Define "___-edition feel"?

[woodelf]

1st Edition Feel: I didn't play 1st edition a whole lot. By the time I was introduced to D&D, 2nd edition was in full swing.

3rd Edition: [...] and for the first time ever anybody is allowed to make suppliments for D&D rather than the company that owns it.

The first comment probably explains the error of the 2nd comment: You've probably never heard of Judges Guild, Arduin Grimoire, Grimtooth's Traps, the Role-Aids line, and the many other companies that made their living doing D&D products around the time of AD&D1, and probably don't remember when Arms Law was an AD&D add-on, rather than it's own game system. It is my firm belief that part of the reason TSR didn't crack down on early 3rd-party D&D supplements was that they were aware they had no legal standing. (The other reasons included being too small to afford legal action, being nice people, and recognizing that the supplements probably helped D&D sales more than they hurt them, as well as likely others.) But then TSR got big enough, and the management got selfish enough, to pursue shutting down 3rd-party producers, and it was enough the big fish that most people rolled over rather than fight. Which set the stage for WotC to make questionable claims about what can and can't be legally done in the realm of 3rd-party RPG products, and then "generously" "give away" the rules.

 

[Belegbeth]

If i had to sum up D&D3E in two words, it'd be "video-gamey". Another way of putting it would be that it's much more mechanically focused. The two elements that most influence its feel for me are the complexity of the rules, and the game-ness of the rules. Moreso than previous editions, it feels very concerned about artifical constructs like balance, and thus you get lots of mechanics that favor balance over verisimillitude (the paladin pokemount being the most egregious example of this i can think of). It feels more like a computer game, with carefully-quantified options at every turn, and clear-and-present limitations on exactly what you can and can't do. And I know i'm probably gonna start a flamewar with this one, but core-book D&D3E is definitely the most complex of any of the editions (just looking at the core 2-3 books)--there's *way* more mechanical complexity to just about everything. Yes, it's got a unified underlying mechanic, but the sheer volume of detail is still much greater. It is also the most combat-oriented of the editions, with combat emphasized over just about everything else (look at monster descriptions, frex, or the distribution of feats--or the fact that wizards are way more combat-worthy in 3E than any previous edition). All of these things remind me more of Final Fantasy than of previous editions of D&D.

I largely agree with this sentiment. While there are many things about 3E that I like very much -- and I DO think you can run a great RP-focused campaign with 3E -- the rules do seem to encourage a focus/obsession with mechanics. And combat seems to take three times longer in 3E than in earlier editions.

There is also a distinctive AESTHETIC quality to the 3E books (and official WotC materials in general) that distinguishes them from, say, the 1E books. From the annoying pseudo-Anime artwork, to the "faux parchment" pages, the 3E books lack the quirkiness and charm found in the 1E books. They are too slick for their own good, IMO. In particular, the 3E books typically have a very "cartoonish" feel to them, and the artists all appear to be trying to emulate the same style. (There are one or two notable exceptions, e.g. J. Foster.) Now, I know that a lot of the artwork in 1E was really bad, but some of it was quite good, and at least much of it was *very* distinctive (e.g. the stuff by Trampier, Jeff Dee, and Erol Otus). More generally, the 1E books had a "charming and quirky" character to them -- from Gygax's distinctive style of writing, to the markedly different kinds of illustrations found within them -- that the 3E books completely lack.

Finally, another thing that few people have mentioned so far is the "power curve" difference between 1E and 3E. In 1E it generally took a LONG time to build up a powerful character. If you played frequently in a campaign over one year, you might get your PC up to level 6 or 7. Characters over level 15 were legendary or "epic" in stature. In 3E, by contrast, characters level up VERY quickly; after one year, you might have a PC that is level 14 or 15. In addition, at each level 3E characters get many more new abilities (feats, skills) than did 1E characters. The result: 18th level "archmages" in 3E are both far more common and more powerful in 3E than 18th level "archmages" in 1E. [Even one of the designers of 3E, Andy Collins, has noted this feature/problem of 3E (and IIRC, according to his website, has consequently halved the experience rewards for characters in his campaign).]

This "power inflation" in 3E contributes, I think, to its "video game" character: players want their characters to level up very quickly in order to get new abilities, just like they do in their favourite video games.

These criticisms aside, I DO think that the 3E rules, overall, make more sense than the 1E rules. 3E is a fine game, IMO, if you cut down on the experience rewards and streamline the combat system.

But in terms of "feel" or "style," 1E had (way) more character.

