An Examination of Differences between Editions

[FireLance]

But everyone around the table can do this, whether player or referee, so it's no equalizer for what I said earlier. And D&D wasn't originally conceived of as a play-acting game, but as a 1:1 wargame-like game in which the rules did not prescribe your allowed actions.

That was the real innovation of D&D. In previous games, the rules prescribed what you were allowed to do. In D&D, the rules did not do this. You could try anything.

In this sense d20 has tended back toward the wargame. Rules have been developed prescribing most of your allowed actions.

Actually, I would make a distinction between the rules telling you what to do, and the rules telling you what happens. This harkens back to my earlier point on page one (or so) of this thread on menu-driven player interfaces vs interfaces that accept an unlimited variety of inputs.

In a menu-driven player interface, the rules tell you what to do, because there is no option to try something outside the ambit of the rules. However, in a table-top RPG, you wouldn't normally have a menu-driven interface, and players can try anything (whether or not they succeed at it is another matter, of course). What the rules do is define what happens, e.g. whether the player succeeds, and how well.

This is where I make a further distinction between more comprehensive and less comprehensive rules sets. This has nothing to do with "rules-light" or "rules-heavy". It is possible to have a very comprehensive but very rules-light rule set. For example, the coin flip resolution system mentioned by RFisher: flip a coin to determine whether the PC succeeds at anything.

Compared to previous editions of D&D, 3e is a relatively more comprehensive rule set, as it provides resolution mechanisms for more things that a PC might attempt, e.g. how far can a character jump? Can a fighter in leather armor sneak up on a goblin? How long can he hold his breath? I think the implicit assumption in previous editions was that if there was no specific rule, the character could accomplish anything that a normal man was able to do. Where this broke down, at least for me, was that I had no idea what a normal man's chance of success at some things were, and I had even less idea what an experienced and skilled adventurer's chance of success at those same things were, especially if he was stronger, smarter, tougher, or more dexterous than an average man.

 

[Hussar]

However, the more options that become available the less this is likely to be the case. Although not "point based" in a literal sense, D&D is becoming "point based" in its character design and development approach. In doing so, it becomes harder to assume a certain level of competency or effectiveness at a given character level. For the home grown campaign, it is less of an issue because the DM should be well versed in his PCs capabilities and power levels. The same cannot be said for prepackaged adventures and campaigns. Two 5th level fighters in D&D 3.x will look and play a lot different from one another. Two 5th level fighters in AD&D1 will be differentiated pretty much by equipment (maybe) and the player. In many cases, it is *more* work for the DM to adapt a published adventure than it is to create one from whole cloth.

However, the assumption in the above statement is that additional options automatically mean that characters are more powerful. I really don't think that's happened particularly. Different options does not mean different power levels.

Speaking as someone who just ran the World's Largest Dungeon and allowed pretty much any character option the players wanted, I can say that it isn't that hard to adapt an adventure to the players. In fact, it was very easy. (despite some mistakes in a particular region, but that was a separate issue) There was a point where I was actually prepped, completely prepped for the game for SIX MONTHS ahead of time. Because the options coming out of most companies now are balanced within the framework of the d20 ruleset, it becomes fairly easy to spot the mistakes and reasonably easy to sit back and relax. The rules work. The additional rules work. Most of the time. Yes, there are some rough spots. No system is perfect. But, I don't have massive power disparities between classes typically.

IMO, the CR system works reasonably well. At higher levels, I think it's a bit wonky. But, certainly at 10th and lower, it's usually bang on.

Are you saying that it is your contention that "The DM has final say" is stated as strongly or as forcefully in 3.X as in earlier editions? If you are, then I'll go to the effort of looking in the books to answer your question. If you are not, what bearing does your question have?

/edit

It's not a piddling contest about which edition states it stronger. The point was made and has been made several times, that 3e disempowers DM's by stripping away rule 0. Considering that "Ask your DM before you do anything" appears time after time in book after book, I think that this is perhaps not true.

