An Examination of Differences between Editions

[Numion]

See, I have a hard time understanding how people can not see the huge gulf of differences between editions that I do.

I still gather around with my friends, imagine a group of fantasy folk, venture into dangerous places, kill what we can and take what we find. For me that's the D&D experience. So I'd say the experience hasn't changed as much as for you.

The mechanics are much better nowadays, and that makes the game more enjoyable, but a typical adventurers day is much the same as before. The thrill of success and agony of defeat are still there. That's what the game is about for me, and was from the start until I got fed up with 1E rules and switched games for 10 years.

 

[darkseraphim]

On the 1E treasure tangent - most players who remark on the prevalence of magic items in the published modules conveniently ignore the item saving throw chart in the DMG. Every fireball, pit, crushing blow etc. is potentially a treasure-destroying catastrophe.

One hand gives, and the other takes away just as quickly. These items are temporal, you get a sense of "use 'em or lose 'em" and about 50% of the items (if that) survive to the end of the adventure, for experience or GP awards.

Also, 1E has lots of hirelings who are hungry for +1 swords and such. Boost their morale with a nice gift, however short-lived it may be.

Anyone who says that the Gygaxian 1E modules are overloaded would have to (a) ignore his paragraph where he says it's up to you flesh this module out and change everything to fit your campaign, (b) ignore the saving throws for items, and (c) ignore the DMG hints on how to relieve PCs of treasure (theft etc.). I think it's the fact that everyone reads these things so selectively, pointing out what they want while ignoring the counter-balances, that makes them seem overpowered.

 

[Celebrim]

See, I have a hard time understanding how people can not see the huge gulf of differences between editions that I do. That doesn't mean you're wrong, of course, or even that I'm right. But when I look at things aside from the resolution mechanic, I see only superficially similar games -- lots of the same names, lots of the same tropes, but games that are played differently, designed with different intents and provide different experiences. because my own tastes vary a lot, I don't see any edition as particularly superior to another, but still, to me, they are not the same game.

My opinion is somewhere between yours and those that say that they are almost exactly the same game.

I don't think that the games are merely superficially similar. I think that they are far more alike than they are different. But I don't think that the differences are trivial either, in as much as I do think that the rules pull the game (and are pulling the game) toward a very much different game than the one I played 20 years ago. However, I think that with the right DM and the appropriate 'social contract' between the DM and the players that there is no reason why a game which very much like a 1st edition or BD&D game couldn't be played with the 3.X rules. The problem is that the game seems to have radically changed that social contract and seems to have much more strongly asserted a setting (or as I see it, the lack of one) and a style of play than earlier rules managed to do, to the extent that I've had difficulties playing with players who cut thier teeth on 3rd.

But, back to that caveat, I think that the 1st edition experience was so subjective and broad, and the 3rd edition experience so pliable if you wish it to be, that I completely sympathize with those that see no difference at all regardless of how they were playing now or then.

 

[Hussar]

On the 1E treasure tangent - most players who remark on the prevalence of magic items in the published modules conveniently ignore the item saving throw chart in the DMG. Every fireball, pit, crushing blow etc. is potentially a treasure-destroying catastrophe.

Well, yes and no. The saving throw for most of the expensive items was so ridiculously easy that you didn't lose much all that often. What did you need for your sword to save vs magical fire, for example. And, really, reading through those modules, how often were you on the receiving end of a fireball. Going from memory, for example, take B2 Keep on the Borderlands. Nothing casts fireball, there's only a few pits to fall into and pretty much nothing else to destroy items.

One hand gives, and the other takes away just as quickly. These items are temporal, you get a sense of "use 'em or lose 'em" and about 50% of the items (if that) survive to the end of the adventure, for experience or GP awards.

Also, 1E has lots of hirelings who are hungry for +1 swords and such. Boost their morale with a nice gift, however short-lived it may be.

In your experience of course. Again, looking at modules, the number of times you would lose items potentially is perhaps a lot less than you remember, depending on the campaign. And, the use of hirelings varied greatly from game to game. Our game rarely bothered with them for example and pretty much every DM I've ever played under frowned upon hiring lots of mooks.

Anyone who says that the Gygaxian 1E modules are overloaded would have to (a) ignore his paragraph where he says it's up to you flesh this module out and change everything to fit your campaign, (b) ignore the saving throws for items, and (c) ignore the DMG hints on how to relieve PCs of treasure (theft etc.). I think it's the fact that everyone reads these things so selectively, pointing out what they want while ignoring the counter-balances, that makes them seem overpowered.

Again, this first bit of ignoring the paragraphs gets a lot towards the aforementioned schizophrenic nature of 1e. Sure, on one hand he talks about stealing items, and changing this or that. On the other, he's pretty emphatic on dictating to you how the game should be played.

We used saving throws for items for example, but, IME, it didn't make a whole lot of difference. At low levels it rarely comes up and at high levels the items you have save almost automatically.

 

[an_idol_mind]

See, I have a hard time understanding how people can not see the huge gulf of differences between editions that I do. That doesn't mean you're wrong, of course, or even that I'm right. But when I look at things aside from the resolution mechanic, I see only superficially similar games -- lots of the same names, lots of the same tropes, but games that are played differently, designed with different intents and provide different experiences. because my own tastes vary a lot, I don't see any edition as particularly superior to another, but still, to me, they are not the same game.

