An Examination of Differences between Editions

[Raven Crowking]

That is strange! No wonder the company tanked.

What's even stranger is that the company didn't tank until they reversed that policy with 2e.

(And I'm not being snarky here; 1e said "players shouldn't buy something like 80% to 90% of our materials" and players are the majority of the D&D market. When 2e came out, that policy was reversed. Heck, even in 1e Unearthed Arcana included both DM & player sections, as did the Surival Guides. Why was it that only after they changed their policy regarding book sales, the company tanked.

I tend to think it had something to do with the burgeoning collectable card market, especially Magic: the Gathering, and TSR's attempt to gain a foothold on it with card and dice games like Spellfire, Blood Wars, and Dragon Dice.

Anyone else have any theories? Is this worth a separate thread?)

 

[RFisher]

I would *kill* for updated versions of both the domain rules and warmachine. i mean, even Conan -- the hack and slashiest of all D&D's inspirational material-- went to war and ruled nations between prying the gems out of giant statues.

Wasn't there something like that in one of Ray Winninger's Dungeoncraft articles in Dragon? ('Cause I discovered the classic D&D dominion rules because of that.)

A very good point. Some people think that not covering something in rules tends to create "swinging from chandeliers" creative stuff. For us, it created a game where something not covered by rules, wasn't done. Tactical aspects were mostly absent in our 1E games. Boring "roll-hit-roll-miss-roll-miss" combats.

Well, we never went as far as "swinging from chandeliers", but that wasn't what my group wanted.

In some ways, I think AD&D really confused this issue for my group. It seemed to swing between levels of abstraction. With very little explaination that this was really just a collection of (what had been) independent house rules. With very little guidance on why you might or might not want to use something in your game. It might have been better if AD&D had continued the base + supplements structure.

I think our classic Traveller games were much more coherent & went beyond the books much more freely.

There is no doubt that my ability to enjoy classic D&D as much as I am depends upon things I've learned here, at Dragonsfoot, on the Wizards OOP forum, on the Pied Piper boards, during the C&C playtest, & elsewhere during the last several years.

That said, I would've abandoned AD&D much, much sooner had our games been nothing but hp-attrition combats & truly random save-or-die traps. We did apply tactics to combat. We did have interesting explorations of not-entirely-arbitrary dungeons. We did do a lot of non-combat, non-dungeon things on role-playing & DM judgement (or fiat) alone.

Certainly, "Don't buy it unless you need it" is a strange marketing strategy!

No. It is smart marketing. If my company's sale force tried to sell enterprise products to our mid-sized customers, we wouldn't be one of the dominate players in our market. (Imperfect, like all analogies. So, please don't bother poking holes in the analogy.) The TSR of that period understood that the DMG wasn't for everyone, so they planned expected sales accordingly. That's why the PHB was a separate book from the DMG. That's why they had a separate D&D line, three (four if you count FITS) other role-playing games, board games, minigames, &c.

Even Wizards has never been first & foremost a D&D company.

 

[SuStel]

A very good point. Some people think that not covering something in rules tends to create "swinging from chandeliers" creative stuff. For us, it created a game where something not covered by rules, wasn't done. Tactical aspects were mostly absent in our 1E games. Boring "roll-hit-roll-miss-roll-miss" combats.

See, I just don't get that. The fun of role-playing games for me is the exercise of imagination. If we constrain our choices to what is laid out in the book, where is the imagination?

D&D began this game form by taking a set of wargame rules and saying, "Okay. Here's how you describe your figure. But we won't actually use a figure; just imagine him. You won't need one anyway: there's no board either. Just imagine one. In 3D. Now go on an adventure that this guy called the judge made up. Don't look for the list of possible moves; just imagine them. If you need some guidance on the most common actions in this game, here are a bunch of systems that work."

But then a bunch of people decided that no rules equals no actions, and that role-playing equals play-acting. Over the course of many years, the role-playing game changed. So nowadays D&D says, essentially, "Okay. Here's how you describe your figure. Buy our miniatures, or use tokens. Battle mats make nice playing boards. Now go on an adventure that this guy called the Game Master bought. Here's how you attack. Here's how you jump. Here's how you negotiate. Here's how you ride a horse. Here's how strong the opposition should be. Etc."

