An Examination of Differences between Editions

[Umbran]

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

Molonel, the above is not acceptable. Respond respectfully, or don't respond at all.

And, as if I have to mention it, that goes for everyone. Keep it civil.

 

[RFisher]

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.

Agreed.

Although, based on a conversation between Gygax, Kuntz, & Mornard on the Pied Piper forums, I get the impression that at least the wargamers in Lake Geneva already had that idea firmly established, even before Arneson & company showed them Blackmoor.

The more I look into it, the more I wonder how many of the things we often take as RPG innovations were really already there--& already bones of contention--among the grognard wargamers.

I'm not saying that the ability to create builds is a bad thing, merely that it is a real thing, and a change of emphasis from earlier editions that has a real impact both on how the game is perceived and the game is played.

One of the things that keeps me (repeat...me) from playing 3e in the style I'd like to is this: If I set low DCs & assume Take 10 for certain things to try to fit 3e to my style, then the players are going to start to notice that putting a bunch of ranks into Spot is a waste. In the short term, a player who put ranks in Spot at the expense of other skills may get very annoyed by this. In the long term, the players will stop putting ranks into skills that--because of my DMing style--don't make a difference, thus having more ranks to put into other skills & altering the balance built into the system.

So, if the game has a Spot skill, as DM I'm going to feel obligated to make it enough of a factor in the game to make the players not regret having put ranks into it.

Sure, I can house-rule or take other measures to compensate. The easiest measure, however, is to try to pick a system that's a better fit for my style, though.

Although, the max ranks based on level mitigates this to a certain extent. This is an area where 3e's hybrid of class & level with point-based may pay off. Of course, you have people who rail against that rule...

I didn't mean to suggest that this reaction was intentionally provoked in writing the third edition.

For what it's worth, I didn't mean to imply you did.

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.

But you don't need to have an idea. The people at the table just have to come up with an answer that is good enough for them. Sure, the DM may have the burden of making the final call, but--as it's a game--it's a fairly light burden. (^_^)

I'm not even sure that on many issues you could get an objective answer at all. Consult three respected scholars, & you'll probably get three different answers. But if you got them together in a D&D game, they'd all accept whichever of the three answers the DM choose & get on with the game.

& I'm not convinced that picking a DC--even when you do have a good list of example DCs to go by & bother to reference them--is significantly different. I think you're still as likely to be just as far off the mark.

I've lost count of the number of times with comprehensive & detailed systems that we've played it very close to the book & ended up with results very far from our expectations. (Though, I probably still need to be better about overruling the rules in cases like that.)

 

[an_idol_mind]

One of the things that keeps me (repeat...me) from playing 3e in the style I'd like to is this: If I set low DCs & assume Take 10 for certain things to try to fit 3e to my style, then the players are going to start to notice that putting a bunch of ranks into Spot is a waste. In the short term, a player who put ranks in Spot at the expense of other skills may get very annoyed by this. In the long term, the players will stop putting ranks into skills that--because of my DMing style--don't make a difference, thus having more ranks to put into other skills & altering the balance built into the system.

So, if the game has a Spot skill, as DM I'm going to feel obligated to make it enough of a factor in the game to make the players not regret having put ranks into it.

3e does seem to incite a lot of worries about game balance. I'm wondering why that's so. Is it a company thing, a reflection of the current players, or something else? I don't think it's a system thing, because I know from personal experience that the game responds well to many different tweaks and changes. For example, I run Spot checks pretty much the way you would, and I've never felt any sinister shift in game balance.

In older editions, people would house rule things without worrying about unbalancing the game. For whatever reason, people's perception of the game seems to have changed to the point that any tweak is examined and re-examined to preserve balance. Maybe it's an Internet thing or something...

 

[Hussar]

But you don't need to have an idea. The people at the table just have to come up with an answer that is good enough for them. Sure, the DM may have the burden of making the final call, but--as it's a game--it's a fairly light burden.

heh, tell that to the flaming rows we used to have around the table.

In older editions, people would house rule things without worrying about unbalancing the game. For whatever reason, people's perception of the game seems to have changed to the point that any tweak is examined and re-examined to preserve balance. Maybe it's an Internet thing or something...

Honestly, I think it's a bit of two things. One, it's an Internet thing with so many people having so much information and constantly reexamining the same thing. The second is that game design concepts are much more open now than previously. We have explanations for why something is so.

Take the CR system and compare it to the xp award system in previous editions. Previously an orc was worth 15 xp. (I think) Why? We have no real idea. I remember in 2e looking at the table in the front of the Monstrous Compendium and thinking, "Hey, isn't infravision a non-magical special ability? That's worth a +1HD. If I give the orc a bow, doesn't that equate with another +1 according to this table which says that ranged attacks are +1 HD?" But, honestly, there wasn't a whole lot of guidance for why an orc was worth what it was worth. Or any other creature for that matter. Creature X was worth xp Y. And that was the end of the story.

Now, we have sidebars and other text, right in the DMG, never mind other sources, discussing CR and how it relates to a host of other effects like adventure design and what have you. While CR is hardly a science, it is an attempt at a systematic approach to adventure design. Whether it is successful or not is certainly debatable, but it is an attempt.

Like an_idol_mind, I have found the ruleset to be more than robust enough to handle a lot of changes. My World's largest Dungeon group had no arcane casters for example. No cleric either (favoured soul instead). The group size varied from 3 to 7. Yet, the module played reasonably well most of the time. The malfunctions that I ran into were typically due to poor application of the rules rather than going outside of assumptions. ((A personal beef of mine is the Big Monster in a Small Room syndrome that plagues the module where you have six Minotaurs in a 20x20 room for example))

But, because 3e was designed by designers, its approach is more systematic than previous editions. Again, that will meet with praise or disappointment depending on the user, but, I don't think that that's an unfair assessment.

