An Examination of Differences between Editions

[DM-Rocco]

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.)

I agree with this.

I think though, that the main reason that the players have more control is because there are rules to cover just about anything you want to do in the game. This includes sex, drinking and going to the bathroom if you have the right pdfs, and they are out there.

Sure it says in the 3.0 and 3.5 DMG that the DM is the master of all and he/she is in charge, but it is not the same as the first statement in the AD&D books that said the same thing. Why, because of all the rules. The more rules you have, the more freedom is lost by the DM.

The rules in OD&D and AD&D where fairly vague, so if you wanted to do something outside of the rules, the DM didn't have a huge set of rules to sift through to see if you could, he just determined you could or could not. In 3.0, chance are there is a rule to cover whatever you want to do and when you tell a player they can't do something or that the results are different from what they expect, they will show you many different rules and reasons why it could and would work the way they want. With so many rules and splat books and such, it is very hard to know all the rules. DMs these days constantly get bombarded with rules they had never seen before. Even if you just stick to the core books, there are enough rules to sink a ship.

If you ask me, it is the sheer total mass of the rules that try and cover every angle that make a DM almost meaningless.

I loved AD&D, but for me 2nd edition was lacking in a great many things. I thought 3.0 was nuts. I liked the feats and skills. I thought it was a nice element, and I got hooked like a drug to the idea of give me more feats and skills. In the end though, too many options spoiled 3.0 for me, specially when you start to figure out how to break the game. In AD&D a player couldn't break the game the way they can today.

3.5 is refreshing. It gives you the nice stuff and cleaned up rules that make more sense without overpowering the game. Well, it can still be overpowered, but not as easily broken.

I think that the sheer amount of rules subdues the DM and the increase in higher level character HD and damage amounts ruins play at higher levels. IMO, the game breaks down mathematically around 14th level. Gygax realized this when he created AD&D and stopped HD progression after a while and cap damage limits to spells. Anyway, after this level, the game heavily favors mages and other spell caster, but that is really a different topic all together.

 

[JeffB]

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.)

Excellent post. I wholeheartedly agree. especially with this

the DM is no longer much of an arbitrator; he is simply obeying the rulebook in delivering his verdict.

i.e one step closer to performing the role of a computer.

 

[MerricB]

i.e one step closer to performing the role of a computer.

Hmm. Although that's somewhat true for common tasks (e.g. adjudicating whether someone has jumped over a pit), there is so much that the DM can do that the computer can't - particularly in the area of roleplaying.

Cheers!

 

[Imaro]

Hmm. Although that's somewhat true for common tasks (e.g. adjudicating whether someone has jumped over a pit), there is so much that the DM can do that the computer can't - particularly in the area of roleplaying.

Cheers!

Maybe that's it...I thought about this post for a while and realized part of the fun for me was creating those on-the-fly judgements or arbitrating the possible in my campaign(It was fun, it was mentally stimulating and gave me a sense of the game being my own.). I felt like I was a part of the game in the same way a player might as they explore the new abilities or levels that defined their character, I got to explore the definitions of my campaign through the rules I introduced and situations I judged. Now I've been regulated to actor, and really according to the rules the PC's can control how my NPC's act towards them(diplomacy check anyone?).

 

[MerricB]

Maybe that's it...I thought about this post for a while and realized part of the fun for me was creating those on-the-fly judgements or arbitrating the possible in my campaign(It was fun, it was mentally stimulating and gave me a sense of the game being my own.). I felt like I was a part of the game in the same way a player might as they explore the new abilities or levels that defined their character, I got to explore the definitions of my campaign through the rules I introduced and situations I judged. Now I've been regulated to actor, and really according to the rules the PC's can control how my NPC's act towards them(diplomacy check anyone?).

I still find myself making on-the-fly judgements; it's just that with 3.5e I have a rules base to back me up. If someone wants to do something special, the skills system give me a guide already as to what is possible, but they don't give you the DC of everything... in those cases the judgement call is necessary.

Cheers!

 

[Lanefan]

Right...time to dive in to what's so far been one of the better discussions I've seen here. (let's hope I can help keep it that way!) Somewhat topic by topic, then: (disclaimer: I have no experience with anything before AD+D other than running various B/X modules)

- Scaling: 3.x scales at higher levels much better than any previous edition, no question about that. That said, the point raised that the characters never seem to make any net progress because the foes' powers rise to match their own is valid too; that the perceived lack of randomness make it almost seem like prepackaged fun. There's a middle ground somewhere for this, I'm sure...