 

[S'mon]

Anyone else have any theories? Is this worth a separate thread?)

TSR signed a bad sale-or-return deal with a book distributor that resulted in a huge financial hit when a bunch of unsold games/books were returned, causing them to go bankrupt.

 

[DM-Rocco]

The sad thing is that, I think, for some of these people these statements are fact FOR THEM and they simply are unable to see that the issue is internal.

I'm all for books with feats and spells and PClasses. I don't look for roleplaying between the covers of a book. I look for roleplaying between my own ears. The books are for providing a good model of what I make up myself. And for me 3X blows away the prior editions in achieving this goal. Heck, there were other game systems before 3E that handily beat prior D&D editions on this count.

If other people find themselves at a loss of power as DM in 3E then I am quite happy to find myself not held down by the same artificial limitations. I guess I'm just lucky.

I won't debate Hussar in mindless babble, but I will respond to this.

I really didn't like 2nd edition and when my friends told me to check out 3rd edition, I said no. D&D to me, at that point, was a game that I told myself that I play in my youth and 2nd edition ruined it for me.

My friends kept pushing and I picked it up and I really liked the changes they made. I love feats, in fact, I want tons of feats and skills and spells. However, you can only have so many in one class and you must literally choose between thousands, if you are looking through all the books.

The first things MY friends and even I do is look at the feats and then the classes and then the items and spells when it comes to previewing new books and I know MY friends and I are not alone in that same thought process.

You can't have a thread like this without talking about the differences between editions. You just can't.

While I am sure that I am not the first to say these things, I hardly think I am making "sweeping allegations" here and I certainly didn't just chime in to pick a fight.

IMO (for the little people that means IN MY OPINION) I PERSONALLY think that the addition of feats, skills and so many spells that I can't count have ruined the game. I think that a simpler time with simpler rules not only puts more control in the DMs hand but respect too. I also think that the earlier versions of the game offered more mystery (because of the lack of rules) and thus greater power for the DM and fun for all.

That being said, I do play 3.5 and I do DM 3.5. I do love looking at the very things that I PERSONALLY think have ruined the game and I carefully select which books I allow. I know first hand how letting the characters have free reign over all the books can bring down a game. I also know how many rules lawyers there where in 1st edition and now that there are rules to cover just about any contingency, the rules lawyers have multiplied, divided, conquered and taken no prisoners. Why, because not only do they like to argue and every obscure rules there, but mostly because now someone went to great lengths to make sure that every “I” was dotted and every “T” crossed.

If you or others can’t see that as at least a partial truth, then I can’t even have a conversation about this.

Anyway, I agree with this poster, imagination and role-playing takes place in ones head. However, I think the 3.5, and more so the 3.0, rules have taken the game out of the DMs hands and given control of the game to the players; but that is just me.

 

[molonel]

I really didn't like 2nd edition and when my friends told me to check out 3rd edition, I said no. D&D to me, at that point, was a game that I told myself that I play in my youth and 2nd edition ruined it for me. My friends kept pushing and I picked it up and I really liked the changes they made. I love feats, in fact, I want tons of feats and skills and spells. However, you can only have so many in one class and you must literally choose between thousands, if you are looking through all the books. The first things MY friends and even I do is look at the feats and then the classes and then the items and spells when it comes to previewing new books and I know MY friends and I are not alone in that same thought process. You can't have a thread like this without talking about the differences between editions. You just can't. While I am sure that I am not the first to say these things, I hardly think I am making "sweeping allegations" here and I certainly didn't just chime in to pick a fight. IMO (for the little people that means IN MY OPINION) I PERSONALLY think that the addition of feats, skills and so many spells that I can't count have ruined the game.

I agree with nearly everything you've said, here. 2nd Edition AD&D killed the game for it. It absolutely murdered it. Rules bloat was, in my opinion, one of the primary reasons for that. The Complete Book of Whatever got SO tiresome, and when it started getting down to The Complete Book of Blue Left-Handed Elves Who Prefer Longswords, I left for greener pastures.

3rd Edition is well on its way to that fate, for some people. That's why I don't blame people for picking up Castles & Crusades, or going back to 1st Edition AD&D.

But you'll notice that in these nostalgic discussions, that's the very reason you don't see a lot of 2nd Edition AD&D people waxing poetic.

