An Examination of Differences between Editions

[axp_dave]

Comparing 2E to 3.x I thought the overall rule changes made combat much more deadly and made the game much more tactical. With so many rules on tactical movement (5’ step, AOO’s, withdrawing, etc.) there is a bigger emphasis on fighting well on the board versus a more one dimensional feel of engage and attack in 2E.
David

 

[diaglo]

i'm still currently refereeing an OD&D(1974) campaign.

i also play in a campaign using the current edition.

i prefer OD&D (1974). imo there is a difference.

 

[Hussar]

Surprisingly enough, I agree with most of what Cerebrim said.

I think that there has also been a corresponding shift in the balance of power away from the DM and toward the player, because so much more of the game rules are focused on customizing the player and so much fewer areas of the game absolutely require DM interpretation.

This is a very common interpretation and I believe it to be somewhat mistaken. Or, rather, only half right. It's very much true that 3e takes power away from the DM. The fact that many of those holes mentioned by T Foster have been filled (or at least an attempt made to fill them) means that the DM has less wiggle room for interpretation.

However, it doesn't give the power to the players. The rules keep the power for themselves. If the rules gave the power to the players, then it would be the players who would adjudicate actions. Previously, if my PC wanted to jump a ditch, it was up to the DM to determine whether or not I could do so. Usually he'd give a saving throw, or perhaps a strength check, or some other (usually) reasonable approximation and away we'd go. The point is, it's the DM who creates the rule in this case. In 3e, I know exactly how far I can jump because the rules tell me so. If I can't jump that distance, there should be some outside force changing the equation.

But, in no case can I, as a player, say that I roll a Reflex save to jump the pit. And, really, the DM is encouraged not to do so either. The rules say you can jump X feet depending on the situation. Neither the DM nor the player have any real power here unless the DM decides to overrule the rules. Which is his prerogative, but, for the most part, I think isn't done very often for any number of reasons.

How do the editions play differently? I honestly think that the differences in my game have far more to do with my growth (or lack thereof) as a gamer than with the edition. My games have varied pretty wildly under each edition with the pendulum of combat and non-combat swinging back and forth. I honestly don't think any edition particularly encourages any particular play style. I've done high intrigue and high hack in all editions.

 

[kenobi65]

I concur with several of you that a big change has been in moving information from the DM's hands, to the player's hands.

Take a look at the relative size of the 1E AD&D PHB compared to the DMG. 1E definitely had a POV that the DM was the keeper of all information, and that such information should be sparingly doled out to the players...even to the extent of having the to-hit and saving throw tables only in the DMG.

 

[Reynard]

However, it doesn't give the power to the players. The rules keep the power for themselves. If the rules gave the power to the players, then it would be the players who would adjudicate actions.

I think it does give power back to the players in the sense the player has solid ground on which to stand when making use of the abilities they have chosen to focus on for their characters. To use Jump as an example: the player whose monk has maxed out jump, frex, is able to dtermine for themselves whether making that leap across the chasm or from one airship to the next is a reasonable course of action, because they know, automatically and inherently, how likely they are to succeed. This isn't a bad thing, but it is definitely different and empowering compared to older editions when the liklihood of success was entirely in the hands of the DM. Moreover, the DM -- assuming he is reluctant to bedn or break the rules -- is diempowered in the situation. Once the distance of the jump is determined, it is out of his hands and into the hands of the players.

How do the editions play differently? I honestly think that the differences in my game have far more to do with my growth (or lack thereof) as a gamer than with the edition. My games have varied pretty wildly under each edition with the pendulum of combat and non-combat swinging back and forth. I honestly don't think any edition particularly encourages any particular play style. I've done high intrigue and high hack in all editions.

I agree that all editions of D&D (with which I am familiar -- no 1974 OD&D for me...) have provided a relatively broad type of fantasy, allowing for mysteries, krawls, and more. However, each of those kinds of campaigns or adventures plays and feels different under each set of D&D rules. A murder mystery played in 3e will be a very different experience than one played in AD&D1 or RCD&D.

Part of it for me is nostalgia, certainly, but also I think part of it is knowing what I want at the table. I am very curious to see how years of experience with different versions of D&D impact my attitude towards and enjoyment of the RCD&D adventure I will be running shortly.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

Ive played with so many people. I have played with at least one person from each edition, and the one thing that has remained the same is that people who didnt start with 3e like to play a straight forward game. Low story, high action.

Im a story heavy DM and I have found that all of my players who started with 3e are enthralled with the story and are listening intently as it's being told, until it gets to their turn or something in the story involves them. As for the people that played older editions get bored and what to just "Skip" this stuff and get to the action. And it's not just older gamers either. I have a guy whos 18 and he started out playing OD&D with a friends dad and he feels the same way. He likes Action, action, action.

Like I said ive played with someone from every edition and it's always the same. They dont care too much about the story. The amount of story they want goes something like this "You meet at a tavern and a guy hires you to raid a dungeon filled with evil goblins who stole his daughter" well that might be a little sterotypical but thats really what it seems they like.

 

[howandwhy99]

I also think that there has been a shift upward in the range of numbers in the game. The disparity between HD is increasing, and the maximum HD is increasing, and the maximum damage is increasing and so forth. I also feel that the game has speed up, both in the amount that happens in a given period of game time, and in the amount of leveling up that occurs per session.

Corresponding to the above is a finer and finer granularity of numbers. The number gains come faster and faster, but ultimately mean less and less. To make up for this, levels are gained more quickly. Now, like in GURPS where each character gains a couple of points after each session, the deferred gratification levelling mechanic inherent to D&D becomes less of an emotional payoff. Large numbers add to difficulty and speed of play too. More and more integration via layers with this fine granularity may look strong because of such tightly woven core statistics, but the weave is becoming too tight to be easily manipulated and brittle.

 

[Particle_Man]

There seems to be different "iconic elements" being emphasized.

In earlier editions, the "Blaster Mage" was freaking God. In later editions, with the spell damage caps by level, the increase in character hit dice, the increase in con mods (and the bestowal of generous con scores on many high cr monsters), and the plentiful means of gaining energy resistance/immunity to fire and lightning and cold, the Mage is usually not a blaster mage if he wants to be bad ass.

 

[Shroomy]

I think it does give power back to the players in the sense the player has solid ground on which to stand when making use of the abilities they have chosen to focus on for their characters. To use Jump as an example: the player whose monk has maxed out jump, frex, is able to dtermine for themselves whether making that leap across the chasm or from one airship to the next is a reasonable course of action, because they know, automatically and inherently, how likely they are to succeed. This isn't a bad thing, but it is definitely different and empowering compared to older editions when the liklihood of success was entirely in the hands of the DM. Moreover, the DM -- assuming he is reluctant to bedn or break the rules -- is diempowered in the situation. Once the distance of the jump is determined, it is out of his hands and into the hands of the players.

You can't say that the DM is disempowered in this situation, as he creates the conditions that affect the Jump skill check. That is fully within the rules.

 

[Reynard]

You can't say that the DM is disempowered in this situation, as he creates the conditions that affect the Jump skill check. That is fully within the rules.

Sort of. Even if the DM sets up conditions that change the difficulty of the jump (howling winds, etc...) the difficulty is still known to the player and therefore uncertainty -- other than the uncertainty of what will come up on the die -- is still lost, simply by virtue of codified rules for almost everything.