AD&D gave us adventures, 2E gave us settings... Retrospectives.

[MerricB]

There was a time during the hey-day of 3E that someone came up with a rather nice idea of the defining characteristics of each edition.

AD&D 1E - adventures
AD&D 2E - settings
D&D 3E - rules

Looking back on that now, and with 4E in the mix, I'd probably change 3E's defining characteristic. Although the rules were a big deal in 3E, for me the defining characteristic of 3E is this: character customisation. (And, it's evil twin, character optimisation, which could cause grown DMs to break down and cry).

It's not the only thing 3E does. Yes, the rules are still a big deal. And you could also put in an argument for "Adventure Paths" as being an important part of the 3E legacy. But, for me, character customisation trumps that: 3E, especially as it developed, gave great freedom for players to build characters.

So, what is the defining characteristic of 4E? There's possibly an argument for its character class structure (though that was relaxed in later books), and "simpler rules" isn't really that great a characteristic. (Simpler, elegant rules? Closer, but still not what I really consider of 4E. Rather, the one thing that I think D&D 4E did really well and rather defines the edition is this: set-piece battles. Yeah, it's not as broad as those for the other editions. It's still an important reason why I've enjoyed my time with 4E: having a boss fight where it doesn't boil down to just having the right spells prepared. I've had a few too many 3E-style combats where it was "who had the right buffs" or "who could dispell the right buffs" or "who failed a save-or-die spell". These end-adventure fights haven't been as consistently interesting as the ones I've had in 4E.

This isn't to say that it executes it flawlessly - none of these characteristics are flawless.

It's just a thought game - what is the positive attribute that, for you, defines the edition. And does a consensus build from that point?

Cheers!

 

[billd91]

I've seen this discussion before and what I've seen is:

1e: adventures
2e: settings
3e: characters
4e: encounters

And that seems about right to me.

 

[Nellisir]

I've seen this discussion before and what I've seen is:

1e: adventures
2e: settings
3e: characters
4e: encounters

And that seems about right to me.

I like it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I've seen this discussion before and what I've seen is:

1e: adventures
2e: settings
3e: characters
4e: encounters

And that seems about right to me.

I buy that.

 

[the Jester]

We'll see if this continues through later editions, but I'd argue that one thing that 4e gave us is really tight math.

 

[Manbearcat]

1e: 10 foot poles
2e: berks
3e: Back to the Dungeon! (but not really)
4e: Skip the guards and get to the fun!

 

[Quickleaf]

I've seen this discussion before and what I've seen is:

1e: adventures
2e: settings
3e: characters
4e: encounters

And that seems about right to me.

That looks right to me. I think of these four things as a Venn diagram with overlapping circles in my ideal D&D; the intersection between, say, adventure & character, or encounter & setting, is particularly interesting to me because of the questions they evoke...

What sort of adventure-wide resources or options are encoded in the rules for the characters?mWhat sorts of character hooks fit with a given published adventure?

How are setting particulars expressed at the encounter level? What sorts of encounters are possible using this setting that aren't in other settings?

 

[Libramarian]

I've seen this discussion before and what I've seen is:

1e: adventures
2e: settings
3e: characters
4e: encounters

And that seems about right to me.

makes sense.

 

[Raith5]

Personally I think 4th ed took character customiser even further than 3rd ed. Sure the powers system annoyed some, multiclassing seemed berked and some archetypes seemed off (Druid and Barabarian comes to mind) - but 4th really enabled all people to finesse their character's ability to shape the game.

I also agree that the encounter was an important contribution in terms of having a different type of pacing (which I found interesting after years of doing the Vancian thing).

But for me player empowerment is the big deal. The fact that players roll all attacks, have interrupt abilities to say to DM 'um no in fact you have missed me', out of turn attacks, and where skill challenges are where there is greater sense of how a group task resolution is going to unfold, and where paragon paths and epic destinies have strong benefits - all give far greater weight to the player.

This has meant IMO that 4th ed has offered strong mechanics for all participants in the game to have the power (and responsibility) to shape a shared narrative.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Another thought for 4e's characterization is:

Teamplay and movie reality

A well-played group of 4e characters is much more powerful than the sum of each character's capability. This was the case in the older editions as well, but nowhere near as much.

The movie reality aspect of encounter and daily powers (it happens when I want it to happen, but not so often as I'd like) led to oh so many heated debates; it has to be part of the definition of 4e's role.