In 2nd Edition, the choice you had to make was to own the game. You HAD to decide what rules to allow. You HAD to decide what books to allow, and what optional rules. That's why a lot of 2nd Edition AD&D gamers had the ubiquitous 3-inch thick black three ring binder for houserules.

And that's what 3rd Edition gamers have to do. That, or leave for another system. And a lot of people are now choosing that option, too. Maybe 3rd Edition will kill the game for some folks the same way 2nd Edition killed it for me. Who knows?

I think that a simpler time with simpler rules not only puts more control in the DMs hand but respect too. I also think that the earlier versions of the game offered more mystery (because of the lack of rules) and thus greater power for the DM and fun for all.

This is where I disagree, though. Respect for the DM, and control, are NOT system dependent. I knew silly, Monty Haul DMs in 1st Edition. I saw them in 2nd Edition. You can put a rule in blazing, bright red 80-point font across the front of every rulebook, and it simply does not matter. Some people will follow it, and some people won't.

Mystery is not something any rulebook can create. I slogged through more than my share of cheesy 1st Edition modules, and I've also participated in, and created many mysterious, interesting stories in 3rd Edition.

Sometimes more is too much. But less is not always more.

That being said, I do play 3.5 and I do DM 3.5. I do love looking at the very things that I PERSONALLY think have ruined the game and I carefully select which books I allow. I know first hand how letting the characters have free reign over all the books can bring down a game. I also know how many rules lawyers there where in 1st edition and now that there are rules to cover just about any contingency, the rules lawyers have multiplied, divided, conquered and taken no prisoners. Why, because not only do they like to argue and every obscure rules there, but mostly because now someone went to great lengths to make sure that every “I” was dotted and every “T” crossed. If you or others can’t see that as at least a partial truth, then I can’t even have a conversation about this. Anyway, I agree with this poster, imagination and role-playing takes place in ones head. However, I think the 3.5, and more so the 3.0, rules have taken the game out of the DMs hands and given control of the game to the players; but that is just me.

It's not that feats and spells and prestige classes have ruined the game. But you can have too much of a good thing.

You MUST decide, as a DM, what you will and will not allow in a game. The rulebooks tell you to do so, and if you don't, then it's your own fault.

Blaming a book for not putting it in larger font is silly.

 

[DM-Rocco]

In my experience, I've never seen any issues of DM control in any of the versions of D&D I've played. The DM is the guy running the game. You can disagree with him, but you can hardly hold him hostage -- there won't be a game if you don't let it be on his terms.

Oh, I agree with you on that, but don't you think it is harder for a DM to maintain control in the current edition when the players can not only tell youthat you are wrong but can site the page and bring up the errata on-line. While you can over rule them as a house rule effect, you can't affect the sheer amount of weight they have on their side; can you?

That said, there has definitely been a change in the way supplements are presented between 2nd and 3rd edition. I used to want to work at TSR so I could produce some of the weirdly creative stuff they had in the 2nd edition days, like Dark Sun, Planescape, and Birthright. As I went through college and 3e came out, my desire to work in the gaming industry disappeared. The supplements shifted less toward stuff that was more a creative exercise than something you'd find in a regular campaign (i.e., Council of Wyrms) and more toward crunch and rules expansions to the core setting (i.e., the Complete books). The latter is better business, so I can't complain, but the former seemed much more fun to me as a writer.

I had such aspirations once as well, Planescape was my favorite. You have my empathy.

Two things I would like to note:

(1) The comment about min/maxing is not simply a "garbage line" because the game itself assumes some level of min/maxing, and you need to look forward in order to qualify for some things (feats, prestige classes), meaning that you must make careful selection of character abilities even in the low levels.

Role-playing games are largely about making meaningful decisions, IMHO. In 3.X, there is an emphasis on meaningful decisions during character creation, while at the same time there is an apparent disconnect between actual game play and the traditional rewards gained from game play.

By this I mean that, especially for those new to DMing, or who cut their teeth on 3.X, the Wealth-by-Level guidelines and the admonition to "Just say Yes" can mean that the PCs should have a certain level of wealth, as well as complete control over how that wealth is manifested, regardless of their actions in the game milieu.

If you read the book this way -- and judging by posts on EN World, many do -- decisions made while adventuring have less impact on character development in 3.X than in previous editions. This in turn makes those choices less meaningful, which increases the emphasis on more "meaningful" choices during character building.

