An Examination of Differences between Editions

[Numion]

But you didn't *stop* fighting orcs and goblins when you were high level. Those things were still there, at the same 1HD they had always been. In 3E, it is assumed that *every* encounter scales with the party. This means that the party never really gets any better. Sure, their abilities get bigger and more impressive, but the enemies' do, too, and it is an arms race.

Actually, no, if you go by the 3E DMG. It recommends that certain proportion of encounters should be more than 5 ticks lower than average party level.

That's why RttToEE has bands of Orcs in places where the PCs are expected to be 10-12th level, for example.

Then, the DMG also has long sections about scalable and status quo encounters. The latter are of the type that don't scale, FYI. So, you're wrong.

FWIW I think it's important in a game where that advancement is as important as in D&D that non-scalable encounters occur. At least as a player I enjoy lording my power over lesser creatures

 

[Numion]

That scaled to dungeon level, not character level. The players determined what dungeon level they were ready for, and traps like chutes or gradual slopes existed to change the dungeon level without the players wanting to/knowing it had happened.

Those same charts are in my 3E DMG. Plus what I said above about 3Es EL distribution and status quo encounters.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Those same charts are in my 3E DMG. Plus what I said above about 3Es EL distribution and status quo encounters.

Yup. The "status quo" still exists as a varient. However, the "X ticks above/below EL" encounters are still scaled by the level of the PCs. They are just not the same EL.

 

[an_idol_mind]

I've played all the editions aside from the original 1974 set, and here's what I've noticed in my games:

Basic D&D: This version is fun right out of the box. It's almost board-game like in its simplicity, but allows for many more possibilities than a board game. Characters take almost no time at all to roll up, and there are almost no rules supplements, so there's less pre-game preparation. You just jump right into the adventure. Later versions even had random tables to help stock dungeons, so you could whip up an adventure as you went along. For good or ill, every race and role had a very set position within society due to the race as class mechanic. Elves were all fighting magic-users, and all dwarves were stocky fellow who made good warriors. As these archetypes went along with most traditional fantasy literature roles, my groups and I rarely gave it much thought. bD&D also firmly established the rule of, "when you don't know a rule, make something up" to the point that it was included in the rulebook. It instilled a lot of principles that I still use today, including the tendancy to speed game along by making up rules and then looking through the rulebooks after the session to see if I got it right.

AD&D 1st edition: This was basic D&D with all sorts of bells and whistles thrown in. Some of the rules were recognizable, while others were changed beyond recognition. The strict fantasy archetypes got bent just a little, as you could now have halfling cleric and elves who didn't use magic. The rules as a whole were cumbersome and contradictory, and I think it was generally assumed that you weren't supposed to use all of them. Character creation took a bit longer now that there were more options, but it was still easy enough to jump right into an adventure. The fantasy archetypes were a little bent in this version; you didn't necessarily know if that halfling was a peaceful pipe-smoking fellow or if he was really a cut-throat thief. The expanded options for characters left some folks wondering why they could do one thing but not another; if elves can be clerics, why aren't they allowed to be druids?

AD&D 2nd edition: This expanded the character options a bit more and included skills and specialties that weren't there previously. Character creation began taking longer, making the character more important than the adventure at some points. When you spend over an hour choosing a proficiencies, kits, and later adding the Player's Option stuff, you don't want your character to die in his first session. Adventures seemed to get easier in order to allow the PCs a better chance at survival. As the options continued to expand, the limitations of the system became more apparent; if you could have an elven demi-bard using the elven minstrel kit, why couldn't you have a normal elven bard? 2nd edition also changed the name and cultures of demons and devils, which hacked a lot of people off but also fleshed out the concept of the Blood War and gave a great deal of culture to the planes.

D&D 3rd edition: The character options of AD&D 1st and 2nd got cranked up to the max here. Old limitations were removed entirely, so now you can have virtually any combination out there. The old archetypes are pretty much all gone; there's nothing saying the dwarf in front of you is a stout-hearted warrior instead of a weak wizard. Characters have more powers and abilities than ever before; a ranger can disappear right before your eyes, and a even a fighter has near-supernatural talents. The world is much less human-centric, since humans are no longer more versatile than any other race. As a result, many worlds are higher fantasy than before; there's no reason elves won't be selling their wares in the streets instead of practicing arcane magic in a secluded forest. The addition of feat prerequisites and prestige classes makes adventuring almost a career path; you build up to a higher goal rather than just letting your skills progress as they may. A faster experience track ensures that inexperienced characters like Frodo Baggins or Taran from the Prydain Chronicles won't be inexperienced for long. Monsters are bigger, badder, and now just as unpredictable as a PC. While some aspects of the game, like demons and devils, have returned to their 1st edition roots, the culture and detail given by the 2nd edition is also included.