 

[Numion]

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.

Why did you think that that was what TSR intended? If they had intended those spells for NPCs (like S'mon also pointed out), they would've been in the DMG. Then again, magic items, most of which certainly were intended for PCs, were put into DMG :\

The more I think about it, the PHB / DMG split seems, in some parts, arbitrary. A good idea, but not perfectly executed.

Even though I like DMing and playing high-level D&D, the idea of putting the big guns in DMGs isn't half bad. D&D should stress more the difference between NPCs and PCs, and this could be a start. At least it would add to the mystery of reaching higher levels of power, even though it would (IMO) be in a little bit artificial way.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Earlier, someone posted that this wasn't strongly stated, and you asked "What more could they do?" I then pointed out that it was more strongly stated in earlier editions -- which you seemed to take umbrage at.

Whether or not it is strongly stated enough is certainly open to debate. However, it is clearly more strongly stated in earlier editions (especially 1e) than it is in 3.X.

I also contest the idea that "Ask your DM before you do anything" appears time after time in book after book -- it appears, from the quotes you've made, one time per book at best, and often with no special emphasis.

If I say "You must X" once per book without special emphasis, and I say "You should be able to Y" several hundred times, I would argue that the average reader will go away with the message that "You should be able to Y" rather than "You must X", and will perhaps come to the conclusion that "You should be able to Y" takes precedence over "You must X".

This may not be the case, but it is certainly more a thing to examine than a thing to dismiss. IMHO, at least.

Also, in 1e at least, the DMG broke down XP awards, so we know exactly why the orc was worth the XP value given. COnversely, in 3e, we have no clear idea why some monsters were given the CRs they have.

RC


RC

 

[molonel]

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.

As someone else already pointed out, traps are NOT a staple of Conan. I'd also say that they aren't a staple of Elric, either. One "trap" that comes to mind is the lotus trap that drives men mad in "Rogues in the House." Conan's solution, thinking man that he was, was to stab Thak as many times as he could before he pulled the rope.

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...

And those are the sorts of traps I associate with earlier editions of the game. One of my friends like to spring what he calls "Gygax traps" on us: totally random, completely lethal and no reason at all for being there.

Whether or not it is strongly stated enough is certainly open to debate. However, it is clearly more strongly stated in earlier editions (especially 1e) than it is in 3.X.

So we've gone from "Completely gone, no sir, it's not there!" to "It was stated more STRONGLY in previous editions?"

I also contest the idea that "Ask your DM before you do anything" appears time after time in book after book -- it appears, from the quotes you've made, one time per book at best, and often with no special emphasis.

How many times per book would satisfy you?

 

[SuStel]

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,

This is a good distinction, and I completely agree that the third edition rules are the most comprehensive set of D&D rules to date.

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.

More than just "Could a normal man do this?" a referee should look at the ability scores of the character and ask himself, "Could this character do this?" It's often pointed out that ability scores in the original D&D set had little impact on the mechanics of the game. Rather, they were intended to be part of the referee's judgements on whether something was possible for a character to do. ("Can I balance on this log while fighting with this quarterstaff?" "Well, you've got a dexterity score of 8, so you're probably not agile enough to keep your balance while fighting. You fall off and into the river.")

 

[SuStel]

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.

By "need to go adventuring," I meant "to improve their characters," not "to live comfortably." Not to mention the enormous bar tabs that adventurers are assumed to run up!

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.

This is the ol' plausibility argument. The level of desired verisimilitude of a campaign depends greatly on the people playing it. My preferences differ from yours: the dungeon as a whole is dangerous, in part because many traps can be completely arbitrary and unfair. That's the deal you signed up for when you entered the dungeon. That's what makes it a challenge. And that's why there are magical ways to regenerate and resurrect characters!

That's common sense. *shrug*

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

I prefer the game not to delineate rules wherever possible; just provide the necessary framework. Let the referee fill in the blanks. Then rules changes aren't necessary.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So we've gone from "Completely gone, no sir, it's not there!" to "It was stated more STRONGLY in previous editions?"

Please tell me when I said "Completely gone, no sir, it's not there!"

I don't appreciate the snarkiness of your post, nor do I appreciate you putting words into my mouth.

RC


EDIT: To be completely clear, I was responding initially to Hussar's response to DM-Rocco in which Hussar said

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.​

My response was

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.​

(That "secret" in #1 refers to the quote Hussar made from the 3.0 DMG that included "Let's start with the biggest secret of all, the key to Dungeon Mastering... The secret is that you're in charge.")

I am curious how that turned into "Completely gone, no sir, it's not there!" in your mind. Especially since you responded to my post and (presumably) read it before responding.

Now, it's true that I do believe that repeated forceful statements are more clear, and that hence, the more repeated, more forceful statements in earlier editions (1e in particular) are therefore more clear.

A response to a complaint that 3.X doesn't state this clearly enough (such as, as I understand it, DM-Rocco's was) that says, in effect, "It could not be stated more clearly" is simply wrong. Moreover, it gets in the way of the actual meat of the issue: "Is it stated clearly enough?"

There is a change to the way "Rule 0" is communicated in the editions. There is a change to both the degree to which it is stated, and to the degree to which its importance is emphasized.

What this means may be open to debate, and what the effects (if any) are is certainly open to debate. That the change is real, however, is not open to reasonable debate.

As always, YMMV.


RC