Obviously, the game doesn't have to be played like this, but even a cursory examination of threads both on this site and on others demonstrates amply that the game is played like this at more than a few tables.

(Obviously, treasure is only one in-game mechanic to reward actions during play, as your own recent Bennies thread points out. However, the core 3.X books are fairly quiet on rewards that lie entirely within the hands of the DM to administer -- and, hence, that require braving the unknown to acquire.)

(2) I, for one, purchase RPG materials not only for their utilitie (i.e., crunchy bits), but also for reading. I want new ideas for using old material, discussions of world-building, and reminders of things that I might have overlooked. I enjoy the "fellow-to-fellow" tone that the older editions took. For me, the fluff is often more inspirational than the crunch.

In the case of a splatbook, I want to have the crunch, an interesting discussion of how the crunch might fit into a campaign, and some reasonable (and hopefully, fun to read) discussion of what the crunch is meant to represent fluff-wise.

Recently, I would say that Tome of Magic has done a good job in this respect. I just picked up Dungeoncraft about a week ago, and while I found it a bit uneven (mostly with regard to PrCs), but worth reading.

Well, that is the long version or what I was trying to say. 

I for one found the PHBII and the DMGII great books for different ways to look at the game and set a great tone for the players and the DMGII wasn’t even weighed down with feats, spells and classes.

I've been meaning to rewrite the rules for Epic Spellcasting for a while now. I think that the idea is sound, but you are right about the execution being 'borked'. I don't think the problem is hopeless by any means, and in fact the only thing I'd be worried about is the fact that skill enhancing items are way underpriced. But with a few restrictions on those and changes in the item creation rules, I don't see any reason why the Epic Seed rules couldn't be rewritten to something more sensible and worthwhile.

Even though I think the Epic rules are completely broken, I would love to see a workable Epic spell creation chart or system. Please let me know if you ever see this through.

I think that many people had a very different experience than I did with earlier editions of the game.

I started playing D&D in 1986 at the age of 12, with the "Red Box" D&D Basic Set (1983 Mentzer edition). The one with the Elmore painting of a red dragon on the cover, with all the interior art done by Elmore and Easley. We moved on quickly through the Expert, Companion, and Master sets -- nobody seemed to care for that silly rule about never being able to gain more than one level in a game session.

I started borrowing bits from AD&D in my games and after a year or two had pretty much switched over to the AD&D rules completely. I bought the 2nd Edition rules as soon as they came out (and had already been using some of the changes previewed in the Dragonlance Adventures and Greyhawk Adventures hardcovers), as well as all of the "Complete" PHBR series of books and Player's Option books (although by the mid-nineties I was losing interest).

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."

I'm not sure that I agree that 1st Edition was more of a "DM's game" and 3rd more of a "Players' game" -- but 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.

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 agree that there was an "expected wealth by level" that was implicitly assumed by the game as far back as I've every played it. A number of adventure modules even stated up front that characters will have a very difficult time if they don't have particular items or spells. Pre-generated characters in modules had treasure "appropriate" for their levels, and the DMG and MM had "Monster Levels" as a way of assessing the general toughness and appropriateness of monsters versus PCs of a particular level. A 12HD monster that can only be harmed by +4 or greater magic weapons certainly assumes a certain level of wealth and range of character levels. 3e simply gives actual guidelines on this so that DMs don't have to resort to having PCs items "stolen" if they were over-powered. The DMG clearly says that they are guidelines but warns DMs to consider all of the far-reaching implications of deviating too far from the base assumptions. And it warns DMs that if they give out less treasure, then the PCs will be weaker for their level than "average" and opponents of a normally appropriate CR may walk all over the PCs as a result.

The PHB 3.5 still clearly states "CHECK WITH YOUR DUNGEON MASTER" as the first step of character creation on page 4, and explains that he or she may have house rules which differ from the published rules. In the DMG 3.5, under the sections regarding the "role of the DM," it clearly states that the DM is in charge of the game and is the final authority on the game rules, even overriding rules that have been published. \

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.

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).

