D&D 5E Defining "gamestyle" elements of D&D editions so far

[Li Shenron]

Sorry if this has been done too many times...

In light of one of the 5e's main design target, i.e. to support fans of all previous editions, what are the key elements that define the typical "gamestyle" of each past edition of D&D? You can mention either general properties or specific rules that significantly impact the style of playing at the table, but in the latter case it might be possible to extrapolate a property (e.g. "feats" basically represent fine customization of PCs via "add-ons" features, but the specific mechanic of feats is not necessarily the only way to implement that).

For example, IMXP some key aspects of 3e gamestyle are the following:

- system mastery, e.g. significant reward for PC optimization
- unbound accuracy, actually divergent numbers along level progression
- fine PC customization (e.g. feats, skills, multiclassing, tons of supplementary books)
- heavy tactical/battlemat combat due to precise movement rules, AoO, flanking, reach...
- very detailed action economy (also an aspect of heavy tactical combat)
- (fairly) low lethality at low- to mid-levels
- high randomness at high-levels, mostly due to save-or-die and other dramatic spells
- built-in equipment progression, wide availability of magic items assumed
- vancian magic (implies strongly daily-based strategy)
- gp and xp cost as a restriction for certain problematic spells or abilities

Obvious features such as "class-based system" that are common to all editions can be omitted.

What else in 3e and what in other editions strongly defined the gaming experience in them?

 

[DMZ2112]

- system mastery, e.g. significant reward for PC optimization
- unbound accuracy, actually divergent numbers along level progression

I feel like these traits have been present in every edition of D&D -- I would agree that D&D3.5 was the biggest example of both cases, however.

- heavy tactical/battlemat combat due to precise movement rules, AoO, flanking, reach...
- very detailed action economy (also an aspect of heavy tactical combat)
- (fairly) low lethality at low- to mid-levels

These are commonalities between D&D3 and D&D4.

- high randomness at high-levels, mostly due to save-or-die and other dramatic spells
- built-in equipment progression, wide availability of magic items assumed
- vancian magic (implies strongly daily-based strategy)
- gp and xp cost as a restriction for certain problematic spells or abilities

These are commonalities between D&D3 and the previous editions of D&D and AD&D.

- fine PC customization (e.g. feats, skills, multiclassing, tons of supplementary books)

This is, in my opinion, the defining characteristic of the D20/SRD/OGL continuum of RPGs. If I had to sum up that generation in one word, I'd pick "feat."

I think the defining characteristic of D&D4 is interaction with the environment, whether that environment is terrain, enemies, or even party members. "Synergy" might be a good word. Character design is all about maximizing cooperation and group efficiency, combat is all about using terrain and battlefield-changing powers to your advantage, and NPCs are unique set pieces presenting individual challenges to be overcome with the right combination of approaches.

AD&D2, for me, is all about story. Character customizability did not become a real thing until very late in the edition -- kits were more about being able to say "my fighter is an X" than they were about actually changing the way a character was played. Non-weapon proficiencies might as well have been adhesive stickers for all their mechanical impact. Even priests of different gods were mostly differentiated by their choice of weapon, of all things.

Combined with the heretofore unmatched deluge of setting detail that was published in the '90s, AD&D2 was more about the plot I was progressing and the people whom my player characters were than the number of encounters I had planned and whether or not they were "balanced."

If D&D5 does only /one thing/, I want that feeling back.

AD&D1 I need to think about.

 

[howandwhy99]

In 1e and earlier players actually engaged in discovery far more than personal invention. Memory and forethought mattered as well as ingenuity and creativity.

 

[Uller]

In 1e and earlier players actually engaged in discovery far more than personal invention. Memory and forethought mattered as well as ingenuity and creativity.

This is true. It applies to 2e as well (at least before we were spammed with all the kit books). I remember setting up scenarios where I had no idea how my players would overcome them. There were times they would go off in the corner and whisper plans among themselves so I wouldn't hear them. I didn't worry too much about encounter balance and such. I put a challenge their way and they looked for ways to defeat it, get around it or destroy it. I think this is very doable with 5e so far...but I also have had a lot of success constructing 3e style 'balanced' encounters (at least for lower level PCs)

 

[Sword of Spirit]

General:

OD&D was before my time; cannot comment.
BECMI was a primarily simulationist system.
AD&D was a primarily simulationist system.
3e was a hybrid simulationist/gamist system.
4e was a hybrid narrativist/gamist system.

People definitely play versions in ways other than the ones I listed, but those are the styles best supported by each system. Playing them in another manner requires fighting the system.

 

[DMZ2112]

In 1e and earlier players actually engaged in discovery far more than personal invention. Memory and forethought mattered as well as ingenuity and creativity.

This is apt. People joke about the Gygaxian dungeon master, but it is very true that in early D&D the dungeon master was encouraged to be far more objective than he is today, and players came to the table with less of a sense that they were in starring roles.

I don't mean to pass judgment -- I am intentionally and very carefully avoiding the use of the word "entitlement" -- but campaigns from late AD&D2 on have been "about" the PCs, where as previously they were "about" a crisis, which the PCs then resolved.

Character death is a great example of the changing state of play -- today it's a huge bogeyman, but back in the day death was just part of the job. I don't think players were less attached to their characters; there was just a better sense of perspective. The party's success was your success.

