An Examination of Differences between Editions

[DM-Rocco]

Early on, D&D was criticized for focusing on 'What a character could do' rather than 'Who the character was (in the context of the game universe)'. This may have been due to D&D's roots in tactical war gaming. This tactical/mechanical emphasis was balanced by the fact that D&D was a very rules light game system, by comparison to just about anything that came out after it. This took a system which could err too much toward pushing peices around the (often vitual) board in a complex game of checkers, and forced on it other sorts of problem solving. Yes, it put a psychologically expensive burden on the DM, but it also in the same fashion challenged the player to think and role play if the DM wasa willing to take up the challenge. And this was good, because ultimately a game entirely about marching order and rolling dice would be pretty trite and limited.

As D&D evolved to a more robust rules set (I won't say 'good' here, because its such a loaded term), a couple things changed. First, having rules explicitly encouraged all sorts of things and tactics and problem solving approaches that were only implicit and a matter of often hesitant DM fiat before. And the rules were fairer and covered better a large number of situations, which took alot of burden of judgement off the DM (but not entirely, because no rules are perfect). But as a result, the game became even more about 'what the character could do', and less 'who the character was'. Interestingly, and maybe even more importantly, it also became even less about 'who the player was' since so many mechanics previously governed by player choice (say going about searching a room) can now be abstracted to a die roll, and maybe even implicitly or explicitly are abstracted to a die roll. There is even a tendancy toward abstracting the role play itself with a die roll, "I attempt to presuade the troll to let us pass. Ok, make a diplomacy check. *clatter* *clatter*". And while none of this is necessarily new or forced on the DM/group by the new rules, it is alot easier for a game to drift that way and settle there.

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.

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.

Dang it, why do I always find the fun interesting threads while I am at work with limited time

I think you hit the nail on the head. The game has become less about role-playing and more about the die roll or how much you can min/max a character. Yes, there will always be the need for dice and die rolls, but you can almost take a dungeon magazine and run an advneture without a DM. I say almost because you can do this now, however, if there is a mystery, or a turn coat NPC, you will unjustly find that information out sooner than intended.

DMing used to be a lot more involved. Sadly, player's really have taken over the game. Another contributing factor is the sheer amount of crap that WOTC puts out. Yes, I know they have a lot of employees that need their jobs and if they didn't put out new stuff all the time, many would lose those jobs; so let's not go down that road. However, do we really need 20+ Forgotten Realms books? The quick answer is no. The only reason most people buy these books, at least the people I know who buy these books, is because they have a tons of new spells, classes or feats and make their already powerful characters even more powerful at the same level.

It seems the buying guide on content of a D&D book is less about what is inside and more about the classes, feats and spells. If they don't offer these in the book, or they have a poor selection, they are not bought, for the most part. Classes, feats and spells (and even magical items) that push the game to new heights and abuse old rules eventually ruin the game.

How many times have you started a game with a bunch of friends and they say you can use any material from any book versus you can use the core rules and that is it?

Anyway, I'll have to read the rest of this thread later. Very good insight so far.

 

[Hussar]

Dang it, why do I always find the fun interesting threads while I am at work with limited time

I think you hit the nail on the head. The game has become less about role-playing and more about the die roll or how much you can min/max a character. Yes, there will always be the need for dice and die rolls, but you can almost take a dungeon magazine and run an advneture without a DM. I say almost because you can do this now, however, if there is a mystery, or a turn coat NPC, you will unjustly find that information out sooner than intended.

Oh, look, it's that poor horse being beaten to death yet again. Won't someone just shoot the darn thing?

DMing used to be a lot more involved.

Yet, one of the biggest complaints about 3e is how much time and work it takes to be a DM. Funny that.

Sadly, player's really have taken over the game. Another contributing factor is the sheer amount of crap that WOTC puts out. Yes, I know they have a lot of employees that need their jobs and if they didn't put out new stuff all the time, many would lose those jobs; so let's not go down that road. However, do we really need 20+ Forgotten Realms books? The quick answer is no. The only reason most people buy these books, at least the people I know who buy these books, is because they have a tons of new spells, classes or feats and make their already powerful characters even more powerful at the same level.

Wow, we have a mixture of player entitlement whining AND cheap shots at WOTC for being the evil company that they are. Nice combo. 20+ FR books? Umm, have you looked at the number of FR books TSR cranked out? Plus, even after all these books, the cleric, druid and wizard are STILL the most powerful classes in the game. So much for power creep.

