An Examination of Differences between Editions

[RFisher]

There is very little like a universal experience of 1st edition AD&D because the games varied so completely depending on who was running them, and what rules they followed (or didn't), and how extensive the house rules were.

While it is true that there's a huge range of ways 1e was played, I think there are a huge number of people who played it in very roughly similar ways. They played it mostly as they had the Basic rules that they started with (or that the veterans in the group started with). They ignored armor v. weapon adjustments, the intracacies of initiative, the unarmed combat rules. They let PCs with multiple attacks take them all at once. &c.

In fact, 3e reflects much of how the majority played AD&D. Things that were ignored or informally house ruled by most people in AD&D became the written rule in 3e. 3e went farther than that, of course, but I remember seeing a lot of that as I read through the PHB the first time.

Of course, I have no rigorous study to back that up, but that's the impression I've gotten as I've talked & gamed with more & more gamers outside my original group.

That's the ticket. I think that the similarities are substantive and the differences are superificial. The main difference is the resolution mechanic -- the current edition of the game uses a single, unified, resolution mechanic where past editions had a myriad of different roll types for different situations (e.g., roll high to hit, roll low to test abilities, roll percentile to creep in shadows, etc). Other than that one thing being done very differently, I don't see a great many substantial differences in design between the many editions of D&D.

The unified mechanic (to me) is a superficial change. So, I roll 15 or better on a d20 instead of 25 or less on d%. No substantial difference.

The variable DC, however--the fact that most rolls in 3e have both a modifier for the character and a variable difficulty whereas rolls in older editions often only had the first--that's a much more substantial change (to me).

The expansion of the mechanical character build is also a much more substantial change to me.

(Incidentally, both of those substantial changes are things that I don't consider either positive or negative. They're substantial changes, but I can fully embrace & enjoy either direction on those issues depending upon what game I'm playing.)

Of course, since I bailed on all things D&D in the early 2e years, any changes I attribute to 3e may have actually happened in late 2e (or even late classic).

 

[Particle_Man]

Looking over Castles and Crusades I can see some differences that I think carry over into 1st ed.

In 1st ed., Basic/Expert and C&C, Fireballs are nasty. Wizard types cast fireballs and people around them watch in awe as monsters and enemies turn into barbecues. And a 20th level wizard that cast Fireball? YOWCH! Buff spells exist, but are relatively rare, in comparison.

In 3rd ed., Fireballs are minor ways to deal with minor monsters, or moderately inconvenience major ones. Monsters simply have too many hit points for fireball to be a threat (and there are level caps on fireballs too). The wizards are better off staying away from evocation type magic. Buff spells, on the other hand, are commonly used to "pump up" the meelee combat types in campaigns I play in.

 

[S'mon]

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

Totally agree - 1e PCs of equivalent level are far more powerful compared to the monsters, and 1e PCs and NPCs of equivalent level typically had far more MI than in 3e. This was true up to about 13th level, by which time the 1e PC would likely be topped out with +5 gear and can go toe to toe with demigods. The 3e PC doesn't get +5 until around 15th, but then starts pulling ahead; by 20th it's +10 equivalent, and on and on.

 

[khyron1144]

One aspect of 2e that I really liked were all the sections highlighted in blue and explicitly labelled as optional extra rules. 3.x needs more of this, for example, the whole Attacks of Oppurtunity thing.


I said a lot more about the subject of past edititons vs. the current one, here, but I don't know if x-posting the entire thing would be wise.

 

[WayneLigon]

In fact, 3e reflects much of how the majority played AD&D. Things that were ignored or informally house ruled by most people in AD&D became the written rule in 3e. 3e went farther than that, of course, but I remember seeing a lot of that as I read through the PHB the first time.

2E did a lot of that as well, for things like Infravision. Most people ignored the pseudo science behind it (which simply invited a lot of rules-lawyering and plain silly stunts) and just said 'you can see in the dark like it was daytime'. And that's what the rule became.