This is true. It applies to 2e as well (at least before we were spammed with all the kit books). I remember setting up scenarios where I had no idea how my players would overcome them. There were times they would go off in the corner and whisper plans among themselves so I wouldn't hear them. I didn't worry too much about encounter balance and such. I put a challenge their way and they looked for ways to defeat it, get around it or destroy it. I think this is very doable with 5e so far...but I also have had a lot of success constructing 3e style 'balanced' encounters (at least for lower level PCs)

I don't think the rules will ever again omit the "balanced encounter" or its companion concepts -- admittedly, they are a valuable guideline for the new dungeon master. It is up to those of us with more experience to remember that these numbers nothing /more/ than guidelines, and not let them command the logic of our scenarios and settings. I've known this for a long time, but it just doesn't seem to help.

 

[Gadget]

General:

OD&D was before my time; cannot comment.
BECMI was a primarily simulationist system.
AD&D was a primarily simulationist system.
3e was a hybrid simulationist/gamist system.
4e was a hybrid narrativist/gamist system.

People definitely play versions in ways other than the ones I listed, but those are the styles best supported by each system. Playing them in another manner requires fighting the system.

BECMI & AD&D were simulationist and 3e was only partially so? That is not my experience at all. I must be mixing up terms. Pre-d20 D&D was far more abstract, with it's one minute combat rounds and such. Maybe 3e gets the gamist node because of its unified mechanics and purported balance with CR, wealth by level and such? It seems to me that 3e was far more the-game-rules-are-the-physics-of-the-world than all the other editions, which is how I interpret simulationist.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

BECMI & AD&D were simulationist and 3e was only partially so? That is not my experience at all. I must be mixing up terms. Pre-d20 D&D was far more abstract, with it's one minute combat rounds and such. Maybe 3e gets the gamist node because of its unified mechanics and purported balance with CR, wealth by level and such? It seems to me that 3e was far more the-game-rules-are-the-physics-of-the-world than all the other editions, which is how I interpret simulationist.

And you would not be wrong with that interpretation. There are different ways of measuring simulationism. There definitely are ways in which 3e was more simulationist than AD&D. I'm trying to go from my overall impressions.

AD&D Simulationism:
+Ecology and Environment. Random encounters based on locale rather than party level. Detailed random weather.
+Event systems. Random social events, wars, and such. This was more optional than other components, but fit the tone of the game very well.
+Settings. The world must go on. The settings were definitely not based on the players. Published materials just kept them a going whether you ever went there or not.
+Rules. Weapon type versus armors, and similar bits.

2e AD&D paid lip-service to narrativism, but the rules didn't really back it up. Telling someone to focus on a story, while providing rules that have no story-related elements is style over substance when it comes to narrativism. (White Wolf's games had a much stronger case of this. They so much wanted to be narrativist, but came well before theories about how to do that were around, and consequently were simulationist games with a few bolted on narrativist components.)*

3e Simulationism:
+Tons of little fiddly details. Racial and monstrous abilities were expanded.
+Monsters followed the same rules as characters.
-Setting about the same as AD&D
-Different rules, but still a focus on simulationism.

I would say that 3e rules for characters and action (rather than setting) attempted to mimic the physics of the world more than AD&D, as you said. But there were discrepancies, where AD&D would just go crazy with things like weapon speed and longswords doing more damage to larger targets, and having an easier or harder time hitting certain types of armor because it was a slashing weapon.

If I were going to go into more detail I'd use a system where each of the three styles I mentioned had different degrees.

AD&D: Narrativism 2 (respectful regard), Simulationism 3 (focus), Gamism 2 (respectful regard)
3e: Narrativism 1 (nary a nod#), Simulationism 3 (focus), Gamism 3 (focus)
4e: Narrativism 3 (focus&), Simulationism 1 (nary a nod), Gamism 3 (focus)


* This might sound like I'm pro-narrativist and anti-simulationist. I'm not. I enjoy all of the different styles for different games. I'm just commenting on design integrity--whether the rules encourage playing the game the way the game tells you to play it. Most games have issues in that area, even if they are fun games. They would just be even more fun if they better game design to so that results matched instructions given.
# 3e really didn't have much narrativism. Most of it's adaptation of challenges to party was based on gamist inspiration.
& 4e narrativism is odd because of its hybridization with gamism. If I wanted to get more grainy, I'd give it only a 2.5.

 

[dd.stevenson]

2E is all over the board, but I'll have a go. (For reference, I'm talking about sandbox style 2E, here.)

--Graceful degradation in the face of groups not willing to bother with subsets of the rules; openness to houseruling
--Detailed (usually percentile) information about monstrous habitat, ecology, and society
--Assumption of player-skill based exploration
--Combat as a fast, brutal release of tension built up during exploration
--Tasteless 80's style art (not a gamestyle element, but...)
--A "you have to earn it" mentality with regard to character power

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Sadly I can't find my write up from several years ago where I tried to sum up the style of AD&D+.

Basically it went like this:

AD&D, 1st edition: The fight for survival. Beginning characters are weak and squishy, heading out into an uncaring world full of dangers, hoping to live long enough to get powerful.

AD&D, 2nd edition: Travelling the world(s). Characters are actors in colorful, detailled fantasy worlds. They meet the powerful and watch important NSCs doing world-shaking (or -saving) stuff.

D&D, 3rd edition: The world description language. You, be you player or DM, can describe everything with the rules. Your character (sheet) takes center stage, as his interaction with the game world is completely described using the rules.

D&D, 4th edition: Lights, camera, and action! Your character is a stuntman in an action movie. He enters the scene when the big, set piece fight starts, and he can be a joy to behold. Apart from those scenes, the real actor (sometimes called player) does his thing without being fetterd by the rules.