An Examination of Differences between Editions

[hong]

I suspect... lots. This is without having read it.

My basic feeling is that urban campaigns/adventures are the toughest to pull off successfully, as they need you to juggle so many NPCs, as well as having so many potential paths for the PCs to take.

Cheers!

All paths lead to ninjae.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As I mentioned before, the prep I did do consisted of reading the module, doing some light photoshopping and data entry. The problems that I had came from poor design, which had very little to do with my prep time. Had the module been well designed, then I wouldn't have had any problems.

Like I said, I ran 3 full regions, about 8 levels of PC's, without doing a minutes prep work beyond the initial picture stuff and typing. Had I been playing tabletop, I would have had zero prep to do. I realize you would do massive prep, but, that's not a fault of the module. You don't have to do that. You can, if you choose, but, it's certainly not necessary.

Of course.

But the minute that design work is required (and you can never be certain from the outside of the package that it isn't) prep time increases.

Obviously, those who prefer to run something other than prepackaged adventures, or who feel the need to add, remove, and change elements of the prepackaged adventures they run, too. From your other posts, I had gotten the impression that you had made some changes to the reqions that you used.


RC

 

[Storm Raven]

And earlier editions allowed the DM to invest as little time in the game as the players did.

If I wanted to run adventures now in a similar manner to the way I ran adventures "back then", then the prep time would be just as minimal. Pulling foes directly from the MM is no more time consuming now than it was in 1982.

 

[RFisher]

Now this I find interesting. Outside of chargen, what could a player really do to invest his time in a DM's campaign in earlier editions? Any plans or ideas he may have would have to be vetted by the DM and could be vetoed pretty quickly by in game events. The player couldn't spend time thinking about equipment (completely the purview of the DM), hirelings or henchmen (again, DM), proficiencies weren't exactly time demanding, spells (DM, again). So, what could a player do with his time to add to his character outside of game time?

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." --Murphy's Rules of Combat

That things might not go as planned is not a reason to not plan. The considering of all the things you list happens without the DM present. Only the "vetting" itself requires the DM.

Unless the player or the DM are complete jerks or seriously mismatched in their approach to the game (with no effort to reconcile that), not every player idea is going to get outright veto'd. Rather (IME) little will, though the results might not be exactly what you expect, but that's part of the point of playing the game with other people, right?

If it is an issue of jerkitude or mismatched approaches, then you've got a much bigger problem than how involved the players can be.

Some players put just as much effort into their PC's backstory, personality, &c. as DMs put into their campaign settings. & many DMs will welcome their world being partially shaped by the players. Sometimes as far as letting them develop portions of the setting.

Of course, there's also the argument that the DM's job was easier, so that lowers the bar for players being as involved as the DM. (^_^)

Take the idea that 1e is humanocentric. This honestly never occured to me. The groups that I played in played mostly demi-humans. I was odd man out for playing humans usually.

I wanted 1e to be humanocentric & was always annoyed that it wasn't. I can enjoy a game that isn't, but I don't want that all the time.

This is one of the things that I really enjoy about Moldvay/Cook/Marsh D&D. As written, the limited range of non-human PC choices & their increased XP cost tends towards more human PCs but still with the occasional demihuman. & I have plenty of resources (from oD&D through the Gazs & Crucibles plus pretty good fan-made class creation rules) to make doing things different pretty easy when I want to.

(Although, for the "any race goes" kind of things, I think I'd prefer Gurps, Hero, Risus, or something else to anything D&D.)

 

[Hussar]

Of course.

But the minute that design work is required (and you can never be certain from the outside of the package that it isn't) prep time increases.

Obviously, those who prefer to run something other than prepackaged adventures, or who feel the need to add, remove, and change elements of the prepackaged adventures they run, too. From your other posts, I had gotten the impression that you had made some changes to the reqions that you used.


RC

Oh of course. However, that's the point. Just because I chose to spend time adding to the adventure doesn't mean that I had to. That was my choice. It always was in any edition. The idea that you can't run 3e out of the book is just wrong. Granted, you lose out on a lot of the customizability that way, but, you certainly don't have to any more than you had to in any other edition.