 

[Numion]

Yup. The "status quo" still exists as a varient. However, the "X ticks above/below EL" encounters are still scaled by the level of the PCs. They are just not the same EL.

To pick nits, the scale is open ended, IIRC at +5 above or below. So average party level of 10 should have some encounters at EL 1-5 and 15+ and AVP of 15 should have some ELs 1-10 and 20+. EL 1 exists for both groups, so the minimum EL for an encounter does not scale.

That combined with status quo encounters leaves plenty of room for orc stomping at all levels.

BTW, what do you mean by 'variant'? IIRC it's given the same weight as the scalable encounter chart.

 

[Raven Crowking]

To pick nits, the scale is open ended, IIRC at +5 above or below. So average party level of 10 should have some encounters at EL 1-5 and 15+ and AVP of 15 should have some ELs 1-10 and 20+. EL 1 exists for both groups, so the minimum EL for an encounter does not scale.

That combined with status quo encounters leaves plenty of room for orc stomping at all levels.

BTW, what do you mean by 'variant'? IIRC it's given the same weight as the scalable encounter chart.

Well, I never converted to the 3.5 books. In 3.0, it's a varient, and suggests that you warn your players if you intend on using it (which is, IMHO, good advice).

I think it fairly obvious that, if the basis for choosing encounters is how the EL relates to AVP, then perforce encounters are being scaled by AVP. YMMV, and I'd hate to make what is otherwise an extremely interesting thread get bogged down in argument because we disagree there. So, in the words of Forest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."

RC

 

[Numion]

YMMV, and I'd hate to make what is otherwise an extremely interesting thread get bogged down in argument because we disagree there.

Never stopped us before

BTW, Shadowfax was a pokemount. That's all I have to say about that

 

[Reynard]

AD&D 2nd edition: This expanded the character options a bit more and included skills and specialties that weren't there previously. Character creation began taking longer, making the character more important than the adventure at some points. When you spend over an hour choosing a proficiencies, kits, and later adding the Player's Option stuff, you don't want your character to die in his first session. Adventures seemed to get easier in order to allow the PCs a better chance at survival. As the options continued to expand, the limitations of the system became more apparent; if you could have an elven demi-bard using the elven minstrel kit, why couldn't you have a normal elven bard? 2nd edition also changed the name and cultures of demons and devils, which hacked a lot of people off but also fleshed out the concept of the Blood War and gave a great deal of culture to the planes.

After much reading and thinking, I have decided that 2E -- without Players Option -- is my favorite version of the game. It runs fast, can be handled on the fly and provides a solid base for all the tradional fantasy tropes, while being versatile enough to do non-traditional fantasy (Dark Sun, Planescape, Spelljammer). With things like kits, there's just enough options to allow players to tweak their characters within their archetypes but stay true to the tropes that I adore. Even the art helps: it isn't the crude (though charming) art of 1st edition, or the over-the-top, superheroic art of 3rd edition.

Now, getting 3e players to "go back" -- there's the rub.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Never stopped us before

This is a better, more interesting thread than those other times.

 

[RFisher]

I know everyone is just relating their experiences, so don't read anything below as me trying to argue with you. I'm just adding bits to the conversation...

You don't see fighters who sneak around like you can do in 3.5 with cross-class skills.

Of course, in oD&D, back before the introduction of the thief (& almost certainly afterwards among those groups that started before Supplement 1 came out), fighters did a lot of sneaking around.

The later books often didn't make it clear to us who came along later that a sneaky fighter was OK. Sure, we could house rule it, but if they told us how to handle thieves sneaking & didn't say anything about fighters sneaking, we figured that meant that fighters weren't supposed to sneak.

Tough to think about really. People played 2.0 becuase it was DnD. There wasn't another viable alternative.

The reason I didn't play a lot of 2e was exactly because there were plenty of viable alternatives. (^_^)

Later versions even had random tables to help stock dungeons, so you could whip up an adventure as you went along.

Interestingly, I've now learned that the first basic sets didn't come with an adventure model, but a Dungeon Geomorphs set & a Monster & Treasure Assortment set. For some people, improvising random or semi-random dungeons came first & modules came later.

bD&D also firmly established the rule of, "when you don't know a rule, make something up" to the point that it was included in the rulebook.

Yeah. I was somewhat surprised at how much of the "these are just guidelines" & similar advice I "remembered" as being in the AD&D books was really in my Basic rulebook.