 

[Dark Jezter]

There is also a distinctive AESTHETIC quality to the 3E books (and official WotC materials in general) that distinguishes them from, say, the 1E books. From the annoying pseudo-Anime artwork, to the "faux parchment" pages, the 3E books lack the quirkiness and charm found in the 1E books. They are too slick for their own good, IMO. In particular, the 3E books typically have a very "cartoonish" feel to them, and the artists all appear to be trying to emulate the same style. (There are one or two notable exceptions, e.g. J. Foster.) Now, I know that a lot of the artwork in 1E was really bad, but some of it was quite good, and at least much of it was *very* distinctive (e.g. the stuff by Trampier, Jeff Dee, and Erol Otus). More generally, the 1E books had a "charming and quirky" character to them -- from Gygax's distinctive style of writing, to the markedly different kinds of illustrations found within them -- that the 3E books completely lack.

The artwork in the 3rd edition rulebooks is about as anime as Norman Rockwell.

The rest of your post is strictly opinion, and thus I won't argue with it. Personally, I find the artwork and layout of the 3e rulebooks to be far superior to the artwork and layout of previous editions. I'll take Todd Lockwood, Wayne Reynolds, and Sam Wood over artists like Earl Otus and Larry Elmore any day.

Finally, another thing that few people have mentioned so far is the "power curve" difference between 1E and 3E. In 1E it generally took a LONG time to build up a powerful character. If you played frequently in a campaign over one year, you might get your PC up to level 6 or 7. Characters over level 15 were legendary or "epic" in stature. In 3E, by contrast, characters level up VERY quickly; after one year, you might have a PC that is level 14 or 15. In addition, at each level 3E characters get many more new abilities (feats, skills) than did 1E characters. The result: 18th level "archmages" in 3E are both far more common and more powerful in 3E than 18th level "archmages" in 1E. [Even one of the designers of 3E, Andy Collins, has noted this feature/problem of 3E (and IIRC, according to his website, has consequently halved the experience rewards for characters in his campaign).]

This "power inflation" in 3E contributes, I think, to its "video game" character: players want their characters to level up very quickly in order to get new abilities, just like they do in their favourite video games.

The faster leveling of 3e was intentional. WotC's research found that the average D&D campaign lasts for 12-18 months, with about 4 sessions per month. So, if there are 4 combat encounters per session, the players will level up at a rate of about 1 level per month, and will be able to expirience a wide range of levels before the campaign ends.

Additionally, the Dungeon Master's Guide already includes variant rules for faster/slower leveling.

 

[Belegbeth]

The artwork in the 3rd edition rulebooks is about as anime as Norman Rockwell.

The rest of your post is strictly opinion, and thus I won't argue with it. Personally, I find the artwork and layout of the 3e rulebooks to be far superior to the artwork and layout of previous editions. I'll take Todd Lockwood, Wayne Reynolds, and Sam Wood over artists like Earl Otus and Larry Elmore any day.

The faster leveling of 3e was intentional. WotC's research found that the average D&D campaign lasts for 12-18 months, with about 4 sessions per month. So, if there are 4 combat encounters per session, the players will level up at a rate of about 1 level per month, and will be able to expirience a wide range of levels before the campaign ends.

Additionally, the Dungeon Master's Guide already includes variant rules for faster/slower leveling.

Well, I DID say PSEUDO-Anime. Perhaps that was not the best description -- I should have stuck with "cartoonish." (And as someone from the pre-Anime era, Anime all looks "cartoonish" to me...)

Also, I should emphasized that I was talking about EARLY (pre-DL) 1E art. Elmore's art was not part of the original 1E books. (I don't think his covers replaced the originals until something like the 7th printing of the PH and DMG. Or was that Easley? I always confuse those two. My DMG and PH covers have the original "Efreet" and "Temple" scenes on them.) I have never been a fan of Elmore myself (and did not mention him in my post as an example). And there were many mediocre artists in the 1E books (DCS III comes to mind).

In any case, my aesthetic point was that even if the 3E art is technically superior to 1E art overall, it is not really that distinctive. With the exception of J. Foster, all the artists appear to be emulating the same style. In contrast, artists like Otus, Trampier, and Dee were all quite distinctive. Sure you might not like them, but at least the early books were willing to include art that did not all strive to realize a single style.

In short, the early books do not have a "safe and slick" aesthetic quality to them.

Finally, I never denied that the faster leveling of 3E was intentional. So what? It still reflects "power inflation." And like printing more money, it devalues each level gained. I am glad that there are optional rules for slower progress; I use them. But that does not change the fact that the "baseline" for level progress in 3E is much higher than 1E.

This thread concerns the different "feel" of different DnD editions. This is one such difference.

Your reply appears to assume that I am trying to slam 3E. I am not.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Or was that Easley?

Easley.

 

[hong]

But in terms of "feel" or "style," 1E had (way) more character.