I wouldn't blame edition for bad module design. All editions have seen some bloody foetid piles of stinkiness.

Some players put just as much effort into their PC's backstory, personality, &c. as DMs put into their campaign settings. & many DMs will welcome their world being partially shaped by the players. Sometimes as far as letting them develop portions of the setting.

Of course, there's also the argument that the DM's job was easier, so that lowers the bar for players being as involved as the DM. (^_^)

However, this isn't limited to edition though. You can do that in any edition. What you cannot do in earlier editions is customize the mechanical aspects of your character after 1st level. Well, that's not true. There are a few things you can do, but, by and large, not a whole pile. 3e encourages players to spend time outside of the game working on mechanical changes to their character. These options simply weren't available previously.

Now, whether that's a good thing or not, depends on you POV.

 

[RFisher]

However, this isn't limited to edition though. You can do that in any edition. What you cannot do in earlier editions is customize the mechanical aspects of your character after 1st level. Well, that's not true. There are a few things you can do, but, by and large, not a whole pile. 3e encourages players to spend time outside of the game working on mechanical changes to their character. These options simply weren't available previously.

Now, whether that's a good thing or not, depends on you POV.

Agreed. My point was simply that not having those mechanical bits to twiddle never prevented players from being as involved as they wanted to be.

&--yeah--just as some DMs complain that (when not using a module) they feel required to twiddle with the mechanical bits when preparing to run 3e & that that takes time & effort away from other parts of DM prep that they'd rather focus on; I've felt a similar thing as a 3e player.

(Arguably a lot of the DM complaints about 3e stem from more of the PC rules being equally applied to monsters.)

But then someone comes along & says that you don't strictly need to twiddle those mechanical bits because they've managed to play 3e without doing so. Or that it's exaggeration because it just really isn't that hard--for them. & the point that there is a real difference between the editions; differences that make real differences in the experience for some of us; that it's easier for some of us to get the experience we want out of one edition, but harder with another... All of that so often gets lost as we descend into details. It's nice that we seem to be doing a decent job of avoiding that this time.

 

[Hussar]

It's interesting to bring up the idea of the players getting involved in the DM's world.

A lot of times, people start crying player entitlement if you start to do that. For example, if I want to play a warforged ninja in someone's pirate game, and the DM says no, aren't they basically saying that my imagination just isn't good enough for their game?

But, in earlier editions, DM's were encouraging players to do the same thing? I don't think so. At least not the DM's I played with. And probably not myself either. "No" was the easiest word to say and got said an awful lot.

I guess my question becomes, at what point does player involvement in campaign design become player entitlement?

 

[Raven Crowking]

A lot of times, people start crying player entitlement if you start to do that. For example, if I want to play a warforged ninja in someone's pirate game, and the DM says no, aren't they basically saying that my imagination just isn't good enough for their game?

No. They are saying that you are nor exercising your imagination to build the game at hand; you are instead building something more appropriate to some other game. Your imagination is no doubt good enough to add detail to a world by trying to include details that fit into what is presented.

Trying to include details that are contrary to what is presented isn't world-building, it's world-breaking. The DM is the ultimate arbiter of what fits and what does not, and hence (s)he has the authority to say No.


RC

 

[dcas]

Pulling foes directly from the MM is no more time consuming now than it was in 1982.

To be sure! However, I am not certain that the same thing can be said about NPCs.

 

[Reynard]

I guess my question becomes, at what point does player involvement in campaign design become player entitlement?

I think the difference is whether the player is willing to play his "warforged ninja" as a human rogue instead. That is, if the DM has good reasons, even if they are arbitrary that neither the warforged race nor the ninja class are allowed, the player should respect that. Not saying that the player can't go for a little negotiation ("How about we tweak the warforged?" or "Can I trade X thief ability for Y ninja ability?") but in the end, the DM does get final say. If the player stomps his feet and whines because he bought Races of Eberron and Complete Adventurer, that's an issue of player entitlement.