An Examination of Differences between Editions

[Rothe]

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!
....

I'd have to agree with Numion.

I'd liken traps to a mystery novel. A good mystery gives you all the clues needed to solve it (even if just in passing) it takes logical reasoning and deduction to put them together and solve the mystery. It's hard to do. A good writer can make you say of course that makes sense why didn't I see that. A bad mystery writer doesn't give you the clues to solve the mystery, or worse, acts as if he did. Like deus ex machina plot lines, it's a cop out of the poor writer.

Pointless, illogical and downright impossible trap placement is like a bad mystery novel. Sure it's a "challenge" but one that doesn't challenge a player's logical thinking ability because logic plays no part in it. In fact, it can be anti-logical where trap placements that are impossible become possible. The ability it "challenges" is the ability to make an extensive standard operating procedure list, which devolves into read the DM/module desinger's mind, or IME the "solution" of sending mook after mook down a corridor to clear it for traps.

Don't get me wrong, I love me some death dealing traps and a hard old timey dungeon crawl, but a major corridor trap, for example, should have some reason for not going off when the dungeon residents use the corridor. Maybe they know of it, so maybe there is a clue in the footprints down the corridor. Maybe they have a lever to turn it off, maybe it requires something heavy or metallic to trigger, and they are all leather wearing kobolds. Some logic and preferably a subtle clue that "superior play" could pick up on and "poor play" would miss. To circle back to the OP, early editions always talked about reasoning and "superior play," the logical conclusion is that logic should work, the rub being do you have all the information you need to make the right deductions.

 

[Keldryn]

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.

Yeah, it's definitely a learning process. In the 20 years or so that I've been gaming, there have been very, very few times when we've actually ever used those higher level spells in the game. If this is the first time that these high level spells are actually seeing regular play in-game, then I would expect to see a lot of issues that we never really noticed before.

 

[Keldryn]

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.

I would be inclined to agree with you on that. My first exposure to 7th-level and higher spells was in the "Set 3: Companion Rules" D&D set, which had a pretty limited subset of the high level spells that were in AD&D (I think no more than 8-12 per spell level). Never really played much at that level, at least not legitimately and after we were older than 13 or 14.

However, unless we're willing to have some more sacred cows given the axe, those spells are baggage that we're kind of stuck with now. I don't think there was generally as much thought given to coherent, long-term game world design in those days.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'd have to agree with Numion.

As would I, and I like the "mystery novel" analogy.

RC

 

[molonel]

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.

You have had to be shown where it states Rule 0 in the 3.5 DMG, the 3.5 PHB, plus several other 3.X books. You have said, within the last two pages of this discussion, "Since I don't own the 3.5 books, I merely assumed that the omission existed. Again, glad to hear I am mistaken." You have also said, "It is my understanding that it isn't in the 3.5 PHB either, though I'd be happy to learn I was wrong."

You have had to be shown where these things are stated in MANY 3.X books, including page number and book, and the best that you are reduced to at this point is the criticism, "It's not in big enough letters" or "They could say it more often."

It's there, it's a rule and it's stated clearly. Commenting on the font size is just a smidgen silly, in my opinion.

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.

Repetition is not clarity. Neither is font size. Neither is bolding, or italics.

"Enough" is a weasel word. It's there, it's clear and arguing for some opaque "level of change" is an argument that proves nothing, nor demonstrates nothing.

 

[Keldryn]

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.

That was an issue in every edition of the game I've played. Ever since there have been sourcebooks, players have bought them and want to use an exciting new concept in the game. It might have been classes, kits, races, or spells from a Dragon magazine article, PHBR supplements, one of those Mayfair Games unlicensed books, official campaign settings, HR series sourcebooks, Oriental Adventures, or even from other RPGs. I remember a couple of players who insisted on bringing in races from the Palladium fantasy RPG. And when they weren't allowed to use one of these options, they complained about it being unfair. It's never been edition-dependent in my experience.

Also, it does very clearly state in the 3.5e DMG that prestige classes are purely optional and entirely under the DM's control. The recommendation is not to use all of them in one campaign. I don't even think prestige classes are mentioned in the 3.5e PHB. And virtually every WoTC-published book that contains new races, feats, or prestige classes states that it's up to the DM what to include.

When players were familiar with monsters or magic items in previous editions, and I changed something, they'd complain that they should have hit, or the item should have a certain power, or what have you. I haven't really seen much of a change from 1e to 3.5e in this. In my experience, it has probably gotten better, as there is a much more consistent set of rules to cover the type of situations where a DM might have arbitrarily decided that the PC had to "make a Dex check at -10" simply because he wanted the character with a 19 Dex to have a reasonable chance of failure.

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.

