An Examination of Differences between Editions

[molonel]

Not to pull this thread even further along a tangent, but when I was considering running an Epic game I came up with a rough outline of what i wanted to do with epic spellcasting. What I decided was that all spellcasters had a progression of Epic Castings from level 21+ that exactly mirrored their standard spell progression from 1+. Spells/day from this progression could be prepared/cast as "Epic versions" of spells of the same level. my baseline was 10 levels worth of metamagic feats "for free" on the lower level spells, as well as doubled caps for any damage dice, HD, etc... I never got very deeply into designing, let alone playtesting, it, but at the time it seemed like a good start to a system that would be "Epic" but retain D&D's spellcasting flavor.

To be honest, I think that would work better. One of the deep flaws of the ELH was that it was supposedly intended to go into "Infinity and beyond!" [/Buzz Lightyear] and not really have any upper limitations on how far you could play. Epic spellcasting really doesn't have any good limitations, and I haven't seen any suggestions on how to fix that I think would work. A system of spellslots that you can use metamagic feats on has an inherent limit to what you can do with it, and continues along the same lines instead of inventing something entirely new, and doing it quite poorly, in my opinion. Epic spellcasting gives spellcasters yet ANOTHER reason to dominate the game, because it turns epic level play into an arms race where he who has the most epic spells wins.

And non-spellcasters? They get left even FURTHER in the dust. A primary tank who is NOT backed by an epic spellcaster, under those circumstances, better go hang up his sword.

 

[S'mon]

3e was designed to actually use all of this high-level stuff that most people never actually got to in previous editions. So that is one fundamental difference in editions -- 3e is actually designed to be played at those higher levels. Sure, you could play 20th level characters in 1e, but it was pretty clear from most of the published material that the game was pretty much designed around the 1st to 10th level game. .

Yes - the problem though is that 3e still uses a lot of stuff from 1e/2e for levels 13+ that IMO wasn't really ever intended to be actually used by PCs in the great majority of campaigns, notably 7th-9th level spells. They look nice, and in 1e were great for giving your Lich M-U 18 NPC kewl powerz, but 7th+ spells are a huge headache to GM, a headache that's got worse as more and more are added in subsequent editions.

 

[T. Foster]

Yes - the problem though is that 3e still uses a lot of stuff from 1e/2e for levels 13+ that IMO wasn't really ever intended to be actually used by PCs in the great majority of campaigns, notably 7th-9th level spells. They look nice, and in 1e were great for giving your Lich M-U 18 NPC kewl powerz, but 7th+ spells are a huge headache to GM, a headache that's got worse as more and more are added in subsequent editions.

QFT. I'm firmly of the belief that from their first appearance in OD&D supplement I the high level (7th-9th for mages, 6th-7th for clerics) were mostly for show, intended (as you said) to be given to liches, titans, and other ultra-high level NPCs and perhaps found on a scroll occasionally, but not for actual widespread use by player characters (who are, at least implicitly, expected to enter retirement somewhere around 12-14th level). I've only half-jokingly said in the past that the AD&D PH should've listed only the names of the high level spells (like was done with 3rd level spells in the Holmes Basic rulebook) and left the actual descriptions in the DMG, reinforcing the notion that these spells exist in the game-world but aren't really supposed to be for players.

 

[SuStel]

It doesn't matter. To a freeform roleplayer, it's still too constricting.

So you're not taking me up on my dare to prove this? Even to a "free-form role-player's" point of view? Instead of "prove," let's say "demonstrate." Demonstrate, from the free-former's point of view, that original D&D is too constricting.

 

[Imaro]

Sense of entitlement certainly varies from one player to another, but I honestly haven't seen a difference between players in 3.x edition and players in any earlier edition that I have played. It's a personality trait, not an edition trait. I've had players in AD&D 1e complain after the first adventure in a new campaign, "gee, it at least would have been nice if you'd given us enough XP to get to 2nd level." Or complaining about still finding +1 magic weapons when their characters with 6th or 7th level, because "we should be getting +2 weapons by now."

Yet now they can complain, not only about the above, but also about what feat, prestige class or new base class you don't allow in your game(kinda justified too if they spent the $30 on a complete book or whatever). They can complain about how according to the DC's in the PHB they should have succeded at something or how the use of a skill should have affected a certain aspect of your game. Don't really see any difference except there's a whole slew more to complain about/for.