It seems the buying guide on content of a D&D book is less about what is inside and more about the classes, feats and spells. If they don't offer these in the book, or they have a poor selection, they are not bought, for the most part. Classes, feats and spells (and even magical items) that push the game to new heights and abuse old rules eventually ruin the game.

Have you actually opened the covers of a WOTC book in the last two years? Haven't you noticed all the complaints that the books are too fluff heavy? PrC's now taking up three or four pages where they used to be one? Plus, the rather large amount of dead trees devoted to toning down the mistakes of the past, like polymorph? But, I suppose actually taking a look at the facts would get in the way of a good rant.

How many times have you started a game with a bunch of friends and they say you can use any material from any book versus you can use the core rules and that is it?

Anyway, I'll have to read the rest of this thread later. Very good insight so far.

All the time. I've never played in a game where you can use any material from any book. And, I'm willing to bet that those who have are in a very small minority. I could be wrong, but, somehow I think the spineless DM scenario where he's being run roughshod by his players is yet another Internet bugaboo that gets tossed around.

Besides, if you want some good powercreep, let's hear it for Faiths and Avatars and Unearthed Arcana. Two books that aren't powercreep, but power leaps! Yes, fighters need 3/2 attacks and +3 to hit and damage at first level, thank you for asking.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yet, one of the biggest complaints about 3e is how much time and work it takes to be a DM. Funny that.

DMing can be more time-consuming without being more involving, Hussar. There is no dichotomy here. In fact, I think that this is really the #1 complaint I have with 3e (and, I note, the new Star Wars Saga Edition seems intent on addressing the issues that making DMing time-consuming for relatively little reward, so WotC seems to be aware of the problem as well).

All the time. I've never played in a game where you can use any material from any book. And, I'm willing to bet that those who have are in a very small minority. I could be wrong, but, somehow I think the spineless DM scenario where he's being run roughshod by his players is yet another Internet bugaboo that gets tossed around.

Dismissing everything contrary to your position does not a rational argument make. One could just as easily (and just as wrongly) claim that the 3e game where these things do not happen is the Phantom of the Internet.

Power-ups and splat books certainly existed in previous editions. Of course, the DM was recognized to have more authority in those editions (the recognition, not the authority, being the thing that has changed). Earlier editions suggested that if you were uncomfortable with something as a DM, you should say No. 3e suggests that you should say Yes unless you can come up with a compelling argument otherwise. That's a substantive difference if you allow it to influence how you run your game.

Of course, I am a big fan of what was done rules-wise (even though I think that combat should not have been brought to squares, and the Arcana Unearthed method of dealing with weapon size is much, much, much better than the 3.5 method). What I dislike about the edition is much of the advice and flavour text, and I can easily ignore/rewrite that.

I also don't care for most of the default assumptions. Of course, I can chuck them out the door easily enough, too.

I love the OGL. Without the OGL, I wouldn't have all the options I do for replacing whatever official material I think needs replacement to give the game the feel I am looking for. Without the OGL, I wouldn't have the plethora of ideas out there, many of which I wouldn't be suitable to DM, but that I would have a blast playing in. WotC deserves a hell of a lot of kudos just for opening up the system. TSR not only did not do so, but activley pursued/shut down D&D websites.

The OGL makes 3.X easy to modify.

For the record, I think prestige classes are a great idea, although I think that many of the actual PrCs out there sort of suck. For those who say that PrCs are too limiting for PCs, I say "So what? Use them for NPCs!"


RC

 

[Hussar]

From Page 6 of the 3.0 DMG (I don't actually have the 3.5 DMG)

Let's start with the biggest secret of all, the key to Dungeon Mastering... The secret is that you're in charge. This is not the telling-everyone-what-to-do sort of in charge. Rather, you get to decide how your player group is going to play this game, when and where the adventures take place and what happens. You get to decid how the rules work, which rules to use and how strictly to adhere to them. That kind of in charge.

How much more clearly can they state that the DM has total and complete control over what gets into the game? Sure, they do say in other places that if something is ok, you should say yes, but, the straight up, bottom line in the DMG is that the DM is in charge.

 

[Raven Crowking]

How much more clearly can they state that the DM has total and complete control over what gets into the game? Sure, they do say in other places that if something is ok, you should say yes, but, the straight up, bottom line in the DMG is that the DM is in charge.

Well,

(1) They could say that it wasn't a secret, and

(2) They could print it in big bold letters at the front of the PHB (as was done in 1e), so that the players also know that the DM is in charge.