I think those are some of the best aspects of the game. What I don't like is taking too "gamist" a perspective and placing such challenges almost randomly. I find that the 3.x editions encourage a more logical and consistent approach to world- and adventure- building than did earlier editions. This isn't so much a rules issue as it is the "advice" given on such aspects of design, although the consistent resolution mechanics and saving throw categories that make sense contribute as well. My 3.x games have had as much problem solving as any of my earlier edition games. And again, I may actually do more of this in my games now because, for example, I feel more justified in letting a player make an appropriate Knowledge check to obtain a hint if the players are stuck on something. Sure, it was very possible before and I did it all the time as well by asking for an Int or Wis check with some modifier, but it felt more like fudging then than it does now. To me, anyway.

See I think it's a very self absorbed player who doesn't allow the DM the freedom and fun of creating his world.

I never said that players shouldn't allow the DM the freedom and fun of creating his world. However, in my point of view, despite the fact that I'm the one putting most of the effort into creating the game world, it still isn't my world, and I do think that DMs who insist on it being his or her own world are being somewhat self-absorbed. I may create the setting and the adventures, but it is the players' contributions that make it alive. Sure, I can have NPCs all operating according to their own agendas and all of that which makes a game world a "living" world that seems to exist outside the PCs, but it's just a bunch of notes and maps without the players. By inviting my friends to join in my game as players, I am making it their world too.

Of course the DM needs to enjoy creating the world and running adventures in it. But it is a very self-centered DM who bases the world entirely upon his own preferences and insists that players either play it his way or go find another game to play in. Being a DM is about running a game in which everyone is enjoying themselves, not about being an amateur novelist.

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.

I totally agree that the DM's vision of the campaign world should be dominant -- especially if the game world is to be a relatively coherent one. I guess if one is DMing on an impersonal level, with a bunch of geeks met at the local game shop whom one never socializes with outside of the gaming circle, then a bit more of a "my way or the highway" attitude is understandable (I suppose). I always game with pretty much the same people, who are all my friends outside of gaming, and it would never occur to me to force a style of gaming on my players that they don't want. As for your example, if I had a really good reason for Dwarves not to be Sorcerers but one of my players for whatever reason would not be happy with any other character, I would probably find some way for it to work. That doesn't mean I cave whenever a player doesn't like something that happens in the game. Of course, when I design my game worlds, I try to avoid setting up restrictions such as certain races can only take certain classes and whatnot.

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.

Nah, I've played with mostly good DMs. However, even good DMs make up stupid or poorly thought-out house rules -- myself included. And I went through a phase back in the early 90s or so where I had a pretty narrow view of what a good fantasy world should be like. Of course it was lower-magic, grittier and more realistic, vastly reduced hordes of gold and magic items, and lots of restrictions on character creation to support my desired "flavour." My players didn't complain much, but it wasn't really what they wanted, and I later realized that I was wrong to try to push my preferences on them.

 

[SuStel]

Pointless, illogical and downright impossible trap placement is like a bad mystery novel.

Mind you, I'm not talking about a dungeon full of nothing but random, deadly, unavoidable traps. See below.

but a major corridor trap, for example, should have some reason for not going off when the dungeon residents use the corridor. Maybe they know of it, so maybe there is a clue in the footprints down the corridor. Maybe they have a lever to turn it off, maybe it requires something heavy or metallic to trigger, and they are all leather wearing kobolds. Some logic and preferably a subtle clue that "superior play" could pick up on and "poor play" would miss. To circle back to the OP, early editions always talked about reasoning and "superior play," the logical conclusion is that logic should work, the rub being do you have all the information you need to make the right deductions.

I agree completely with this. There should usually be some way of dealing with the traps, even if that way is simply "don't touch it, stupid!" But players should not be able to count on the traps they encounter being logical or poignant. Some may be, some may not. Part of the challenge of a trap is figuring out if it's even worth dealing with it. Some traps may simply be instant death slaughterhouses, and the players should keep away from them. Some traps may be cakewalks with treasure at the end.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You have had to be shown where it states Rule 0 in the 3.5 DMG, the 3.5 PHB, plus several other 3.X books. You have said, within the last two pages of this discussion, "Since I don't own the 3.5 books, I merely assumed that the omission existed. Again, glad to hear I am mistaken." You have also said, "It is my understanding that it isn't in the 3.5 PHB either, though I'd be happy to learn I was wrong."

(1) I never asked where it stated Rule 0 in the 3.5 DMG, or several other 3.X books. That said information was offered to demonstrate that 3.X is the same as 1e in this respect doesn't mean I asked for it, nor that I had to be shown it.

This would be similar to my stating that 1 + 1 = 2 in a number of responses to you, and then claiming that you had to be shown that 1 + 1 = 2.

