An Examination of Differences between Editions

[Raven Crowking]

I have re-written the core rules (to a book that replaces the PHB and parts of the MM), and I have said in the past (and will certainly repeat) that I have been extremely lucky with the players I have. They prefer my rewrites to the originals, and one is now running a campaign with the intent to introduce them to another group of players.

We'll see how that goes!

There are many threads in which I've said that, if every player I currently have left the game today, the table would still be full by the end of the week (or words to that effect). I liken it to baking cookies -- if I'm doing the baking, I get to pick what I make. If you don't like chocolate chip, I'm not obligated to make you toll house.

I don't think that anyone in this thread is saying that they can't summon the backbone to make a decision, or that they are unable to DM because the presentation of the rules has changed. (And if anyone is saying that, they can certainly correct me.) I think that some of us would just like an acknowledgement that the presentation has changed, because this is a prerequisite for discussing whether that change is for the better, or not, or completely neutral.

As examples:

The CR system is a redress of the Monster Level system from 1e. There are a number of changes to it that I think are much better; the one change I do not like is that, while the Monster Level system was transparent (though it was spread out; the monster XP calculations are on page 85, whereas the chart to determine what XP are appropriate for what level is on page 174), the CR system is not. Or, at least it is not using the books that I own. I also tend to think that the CR system breaks down somewhat at higher levels, even though I find it robust enough at low- to mid-levels to handle low-magic or low-wealth games without needing overhaul.

Attack rolls in the D20 system are an inversion of the THAC0 system, first introduced during the 1e days and made official with the advent of 2e. I find that the D20 method is more intuitive than THAC0, possibly because the math seems more straightforward.....even though I know, really, that it is the same calculation. If I ever did decided to run a D&D game using an older edition, I would certainly import the D20 method as a house rule.

To my mind, the chances between CR and Monster Level are more substantive than the change between D20 attack rolls and THAC0. Yet, were I to run a 1e game, it would be the change in attack rolls (which is more of a presentational change, IMHO) that I would be most certain to house rule into the game. I would, frankly, be nonplussed if someone then argued that there was no change (because it was merely presentational), or that my preference for the D20 method over THAC0 meant that I was unable to deal with either D20 or THAC0 if need be.

Like I said, though, I did a lot of work to make "my" 3.X game into exactly what I wanted it to be. I had to rewrite every class (except the rogue, which was perfect), decide what feats to include, include a weapon skill system, rewrite the magic system (again, partly deciding what should be included), rewrite the races, and even rewrite the equipment. I picked and chose what I liked about earlier editions and updated them to the current rules, and discarded what I disliked about the current rules.

The OGL is simply the best thing ever to happen to D&D, and the wellspring of creativity it opened up is enormous (even if sometimes it spews out drek).

It's probably true that part of the reason I find this thread so interesting is that I have gone through a lot of this material in various editons relatively recently myself. The changes are both more substantial than I thought in some cases, and in other cases far less substantial. IMHO, of course. YMMV.

RC

 

[DM-Rocco]

Zuh?

Are we talking about lawyerly rules arguments, or what?

My games, in any edition - or any SYSTEM, for that matter (I play more than D&D) - don't get bogged down with rules arguments. I'll listen to a player's reasoning, and I'll consider it, but ultimately, my word is final. If I made a mistake, and the player's character suffers for it, I'll make it right. If I'm wrong, I admit it. If they benefit from it, and it doesn't unbalance the game, great. Christmas came early this year.

Why any DM should be afraid of losing control simply because players actually, like, read the books or keep up on the game enough to browse online errata is mindboggling to me. I think the Sage smokes crack, sometimes, and I've outright rejected his opinion on certain matters.

If someone can't summon the backbone to make a decision, then don't blame a rulebook for that.

I am pretty sure I cover this above. Just because I argue that it happens doesn't mean it happens to me.

I, personally, don't mind the PCs looking at anything other than the monster manuals and like content. My point is only that the game can get bogged down, specially (or mostly) with newer DMs, when the weigh of the rules start to overburden the game.

Oh, I too agree the Sage smokes crack, I really like it when he later admits it and corrects his mistakes.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Oh, I too agree the Sage smokes crack

I think that's one thing we might all be able to agree on.

 

[DM-Rocco]

Whew, that took me a while to finish reading and responding.

Look, in the end, everyone has an opinion and everyone percieves a problem or situation differently. I don't fault people who think 3.0 + is the second coming of Christ and I don't scream at people for sharing what they have to offer. This thread has change so much from the irignal posters request that I can barely remember what he was posting about.

Anyway, I'll certainly answer any further questions or reply to your replies, but no more tinight. I spent enough time just trying to get caught up.