I might also add

(3) They could couch all that "Just say Yes" stuff as advice reflecting one playstyle, rather than making a blanket statement.

EDIT:

(4) They could refer to the DM being in charge in more than one place, so you don't have to hunt for the quote, as was done in previous editions.

 

[Imaro]

Well,

(1) They could say that it wasn't a secret, and

(2) They could print it in big bold letters at the front of the PHB (as was done in 1e), so that the players also know that the DM is in charge.

I might also add

(3) They could couch all that "Just say Yes" stuff as advice reflecting one playstyle, rather than making a blanket statement.

EDIT:

(4) They could refer to the DM being in charge in more than one place, so you don't have to hunt for the quote, as was done in previous editions.

QFT

 

[molonel]

Well,

(1) They could say that it wasn't a secret, and

(2) They could print it in big bold letters at the front of the PHB (as was done in 1e), so that the players also know that the DM is in charge.

I might also add

(3) They could couch all that "Just say Yes" stuff as advice reflecting one playstyle, rather than making a blanket statement.

EDIT:

(4) They could refer to the DM being in charge in more than one place, so you don't have to hunt for the quote, as was done in previous editions.

Shoulda coulda woulda.

It's there, it's clear, and it's in plain English.

 

[SuStel]

As originally conceived, the job of the Dungeon Master is twofold: he is the creator of the game world, and he arbitrates the effects of the player's choices.

The original D&D set provided a basic framework of rules on how things played out. For most actions the players wanted to take, it was the job of the DM to decide whether these actions were successful. This is why, before the term Dungeon Master was introduced in Supplement III, the position was called judge or referee.

With d20, the world-creator role remains intact, but the action-arbitrator role is significantly reduced. Most actions players want to take are covered by a rule. The DM's job during a game has largely gone from arbitrator to a rules interface. Yes, the DM can choose to change a rule, but this isn't what the job was originally about. (And by changing a rule, you are merely changing the ruleset for which you are an interface.)

This is what is meant when one says that DMs have lost the empowerment they had in earlier editions. Player-empowerment has risen because players' choices are as significant as ever, but the DM is no longer much of an arbitrator; he is simply obeying the rulebook in delivering his verdict. And if the DM changes the rules without a good and defensible reason, he's going to be considered unfair by the players. (An original D&D judge had few ways to be correctly considered unfair. Usually these ways included arbitrary lightning bolts from the gods killing your character, and had nothing to do with rules-changes.)

 

[DM-Rocco]

Oh, look, it's that poor horse being beaten to death yet again. Won't someone just shoot the darn thing?



Yet, one of the biggest complaints about 3e is how much time and work it takes to be a DM. Funny that.



Wow, we have a mixture of player entitlement whining AND cheap shots at WOTC for being the evil company that they are. Nice combo. 20+ FR books? Umm, have you looked at the number of FR books TSR cranked out? Plus, even after all these books, the cleric, druid and wizard are STILL the most powerful classes in the game. So much for power creep.



Have you actually opened the covers of a WOTC book in the last two years? Haven't you noticed all the complaints that the books are too fluff heavy? PrC's now taking up three or four pages where they used to be one? Plus, the rather large amount of dead trees devoted to toning down the mistakes of the past, like polymorph? But, I suppose actually taking a look at the facts would get in the way of a good rant.



All the time. I've never played in a game where you can use any material from any book. And, I'm willing to bet that those who have are in a very small minority. I could be wrong, but, somehow I think the spineless DM scenario where he's being run roughshod by his players is yet another Internet bugaboo that gets tossed around.

Besides, if you want some good powercreep, let's hear it for Faiths and Avatars and Unearthed Arcana. Two books that aren't powercreep, but power leaps! Yes, fighters need 3/2 attacks and +3 to hit and damage at first level, thank you for asking.

Woo

I don't even know where to begin. I read the first three entries and reply before going back to work and I get attacked by someone who clearly woke up on the wrong side of a die roll.

What seems to be funny is you make part of my arguement for me.

Anyway, you are not very civil, so I will not comment further to your replies.

Good stuff from the rest of you though

 

[Thurbane]

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.

This sums up my own experience exactly.

Fortunately, I play with, and DM for, a group where we do respect the DMs position to the extent that we might question some rulings, but always accept his final word (with truly epic disagreements being settled outside of game time).

I guess it's fair to say that there is a lot I really like about 3E, and also a fair amount that I think earlier editions handled better - or if not "better", as such, more to my own tastes...