In my experience, while the rules have changed dramatically over the years (sometimes for the better, sometimes not), the campaigns I've run have remained largely the same. My campaigns have largely retained the same feel as they used to. Moreover, there's nothing the old rules allowed that I can't manage under the current rules set -- and vice-versa, with some house rules. The mechanics have changed dramatically, but the feel of the games I've played has not.

 

[Imaro]

In my experience, while the rules have changed dramatically over the years (sometimes for the better, sometimes not), the campaigns I've run have remained largely the same. My campaigns have largely retained the same feel as they used to. Moreover, there's nothing the old rules allowed that I can't manage under the current rules set -- and vice-versa, with some house rules. The mechanics have changed dramatically, but the feel of the games I've played has not.

I'm not disagreeing with this at all, but I wonder if DM's and players feel differently about the changes. I see alot of posts about DM's who wouldn't mind or even want to run an older edition of D&D and the post usually ends with...but I could never get my players to switch back, or I would have a hard time getting them to switch back. If it's the same play experience why is this? Just some food for thought.

 

[Reynard]

I'm not disagreeing with this at all, but I wonder if DM's and players feel differently about the changes. I see alot of posts about DM's who wouldn't mind or even want to run an older edition of D&D and the post usually ends with...but I could never get my players to switch back, or I would have a hard time getting them to switch back. If it's the same play experience why is this? Just some food for thought.

I know that in one of my groups, there is a player that would not play an older edition, because he thinks fast levelling, mountains of items, and cool powers are what makes a game fun. he's not wrong. I just don't run D&D for him anymore.

 

[an_idol_mind]

I'm not disagreeing with this at all, but I wonder if DM's and players feel differently about the changes. I see alot of posts about DM's who wouldn't mind or even want to run an older edition of D&D and the post usually ends with...but I could never get my players to switch back, or I would have a hard time getting them to switch back. If it's the same play experience why is this? Just some food for thought.

Well, I'm actually one of those guys who won't run a game from certain editions anymore. I simply won't run AD&D anymore, as I've grown disenchanted with those rules, be they 1e or 2e. That said, it's not that I can't run the type of game I want with AD&D; those rules are just as capable and flexible as 3e. I just happen to like a unified mechanics system, and don't want to bother with some rolls that need to be high, some that need to be low, some that are percentage rolls, others that are d20s, etc.

But while everyone has mechanical preferences, I think the game still allows for the same amount of flexibility and fun in any edition. I can pull out Keep on the Borderlands and run it with the 3.5 rules pretty easily. I can also pick up The Sunless Citadel and throw some 1st edition AD&D characters through that adventure and have a lot of fun. The mechanics have changed, but I don't think the flexibility or spirit of the system has.

 

[Hussar]

I know that in one of my groups, there is a player that would not play an older edition, because he thinks fast levelling, mountains of items, and cool powers are what makes a game fun. he's not wrong. I just don't run D&D for him anymore.

In your experience of course.

IME, mountains of items pretty much is exactly what 1e was about. 1 MILLION gp's worth of cash treasure in the G series alone. Never mind the cash value of the literally hundreds of magic items contained therein.

IME, we leveled every 4-6 sessions. 18 month campaign ended at 16th level. Yup, that's the same.

IME, you were pretty much gods among men after about 5th level. Other than some very, very few monsters, nothing could touch you in melee combat. Heck, in this thread alone, we had people talking about how reasonable it might be for 5th level characters to kill a type VI demon.

That last one is one of the biggest differences for me. I still can't get used to the fact that at any given level, a PC is about two full attacks away from being dead from most equal CR critters. You could stand naked in front of most 1e monsters for a couple of rounds before you started to get worried. It took bloody armies to challenge PC's. Look at Keep on the Borderlands. There's encounters in there for 1st or 2nd level characters with 20 (ish) orcs or goblins. These are encounters the players are expected to win. While the EL calculations tend to break down in 3e with that many critters, that's an EL 5 encounter. Pretty much certain death for 1st level characters and probably 2nd as well.

Talk about the powerups all you like, but, that's nothing compared to the huge increase in power the monsters got.

 

[Rothe]

Well, yes and no. The saving throw for most of the expensive items was so ridiculously easy that you didn't lose much all that often. What did you need for your sword to save vs magical fire, for example. And, really, reading through those modules, how often were you on the receiving end of a fireball. Going from memory, for example, take B2 Keep on the Borderlands. Nothing casts fireball, there's only a few pits to fall into and pretty much nothing else to destroy items.


In your experience of course. Again, looking at modules, the number of times you would lose items potentially is perhaps a lot less than you remember, depending on the campaign. And, the use of hirelings varied greatly from game to game. Our game rarely bothered with them for example and pretty much every DM I've ever played under frowned upon hiring lots of mooks.

My experience as well. And IIRC, the item needs to save against fireball and such only if you fail your save. The thing that broke alot were flasks of oil, remember those, since they were designed to break it was hard to argue against them breaking if you fell down a pit.

Same here on hiring mooks, especially since they could die so easily. For groups that played "goods" mooks were more of a liabillity than help.