Also more syllables.


Hong "misses milieu, dweomer and grand master of flowers" Ooi

 

[Dark Jezter]

Finally, I never denied that the faster leveling of 3E was intentional. So what? It still reflects "power inflation." And like printing more money, it devalues each level gained. I am glad that there are optional rules for slower progress; I use them. But that does not change the fact that the "baseline" for level progress in 3E is much higher than 1E.

That argument is fallacious because you are comparing amount of currency to speed of level gain. To be more accurate, you would have to compare total amount of currency in the economy to total amount of possible levels, or speed of currency production to speed of level gain. Even that way, it's a bad analogy because currency and character levels are apples and oranges.

WotC designed the rate of 3e level growth with the greatest amount of players in mind. It's not to everyone's liking, and they are free to speed up or slow down level progression as they see fit. I do disagree that gaining levels at the 3e rate somehow makes them less valued than gaining them at 1e rate, though. My players are still plenty happy every time they gain a level.

Your reply appears to assume that I am trying to slam 3E. I am not.

I'm sorry if you got that impression from my last post. Mainly, I was trying to explain that 3e artwork is not very anime-ish at all (with the exception of 1 or 2 pices), as well as the rationale behind faster leveling.

 

[Belegbeth]

That argument is fallacious .

It was not fallacious -- though it was perhaps a bit quick (I was not trying to make a formal argument here). All things being equal, the more common something is, the less valuable it is. This principle is not a case of "comparing apples and oranges" (or whatever).

Levelling is more rapid, and hence more common, in 3E. Consequently, high level characters (PC and NPC) are more common. 18th level archmages capable of casting meteor swarm are more common. Hence they are less "special" and valuable. In 1E an 18th level archmage was really something special; in 3E they do not seem that special at all.

Similar points have been made about the differences between 1E FR and 3E FR. Terms like "magic inflation" and "power inflation" have been used to describe the differences between these editions of FR. (I never used FR much, so I cannot comment on the details here; it is just interesting to note that others have made similar observations about this difference between the editions.)

This is a signficant difference between 1E and 3E (I guess that 2E is somewhere inbetween; aside from the Baldur's Gate games I never played it).

Consequence?

Playing 1E has a "feel" more like a Leiber or Vance novel. Playing 3E has a "feel" more like Final Fantasy (or some other video/computer game).

This does not mean that 3E rules do not make more sense. They do. And it is certainly possible to tweak 3E in certain ways to recreate the 1E "feel" in one's campaign. (And of course some people actually *prefer* Final Fantasy to reading Leiber or Vance :\ .)

The fact that your players are still happy to go up levels does not invalidate this point. Hell, I am still happy when I find a ten dollar bill, even though it is worth a lot less than a ten dollar bill twenty years ago.

But you are quite right that an advantage of 3E is that different groups can adopt different rates of progression to suit their needs. So it is possible for DMs to impose some "fiscal prudence" to their campaigns' power levels.

 

[rounser]

Well, I DID say PSEUDO-Anime. Perhaps that was not the best description -- I should have stuck with "cartoonish." (And as someone from the pre-Anime era, Anime all looks "cartoonish" to me...)

I know you're trying to articulate something negative about the 3E artwork, and I think it's a poor selection for D&D too...but I disagree with your criticism.

For starters, a lot of D&D artwork is cartoonish since the earliest editions, and suits it fine, IMO. Some of the best D&D artwork is comic book style in the extreme (I recommend checking out the Brothers Fraim - google them up sometime). Secondly, there's a recent thread where it was firmly established that D&D artwork isn't anime. What it does have is too many lifeless shots of a character posing for the camera, and photoshop artifacts which IMO look lousy.

The odd thing is that the preview sketches for 3E looked great. The art direction and the photoshopping and colour sucked all the life out of it IMO. WAR is capable of fantastic black and white work in a 1E style (look at Deep Dwarven Delve) but for marketing reasons (i.e. colour sells, iconics to get sentimental over presumably) the artwork has been compromised in it's ability to produce what D&D needs from it's artwork.

I think ENWorld established on some artwork threads that D&D needs artwork which features adventures in progress, or otherwise excites the imagination. Kitted up iconics posing for the camera fail this test; they lack context, which is incredibly important when trying to imagine a fantasy world. The only piece which truly set my imagination on fire in the core books, and had me studying it for some time and wondering is the battlefield scene in the DMG with soldiers and spellcasters at war...whereas 1E core books are full of such stuff, a lot of it seemingly arbitrary, but at least it fired the imagination.

 

[Psion]

the paladin pokemount being the most egregious example of this i can think ofthe paladin pokemount being the most egregious example of this i can think of

To be fair, that's 3.5e not 3e.