The oft-praised 1e insistence on having pretty much anything of value extremely well-hidden and/or guarded by deadly traps, making the PCs bleed for everything they get simply leads to precious game time being wasted on tedious and pedantic searching procedures. I've played in groups of (and run games for) players who insisted on searching every square inch of every room and hallway "because that's where the DM probably hid the treasure." And when they find it, it reinforces this behaviour. These same groups of players won't walk anywhere without probing the floor in front of them with a 10' pole, and won't enter a room without throwing various items in ahead of them. It just makes me want to scream, especially when I'm DMing the game and I just want to get on with it already. At least Take 10 and Take 20 helps me keep my sanity in these type of situations. It's never the newer players who do this in games I've played in, just the ones weaned on late 70s and early 80s AD&D and D&D games.

To my way of thinking, powerful and/or useful treasures are almost never going to be found hidden somewhere inconvenient or locked up in a room. They are going to be actively used by the PC's foes, and are part of the reward for overcoming that challenge. Nobody is going to set deadly traps in areas where they or their minions are likely to set them off by accident. Random drawers, chests, and doors are not worth anyone's effort to set a trap on unless there is something awfully valuable in there -- or unless they want to keep nosy adventurers out. But early AD&D and D&D adventures were full of arbitrarily or randomly trapped doors, chests, drawers, etc that didn't seem to serve a purpose other than to keep PCs on their toes. I think there are better ways to do that which don't result in players being ridiculously cautious about everything.

I honestly think this was one part S&S fantasy tropes in which many heroes overcame dangerous traps to retrieve a precious item and one part thinking-man's game. There we're those who found it fun trying to determine where the DM had hidden a treasure or how to disarm a trap's mechanism, alot of traps we're puzzles of some sort that involved real interaction. It was problem solving and some players enjoyed it...now it is dice rolling and some players enjoy that. Eh? different strokes for different folks.

The DM is running the game, but I object to the attitude that it is the DM's game, and if a player doesn't like it, he can go play somewhere else. It's the group's game, and the DM's ultimate "job" is to make sure that everyone has fun. That doesn't mean making things easy, fudging rolls to not kill characters, catering to one whiny player's desires, or any of that nonsense. The DM ultimately controls the pacing and events of the game, and it's a very self-absorbed DM who runs a game solely to satisfy his own idea of what a game should be. And I've seen DMs trying to push their "superior blend" of gritty, "low magic," "low treasure" style of D&D on players who didn't really want it for 20 years, regardless of edition.

I've played enough D&D with half-baked, unfair, or just plan stupid house rules that I completely agree that DMs should be held accountable for the deviations they make from the rules. If the DM is going to change something, there should be a good reason for it, and the changes should be well thought-out. If one of the DM's roles in the game is to be a referee and arbiter of the rules, then those rules need to be fair to everyone involved. And players shouldn't be asked to just blindly accept rules that don't make sense simply because the DM decided the world should work that way. That doesn't mean that players should be able to veto house rules just because they don't like them -- but I have trouble accepting a house rule unless it makes sense (even if I don't like it).

See I think it's a very self absorbed player who doesn't allow the DM the freedom and fun of creating his world. If I am upfront with you about my houserules and my setting, then you agree to play that's you accepting them. The same satisfaction a player derives from building and creating his character is what a DM gets out of building his world and houserules. I really am of the oppinion that if you want the world and rules to be your way, you should be running the game. Eventually someones vision of the campaign world has to be dominant and I think it should be the DM that's what he's there for. This doesn't mean compromise is totally out of the picture...but if I say Dwarves can't be sorcerers and you want to be a dwarf sorcerer then one of us is going to be happy and one of us is going to be happy in someone else's game. You might ask me why, but if it's a secret or important part of my world I want to reveal later, to everyone, why should I have to tell you? In the end this sounds like a problem with the DM's you played with not really any edition of the game.

 

[molonel]

So you're not taking me up on my dare to prove this? Even to a "free-form role-player's" point of view? Instead of "prove," let's say "demonstrate." Demonstrate, from the free-former's point of view, that original D&D is too constricting.

