An Examination of Differences between Editions

[Reynard]

The intent of this thread is to discuss -- with civility and mutual respect, not less -- the differences *in play* between various editions of Dungeons and Dragons. This isn't so much a discussion of mechanical differences -- though one can hardly discuss the games without bringing up those differences -- but about how each game differs in tone, feel, "implied setting", and even philosophy. I have been thinking a lot lately about my own experiences with D&D, both recent and long past, and am curious how others view D&D in its various incarnations.

My intent is not to start an edition war, and if you're here just to fan flames I would appreciate it if you took it elsewhere. Many of us grew up on a different edition of D&D than we currently play, and I am sure that some, like myself, are interested in revisting that place. But as an adult and a game writer, looking at the various editions of D&D through a critical eye and with others can be very helpful and illuminating.

As I prepare to run a (Rules Cyclopedia)D&D one shot for a mini-con, that I may well also run at Origins, I have been boning up on that rules set and getting all nostalgic. More than that, though, I am seeing a different game than the current edition, by a much wider margin than I would have thought had someone asked me a week ago. Certainly, all of the "sacred cows" are there and the concept of the Dungeon and the Dragon are inherent to the game, but beyond those almost superficial elements, there's a wide gulf between that game and 3e. I haven't pulled out the 1st and 2nd edition of the AD&D game, yet, but something tells me that there's going to be a world of difference between these, as well. I have neither read nor played a version of OD&D older than the old '83 red box, so I can't say what the earlier versions of the game were like and how they compared -- but I am sure someone here can give me an idea.

Again -- I don't want an Edition War. What I would like very much is an open discussion of what "Dungeons and Dragons" actually is, both collectively (if such a thing exists) and individually among players and DM's alike.

 

[TerraDave]

Certainly, all of the "sacred cows" are there and the concept of the Dungeon and the Dragon are inherent to the game, but beyond those almost superficial elements,

Classes, races, (ok, these first two are combined in the RC) levels,hit points, spells, monsters, alingment, XP and treasure as the two primary (mechanical) rewards...these aren't superficial.

Even smaller details, like armor as damage avoidance (vs. damage reduction), the predominance of gold and silver coins, encumbrance based on weight, the possibility of attracting henchmen/cohorts and followers at higher levels, the special abilities/qualities of many creatures...these are all things that are noticed in play.

RC is certainly rules light compared to the three core rulebooks of the current game. And it has some things that make it distinct. But the diferences still seem small when comparing different RPGs to D&D (any edition).

But what do you see as the big differences?

 

[Celebrim]

Early on, D&D was criticized for focusing on 'What a character could do' rather than 'Who the character was (in the context of the game universe)'. This may have been due to D&D's roots in tactical war gaming. This tactical/mechanical emphasis was balanced by the fact that D&D was a very rules light game system, by comparison to just about anything that came out after it. This took a system which could err too much toward pushing peices around the (often vitual) board in a complex game of checkers, and forced on it other sorts of problem solving. Yes, it put a psychologically expensive burden on the DM, but it also in the same fashion challenged the player to think and role play if the DM wasa willing to take up the challenge. And this was good, because ultimately a game entirely about marching order and rolling dice would be pretty trite and limited.

As D&D evolved to a more robust rules set (I won't say 'good' here, because its such a loaded term), a couple things changed. First, having rules explicitly encouraged all sorts of things and tactics and problem solving approaches that were only implicit and a matter of often hesitant DM fiat before. And the rules were fairer and covered better a large number of situations, which took alot of burden of judgement off the DM (but not entirely, because no rules are perfect). But as a result, the game became even more about 'what the character could do', and less 'who the character was'. Interestingly, and maybe even more importantly, it also became even less about 'who the player was' since so many mechanics previously governed by player choice (say going about searching a room) can now be abstracted to a die roll, and maybe even implicitly or explicitly are abstracted to a die roll. There is even a tendancy toward abstracting the role play itself with a die roll, "I attempt to presuade the troll to let us pass. Ok, make a diplomacy check. *clatter* *clatter*". And while none of this is necessarily new or forced on the DM/group by the new rules, it is alot easier for a game to drift that way and settle there.

I think that there has also been a corresponding shift in the balance of power away from the DM and toward the player, because so much more of the game rules are focused on customizing the player and so much fewer areas of the game absolutely require DM interpretation.