 

[molonel]

That being said, I was not so much complaining on my own behalf, but on other DMs who I know for a fact have had problems. Sure, like every Dm, I have my own share of problem players and troublesome rules, but for the most problem they go through a trail phase and if my friend and I can't figure out a way to break it (and we try hard) then we will gerally allow it. As to respect for the DM and such, I agree that it mainly comes down to DM choices and discipline. My point is that it makes the DMs job hard to keep order when the player has more rules to throw at the DM. Not because he can’t keep order or because of rule 0, but because it takes away from the creativity of everyone at the table when a rules lawyer breaks out 30 books and shows him where he is wrong. It is not that the DM can’t handle the problem or rule that he is in charge and the rules does or does not apply, it is that every time they have to, it takes away from the atmosphere of the game. I think 3.0 + is great for new DMs because the rules are clearer, but there comes a point when the rules put the DM to the test and they can easily be lead by players because they are just following suit for what the rules say is correct. Don’t get me wrong, AD&D had problems too and we had yelling screaming and once a fist fight over the rules, but since there was generally less rules, the DM, INO had more control. 3.5 is really good if you keep to the core books and tightly control other content. However, I field many local questions at the local hobby score and the non core rules cause many of the problems. Just my experience.

I agree that most of the problems come from non-core materials, absolutely. And there are more of those, now, and therefore more problems popping up because of improperly playtested and poorly balanced materials.

I, personally, don't mind the PCs looking at anything other than the monster manuals and like content. My point is only that the game can get bogged down, specially (or mostly) with newer DMs, when the weigh of the rules start to overburden the game.

I agree that ANYTHING that takes the emphasis off of the game itself and having fun can ruin it, whether it be the DM's girlfriend, or the rules, or whatever. I've even had my games bogged down by the players NOT knowing the rules, and having to explain to them how the game works and what their character can do every single session.

Rules lawyers can kill a game. Are there more of them now, than back in earlier editions? Or even in other gaming systems? I really don't think so. But I also tend to play in a lot of different systems, with different people, so I have a slightly different take on it. I've even seen rules lawyers arguing in White Wolf games, and the system itself is supposed to deliberately discourage that.

 

[Hussar]

I won't debate Hussar in mindless babble, but I will respond to this.

*snip for an excellent post*

Anyway, I agree with this poster, imagination and role-playing takes place in ones head. However, I think the 3.5, and more so the 3.0, rules have taken the game out of the DMs hands and given control of the game to the players; but that is just me.

See, now, that wasn't hard. I have no problems with someone not liking things. My beef was with presenting it in such a way that it appears to be incontrovertible fact, rather than opinion. I actually agree with much of what you say here.

Now, I do disagree with that last bit. ((Shock and surprise)) DM's being over run by players is a player problem, not edition. It happened in every edition. Despite, as RC points out, the clarity of rule 0, some people completely ignored it and attempted to bring in all sorts of things into the game from a variety of sources.

The problem I have with the quote of rule 0 that RC provided is that this didn't apply to a great number of groups. This rule 0 makes it impossible to share DMing duties. It assumes that every group will have one and only one DM. That was never my experience. Every game I've run or played in has included other DM's in all editions.

I'm not even really sure that rules uncertainty leads to better gaming experiences. IMO, it leads to confusion at the table with the player constantly asking, "Can I do this?" And, really, the whole issue becomes very moot after a very short while. It doesn't take all that long for a player to become cognizant of most of the rules governing his character.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Now, I do disagree with that last bit. ((Shock and surprise)) DM's being over run by players is a player problem, not edition. It happened in every edition. Despite, as RC points out, the clarity of rule 0, some people completely ignored it and attempted to bring in all sorts of things into the game from a variety of sources.

Of course they did. But, I would argue, it is easier to point to the book in 1e or 2e as supporting the DM in his right to say No than it is in 3e. I imagine that, if the Internet existed back then, there would be message boards with "The DM can say No when the players tell him he can say No" threads then, too.

My general rule is that, if you're not there to have fun and cooperate with the DM and other players, don't expect to be there for long. I have no time for people who want to ruin the game. OTOH, I gather that not everyone has the kind of extensive potential player pool available that I do, so this solution isn't going to be universal.

My only objection was to the claim that there had been no change to the presentation, and therefore no reasonable complaint could be made about that change. Perhaps I misread what was intended.

The problem I have with the quote of rule 0 that RC provided is that this didn't apply to a great number of groups. This rule 0 makes it impossible to share DMing duties. It assumes that every group will have one and only one DM. That was never my experience. Every game I've run or played in has included other DM's in all editions.

The bit about reading the DMG was in addition to Rule 0 in 1e, and as an admonition to help make the game more fun for you when you're starting, it makes sense. Fighting a single 1e skeleton and triumphing (while envisioning the Jason and the Argonauts skeletons that were 10 times as tough), then finding something magical and unknown, constitutes a lot of the thrill for first-time players.

Later on, not so much.