Compared to previous editions of D&D, 3e is a relatively more comprehensive rule set, as it provides resolution mechanisms for more things that a PC might attempt, e.g. how far can a character jump? Can a fighter in leather armor sneak up on a goblin? How long can he hold his breath? I think the implicit assumption in previous editions was that if there was no specific rule, the character could accomplish anything that a normal man was able to do. Where this broke down, at least for me, was that I had no idea what a normal man's chance of success at some things were, and I had even less idea what an experienced and skilled adventurer's chance of success at those same things were, especially if he was stronger, smarter, tougher, or more dexterous than an average man.

QFT

I read, either in this thread or another how someone wasn't sure if a normal person could climb a tree in plate mail. And, IIRC, he said that he would disallow it. Historically speaking, that person probably could climb a tree. Not a Red Wood maybe, but, a fairly easy to climb tree? Not a big problem. In 3e, as a player and a DM, I can make the ruling very easily. Set the climb DC and go. Under the above DM, it doesn't matter what I think, I cannot climb that tree.

That kind of disconnect was my experience in earlier editions all the time.

 

[Ian Demagi]

Differences in editions

One huge difference for me was the way the "basic party" went from 6 PC's to 4 PC's.

In 2nd Ed, a very basic and effective group was 3 fighter types, a Cleric, Rogue, & Wizard. Sure you could do a huge variety of variations, but 3 Fighter (types), a Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard would pretty much get the job done.

Now with a basic party of 4 PC's the game seemed to fundamantally change. The PC's got tougher, got more attacks, but there seems to be less margin for error.


Ian

 

[MerricB]

The problem is that D&D didn't define was the basic party was - although we tend to think of AD&D as 6 characters, it wasn't true in fact.

Groups would range from 2-10 characters (including NPC henchmen), and possibly more. A lot of my early AD&D play was with 3-4 characters. Later, I ran a group with 8 characters, although it dropped down as it progressed. In 3E, I've run groups of 3-9 characters.

When you look at the NPC parties in the AD&D DMG, they're 9 characters big; 2-5 PC-types, the rest made up by henchmen and men-at-arms.

Cheers!

 

[Imaro]

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.

The poster I was replying to implied there was more complaints and whinning during AD&D...This was just to reinforce the fact that there's just as much or more to complain about in D&D 3.x. Not sure exactly what you're stressing here.

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.

Once again...MY EXPERIENCES. I ran into way more "puzzle type" traps and challenges in former editions than in 3.x. YMMV, but to tell me my memory and experiences are just nostalgia implies you played and gamed with me, or under me...and I don't think you did.

Traps are a staple of S&S fiction...Conan, Fafhrd and Gray Mouser even Elric at times find themselves facing traps that guard important or valuable treasure.

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

Uhm...I do not think I posted what you think I posted...sooo really no coment on this one.

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.

In the end the DM/GM should have something that brings his creativity to the table...The poster I was replying to gave all negative examples of a DM wanting to run a game the way he wants to. Sorry but you get a character to design, what do I get? is a valid question to pose. I like to run a certain type of game and IMHO it is beter if I run the type I want than to do a half-assed, not-really-excited-about-it attempt to run something that doesn't pique my interest. If my players don't enjoy my type of game I'm probably not the right DM for them, I have no problem admitting this and have played with people I knew weren't what I was looking for and didn't continue to play with them. It's called playstyles and there's tons of posts that talk about it.

 

[Thurbane]

No rules set is every going to be completely comprehensive. D&D 3.X is no exception.

QFT - and if you don't believe this, just check out freakin long the latest FAQ download is...95 pages and counting!

 

[Hussar]

Traps are a staple of S&S fiction...Conan, Fafhrd and Gray Mouser even Elric at times find themselves facing traps that guard important or valuable treasure.

Traps in Conan? Really? I remember lots of monsters. I remember lots of fights. I don't remember a lot of Green Demon faces with Instant Death in the mouth. There's a number of Conan stories that don't feature traps.

Actually, IMO, the biggest feature of S&S fantasy is action. Deep reflection or thought is more of a high fantasy trope than S&S. "Speak friend and enter" and "Riddles in the Dark" aren't something I recall a lot of in Conan. Giant mutant snakes guarding temples and semi-naked slavegirls are things I recall a lot of in Conan. Puzzles and riddles not so much.

