An Examination of Differences between Editions

[RFisher]

Players will - if they think it matters - tend to argue post facto for the latter, right up until what they find is a symbol of death, in which case they argue post facto for the former.

QFT. I still remember the time a player said "I put the helmet on" and when I said "Poof, you're Chaotic Evil!" the player responded, quite seriously, "I didn't say I was putting it on my head."

I have known maybe a couple of gamers over the years that seriously acted that way. They stopped coming to the games on their own.

Everyone else I've played with only does that kind of thing in jest. Heck, don't most of us often reveal in the unexpected twists?

3e does take power from the DM, IMO.

I don't know. I think the DM has very nearly as much power. It's just that instead of just deciding the result or what to roll; we have to navigate the rules, figure out which bits get us closest to what we think the ruling/roll should be, then use whatever leeway the rules give us on choosing DCs in this instance & fudge the final bit with circumstance modifiers. Same result; much more effort. IME.

(Where "navigate the rules" can be simply mental recall or consulting the rules-expert at the table or actually looking things up.)

 

[Imaro]

Just wanted to throw my .02 on the issue. I think one of the biggest differences to me about the varying editions is as follows.

OD&D(actually BD&D, never played OD&D): This is a "true class" system. everything is determined by your class(even being a different race is a class) and thus it shines in those areas I believe class based rpg's should. Simple and quick to make a character and get playing, easy to run monsters, etc. DM fiat was definitely necessary, but with a good DM it worked well.

AD&D(I played more 2e than 1e) Still what I would consider a class system and retaining the bonuses of using said system. There were options for more granularity, compared to BD&D, but the game was still more class based than not. I think if anyhing this edition was the most vivid in my mind, for both DM's and Players. Option books(Fighter's handbook, Combat options, etc.) gave players customization while many imaginative supplements focused on DM's were also produced(such as Planescape, Dark Sun, the historical books, etc.) that showed a new, or old DM all the things he could do with the game(imagination wise, more than rules wise). Basically IMHO this edition kept majority of the simplicity garnered from using a class bassed game, while offering further options for both those who played and those who ran it.

D&D 3.x. I really have a love/hate relationship with this game. In my mind it has dispensed with most of what (IMHO) made a class-bassed game beneficial. I would argue that it's trying to be both a point -based game and a class-bassed game at the same time. It has more fiddly bits for both DM's and Players but loses the simplicity in return. It is definitely a player oriented game right now, and I think the comments about the business model, etc. are spot on. My experience is that players are more likely to question a ruling in this edition, since they have knowledge of DC's in the PHB. Yes a DM can adjust them, but I've had a player on more than one occasion roll high enough to make what he thought was the DC and when he failed demand an explanation of why. This is cool unless it's something that he shouldn't know about. If it's the latter then it's all distrustful looks and I'm hosing him.

 

[Celebrim]

Using the painting example, on a DC 20 Search check (a low-detail proposition), you could tell the PCs that there seems to be something behind it, or that it is slightly tilted, or that there are scuff marks on the wall that indicate that it had been moved repeatedly. The PCs are thus at liberty to manipulate it further (possibly setting off a trap or hazard), check it for traps (another Search check), or leave it alone. However, if a PC specifically stated that he was moving the painting (a high-detail proposition), he would find the hidden object (or set off the trap) automatically.

Good thoughts. I think that is a very reasonable approach, and I'll have to keep it in mind if I run into a similar situation in the future.

 

[Thunderfoot]

My experience has been completely the opposite of this. 100% opposite. <SNIP for Space> Thinking about it, it's kind of funny. Combat in earlier editions was much faster. But, we'd spend ten times as much time messing around in an empty room than we would now.

I'm glad it works for you. I wish I could find that balance, however, I think the searching of the rooms, is one of the things that I miss (and that Celebrim candidly has scripted out) that there is the essence of "roll playing" instead of "role playing" when obstacles are involved. 'We take 20' has been the bane of my existance, yes its effective, but it takes out nearly all of the RP aspect that I've come to enjoy over the years, I realize this may sound like a small gripe, but it was one of the reasons I fell in love with the game, for the first time I found a TRULY interactive setting, where if I did something, I was responsible for the outcome. It feels more reactionary now.

Of course words like feel, enjoy, love, etc are all highly subjective words, so I can see why another might think this all poppycock.

 

[S'mon]

I'm going to ignore 3e & 2e here and discuss a couple of other editions:

Running 1981 Moldvay-Cook B/X currently I'm struck by how much it differs in feel from the 1e AD&D games (incorporating 1e UA) I ran in my youth. The game seems much more balanced, no STR 18/00 PCs walloping everything in sight, no elf Fighter-Wizard-Clerics or Drow Cavaliers dominating the game. It's a smaller game, but much leaner, cleaner and more sophisticated in construction. I think Mentzer BECMI started to accrete some additions like Weapon Mastery and spellbook-copying that took the game in a different direction (though I love Mentzer's Companion Set Dominion & War Machine rules). Moldvay B-X is close to being a perfect game for an experienced GM who wants a simple but robust ruleset for swords & sorcery adventure.

