D&D General Comparisons of D&D editions with Lew Pulsipher

[Sacrosanct]

I know this is a couple months old, but well worth the listen. It's an interview with Lew Pulsipher. In case you don't know, Lew is an iconic award winning game designer who has been there since day 1. Some of his more recognizable contributions to D&D are the elemental princes of Evil as they appeared in Fiend Folio. Start at around the 19 minute mark for the commentary I'm referring to.

Note: This is not meant to be an edition war. Rather, it's one person's feelings on how each edition felt to them and how they expected the game of D&D to feel to them. It illustrates how we all have different preferences and expectations about how the game is to be played, and neither is right or wrong, just different.

One thing that really stood out to me was how for Lew, one of the biggest expectations for D&D is that it's a team based game, and when he talks about 4e, he felt that despite the things he didn't like about 4e, it brought back that team aspect that 3e got away from. And his discussion about his opinions on higher level play, party size, etc were very interesting. And how in his observation, people with video gaming backgrounds tend to focus on the end game (destination) rather than the journey itself, due to how fast you level in video games, and how that has impacted the game itself over editions.

Anyway, I found this a fascinating listen to hear his perspective of how the game grew and changed from edition to edition, and from generation to generation. Agree or disagree, his perspective is well worth hearing, and he certainly seems to have a well researched argument for his positions. For example, large parties never really set well with me even back in the day, but I can totally understand where Lew is coming from when he talks about that.

For me, having started fairly early in the lifecycle of D&D in 1981, it was interesting to hear this, and while there is nothing wrong with how the game is played today, knowing how it was originally played and has grown over the years really helps put everything else into perspective and context. There's a certain level of appreciation gained there.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I quite enjoy the Grognard Files podcast. It's an interesting interview, though I disagree with some of Pulsipher's observations and assumptions about play then and play now. But he is right about 4e being very much about teamwork. There were so many abilities that granted allies this that or the other modifier, user of a healing surge, or some other thingamajig.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Interesting interview.

Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to have a conversation about the topic without it devolving into a reasonable internet discussion about 4e, so I will have to pass.

 

[el-remmen]

I found this convo interesting. I remember the days of 8-player groups, but that just feels unmanageable these days. Four (five max) just feels like the perfect number from a social aspect, so building the game around that makes sense - though I do agree (in hindsight) that 3E was too one-man warmachine and thus clunky (though some of the best games I ran were in 3E) and am really enjoying 5E's more free-wheeling approach, which honestly feels more like 2E than 1E (and the other best games I ran were in 2E).

4E might have been a fun game, but I agree with Pulsiper that it didn't feel like D&D - at least for me.

 

[Wrathamon]

I found this convo interesting. I remember the days of 8-player groups, but that just feels unmanageable these days. Four (five max) just feels like the perfect number from a social aspect, so building the game around that makes sense - though I do agree (in hindsight) that 3E was too one-man warmachine and thus clunky (though some of the best games I ran were in 3E) and am really enjoying 5E's more free-wheeling approach, which honestly feels more like 2E than 1E (and the other best games I ran were in 2E).

4E might have been a fun game, but I agree with Pulsiper that it didn't feel like D&D - at least for me.

I agree with this. I think 4e was very fun to DM but it didn't feel D&D. I personally feel 5e has that 1e feel with more modern mechanics and by 1e I dont mean the start off weak and die all the time but how I ran the game and felt as a player. Its probably why 1e conversions so far have worked so well.