An Examination of Differences between Editions

[S'mon]

I will say, though, that both B/X D&D and 2E were extremely easy to modify to fit a certain theme, mood or milieu, in large part because there were not so many options. It probably isn't true, but it seems true that if you are going to play a low magic, gritty, sword and sorcery D&D game you have to change a whole bunch of rules and create a whole bunch of mechanics -- feats, PrCs, etc... -- to do so. The glut of d20 settings with their own special rules in the early days of 3E seems to confirm this perception, if not the actuality.

Yes - I'm finding it very easy to use B/X to run a low magic, low wealth, grim & gritty PBEM campaign, in a way that would be extremely hard to do in 3e due to class-balance and PC-vs-monster balance issues that arise when you lower the wealth & magic level. For B/X all I had to do was set suitable demographics, so spellcasters are rare and characters above 4th level very rare, and de-emphasise money by giving XP without reference to treasure - XP awards are about the same as in standard D&D, but sacks of gold much rarer. Everything else just fell naturally into place. I found I didn't have to tweak the B/X M-U spell system at all, since in B/X there are no 'free' spells, you have to learn them from mentors or books, and making high level wizards rare sorted that out fine. When the M-U PC got Fireball, he became a huge military asset because he's the only guy who can cast it within a couple hundred miles!

 

[Hussar]

If you had hung around with my high school AD&D group in the mid-1980s, you would have heard the word "balance" come up quite a lot.



Yeah. I used to have flaming rows too. In my experience, though, the amount of arguing at the table is independent of system but directly proportional to my willingness to argue. (^_^) & even in my arguing days, I considered that part of the fun. (Still do on occasion, but I just do it a lot less & don't carry through to the flaming row level.)

QFT (Heh, a bit of irony there. ) I have an idea that every poster in this thread doesn't have much of a problem with "discussing" things.

I have to admit though, we managed to go about 5 or six pages before the first mod intervention. That's pretty good. Hopefully we can keep it going.

Better perhaps if the supplements just said on the outside cover: "YOUR PURCHASE OF THIS PRODUCT DOES NOT IMPLY OR GUARANTEE YOUR DM WILL ALLOW ITS USE IN HIS/HER GAME"; this has been true since 1e and remains so today, despite some players' best attempts...

This still probably wouldn't go far enough for some people. After all, players should be barred from reading anything other than the PHB no?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Better perhaps if the supplements just said on the outside cover: "YOUR PURCHASE OF THIS PRODUCT DOES NOT IMPLY OR GUARANTEE YOUR DM WILL ALLOW ITS USE IN HIS/HER GAME"

That wouldn't make much sense from a business point of view.

 

[Reynard]

That wouldn't make much sense from a business point of view.

See. That's another difference between 2E and 3E. TSR never let a little thing like business sense get in the way of their publishing schedule.














What?

 

[Numion]

If I may ask: how much of the game in each edition relies on judgement calls from the DM?

From my experiences, we didn't do all that much in AD&D that wasn't covered by the rules. (Diplomacy tended to be a bit more freeform, but otherwise...)

A very good point. Some people think that not covering something in rules tends to create "swinging from chandeliers" creative stuff. For us, it created a game where something not covered by rules, wasn't done. Tactical aspects were mostly absent in our 1E games. Boring "roll-hit-roll-miss-roll-miss" combats.

Having said that, diplomacy should be outside of the rules (I would see no problem with a knowledge skill that allowed you to know how to address the king, for example). I'm glad none of my munchkins have created diplomacy minmax characters.

 

[Numion]

*Tangent: Why the hell isn't there a Sailing skill in 3.5? i mean, they've got appraise when it could just as easily be covered by pretty much any profession or craft skill, but no skill for being able to make a boat go where you want it to go other than Profession: Sailor? i don't get it.

PHB tends to cater to rules that adventurers find important and use a lot. For example, rules for procreation are not included, even though for real people (and real fantasy people, if that makes any sense) it's one of the most important functions.

Hence, appraise is included since it's something PCs use a lot, on the account of the amount of killing things and taking their stuff in D&D. Sailing doesn't happen that much, even though I would have nothing against it.

 

[Reynard]

Sailing doesn't happen that much, even though I would have nothing against it.

Which is odd, because pretty much every major influential work -- pulp S&S, high fantasy, etc... -- involves boats and pirates at least a few times.