Um, well, I thought it was kind of self-evident.

Any game with rules can be constricting in freeform roleplay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeform_roleplaying_game

Does the game you're talking about have rules? Any rules? Then it's too constricting. And yes, I've interacted with freeform roleplayers who speak with great disdain of people who play games with rules.

A _true_ roleplayer doesn't need rules. Or so the thinking goes.

It doesn't matter if it's "rules lite." There are rules. And in some styles of freeform, the GM simply describes the world, and players describe their characters, and then they roleplay with whatever rules the GM describes on the fly.

The original D&D represented a certain style of play, but it is NOT the penultimate "rules lite" of "rules lite" gaming.

 

[SuStel]

I think there was a more adversarial us vs. them mentality in a lot of the earlier gaming literature. Articles and advice on how the DM can relieve the PCs -- once again -- of their hard-earned treasures in order to keep "game balance" in check always rubbed me the wrong way.

It's a game. The challenge for the players is to "score" as many experience points as possible. The challenge for the referee is to make this as hard as possible for the players, but keep them coming back for more. That's what "game balance" used to refer to. If players have so much stuff and power that they don't need to go adventuring, it's too easy, and the players will get bored.

I've played in groups of (and run games for) players who insisted on searching every square inch of every room and hallway "because that's where the DM probably hid the treasure." And when they find it, it reinforces this behaviour. These same groups of players won't walk anywhere without probing the floor in front of them with a 10' pole, and won't enter a room without throwing various items in ahead of them. It just makes me want to scream, especially when I'm DMing the game and I just want to get on with it already.

That's what wandering monsters are for. The more time you waste in the dungeon, the more times you're going to run into wandering monsters. And wandering monsters almost never have anything worthwhile, so you want to avoid them as much as possible.

But early AD&D and D&D adventures were full of arbitrarily or randomly trapped doors, chests, drawers, etc that didn't seem to serve a purpose other than to keep PCs on their toes. I think there are better ways to do that which don't result in players being ridiculously cautious about everything.

You prefer a game where the players can be careless?

In that same section of the DMG, it does say that DMs shouldn't change the rules without giving the players a good, logical explanation for the change, and I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with that. I've played in a lot of games in earlier editions with DMs who instituted what I can only call not very well-thought-out changes to the rules that were often either unfair or unnecessary and often didn't improve the game -- but they satisfied that particular DM's view on how the game should be played (almost always to make it more "gritty" and "realistic"). I remember one game in which the DM required Wizards to hold their spell books open to the spell they were casting in order to cast a spell. He loved the images in the Gargoyles cartoon of wizards casting spells like that, and wanted that image in the D&D game as well. After discussing it with him, it was obvious that he hadn't really thought through the implications it would have on that game, and he dropped it.

And then there are referees who aren't so reasonable…

If the DM is going to change something, there should be a good reason for it, and the changes should be well thought-out.

That's player-empowerment. *shrug*

If one of the DM's roles in the game is to be a referee and arbiter of the rules,

Nonono. Those are two different things. A referee is not an arbiter of the rules. The rules are set down in a book; a referee is an arbiter of things not covered by the rules. This is a totally separate function from rules-alterer. In early D&D there were few rules you needed to alter to run things your own way. In d20 there are a whole bunch of rules you need to alter to make things work your way. Thus, the focus of the DM has changed over time from game-arbiter to rules-alterer and cruncher.

3e was designed to actually use all of this high-level stuff that most people never actually got to in previous editions. So that is one fundamental difference in editions -- 3e is actually designed to be played at those higher levels. Sure, you could play 20th level characters in 1e, but it was pretty clear from most of the published material that the game was pretty much designed around the 1st to 10th level game. The D&D Companion and Master (and Immortal) rules sets were about the only other real effort to make ultra-high levels really playable.

You're seeing a lack of rules and assuming it means there's nothing to do. The AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide discusses in general terms what high-level adventuring in the planes of existence might be like. It is not like anything in the Manual of the Planes or anything like that. The idea was: once you reach name-level, you're going to have to take the game in your own direction, because by this time you're so powerful we can't keep you confined to the rulebook anymore. Travel to another plane of existence, say, the world of Boot Hill, and suddenly you're literally playing another game in the same campaign! There's no way they could make up rules for all that stuff. The planes of existence were the ultimate bend-your-game-your-own-way vehicle.

