An Examination of Differences between Editions

[T. Foster]

As far as "dungeon level" is concerned, I always assumed that this more-or-less scaled to the PCs' level, so that high-level PCs were not having 1st-level encounters when they entered the 1st level of a dungeon. If my assumption is wrong, it almost seems as if the campaign is intended to be built around the megadungeon (like Castle Greyhawk) rather than varying challenges and locales.

In OD&D this ("the campaign is intended to be built around the megadungeon") absolutely is the assumption, and anything else ("high level" dungeons where the "1st" level is equivalent to what would be the 5th, or 9th, or whatever, level of the main dungeon) are an exception to the general rule (the possibility of which isn't actually mentioned anywhere in the rules, but obviously such dungeons appeared in play even in this era -- the Lost Caverns of Tsojconth, the Tomb of Horrors, the Temple of the Frog, etc.).

This notion appears in vestigial form in AD&D (in the dungeon random encounter tables in the DMG) but it's pretty clear that by the time of AD&D Gygax was moving away from the campaign-dungeon model (no wonder -- he'd been playing in that style for 7 years and was probably ready for a change) and was emphasizing a different approach with more focus on wilderness, town, and other-planar adventuring and multiple smaller and more cohesive "lair-dungeons" (i.e. modules) in place of the single massive campaign-dungeon.

 

[Numion]

Nor should they, IMO. Newbies will slog through it the same way us old timers did (trial and error) and those of us who have been playing forever and a day should no better than to throw ridiculous monsters/traps/whatever at the PCs.

IMO they should. Two of my players have run D&D campaigns for first time in their life with 3E. The CR system made it possible that it wasn't trial and error. They managed to run 13 and 10 level campaigns without a hitch, and I think that was due to 3E CR/EL system.

People like to rag on the system, but the system not working properly is IME an exception, not the rule.

 

[Numion]

I think this is one of the key differences between 3E and earlier editions, and one that is too often overlooked when people say "it plays as it ever did". IME anyway, it doesn't play as it ever did because, for the most part, the chances of succeeding at a task or avoiding insta-death or whatever were unmitigated by a guy across the screen wanting to help you out. ALthough I am sure it happened, I very rarely ever experienced modifiers to saves or other rolls based on difficulty. Your character, his class and level, was the defining feature, not the attack. That is the antithesis of scaled design.

The Red Box D&D (is that BD&D?) included an adventure, a keep for the PCs to romp through, and the DM to learn the game. It included a room with two harpies in it. The door to the room was unopenable by characters less than 3rd experience level.

That is an antithesis of non-scaled design. I wonder what new DMs would learn from running that adventure. If there are monsters inside that could kill the PCs, they can't encounter them?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I've often made mention of the fact that I think that the 3rd edition rules (and 3.0 in particular) are the best rules D&D has ever had. I consider this to be pretty much unarguable and not even really a matter of opinion.

And I consider the above horseshit. I consider the AD&D 1e rules the best ruleset ever, but that will always be nothing but my opinion. Yours may differ, but it's just that - an opinion.

 

[Reynard]

The Red Box D&D (is that BD&D?) included an adventure, a keep for the PCs to romp through, and the DM to learn the game. It included a room with two harpies in it. The door to the room was unopenable by characters less than 3rd experience level.

That is an antithesis of non-scaled design. I wonder what new DMs would learn from running that adventure. If there are monsters inside that could kill the PCs, they can't encounter them?

It is an introductory product that goes up to 3rd level. Why do *you* think you can't get through the door till your 3rd level.

I have never seen a similar thing in any other module, nor would I expect to. But in a product designed to show you how to play and get you hooked, it makes perfect sense.

And sure, it also probably teaches the budding DM that matching up monsters and chaarcters need to be done with care. That is not the same things as having a (flawed) mathematical matrix for encounter design.

But we can pick apart individual rules in each edition till the cows come home. But it is the whole package that makes each edition a different gaming experience.

 

[Numion]

It is an introductory product that goes up to 3rd level. Why do *you* think you can't get through the door till your 3rd level.

Because the PCs would get killed if they encountered what's inside before that? It also implies an unhealthy attitude that a DM shouldn't challenge PCs in a way that combat certainly leads into death. Luckily this was fixed with the EL/CR distribution tables in 3E.

In any case, I found it a bit videogamey solution. Just like the equation that monsters of certain level know their level and reside in corresponding dungeon level, which was stupidly carried over to 3E. Levels shouldn't exist within the gameworld.

That is not the same things as having a (flawed) mathematical matrix for encounter design.

In our group two first timer DMs have used that chart to run succesful campaigns from 1st to 13th and 10th levels. If it is flawed, it's obvious that the flaws are not serious. In any case a better solution than some vague ramblings about challenge levels.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Only if the DM decides that there's a low level region, a mid level region, and a high level region. Otherwise, if it's a swamp, there's a chance there's a big frickin' black dragon in there, regardless of whether you are a 1st leveller looking to kill bullywugs or a demigod.

But that is a perfectly reasonable assumption, no? The low level regions are in and around the civilised areas, where the farms and merchants are. Then you have a mid level region which is on the borders of the civilised lands, and high level regions which are the dreaded mountains/swamps/deserts where no-one goes (no one BUT HEROES!).

I was in my late teens running OD&D & AD&D and that seemed a pretty straightforward idea to me even then.

 

[Gentlegamer]

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.

I think the two quotes from Gary in my signature are illustrations of his "drill instructor" outlook. Well said!

 

[Plane Sailing]

nb: The atmosphere of the thread is starting to drift from conversational towards adversarial a bit, and that isn't so healthy.

Let's stay with nice friendly discussion about differences without feeling the need to defend edition A or edition B please!

Thanks

 

[MerricB]

AD&D, at least, suggests that DMs should modify awards down if PCs are defeating monsters that are obviously beneath them.

The rule is that you should modify XP downwards based on the ratio of PC levels to HD defeated (as adjusted for special abilities).

This actually leads to the situation that PCs pretty much *never* get full XP for defeating monsters, as the 1:1 ratio would mean the PCs would be overwhelmed in most combats.

Cheers!