I also run a C&C game - C&C is much more baroque than B-X, yet still much more tightly constructed than 1e AD&D. C&C PCs are more powerful than B/X, and the level disparity greater, more like 1e. Still, the classes, races and stats are better balanced than 1e; and with minimal tweaking it makes a great ruleset for a baroque expansive world like Wilderlands, for which I'm using it. B/X is perfect for homebrewing and for tale-telling in the Tolkienesque tradition, with a cast of thousands - the simple rules mean you never get bogged down in number-crunching.

Edit: B/X's more limited classes & race-classes also suit a human-dominated world where Elves are uniquely powerful but also limited, perhaps a dying race. C&C encourages creation of new classes and races and is great for a more wahoo, anything goes feel, while the Primes/Siege Engine system works well at keeping it all under control.

 

[Hussar]

I was cleaning yesterday and happened across my copy of WG6 Isle of the Ape by Gary Gygax. I sat down and leafed through it and came across what I see as the largest difference between 1e and 3e.

Starting on page 6 and continuing on page 8 is a massive boxed text soliloquy of Tenser giving the party of 18th level PC's their marching orders. This is a whole pile of text, at a guess, I'm thinking about 1500 words or so. But, that's not my point. Towards the end of the speach is the following text:

At this, several of the crew begin unfolding a device. YOu recognize it as a folding boat. One of the sailors tells you that the command words are "Jolly", "Dragonship", and "Batten" to cause the magical box to become a boat, ship or box again. You realize that you must remember thse command words if you are to use the craft.

((The boxed text ends here with an interjection by the author))

Note to the DM: Do not allow any notation of these words. Memorization is required.

Stop and think about the implied power there. The module writer assumes that the DM has so much authority at the table that he can dictate to the players that they cannot even write down a vital piece of information. When I was 13 and playing this for the first time, I blithely accepted this as simply true. Now, I read this and think that there isn't a chance that I would do it, either as a DM or as a player.

3e does not assume this level of power on the part of the DM. Nor does it generally consider targeting the player rather than the character as fair game. This goes beyond simple problem solving IMO, this is deliberately setting up the situation so that the DM can say, "AHA GOTCHA" when, three weeks later, the players have forgotten the words to their boat because their minds were so fuzzed over after listening to a ten minute boxed text speech.

Another line caught my eye on the next page:

As players with high level characters, the participants should show no hesitation about accepting the challenge of the undertaking which is herein proposed. If they do, you should suggest that they are not properly role-playing their characters. Use coercion, flattery, humiliation or whatever else is necessary to bring them around.

Again, this sort of antagonistic approach to DMing has very much changed. The idea that I should humiliate my players into jumping onto my personal adventure has perhaps gone out of style.

Now, I realize that these are rather extreme examples from a single module. And certainly not all were like this. But, some were. This, IMO, really illustrates the difference in edition. Yes, the DM is assumed to have a lot less authority around the table than what's being assumed here.

 

[Reynard]

Now, I realize that these are rather extreme examples from a single module. And certainly not all were like this. But, some were. This, IMO, really illustrates the difference in edition. Yes, the DM is assumed to have a lot less authority around the table than what's being assumed here.

I never played 1e for very long. We played a lot of B/X/C/M and then discovered 1e about 6 months before 2e was released. BD&D didn't imply, as far as I recall, that the DM should antagonise the players -- but the "fiat" was still there. I just skimmed through my 2e core books and found a similar perspective: the Dm is set up as the rules arbiter and the "director", but there's nothing I read in the DMG that pushes the DM toward an antagonistic relationship.

Now, that isn't to say that the games themselves -- BD&D and 2e -- aren't different than 3e is this regard. Save or dies, power disparity between PCs and monsters, and a generally lessened degree of player empowerment mechanics all combine to create a game in which antagonism is easy to achieve. And even when that isn't the intent, players still have to be on their toes and think about what they are doing.

One of the things that struck me while I was reading the PHB was saving throws. While there are a few creatures or effects that have saving throw bonuses or penalties associated with them, for the most part a character's ability to resist a special attack or spell is dependent entirely on the character's level. There's no scaling of difficulties with respect to where the attack or spell comes from. Moreover, most inhabitants of the 2e world are 0 level commoners. It becomes suddenly very apparent why horrible monsters scare the bejeezus out od the common folk of a D&D 2e world: even a relatively weak creature can kill you with a touch or a glance. Only adventurers, and high level ones at that, can track them down and kill them. Levelled commoners, etc... in 3e, along with scaled DCs for saves, change this aspect of the world. The local master smith can stand up against the orcs, or even the ghouls, because while he is not as powerful as a PC classed character, he's still 5th level. His 2e counterprt, no matter how skilled a smith, still only has 4 hp and virtually no chance to save.

 

[Korgoth]

There are a lot of good thoughts here.

Regarding the "antagonism" issue, I think that it ties in with the difference between 3E and the previous games. The previous games were about challenging the players, so one of the main tasks of the DM was to present that challenge. This took the form of difficult tactical situations, puzzles, traps, tricks and roleplaying challenges. The DM was doing his job when the players scratched their heads and said to themselves "Wow... this is a tough one!"