The D&D Companion, Masters, and Immortals sets should be viewed as just one way to do these things. And they're just frameworks at that. If you've ever read the Immortals rules, you know that they're very, very open to interpretation. Literally anything can happen in them!

 

[SuStel]

So you're not taking me up on my dare to prove this? Even to a "free-form role-player's" point of view? Instead of "prove," let's say "demonstrate." Demonstrate, from the free-former's point of view, that original D&D is too constricting.

Um, well, I thought it was kind of self-evident.

Then it should be easy for you to demonstrate it!

Any game with rules can be constricting in freeform roleplay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeform_roleplaying_game

Does the game you're talking about have rules? Any rules? Then it's too constricting.

You are not following the text of the article you quoted. Here is the first sentence of the article: "Freeform role-playing games, also called freeforms, are a type of role-playing game which employ minimal or no rules; occupying a middle-ground between traditional role-playing games and improvisational theatre."

I make the claim that original D&D employs minimal rules. While I wouldn't go so far to say that it is literally a "freeform" game, and I didn't, I do say that its rules are quite minimal.

Let us also note that even improvisational theater has rules.

A _true_ roleplayer doesn't need rules. Or so the thinking goes.

Now we're playing with semantics. A "role-player" isn't necessarily playing a "role-playing game." He may just be "play-acting," which may not be a game at all.

The original D&D represented a certain style of play, but it is NOT the penultimate "rules lite" of "rules lite" gaming.

There was no such thing as a "rules-lite" RPG when D&D was first published! It was simply "the rules," and they were simple, vague, and permissive. The actual "rules" of D&D boil down, mostly, to just the concepts of hit points, choosing a character type, determining characteristics, alignment, what experience points do, and how to cast spells. Everything else is simply lists (lists of character types, lists of equipment, lists of spells, lists of monsters, lists of treasure) and possible systems to determine outcomes (how to play out combat, how much do hirelings cost, who lives in that castle?, how to conduct naval combat, and so on). None of the lists or systems are rules. The actual rules only build the game's playing pieces (the characters) and then the rest is guidance on how to resolve the situations that will come up.

As time went on the the D&D supplements were published, this wide-open game started to get filled in with actual rules. Greyhawk added several of them that stuck, like variable hit dice and weapon damage and significant adjustments due to ability scores. Other supplements (like Blackmoor) suggested rules that went in different directions. These supplements were the writers saying, "I think this is a good rule to fill in this silent area of the rules. Use it if you agree."

Original D&D was a new game form. It gave you extremely basic rules, and a bunch of "objects" to plug into the game. Those objects were not rules. You can swap or replace them at will and not change the framework of the game. But change the few rules that there are (like spell casting) and you do change something fundamental in the game.

 

[molonel]

Yet now they can complain, not only about the above, but also about what feat, prestige class or new base class you don't allow in your game(kinda justified too if they spent the $30 on a complete book or whatever). They can complain about how according to the DC's in the PHB they should have succeded at something or how the use of a skill should have affected a certain aspect of your game. Don't really see any difference except there's a whole slew more to complain about/for.

They are free to complain as much as they like. Nothing in the game says I, as the DM, have to allow anything in the game I don't want. In fact, it says exactly the opposite.

I can remember having arguments about whether or not to allow material from Dragon Magazine articles, or Oriental Adventures, or Unearthed Arcana. Player entitlement isn't a new concept, nor even a new discussion.

I honestly think this was one part S&S fantasy tropes in which many heroes overcame dangerous traps to retrieve a precious item and one part thinking-man's game. There we're those who found it fun trying to determine where the DM had hidden a treasure or how to disarm a trap's mechanism, alot of traps we're puzzles of some sort that involved real interaction. It was problem solving and some players enjoyed it...now it is dice rolling and some players enjoy that. Eh? different strokes for different folks.

That's a little nostalgic rhapsodizing, there. Most traps weren't ripped straight from the pages of MENSA, nor did they require a Master's degree in engineering or logic to deal with. Gygax might not have invented the character meatgrinder, but he sure put his stamp on it.

Saying that "now it's dice rolling" and then it was a thinking-man's game is just silly, I'm sorry.

