D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

[Hussar]

Just to add to the point about 1e's organization.

You want your 2nd level fighter to attack an orc wearing chainmail. You need to reference the following:

• Fighter attack matrix
• Weapon vs Armor and damage chart
• Orc's HD to generate it's HP

Just those three things, for the most basic action you can take in AD&D, requires reference to at least 2 books (since the orc is listed in the DMG) and usually 3. Add in 2 more orcs and attack the fighter and now you have to reference the shield rules and the flanking rules, which are located in separate places as well.

Basic tasks should not require referencing three different books in order to adjudicate. Not in a well designed book. There's a reason 2e put the saves and THAC0 matrixes in the PHB.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But again, I'm not talking about things like "class parity" or anything to do with the 'feel' of the game etc when you are playing it. I'm only talking about actual organizational, layout, human factors, and some other things along those lines. Obviously NOTHING in the world except the most trivial sorts of facts can be utterly reduced to pure subjectivity, but just consider some very straightforward examples. You can in 4e calculate your attack bonus ahead of time, and it won't change in play unless you level. In 1e you have to consult charts to determine what target numbers are required to hit, and there are any number of ways that your character's strength or even level can change during play. One method avoids overhead during play and the other doesn't. Given that they both accomplish the the same thing, one is as objectively better than the other as it is possible for something in an RPG to be.

I mean its fine to talk about how some things are more or less subjective, but at some point any sort of discussion at all becomes pointless unless we can acknowledge that indeed there are actually better ways of doing some things. I realize you feel compelled to resist any notion of a favorable comparison between editions you like and ones you don't like, but don't overplay it. Its perfectly OK to like things that lack the same objective quality as other things. Plenty of us like old cars, but I would never suggest that some old Chevy from 1972 is in any functional respect on a par with a modern automobile (even a Chevy).

And I am conceding that 1E has some clunky elements. What I reject is the notion that 4E represents an objectively better design than say 3E. No one is arguing we should go back to Thaco or attack matrices. No one is suggesting that we should use six mechanically different sub systems for six different parts of the game (with some being roll under and others being roll over). So if next does take elements of 1e and 2e, I assume it will be with modern expectations of streamlining. But you seem to be arguing that 4e is some kind of peak state of game design and all these moves away from it represent a return to inferior methods. I just dont think that is what is going on.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Didn't Gygax basically organize it as he wrote, while adding things he missed from the earlier two books?

Who knows? As Nagol said, there is an overall topical organization, which presumably Gary intended to guide you through things in the order you would most need to know them (char gen is first, then general explanations of how the game is played, various rules for things that are likely to come up in games, spellcasting, then the combat system, and into more abstract campaign and world building stuff). I doubt he wrote the whole thing from front to back. More likely different aspects came from notes, rewriting of OD&D material, articles Gary wrote, etc. The basic organization is OK. There's a lot of reliance on things like charts that are run into text, and the general "I'll just toss some sort of dice expression in there" kind of technique Gary used makes it hard to run a game and actually use his material as-written without looking things up and searching around in the text for what you want. Later editions, even 2e, moved gradually away from those habits. That generally improves comprehension and easy of reference. These topics were addressed specifically in statements made by the 4e developers, where they talk about actually play testing for usability and layout for instance. You can see that focus pretty clearly as even after 4e was released they continued to actively improve human factors, introducing an improved monster stat block for instance, adding terrain powers, and experimenting with different layouts such as in Essentials.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Just to add to the point about 1e's organization.

You want your 2nd level fighter to attack an orc wearing chainmail. You need to reference the following:

• Fighter attack matrix
• Weapon vs Armor and damage chart
• Orc's HD to generate it's HP

Just those three things, for the most basic action you can take in AD&D, requires reference to at least 2 books (since the orc is listed in the DMG) and usually 3. Add in 2 more orcs and attack the fighter and now you have to reference the shield rules and the flanking rules, which are located in separate places as well.

Basic tasks should not require referencing three different books in order to adjudicate. Not in a well designed book. There's a reason 2e put the saves and THAC0 matrixes in the PHB.