I know that late in the 2E games, our most popular houserule was that clerics didn't have to memorize spells. They just cast what they wanted to up to the limit of their spell slots; in effect, they were sorcerers with a vastly larger spell list. We didn't notice any appreciable change in power level at all. Apparently that was a very popular house rule, and from that comes the Sorcerer and spontaneous Healing or Summoning spells.

Any new edition has to look at how people actually play the game, then move things more towards that direction. I think that's why in the next edition, 3.75 or 4E or whatever they call it, we'll see things like AoO dropped or made an optional rule, the number of modifiers clarified to a greater degree, a different method of tracking bonuses, and some clean-up in the spell department. Looking at how people actually use the rules is probably the most important part of design. A rule that constantly gets ignored, house-ruled, or has to be explained over and over and over again is clearly a bad rule and needs to be discarded or changed.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Looking at how people actually use the rules is probably the most important part of design. A rule that constantly gets ignored, house-ruled, or has to be explained over and over and over again is clearly a bad rule and needs to be discarded or changed.

QFT.

 

[Numion]

Looking at how people actually use the rules is probably the most important part of design. A rule that constantly gets ignored, house-ruled, or has to be explained over and over and over again is clearly a bad rule and needs to be discarded or changed.

Speaking of differences between editions, what does this tell about 1e? If these boards are to be believed, everyone houseruled a lot and nobody played by the same rules (which people say is how Gygax intended it - his stated opinion from that period saying the complete opposite notwithstanding, as always ).

If your statement is true, 1e rules weren't really good.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Speaking of differences between editions, what does this tell about 1e? If these boards are to be believed, everyone houseruled a lot and nobody played by the same rules (which people say is how Gygax intended it - his stated opinion from that period saying the complete opposite notwithstanding, as always ).

If your statement is true, 1e rules weren't really good.

That would only follow in relation to the rules that were routinely and almost universally ignored, such as the unarmed combat rules. Those rules I would certainly agree were less than stellar. Also, regardless of some of Gygax's later statements, it is very clear in the 1e rulebooks that 1e was intended to be modified to fit the needs of the groups playing it when it was written.

Interestingly enough, there are an increasing number of posts in which people admit that they houserule 3.X to varying degrees. This doesn't make it a bad ruleset; the ability to housrule makes a ruleset flexable.

RC

 

[RFisher]

Speaking of differences between editions, what does this tell about 1e? If these boards are to be believed, everyone houseruled a lot and nobody played by the same rules (which people say is how Gygax intended it - his stated opinion from that period saying the complete opposite notwithstanding, as always ).

If your statement is true, 1e rules weren't really good.

OK...to play devil's advocate a bit...

(1) I've often seen people ignore/house-rule something because they expected they wouldn't like it. Then once they actually gave it a try, they discovered that it really was a good rule that they liked.

(2) Often a rule that is widely ignored/house-ruled is just explained badly in the rules.

Of course improving the sales pitch or cleaning up the description could qualify as the "needs to be...changed" part of WayneLigon statement.

(3) I think there is room in an RPG for rules that aren't for every group.

One of the things I really hate is when a perfectly-good-but-not-for-everyone rule gets a overhaul in an attempt to get more people to use it. The people who didn't use it will likely continue to ignore it while the people who were happy with it will be annoyed that it was "nerfed".

(Truth be told, though, I'm often happy in these discussions that I'm usually only advocating for classic D&D & not AD&D! ^_^)

 

[an_idol_mind]

As to the whole house rules mean the system is broken thing...

Is there anyone who doesn't add house rules to any version of D&D? I have never, ever, ever run any version of D&D where I didn't make some house rules of my own. Even when I was learning the game, I tweaked things here and there. I've never even played in a D&D game that was strictly rules as written. For everybody who mentions that older editions were either great because they could be house ruled or broken because they had to be house ruled, I find myself changing just as much in 3e than I did in those older games. D&D has always been a modular system made to be tweaked and changed, and I don't think the game has come close to losing that, for good or ill.