As for designing areas with greater or lesser challenges, it's easy enough to "steer" the characters to areas they can handle: "There's a Black Dragon lives in those mountains, accordin' to the tales...big mean feller. Rumour has it the King has to pay 'im off every summer to make sure 'e stays up there and don't come down 'ere. Ain't seen nobody go up there that didn't think they could handle 'im...and ain't seen none o' those as did come back either. You sure you want to try your luck?"

- DM vs. Player power: 3.x allows players to know too much, too soon, leaving as the only real mystery the DM's world (and that Goes Away too if you're running a pre-gen setting e.g. FR, Greyhawk, etc.) I absolutely agree with whoever it was that said new players who don't necessarily know what they're doing are the best players to have...to them, it's all a mystery, and the joy is in the discovery and learning; about the game, the world, and their characters. Older editions, for all their other flaws, did a better job of lengthening the learning curve by keeping more info restricted to the DM...and putting it all in arcane prose that seemed mysterious even when it wasn't.

- Rule modifying and DM workload: one thing not yet mentioned is that if a given DM does modify the game to suit his-her own tastes, s-he is by extension going to become more familiar with (and personally involved in) the game and thus be able to run it more efficiently through being able to remember a greater percentage of the rules (usually, the ones s-he changed) and having to look less things up in mid-game. Older editions tended to be modified more, giving DMs that personal buy-in; now, it seems DMs are being asked to simply memorize rules that they did not write. Net result: the workload now is about the same, but less personal...if that makes any sense...and thus less fun.

- Searching: that whole bit about looking behind the painting shows up the differences between editions far better than anything else I've seen. That said, if I ever ran a 3.x game I'd still ask for more specific actions than "we search, take 20" just on principle.

Lanefan

 

[Dr Simon]

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!"

This is veering away from the topic in hand and towards PrCs in general, but I agree. I went away from D&D for a long long time because I felt that the (1st Ed.) rules were crap and arbitrarily limiting, and played RuneQuest instead. As I understand it, the Rune Lord and Rune Priests of RQ Glorantha partly inspired the Prestige Classes, as in if your character meets certain pre-requisites you can gain access to other abilities that are specific to a partcular cult or culture.

RQ is chock full of cults, priests and spells that are useless for adventurers (would you really becoem a priestess of Voria, Spring Virgin and be able to produce flowers at a touch and befriend small cute animals?) but their existence informs and defines the world in which adventures happen. I see no problem with such things existing. I dislike the 3.5 PrCs that they introduced that (a) are just a cheap form of multi-classing with no feeling of an external purpose and (b) violate the original concept that PrCs can be reached via any class (what is the Horizon Walker if not a Ranger+ ?).

Anyway... the idea is present in 1st Ed. in the Bard and the Thief-Acrobat. It's the difference in multi-classing rules that enables them.

 

[S'mon]

I think that the sheer amount of rules subdues the DM...

Yeah, that's a great analogy. Running high level 3e I sometimes feel like a 1st ed MM red dragon getting bludgeoned into submission, my treasure hoard looted, and turned into a mount for the PCs!

 

[FireLance]

On the issue of rules subduing the DM, I'd just like to chime in with a contrary view.

I think that whether you prefer a less comprehensive rules set that allows a DM more flexibility in making things up, or whether you prefer a more comprehensive rules set that a DM can just take and use depends very much on your strengths as a DM.

I personally find that the more comprehensive rules of 3.5e play to my strengths as a DM. I have a good memory, so I can remember even the more obscure rules (or at least, I can usually remember where to look and find them in a minute or less). I'm good at adaptation, so if there is something that is not quite covered by the rules, I can extrapolate from a similar rule based on my understanding of the 3e design philosophy. I'm good at combining existing structures in new ways (it's no accident that one of my favorite toys as a child, before I discovered D&D, was Lego), and a comprehensive rules set gives me lots of fiddly bits to play with. What I am bad at is coming up with stuff on the fly. If I had to do it several times per game session because I was using a less comprehensive rules set, I think the overall quality of my games will suffer.

The way I see it, the DM is in control of so many things - setting, plot, NPCs, challenges, pacing - that he could agree to play by the rules and still be in charge. In fact, some of us prefer it that way!

 

[Numion]

I went away from D&D for a long long time because I felt that the (1st Ed.) rules were crap and arbitrarily limiting, and played RuneQuest instead.

QFT.

Except that I went for WFRP. In hindsight I've realized that those rules were very arbitrary, although not as limiting, themself.

RQ is chock full of cults, priests and spells that are useless for adventurers (would you really becoem a priestess of Voria, Spring Virgin and be able to produce flowers at a touch and befriend small cute animals?) but their existence informs and defines the world in which adventures happen. I see no problem with such things existing.

I'd see no problem with introducing NPC PrC's, since there already are NPC classes. Anyway, I'd leave it up to the setting books to do this. There's too much material in the core books already.