I also think that there has been a shift upward in the range of numbers in the game. The disparity between HD is increasing, and the maximum HD is increasing, and the maximum damage is increasing and so forth. I also feel that the game has speed up, both in the amount that happens in a given period of game time, and in the amount of leveling up that occurs per session.

 

[Reynard]

RC is certainly rules light compared to the three core rulebooks of the current game. And it has some things that make it distinct. But the diferences still seem small when comparing different RPGs to D&D (any edition).

But what do you see as the big differences?

I think the small differences are far greater when taken in total. While lower and limited hit dice may not itself be a huge difference (it certainly isn't, say, Wound Levels different), and the race/class issues might be relatively minor when compared to full on point-based char. gen. games, when all these elements come together you get a very different game -- not just in mechanics, but in how it is played.

To use 3.5 vs. RCD&D as an example -- and I am not making a judgement about superiority, or even preference as I like them both -- it is more than rules light vesus heavy crunch. From a player's perspective, the games are on opposite ends of the "fiddly" spectrum, opposite ends of the advancement rate spectrum and even opposite ends of the "what do I do now?" spectrum (ever increasing opposition CRs, versus dominion rulership and large scale warfare and immortality). Even the simple fact of the saving throws changes the way the games are played -- in 3.5, the chance to save is relative to the threat, while in RCD&D the chance to save is relative to the character. Not to mention, in many cases, the differences in consequences for failed saves.

From a DM's perspective, things are different as well. The design philosophy -- of challenges and adventures and the world at large -- puts the DM in a very different state of mind between the two games. To parallel the player issues, the nature of powerful challenges (how many hit dice does the greatest of Red Dragons have in the two games?) and the differences in effects when saves are failed informs the nature of the games. that PCs can and are expected to build nations, fight wars and seek immortality is important.

And this doesn't even begin to include AD&D -- both editions -- in the equation.

 

[Reynard]

I think that there has also been a corresponding shift in the balance of power away from the DM and toward the player, because so much more of the game rules are focused on customizing the player and so much fewer areas of the game absolutely require DM interpretation.

Again avoiding value judgements -- either end of this spectrum has its benefits and problems -- this is a fundamental difference between various editions. The DM/Player relationship lies at the core of the D&D experience and changing the relationship can't help but change the game.

 

[Wik]

My experience:

OD&D - Lots of fun, if totally chaotic. I've had 3rd level fighters with 4 hit points. Our games were pretty simple, and we usually wound up porting spells from AD&D into our game. Plus, I think we added new stuff to D&D far more than with any other system - there were many srange artifacts in my D&D games.

AD&D, 1st edition - Didn't play it much, but my experience with it was that this was the system where a lot of people deviated from the rules. Due to some quirk of my area, most everyone who played 1e was playing a heavily house-ruled version of it. When I was running a 2e D&D game, I had 1e players approach me with monks that had d20's for hit dice, 4th level rangers who could cast spells, and about every variety of halfling you could think of.

AD&D, 2nd edition - We had a lot of fun with this system, even when Skills and Powers came out. I found that as GM, it was my job to run the game - a lot of 2e is about DM Fiat. Hell, most of the power is in the DM's hands, and I like that. Problems in actual gameplay weren't bad... while I'm not a fan of the system, I can honestly say it was abused a lot less by my group than 3e.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Early on, D&D was criticized for focusing on 'What a character could do' rather than 'Who the character was (in the context of the game universe)'. This may have been due to D&D's roots in tactical war gaming. This tactical/mechanical emphasis was balanced by the fact that D&D was a very rules light game system, by comparison to just about anything that came out after it. This took a system which could err too much toward pushing peices around the (often vitual) board in a complex game of checkers, and forced on it other sorts of problem solving. Yes, it put a psychologically expensive burden on the DM, but it also in the same fashion challenged the player to think and role play if the DM wasa willing to take up the challenge. And this was good, because ultimately a game entirely about marching order and rolling dice would be pretty trite and limited.

As D&D evolved to a more robust rules set (I won't say 'good' here, because its such a loaded term), a couple things changed. First, having rules explicitly encouraged all sorts of things and tactics and problem solving approaches that were only implicit and a matter of often hesitant DM fiat before. And the rules were fairer and covered better a large number of situations, which took alot of burden of judgement off the DM (but not entirely, because no rules are perfect). But as a result, the game became even more about 'what the character could do', and less 'who the character was'. Interestingly, and maybe even more importantly, it also became even less about 'who the player was' since so many mechanics previously governed by player choice (say going about searching a room) can now be abstracted to a die roll, and maybe even implicitly or explicitly are abstracted to a die roll. There is even a tendancy toward abstracting the role play itself with a die roll, "I attempt to presuade the troll to let us pass. Ok, make a diplomacy check. *clatter* *clatter*". And while none of this is necessarily new or forced on the DM/group by the new rules, it is alot easier for a game to drift that way and settle there.