(2) I was under the impression that Rule 0 wasn't in the 3.5 DMG, and I am happy to hear that I am wrong. Some time back, I was in a discussion involving the rules and I stated that a DM call is within the rules due to Rule 0. The response I received was "Point to Rule 0 in the 3.5 PHB" or words to that effect. A subsequent poster pointed out that Rule 0 was in the 3.5 DMG.

I'm sure I could locate the thread for you, if necessary.

However, I was clear in stating earlier what my impression was, and that I am glad that I had the wrong impression. I fail to see why either is a problem.

You have had to be shown where these things are stated in MANY 3.X books, including page number and book, and the best that you are reduced to at this point is the criticism, "It's not in big enough letters" or "They could say it more often."

Again, if you go back upthread (even to my last post, where I repeated it), you will see that DM-Rocco complained about (effectively) the way Rule 0 is presented. Hussar responded "How much more clearly can they state that the DM has total and complete control over what gets into the game?" I answered.

It's there, it's a rule and it's stated clearly. Commenting on the font size is just a smidgen silly, in my opinion.

Repetition is not clarity. Neither is font size. Neither is bolding, or italics.

The "QFT" tag so often used in forums such as this is clear example of a way that repetition adds emphasis. Font size, bold, and italics are also used for emphasis. If you are arguing that "clarity" exists in terms of wording, then you are certainly correct. The way something is worded determines how clear its message is. However, if that wording appears within a given context, such as a small part of a larger work, the wording of that small section alone isn't enough to determine its importance related to the whole.

If you are trying to emphasize that a point is important, you might consider repetition, font size, bolding, and italics. For example, were I writing a murder mystery, I would have to refer to the clues often enough to "play fair" with the reader -- repetition indicates importance. Indeed, the examples Hussar provided demonstrate that WotC agrees to some degree....Rule 0 is brought up in several instances, and, in at least one case, in bold.

Earlier in the thread, my criticism was for the dismissal of the fact that changes have occured in the emphasis of "Rule 0" over editions. This is not a criticism of any edition -- many have argued that the de-empahsis of Rule 0 in 3.X is a good thing that prevents egotistical DMs from "forcing" them to play in bad games. I certainly criticise the reasoning that says, "Emphasis of Rule 0 is the same in all editions" on one thread (because they might see de-emphasis of Rule 0 as a criticism of their favorite edition) and also "De-emphasis of Rule 0 in 3.X is a good thing" on other threads (because it suits their agenda there).

You simply cannot have it both ways.

"Enough" is a weasel word. It's there, it's clear and arguing for some opaque "level of change" is an argument that proves nothing, nor demonstrates nothing.

Is one monster enough?

One class?

One level?

One race?

"Enough" is not a weasel word, at least not as I define "weaseling". I define "weaseling" as making mutually contradictory arguments based upon whatever seems to support you at the time (i.e., "Emphasis of Rule 0 is the same in all editions" but "De-emphasis of Rule 0 in 3.X is a good thing"), or phrases designed to create an ever-shifting burden of proof.

Given the question, "Is there enough emphasis on Rule 0 in 3.X?" the obvious question is, as I am sure you know. "What constitutes enough emphasis?" Clearly "enough" is as subjective in this case as it is when examining whether an edition grants "enough" or "too much" rules emphasis. In other words, it is clearly subjective.

What is not subjective is that the emphasis has changed. As I said before,

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.​

I don't know where I am being unclear here, or why you seem not to understand what I am saying. In discussing the differences between editions, it is important, as far as possible, to at least be honest about what those differences are. I am not saying that "1e is better than 3e" because of these changes; I am merely saying (as my initial response was intended to demonstrate, and which I have detailed in my previous post) that a statement to the effect that they are completely the same is wrong.

Or, as I asked Hussar earlier, are you saying that there is the same degree of emphasis on what we now call "Rule 0" in 1e and 3.X? Because, if you are not, I fail to see what you are arguing with me about.


RC

 

[RFisher]

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...

If you had hung around with my high school AD&D group in the mid-1980s, you would have heard the word "balance" come up quite a lot.

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

Yeah. I used to have flaming rows too. In my experience, though, the amount of arguing at the table is independent of system but directly proportional to my willingness to argue. (^_^) & even in my arguing days, I considered that part of the fun. (Still do on occasion, but I just do it a lot less & don't carry through to the flaming row level.)

 

[Umbran]

Raven Crowking and Molonel,

I think perhaps you should strongly reconsider the nature of your conflict before proceeding any further down these lines. Please consider addressing the positions more, and the personages less, and that nobody "wins" these things, so there is no actual need to defend yourself if it isn't otherwise constructive.