PCs haven't been leveling up significantly faster in 3e games in which I have played. But I haven't really played games in any edition where the players legitimately advanced from 1st level through any higher than about 8th level. It usually took 2-3 sessions of play to gain a level through the early levels back when I played 1e or 2e, and it hasn't really changed in 3e, from what I can see. And there is the oft-noted difference that 3e has been re-designed and re-balanced so that players will advance through to 20th level if they play long enough. A 12-level 1e character and a 12-level 3e character are not directly comparable, even though at first glance they may have similar hit point totals, base "to hit," access to spells and so on. Monsters are generally a lot tougher, and can do a lot more damage to PCs than in previous editions.

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.

I don’t know about that. Certainly 3.0 + has many options for higher level play, including the Epic rules, but there was some stuff for the 1st edition guys to advance to high levels. The Basic game had a bit more, even going into the Immortal rules” but AD&D did have a few modules for higher level play and Dungeon Magazine had modules for AD&D characters up to level 25+ once.

I think the misconception stems from when Gary Gygax announced once that if you made it to level 10, you might consider taking on a God, but there is not much more to do. However, his games where more intense and he held his players to a higher standard than the rest of us most likely did.

Dragon Lance had strict rule, which they broke for the villains, about not being able to go over level 20 and 2nd edition had a whole book, the name escapes me, about high level play.

I think the high level play is expanded more in the current edition, but there were many sources back then to deal with those who wanted high level play too. The ultimate high level play took place in a fictional idea of a 100th level adventure entitled The Throne of Bloodstone, a 1st edition module. You can’t even play such a thing today with 3.0 +.

I know, I tried. A year or so ago I tried to get a group of like minded people together on ENWorld and make a new 100th level module. You can’t do it. The epic rules, and the bulk of the D&D 3.0 + rules, greatly out balance the idea. The thread fell part.

Anyway, I think you are right about 3.5 being more for play above 10th level, maybe. But the games mathematics start to break down around 13th-15th level in a way that 1st edition really didn’t. I’M NOT CLAIMING ONE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER, IT IS MY OPINION (shouting is for the benefit of the peanut gallery) just that I think 3.5 tends to unbalance at higher levels and that there were options for higher level play in AD&D. I know, I have the character vault to prove it.

 

[molonel]

Oh, I agree with you on that, but don't you think it is harder for a DM to maintain control in the current edition when the players can not only tell you that you are wrong but can site the page and bring up the errata on-line. While you can over rule them as a house rule effect, you can't affect the sheer amount of weight they have on their side; can you?

Zuh?

Are we talking about lawyerly rules arguments, or what?

My games, in any edition - or any SYSTEM, for that matter (I play more than D&D) - don't get bogged down with rules arguments. I'll listen to a player's reasoning, and I'll consider it, but ultimately, my word is final. If I made a mistake, and the player's character suffers for it, I'll make it right. If I'm wrong, I admit it. If they benefit from it, and it doesn't unbalance the game, great. Christmas came early this year.

Why any DM should be afraid of losing control simply because players actually, like, read the books or keep up on the game enough to browse online errata is mindboggling to me. I think the Sage smokes crack, sometimes, and I've outright rejected his opinion on certain matters.

If someone can't summon the backbone to make a decision, then don't blame a rulebook for that.

 

[DM-Rocco]

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.

This reminds me of another difference in the editions. There seemed, IMO, to be more puzzles and tricks and traps to get around and solve in the early editions than in todays D&D. Sure you might have a complex puzzle in 3.5 D&D, but it is nothing a d20 disable traps check won't fix and you know 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...

I think in todays D&D there are more hit dice for classes and more damage from spells and way more damage ever from feats and the damage you can do with spells and weapons. People gather on the internet and find the best way to kill the universe by level 5, and it can be done in 3.0, I'm not sure about 3.5.

Anyway, if you house ruled something in AD&D, it was usually something simple like elves can dual class instead of multi class and didn't have to worry about level restrictions. This was a common one. You also, btw, IMO (In this case meaning IN MY OBSERVATION) tend to play more humans in the current edition than in the past. I think this stems from the bonus skills and the bonus feat. No matter how good the others races, it is just to hard to give up. No one I know plays any other races. But that is a different story and thread.