I think that there has also been a corresponding shift in the balance of power away from the DM and toward the player, because so much more of the game rules are focused on customizing the player and so much fewer areas of the game absolutely require DM interpretation.

I understand what you mean by a shift in the balance of power. I think it has been a shift that has brought more balance of power between the player and the DM. What that can do, IMO is to relieve the DM of some of the burden of being the interpreter of the rules allowing the DM to focus on being the person who provides the base story and plays the role of the opposition.

On the other side, it can render the DM as just another roller of dice.

 

[Reynard]

I understand what you mean by a shift in the balance of power. I think it has been a shift that has brought more balance of power between the player and the DM. What that can do, IMO is to relieve the DM of some of the burden of being the interpreter of the rules...

I am not so sure that being the interpreter of the rules is a burden. In fact, I am pretty sure that the opposite is true. Maybe it is because I mostly DM, and because I happen to consider myself a good GM, that being relieved of this "burden" by the game, and thereby having players who put their faith in the manual instead of me, mostly "relieves" the DM of his power to create the gameplay experience he wants and believes to most fun for his players.

...allowing the DM to focus on being the person who provides the base story and plays the role of the opposition.

On the other side, it can render the DM as just another roller of dice.

Indeed. If the DM is just another player, much of the draw of the RPG and D&D in particular, IMO, is lost.

 

[T. Foster]

Original D&D in play tends to be almost entirely freeform and negotiation-based, with DM fiat (perhaps augmented by an ad-hoc die roll, perhaps not) serving as the primary resolution mechanic. The rules of the game are so minimal (and so vague and open to interpretation even where they exist -- "[Dexterity] will indicate the character's ... speed with actions such as firing first, getting off a spell, etc." (vol. I, p. 11) -- how? the rules don't say...) that pretty much anything a player attempts to do in-game is going to require some kind of player-level negotiation culminating in a DM judgment call. With contentious players, a bad DM, or a lack of trust (in either direction) this can be disastrous with every decision being argued and second-guessed and nothing getting accomplished. Cross-campaign compatability is also very dodgy, since every group is likely to have wildly different assumptions, procedures, and house-rules, requiring a player who switches groups to essentially learn an entirely new game from the ground up. However, in the right circumstances, this version provides the most freedom for players and DM alike -- as long as the players are willing and able to state their case, trust the DM to make a fair judgment, and are willing to abide by it, they can do absolutely anything.

 

[RFisher]

3e took many aspects of AD&D & turned them up to 11. This, IMHO, is a big part of why the games can look so similar but feel so different.

I am not so sure that being the interpreter of the rules is a burden. In fact, I am pretty sure that the opposite is true.

I think part of the appeal of classic D&D for me is the way it invites me to fill in the gaps. I guess I find filling gaps more attractive than changing things.

In a slightly different way, I think this touches on a basic issue of who I am. A rich, detailed set of rules is a burden for me because my brain tends to work more in big generalizations.

e.g. In school, I was more likely to memorize "axiomatic" equations & derive the formulas I needed for each test question on-the-fly rather than memorize a bunch of "practical" formulas. (Like most analogies, that one is flawed in many ways, but hopefully it's more illuminating than blinding. (^_^))

Someone else, whose brain works differently, would feel differently about a particular set of rules than I do.

Of course, I could play 3e just as fast & loose as I do classic D&D. I'm fairly sure my players would be OK with me deviating from the books.

Still, when players spend "points" (be they skill points or feat slots or whatever) on something out of the books, I feel a bit obligated to make it have an effect in play. Maybe not the by-the-book effect, but even having it there to accomodate at all changes how I do things.

(Then there's the fact that, when I really look closely at 3e I start finding--e.g.--that I want to change half the spells to work more like they did in previous editions.)

I guess a big problem with these sorts of discussions is that RPGs are so malleable, it can be hard to make firm statements about them. System matters, but not in ways that are absolute. Often in ways that are subtle. & it's really you+system.

Indeed. If the DM is just another player, much of the draw of the RPG and D&D in particular, IMO, is lost.

That certainly rings true for me. (Though there are some games that manage to morph the DM role into something completely different, but it is still there.)