But, yes, you did see a lot more puzzle stuff in earlier editions. I'm not sure if that's more a sign of the time or the edition though. We had lots of puzzles because that's what the modules had. Over time, even in 2e, you see a whole lot less of the puzzle stuff in modules. It crops up here and there and still does, but, I think it has more to do with changes in adventure design than in edition.

 

[Numion]

need[/i] to go adventuring, it's too easy, and the players will get bored.

From earliest days of D&D I don't think the standard has ever been that the PCs need to go adventuring. In a normal D&D game (any edition) by level 3 the PCs will have enough money to retire. Retirement was even expected (as someone else said on this thread) in previous editions at 10+ level. If the PCs were forced to adventure, they wouldn't be able to retire.

You prefer a game where the players can be careless?

I prefer a game that makes sense within the fantasy milieu. Arbitrary traps take reasoning away from adventuring - there's no point in trying to deduct what might be dangerous, instead you're encouraged to be in SWAT mode 24/7. I mean, it would make sense if obvious pathways that the monsters use weren't arbitrarily trapped, because they would trip the traps themselves.

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*

That's common sense. *shrug*

Or would you advocate making changes without good reason, and changes that weren't well thought out?

 

[S'mon]

Actually, IMO, the biggest feature of S&S fantasy is action. Deep reflection or thought is more of a high fantasy trope than S&S. "Speak friend and enter" and "Riddles in the Dark" aren't something I recall a lot of in Conan. Giant mutant snakes guarding temples and semi-naked slavegirls are things I recall a lot of in Conan. Puzzles and riddles not so much.

They're only semi-naked in the comics, in the REH stories they're generally naked, the noblewomen too... - but yes I agree, 'random' puzzles & riddles seem much more Tolkien than REH. Leiber's are generally weird massive magical effects like the animated tower, not the D&D standard pit or spear trap Indiana Jones type thing.

 

[Imaro]

Traps in Conan? Really? I remember lots of monsters. I remember lots of fights. I don't remember a lot of Green Demon faces with Instant Death in the mouth. There's a number of Conan stories that don't feature traps.

Actually, IMO, the biggest feature of S&S fantasy is action. Deep reflection or thought is more of a high fantasy trope than S&S. "Speak friend and enter" and "Riddles in the Dark" aren't something I recall a lot of in Conan. Giant mutant snakes guarding temples and semi-naked slavegirls are things I recall a lot of in Conan. Puzzles and riddles not so much.

But, yes, you did see a lot more puzzle stuff in earlier editions. I'm not sure if that's more a sign of the time or the edition though. We had lots of puzzles because that's what the modules had. Over time, even in 2e, you see a whole lot less of the puzzle stuff in modules. It crops up here and there and still does, but, I think it has more to do with changes in adventure design than in edition.

Totally agree with you on instant death traps. I think that since I started playing AD&D at about 10 with kids who we're older than me, who included the insta-death traps as well as the puzzle and regular traps, by the time I started DM'ing I knew what I did and didn't want in my games. I remember almost crying because my character got killed by what I considered a totally senseless trap. Yeah I sucked it up...but...it...still...hurt...
Puzzle traps on the other hand I loved, they gave me something interactive to do with a trap and everyone in the party could contribute, even if they weren't a thief/rogue.

S&S does feature alot of traps...check out "Xuthal of the Dusk" for a classic D&D style random pit trap that Conan falls into. "Thieves House" by Fritz leiber has alot of traps from nooses and pits to blades springing from walls. These are just two from the top of my head, but I'm sure I could find way more given some time and my books. I think these characterize the classic AD&D trap...random places that when examined too long don't make sense(S&S is about the adventure not the why's), deadly(but the heroes allways find a way to avoid them or their efffects), etc. They tend to be rarer than one finds in an AD&D adventure(but they are there) but this may be because the heroes aren't exploring forty room dungeons either. IMHO Tolkien doesn't epitomize traps to me at all, the door to Moria wasn't a trap it was a secret door with a special opening mechanism. At most I'd say AD&D was mostly characterized by an unabashed blending of the tropes of these two genres.