You prefer a game where the players can be careless?

No, but training them to walk everywhere 1 .... single ..... foot ..... at ..... a ..... time can become extremely tedious.

See I think it's a very self absorbed player who doesn't allow the DM the freedom and fun of creating his world. If I am upfront with you about my houserules and my setting, then you agree to play that's you accepting them. The same satisfaction a player derives from building and creating his character is what a DM gets out of building his world and houserules. I really am of the oppinion that if you want the world and rules to be your way, you should be running the game. Eventually someones vision of the campaign world has to be dominant and I think it should be the DM that's what he's there for. This doesn't mean compromise is totally out of the picture...but if I say Dwarves can't be sorcerers and you want to be a dwarf sorcerer then one of us is going to be happy and one of us is going to be happy in someone else's game. You might ask me why, but if it's a secret or important part of my world I want to reveal later, to everyone, why should I have to tell you? In the end this sounds like a problem with the DM's you played with not really any edition of the game.

You can go overboard either way. By the same logic, if the DM absolutely refuses to listen to player input, he or she may find herself designing a nice, perfect world ... and never running a game in it because players get sick of running up against arbitrary brick walls that the DM refuses to explain. I've seen it happen.

 

[molonel]

Then it should be easy for you to demonstrate it!

I am, sparky. So you can take your limp attempts at snark, and stick them in a nice, warm place for safekeeping.

You are not following the text of the article you quoted. Here is the first sentence of the article: "Freeform role-playing games, also called freeforms, are a type of role-playing game which employ minimal or no rules; occupying a middle-ground between traditional role-playing games and improvisational theatre." I make the claim that original D&D employs minimal rules. While I wouldn't go so far to say that it is literally a "freeform" game, and I didn't, I do say that its rules are quite minimal. Let us also note that even improvisational theater has rules Now we're playing with semantics. A "role-player" isn't necessarily playing a "role-playing game." He may just be "play-acting," which may not be a game at all.

The article was for your benefit, and yes, I read it. It's a description of a particular form of roleplaying which employs no rules beyond those that the GM invents. The Keep is one such example. I have a lot of friends who play there.

It is roleplaying. It is freeform. And it is more rules lite than any form of D&D whatsoever.

Some of the people who play it make fun of folks like you and I who actually use rulebooks.

There was no such thing as a "rules-lite" RPG when D&D was first published! It was simply "the rules," and they were simple, vague, and permissive. The actual "rules" of D&D boil down, mostly, to just the concepts of hit points, choosing a character type, determining characteristics, alignment, what experience points do, and how to cast spells. Everything else is simply lists (lists of character types, lists of equipment, lists of spells, lists of monsters, lists of treasure) and possible systems to determine outcomes (how to play out combat, how much do hirelings cost, who lives in that castle?, how to conduct naval combat, and so on). None of the lists or systems are rules. The actual rules only build the game's playing pieces (the characters) and then the rest is guidance on how to resolve the situations that will come up. As time went on the the D&D supplements were published, this wide-open game started to get filled in with actual rules. Greyhawk added several of them that stuck, like variable hit dice and weapon damage and significant adjustments due to ability scores. Other supplements (like Blackmoor) suggested rules that went in different directions. These supplements were the writers saying, "I think this is a good rule to fill in this silent area of the rules. Use it if you agree."

You're describing game mechanics, and nicely proving my point all the while. Those are rules, and yes, earlier versions of the game were certainly rules lite by comparison to the present edition.

What you apparently don't understand is that there are degrees of "rules lite" even beyond what you describe.

Original D&D was a new game form. It gave you extremely basic rules, and a bunch of "objects" to plug into the game. Those objects were not rules. You can swap or replace them at will and not change the framework of the game. But change the few rules that there are (like spell casting) and you do change something fundamental in the game.

And the fact that there are rules that bind IN ANY WAY makes it more constricting than true freeform roleplaying.

You say, "Ah ha! But there weren't very many rules! Only a few!"

And you're entirely missing the point.

It has rules. And there are people who freeform roleplay - and yes, I've met them - who consider that unimaginative, and just as constricting as some people find my particular style of play, which tends to be GURPS, Exalted, D&D 3.X and d20 Modern.