a thing. Conversely, even being two full levels behind other characters in 3e, while not exactly a superhappyfuntime thing, isn't horrendously awful, "you're now totally useless" etc. It's definitely going to put you into an objectively worse position...but that was also true of 1e!

Personally, I think the bigger issue is that folks who played in early editions didn't really care that much, because...well, frankly, characters died left and right, so it was easy come, easy go. That's not really the paradigm anymore (for which I, at least, am supremely grateful). D&D characters today are not seen as something you casually toss into the woodchipper. Investment into a character is not the consequence of play, it is an expected input of play.

As a consequence, even though the difference between a 4th level character and a 6th level character is only somewhat more weighty in (say) 4e or 5e than it is in 1e or OD&D, you feel that difference more keenly because the game is designed with an expectation that you're invested.

It's not that the power gap between level N and level N+1 has grown that much. It has grown, but not that much.

It's that the game design paradigm is one that makes you notice the power difference more. It just plays better with groups that are more or less at the same level.