There were several ways in which that basic dynamic could be handled improperly by the DM which could result in various imbalanced states. In one sense, a DM could fall into being a "Killer DM" who railroaded PCs into impossible situations with no hope of escape, avoidance or victory (24 mind flayers ambush the 2nd level PCs, etc.); on the other hand, he could be a mollycoddler who never set forth a difficult or lethal challenge. In another sense, a DM could be a "Monty Haul DM" who saw his role as being Good Time Charlie who hands out magic items and fabulous wealth like candy; the opposite of the would be the DM who thinks that to make things properly challenging he also has to be unreasonably restrictive and tends to move the goalposts if you outsmart him... this is what I think of as an "Antagonist".

Anyway, I think it is important not to mistake an Antagonist, who is by definition unreasonable, with a DM who is seeking to put forward a genuinely tough series of worthy challenges to the skill and wits of the players. The "Balanced DM" doesn't get bent out of shape if you outsmart his challenge - in fact, that's his hope, because it represents excellent play.

I do see the previous games and 3E opposed on this issue to a degree: in 3E you can roll Diplomacy instead of having to roleplay your discussion with the disgruntled Burgomaster, etc. (In fact, if I understand the rules in 3.5 right you can talk the Lich Lord into being your friend during the climactic showdown if you roll high enough) And in general the 'character build' seems to be emphasized to the point where excellence of play is not defined by skill or wits but by 'build mastery'... whether you know the combos to get an amazing damage per round output, unbeatable lockdown sequence or unstoppable skill bonus, etc. Part of this is perhaps related to the overall business model of WOTC on the issue: once you sell the rulebooks you will continue to sell books containing "power-ups" which one can buy, almost like a booster pack for a CCG, to gain new build options. In the previous games the challenge was not on this level, so the focus seems to have been primarily on taxing the wits and skill of the players during the game itself. But if the DM had to resort to somewhat unreasonable methods of ensuring the challenge he would seem antagonistic. It's possible to be a Killer DM in 3E (too many monsters or excessive DCs) but there seems to be less room for antagonism in the way I defined it.

 

[S'mon]

Now, I realize that these are rather extreme examples from a single module. And certainly not all were like this. But, some were. This, IMO, really illustrates the difference in edition. Yes, the DM is assumed to have a lot less authority around the table than what's being assumed here.

Yeah, as GM I don't want or need the kind of demonic authority Gygax seems to assume is the DM's prerogative, but I do need more than 3e is prepared to let me have, if I'm to run a good game. There are plenty of games in-between, including most other versions of D&D. The B/X-BECMI-RC D&D line is a good example, so is C&C.

 

[T. Foster]

The "antagonistic DM" tone of much of Gygax's D&D writing is often misunderstood, in that it's actually mock-antagonistic in the manner of a tough coach or drill instructor -- Gygax envisions that a big part of the DM's job is to "push" his players to excellence (developing their player-level tactical acumen and problem-solving skills) and that that excellence will make the game more enjoyable for players and DM alike. Gygax is not a "killer DM" and has never advocated that style (and in fact preaches against it in the 1E DMG and elsewhere) but he is a "mock-killer DM" or poses as one -- he acts like he wants nothing more than to kill your characters, and feigns frustration when the party survives and defeats the challenges and like a melodramatic movie-villain shakes his fist and declares he'll get you next time, but the reality is exactly the opposite. Gygax as DM (read his various advice in rulebooks and modules, his "Mastery" books, or his Q&A threads here) doesn't want to kill the characters of players who are playing well, and considers a TPK (ostensibly a "victory" for the antagonistic DM) about the worst thing that can happen in the game. He wants to players to succeed brilliantly and dazzle him with their problem-solving skills in ways he never anticipated. But he thinks the best way to achieve that sort of performance isn't by coddling or taking it easy on the players, but rather by pushing and challenging them (and, yes, punishing them when they fail to perform or, especially, take the challenge seriously), like a tough coach or a drill instructor.

This, of course, isn't an approach that will work for everybody -- many (probably most) players are in the game to escape, relax, and socialize, and don't particularly want to be challenged or to have their "skills" honed in a crucible -- the difference between pick-up or rec-league sports and a high school or college program that's aiming for a championship season. A disconnect here can ruin the fun for everybody -- the DM frustrated because the players aren't responding to his coaching and stepping up their game, the players frustrated because the DM rewards their "good roleplaying" (i.e. playing a flighty or naive or low-average Int/Wis/Cha character like he's not part of a commando strike-team) by repeatedly killing their characters and putting them in situations they don't enjoy (they want to hang out in town chatting with the locals and developing their characters, he puts them in rooms with no exit and a lowering ceiling and gives them 2 minutes realtime to figure out a solution before everybody dies, etc.).

That's why open communication is key, and adaptability, and compromise (and, to an extent, choosing the right group to play with in the first place -- sometimes people are just going to have incompatible agendas and preferences, and in the long run it's probably better to just not play together than to constantly butt heads -- there's nothing wrong with this, it's not anything to be ashamed of; the idea that every D&D player should be able to get along and play with every other D&D player is unrealistic and naive).