Did anybody use weapon vs armor charts? I played 1E from the late 70s until the late 90s, when I started 2E and I never even heard of anybody using those charts.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And I am conceding that 1E has some clunky elements. What I reject is the notion that 4E represents an objectively better design than say 3E. No one is arguing we should go back to Thaco or attack matrices. No one is suggesting that we should use six mechanically different sub systems for six different parts of the game (with some being roll under and others being roll over). So if next does take elements of 1e and 2e, I assume it will be with modern expectations of streamlining. But you seem to be arguing that 4e is some kind of peak state of game design and all these moves away from it represent a return to inferior methods. I just dont think that is what is going on.

Well, again, it isn't about whether you like 3e (say) more than 4e or if someone wants to assert that they feel like 3e is subjectively a 'better game' (obviously for them). As you say, THAC0 was clearly a bit better than an attack matrix, and 3e's d20 mechanic was a bit better than that, and 4e's is just a slightly better presented and slightly more consistently used version of 3e's. I mean, clearly, if you like 3e material more than 4e material then that's fine, but you're still giving up some positive features like "don't have to recalculate all the numbers when a buff ends" with 3e. Like I just said above, human factors issues like the way power blocks, monster stat blocks etc are laid out was literally tested objectively with people and demonstrated improvements. These are perfectly well established product design techniques that are used all over every day. There's very little subjective about that beyond the "I just love it because it is uglier and quirkier" sort of thing. That's again fine, but lest we not be able to have any reasonable discussion in the world at all about the merits of anything there has to come a point where we deem some things to be sufficiently objective to treat like facts.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Did anybody use weapon vs armor charts? I played 1E from the late 70s until the late 90s, when I started 2E and I never even heard of anybody using those charts.

I think just about every DM looked at them and said "WOW, THAT'S AMAZING" along with tracking every arrow, material spell components, and detailed encumbrance (Gygax gives some amazingly involved examples in the "Appendix O: ENCUMBRANCE OF STANDARD ITEMS" in 1e DMG). Few of these things survived for long, though I've heard of DMs insisting they enforced the various rules strictly. Usually the Weapon Vs Armor chart went out when the DM quickly realized that nobody knows what armor 99% of all monsters are wearing, and even for the ones where it IS stated you had to go read through the MM entry to find it. At that point all but the most detail obsessed DMs tossed it. I think Gygax actually said something about putting them in being a 'mistake'. OTOH I expect he was one that tracked encumbrance and components exactly...

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, again, it isn't about whether you like 3e (say) more than 4e or if someone wants to assert that they feel like 3e is subjectively a 'better game' (obviously for them). As you say, THAC0 was clearly a bit better than an attack matrix, and 3e's d20 mechanic was a bit better than that, and 4e's is just a slightly better presented and slightly more consistently used version of 3e's. I mean, clearly, if you like 3e material more than 4e material then that's fine, but you're still giving up some positive features like "don't have to recalculate all the numbers when a buff ends" with 3e. Like I just said above, human factors issues like the way power blocks, monster stat blocks etc are laid out was literally tested objectively with people and demonstrated improvements. These are perfectly well established product design techniques that are used all over every day. There's very little subjective about that beyond the "I just love it because it is uglier and quirkier" sort of thing. That's again fine, but lest we not be able to have any reasonable discussion in the world at all about the merits of anything there has to come a point where we deem some things to be sufficiently objective to treat like facts.

I think what I object to is you seem to be pointing to a few cleaned up elements in 4E and arguing that makes the entire design of it superior to 3E. I would argue 3E is
better designed than 4E, even if 4E cleans up a few odd bits.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I think what I object to is you seem to be pointing to a few cleaned up elements in 4E and arguing that makes the entire design of it superior to 3E. I would argue 3E is
better designed than 4E, even if 4E cleans up a few odd bits.

Then you would have a very hard sell on your hands.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Then you would have a very hard sell on your hands.

My point isnt that you ought to agree with me. But that this is pretty hotly debated and acting like there is a widely embraced conclusion that 4E is better designed I think gets us no where. There are a lot of criticisms of 4E, and many are on design grounds. Just as 3E gets its share.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

My point isnt that you ought to agree with me. But that this is pretty hotly debated and acting like there is a widely embraced conclusion that 4E is better designed I think gets us no where. There are a lot of criticisms of 4E, and many are on design grounds. Just as 3E gets its share.

I don't think anyone is pretending that it's widely embraced, but I don't think that conclusion [that it's better designed, as distinct from a better design] is all that far off the mark. Obviously some will disagree.