An Examination of Differences between Editions

[molonel]

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.

Someone once emailed WotC technical support during a rules discussion with me. They wrote back agreeing, so he was ready to drop the subject. I told him I didn't take their answers as proof of anything, even when they agreed with me.

 

[S'mon]

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.

Yeah, my friend Upper_Krust tried to run one of the Bloodstone modules; I got so bored I quit.

 

[I'm A Banana]

ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is a game that is demanding for players and Dungeon Masters alike

.....and you've lost me.

Advanced? Demanding? Screw that, I can go pretend to be an elf in World of Warcraft at the push of a button and the rewards are beautiful landscapes, rich stories, and having fun killing ugly things with friends.

 

[Reynard]

Advanced? Demanding? Screw that, I can go pretend to be an elf in World of Warcraft at the push of a button and the rewards are beautiful landscapes, rich stories, and having fun killing ugly things with friends.

I'm sorry. I think you mispelled "silly" as B-E-A-U-T-I-F-U-L, "rote" as R-I-C-H and "something to do that's marginally better than the dishes" as F-U-N.

 

[molonel]

I'm sorry. I think you mispelled "silly" as B-E-A-U-T-I-F-U-L, "rote" as R-I-C-H and "something to do that's marginally better than the dishes" as F-U-N.

I don't play World of Warcraft. Not my bag. But it's got more than eight million subscribers because it is a creative, well-designed video game based on pen-and-paper RPGs like Dungeons and Dragons.

Watching RPG geeks snub MMORPG geeks is funny in the same way that watching Star Wars fans make fun of Star Trek fans is funny.

 

[Lanefan]

Re: AD+D is an advanced and demanding game...

.....and you've lost me.

Advanced? Demanding? Screw that, I can go pretend to be an elf in World of Warcraft at the push of a button and the rewards are beautiful landscapes, rich stories, and having fun killing ugly things with friends.

Uh...keep in mind when that was written there was no such thing as WoW, and AD+D was the state of the art.

Besides, I'd rather pretend to be an elf while sitting with friends around someone's table (playing any edition), and the rewards are exactly the same! The only difference is I actually have to use my imagination for the landscapes, rather than having them shown to me on a screen...

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

Uh...keep in mind when that was written there was no such thing as WoW, and AD+D was the state of the art.

Besides, I'd rather pretend to be an elf while sitting with friends around someone's table (playing any edition), and the rewards are exactly the same! The only difference is I actually have to use my imagination for the landscapes, rather than having them shown to me on a screen...

Lanefan

100% agree. However, KM's point is more that writing that a game is "demanding" and "advanced" is perhaps a turn off for a number of people. Since the quote is being held up as a very good way to write Rule 0, I think the criticism isn't far off.

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.

This is exactly how I've done it as well. The DM's that I've played with in 3e have also done the same thing. Granted, I did have one player who insisted on reading the riot act every time he thought I got the rules wrong. Unfortunately, he was the worst kind of rules lawyer - one that only thinks he knows the rules, rather than one who does. After umpteen arguements around the table, that campaign evolved a house rule where you could challenge any ruling, but, if you were wrong, you lost xp for the entire session. If you were right, no harm no foul.

It was harsh, but, it did cut down on the rules lawyering. It meant that he had to actually open the book, read the rule and THEN argue with me about it if I was wrong. That I have no problems with. Heck, I rely on my players rules-fu all the time. I've got a couple of fairly decent rules gurus in my game now, so, I'm perfectly comfortable turning to one and saying, "Hey, how does this work?"

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.

I respect that this is your opinion, but I disagree. High level 1e play was entirely broken. The PC's were moving on to the Dieties and Demigods by then and treating it as the Monster Manual. Nothing in the books could challenge very high level parties. Looking at high level modules like Queen of the Demonweb Pits and Isle of the Ape, the primary source of challenge seemed to be stripping abilities away from the PC's in order to tone them down. Nerfing or banning spells, lowering plusses on weapons, blocking access to clerics regaining spells, that sort of thing.

 

[molonel]

After umpteen arguements around the table, that campaign evolved a house rule where you could challenge any ruling, but, if you were wrong, you lost xp for the entire session. If you were right, no harm no foul. It was harsh, but, it did cut down on the rules lawyering. It meant that he had to actually open the book, read the rule and THEN argue with me about it if I was wrong. That I have no problems with. Heck, I rely on my players rules-fu all the time. I've got a couple of fairly decent rules gurus in my game now, so, I'm perfectly comfortable turning to one and saying, "Hey, how does this work?"

You may consider that particular device stolen for my future DM bag of tricks. I've fortunately never had a player that bad at arguing about the rules, but that's a pretty nifty device for nipping that in the bud.

I learn the rules best through playing, and by my players catching me with my pants down. I'm glad they are reading all the same books I'm reading. It means we can all take turns in the DM/GM chair. It means we have that many more people who know the game, and can help smooth things along.

Rules do not create or inhibit mystery. Ignorance of the rules does not create or enhance mystery. Story and character create mystery.

High level 1e play was entirely broken. The PC's were moving on to the Dieties and Demigods by then and treating it as the Monster Manual. Nothing in the books could challenge very high level parties. Looking at high level modules like Queen of the Demonweb Pits and Isle of the Ape, the primary source of challenge seemed to be stripping abilities away from the PC's in order to tone them down. Nerfing or banning spells, lowering plusses on weapons, blocking access to clerics regaining spells, that sort of thing.

We used to call the 1st Edition Deities and Demigods the D&D shopping guide.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Besides, I'd rather pretend to be an elf while sitting with friends around someone's table (playing any edition), and the rewards are exactly the same! The only difference is I actually have to use my imagination for the landscapes, rather than having them shown to me on a screen...

So you have to work harder for the same rewards. It's like someone telling me they'll give me $5 if I sit at home for an hour, and someone offering me $5 if I go work in the salt mines for an hour.

However, KM's point is more that writing that a game is "demanding" and "advanced" is perhaps a turn off for a number of people. Since the quote is being held up as a very good way to write Rule 0, I think the criticism isn't far off.

Closer to it. And it's a topic called out in the post insulting the CRPG, too: the idea that somehow playing D&D is more elite, that it's higher status or makes you a better person is kind of ingrained here.

But not everyone takes some sort of justification from putting in a lot of work into creating an imaginary world of frolicking fairies. Most people, in fact, don't. A lot of demanding hard work and advanced knowledge is a barrier to getting into the game, a wall that's completely unnecessary. It should be easy to pick up a bag of dice and a module and a group of friends and blow a night having fun and killin' monsters and tellin' stories 'round the beer and pretzels.

But right now in the game, it takes a lot of hard work to be able to do that. All that hard work designing a world, balancing the party, adapting a module, arranging the schedules of 4-6 busy adults, bringing them all together in one location, and getting into the spirit of the adventure...

The challenge, in this edition and going forward, isn't to get people to understand that it's going to be a lot of hard work to get their imaginary elf. It's in making sure that there is as little hard work as possible to get to their imaginary elf. Because competitors are offering imaginary elves at the push of a button.

We need to loose this hard-won nerd elitism, this required reading list, this idea of the DM as some sacred seat of ancient power, all these barriers to making someone choose D&D instead of Scrabble and WoW for a night. Tear down the walls! Join the mewling masses fascinated by polygons and pixels! We're all gamers in the end.

There's my soapbox.

 

[Reynard]

Watching RPG geeks snub MMORPG geeks is funny in the same way that watching Star Wars fans make fun of Star Trek fans is funny.

You apparently missed the smiley. It was a joke.