(But, you have to admit, it is interesting that in the 1e days TSR made a decision to tell players not to buy books -- effectively limiting their customer base to 1/4 or 1/10th of what it otherwise would have been -- simply because they thought it would make a better game. Whether they were right or wrong, it is a very different "business model" than we saw in 2e, or later 1e, or than we see today.)

I'm not even really sure that rules uncertainty leads to better gaming experiences. IMO, it leads to confusion at the table with the player constantly asking, "Can I do this?" And, really, the whole issue becomes very moot after a very short while. It doesn't take all that long for a player to become cognizant of most of the rules governing his character.

I would agree with you for the most part. I mean, there are lots of threads where people post that 1e didn't have tactical combat, and that is probably due (in part, at least) to the tactical stuff all being in the DMG.

Of course, as older RPers, we now enter into the era where the question becomes, even if all of that stuff is transparent to the players, should all of that stuff be transparent to the PCs? I decided No, and came up with a system whereby I could keep the Item Creation feats without letting them apply to everything in a given magic item class. So far, it seems to be working well enough!

Where I disagree with you is in aspects of the game that relate to "world building". Using 3e, I would say that an interesting world can (and perhaps should) contain monsters, magic items, spells, prestige classes, and so on that are found in limited areas and that are wholly unknown to the players until they encounter them. Remove the words "prestige classes" and I would hazard to say that this applies to any edition. IMHO, players can and should expect the unknown.

(Of course, I fully endorse the idea that DMs should play to their strengths, and recognize that what makes a game run well for me may not make a game that runs well for someone else.)


RC

 

[DM-Rocco]

I think that's one thing we might all be able to agree on.

Here is a fun excercise. Use four different e-mail account to ask the same question to the Sage and you will get four different answers.

Yes, I have tried.

 

[Hussar]

Where I disagree with you is in aspects of the game that relate to "world building". Using 3e, I would say that an interesting world can (and perhaps should) contain monsters, magic items, spells, prestige classes, and so on that are found in limited areas and that are wholly unknown to the players until they encounter them. Remove the words "prestige classes" and I would hazard to say that this applies to any edition. IMHO, players can and should expect the unknown.

I can agree with this. Given the tools available to the DM (in any edition), keeping the players guessing isn't all that difficult. Something as simple as description change can radically alter an encounter. Or any campaign event for that matter. Even if the players know exactly all the tools available to the DM, they should never really know which ones he's applying right now.

Are those manticores ahead diseased or do they have the poisoned template? Why are they moving so fast? The quickened template? What the heck is that? Book of Templates? You bastard!

((Actual gaming moment for me when the party squared off with a pair of manticores with both templates applied. Loads of fun.))

 

[an_idol_mind]

Oh, I agree with you on that, but don't you think it is harder for a DM to maintain control in the current edition when the players can not only tell youthat you are wrong but can site the page and bring up the errata on-line. While you can over rule them as a house rule effect, you can't affect the sheer amount of weight they have on their side; can you?

No. That's partly a matter of my playing style, though. I don't cite the rules during game unless it's for something minor like a spell duration. If the players complain about a rule, one of two things happen:

If they can cite the rule quickly, I'll probably use it.

If they can't, we use a quick ruling, and then look into things after the session.

If I screwed up a rule and find out about it after game, I let the players know the real rule at the next session. If I think the rule is stupid, I modify it and let the players know how and why I'm making the change. Any discussion on the rule then takes place outside of the game. That's been how I've played the game since basic D&D, and it's worked just fine for me.

I think the high level play is expanded more in the current edition, but there were many sources back then to deal with those who wanted high level play too. The ultimate high level play took place in a fictional idea of a 100th level adventure entitled The Throne of Bloodstone, a 1st edition module. You can’t even play such a thing today with 3.0 +.

From the reviews I've read of the Bloodstone series, i think it's less that you can't do that and more that you wouldn't want to. I've heard nothing but bad things about the way 100th-level campaigning was done in Throne of Bloodstone.

Anyway, I think you are right about 3.5 being more for play above 10th level, maybe. But the games mathematics start to break down around 13th-15th level in a way that 1st edition really didn’t. I’M NOT CLAIMING ONE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER, IT IS MY OPINION (shouting is for the benefit of the peanut gallery) just that I think 3.5 tends to unbalance at higher levels and that there were options for higher level play in AD&D. I know, I have the character vault to prove it.

It's two different problems in the two different editions. In AD&D, your character eventually reached a point where he didn't really do anything more than gain a few new hit points at every level. Personally, I was fine with this, but apparently a lot of people wanted more. 3e's epic levels were a way of appealing to those people, and they gave PCs tons of kewl new powers as they continued to rise past level 20. However, now the problem is that there are too many powers to easily keep track of. You obviously can't please everyone, but apparently WotC felt they could please more people with the epic rules than not.