Anyway, if you house rule something in the current edition, you have more factors to contend with and more things to weigh. Say you house rule that instead of using the 3.5 rules for persistent spell you opt to house rule that your players can make use of the 3.0 rule instead. Now you have dramatically changed the nature of the game. You have allowed 2 full spell casting levels of spells available to be abused, and the players will do it. If you don’t think it makes a difference, make yourself a 18th level cleric and ask yourself what spells you would use it on if you had that feat as a 3.0 character and then ask yourself if you would even take that feat if you used it as a 3.5 character.

The difference is dramatic enough where I have seen a player make a new character because he didn’t like the 3.5 change. It ruined his whole character concept. That is something you have to weigh in 3.5 that would not be a factor in AD&D because the AD&D game didn’t have things like that that really broke the game; and that is a minor example.

*Tangent: Why the hell isn't there a Sailing skill in 3.5? i mean, they've got appraise when it could just as easily be covered by pretty much any profession or craft skill, but no skill for being able to make a boat go where you want it to go other than Profession: Sailor? i don't get it.

There is a Profession Salior skill in stormwrack and in the City State of the Invincible Overlord d20 source book, in case you are wondering

 

[DM-Rocco]

I agree with nearly everything you've said, here. 2nd Edition AD&D killed the game for it. It absolutely murdered it. Rules bloat was, in my opinion, one of the primary reasons for that. The Complete Book of Whatever got SO tiresome, and when it started getting down to The Complete Book of Blue Left-Handed Elves Who Prefer Longswords, I left for greener pastures.

3rd Edition is well on its way to that fate, for some people. That's why I don't blame people for picking up Castles & Crusades, or going back to 1st Edition AD&D.

But you'll notice that in these nostalgic discussions, that's the very reason you don't see a lot of 2nd Edition AD&D people waxing poetic.

In 2nd Edition, the choice you had to make was to own the game. You HAD to decide what rules to allow. You HAD to decide what books to allow, and what optional rules. That's why a lot of 2nd Edition AD&D gamers had the ubiquitous 3-inch thick black three ring binder for houserules.

And that's what 3rd Edition gamers have to do. That, or leave for another system. And a lot of people are now choosing that option, too. Maybe 3rd Edition will kill the game for some folks the same way 2nd Edition killed it for me. Who knows?



This is where I disagree, though. Respect for the DM, and control, are NOT system dependent. I knew silly, Monty Haul DMs in 1st Edition. I saw them in 2nd Edition. You can put a rule in blazing, bright red 80-point font across the front of every rulebook, and it simply does not matter. Some people will follow it, and some people won't.

Mystery is not something any rulebook can create. I slogged through more than my share of cheesy 1st Edition modules, and I've also participated in, and created many mysterious, interesting stories in 3rd Edition.

Sometimes more is too much. But less is not always more.



It's not that feats and spells and prestige classes have ruined the game. But you can have too much of a good thing.

You MUST decide, as a DM, what you will and will not allow in a game. The rulebooks tell you to do so, and if you don't, then it's your own fault.

Blaming a book for not putting it in larger font is silly.

For the record, please don't get me mixed up in the rule 0 debate. I know that the DM is in control and I know it states it in almost every book, 'nuff said.

That being said, I was not so much complaining on my own behalf, but on other DMs who I know for a fact have had problems.

Sure, like every Dm, I have my own share of problem players and troublesome rules, but for the most problem they go through a trail phase and if my friend and I can't figure out a way to break it (and we try hard) then we will gerally allow it.

As to respect for the DM and such, I agree that it mainly comes down to DM choices and discipline. My point is that it makes the DMs job hard to keep order when the player has more rules to throw at the DM. Not because he can’t keep order or because of rule 0, but because it takes away from the creativity of everyone at the table when a rules lawyer breaks out 30 books and shows him where he is wrong.

It is not that the DM can’t handle the problem or rule that he is in charge and the rules does or does not apply, it is that every time they have to, it takes away from the atmosphere of the game.

I think 3.0 + is great for new DMs because the rules are clearer, but there comes a point when the rules put the DM to the test and they can easily be lead by players because they are just following suit for what the rules say is correct.

Don’t get me wrong, AD&D had problems too and we had yelling screaming and once a fist fight over the rules, but since there was generally less rules, the DM, INO had more control.

3.5 is really good if you keep to the core books and tightly control other content. However, I field many local questions at the local hobby score and the non core rules cause many of the problems.

Just my experience.