 

[Raven Crowking]

See. That's another difference between 2E and 3E. TSR never let a little thing like business sense get in the way of their publishing schedule.

I would tend to agree with that.

Going back to 1e, the PHB says, on p. 7,

Considerable enjoyment and excitement in early play stems from not knowing exactly what is going on. Being uncertain of how a given situation will turn out, not knowing every magic item available, and so forth, adds spice to the game. Later, this knowledge simulates actual experience, for the seasoned campaigner will have learned through game play. Under the circumstances, it is strongly urged that players do not purchase or read the DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE. Leave discovery of the information therein to actual adventuring, and you will find that the game is even more fun!​

Essentially, TSR said here "Don't buy it if it'll make your game less fun". I'd be quite shocked if I saw such a disclaimer in a WotC product. Or, for that matter, in almost any product anywhere. Certainly, "Don't buy it unless you need it" is a strange marketing strategy!

 

[Numion]

Essentially, TSR said here "Don't buy it if it'll make your game less fun". I'd be quite shocked if I saw such a disclaimer in a WotC product. Or, for that matter, in almost any product anywhere. Certainly, "Don't buy it unless you need it" is a strange marketing strategy!

That is strange! No wonder the company tanked.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Better perhaps if the supplements just said on the outside cover: "YOUR PURCHASE OF THIS PRODUCT DOES NOT IMPLY OR GUARANTEE YOUR DM WILL ALLOW ITS USE IN HIS/HER GAME"; this has been true since 1e and remains so today, despite some players' best attempts...

Lanefan

I'd be pretty happy to see something like this (a paraphrase, perhaps) in the foreword to the 4.0 PHB:

ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is a game that is demanding for players and Dungeon Masters alike, but the rewards in terms of enjoyment are vast. There is nothing quite like a successful D&D campaign, and its success is based upon the efforts of all participants. The Dungeon Master is pivotal, of course, but the players are just as important, for they are the primary actors and acresses in the fascinating drama which unfolds before them. For that reason, their outlook and their conduct will greatly affect the flavor and tempo of the campaign. Accordingly, they should do their best to further the success of the entire undertaking. This is often no more than a matter of simple etiquette, and following a few simple guidelines will suffice to make the game experience more fun for everyone concerned, to wit:

1) Be an organized player; have the necessary information on your character readily at hand and available to the Dungeon Master.

2) Cooperate with the Dungeon Master and respect his decisions; if you disagree, present your viewpoint with deference to his position as game moderator. Be prepared to accept his decision as final and remember that not everything in the game will always go your way!

3) Cooperate with the other players and respect their right to participate. Encourage new and novice players by making suggestions and allowing them to make decisions on courses of action rather than dictating their responses.

4) If you are unable to participate in an adventure, give the other players and the DM some concrete guidelines if your character is going to be included in the adventuring group; be prepared to accept the consequences, good or bad, in any case.

5) Get in the spirit of the game, and use your persona to play with a special personality all its own. Interact with the other player characters and non-player characters to give the game campaign a unique flavor and "life". Above all, let yourself go, and enjoy!​

(And the above was Mr. Mike Carr, TSR Games & Rules Editor, in the 1e PHB, p 2.)

Some points that this makes, which are true for all editions are:

(1) If your game sucks, it may well rest on the DM's shoulders, but the players are just as important and bear blame as well. Likewise, if the game is great, the players bear a large part of the praise (something Mr. Gygax says explicitly on p. 6).

(2) Cooperate with others at the table and be considerate. It isn't all about you. Note that this applies to DMs as well as players.

(3) The DM has final authority, and this is a desireable thing.

(4) It is desirable for each campaign to be unique, with a flavor and setting of its own.

Of course, this is something I would like to see, and is certainly not something that would be universally welcomed. YMMV, and all that.

There is, IMHO, a spectrum in which this sort of thing can be stated, going from stating on every single page of every single rulebook and supplement "ASK YOUR DM FOR APPROVAL BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING AS HE OR SHE HAS THE FINAL WORD ON EVERYTHING IN THE GAME" in all-caps, bolded, 30-point font on one end to a more minimalist approach (say, one line in most of the books). If something can be stated with an emphasis ranging from 1 to 10, saying that 1 is not enough does not imply that you need to hit (or surpass) 10.

RC