D&D General Did D&D Die with TSR?

[Northern Phoenix]

Since TSR sold DnD, an entire "generation" of people have been born, grown to adulthood while potentially playing, and started teaching their children how to play. Makes you think...

 

[Jadeite]

For 3e the only really weird and wonderful thing to come out was Eberron. Otherwise it was pretty much more of what we already had.

There was also Ghostwalk, but it was released in the 3.0 to 3.5 transition era, so most people don't remember it.

 

[Minigiant]

Typically when I see someone state a split at 3e, I mostly see it as a split between 0e-2e "paragraphs and tables" and 3e-5e "sentences and formulas".

It's the same game just presented, calculated, and referrenced differently. Instead of a feat (chain), you'd get a whoole new class or kit. Instead d20s, you used d100s. etc etc

 

[wingsandsword]

I was going to post this in one of the celebratory threads about the 20th anniversary of 3rd edition, and decided that it was too tangential and thread-cappy to go there. So I am putting it in its own thread so we can discuss (if you feel like it).

I'm not an expert historian about TTRPGs and I've only been in the hobby since the late 1980s, so there's much about the early days I don't know. The original lineage of D&D seems to be OD&D (1974) going through the BECMI line into the mid-90s or so (with some slight revisions, but being mostly backwards compatible and compatible with AD&D). Then AD&D 1e was released in 1977 and was only slightly changed in 2e, which lasted until 2000 (when 3rd edition was released). 3rd edition was such a departure in gameplay that it had no connection or compatibility between any of the previous editions.

Besides a few mentions of IP and repetition of similar fantasy tropes, there was essentially no connection between 3rd edition and any other TSR product. It seemed like the same amount of difference between West End Games' d6 Star Wars and the system created by Fantasy Flight.

Here are some of the biggest differences that I was hung up on when first learning 3rd edition:
1) tactical movement on a grid
2) attacks of opportunity (for nearly everything)
3) feats
4) class "balance"
5) Challenge Rating
6) 0-level spells, cantrips, and ever-present spells
7) prestige classes
8) the d20 DC system for skills (that took away all DM rulings, as everything was codified)
9) character wealth by level baked into the system

Most of those things were present in earlier versions of D&D, just not codified or standardized. They were either optional rules, unspoken assumptions, or present in at least one prior edition of D&D.

Tactical movement on a grid had always been a part of D&D, as an optional rule or style of play. There was even a major 2e sourcebook devoted to it (Player's Option: Combat and Tactics), and the game itself emerged from tactical wargames, so the idea of playing it out as a tactical game with minis dates to the beginning. It was just more of a presumption in 3e instead of an option.

Feats existed in 2e as Non-Weapon Proficiencies. While NWP's were originally introduced into AD&D 1e as a skill system, there were a LOT of NWP's introduced in various 2e supplements that would be thought of as equivalent to a feat now, like ones that allowed fighters to make special fattacks, or would give Wizards or Clerics special abilities when casting. The feat system was part of splitting NWP's into skills that you could improve as you level, and special abilities that you had or didn't have.

Class balance was always a concept in the game, but it wasn't focused on much before 3e. That's why different classes had different XP tables, the idea that more powerful classes would need more XP to level up. It didn't work very well in the first place, and by 2000 was generally seen as incredibly outdated and archaic, hence a new approach was taken.

0 level spells existed in 1e, they were removed in 2e as an attempt to streamline the game, and put back in 3rd edition.

The 1st edition Bard was what we'd now call a Prestige Class, requiring dual-classing through several classes before adopting the Bard class well into the campaign.

You think 3e didn't have DM rulings? Did you really never see DM's have to make a ruling on things at a 3e table? I saw a LOT of really bad DM rulings at 2e tables, usually because some player came up with a torturously bad reading of the description of a spell and was trying to exploit a loophole in the wording of something. 3e tried to think ahead and prevent those unnecessary chances for bad rulings by spelling things out with a consistent system, instead of vague guidelines that turn the game from a contest of wills between DM and player.

There was already unspoken, uncodified concepts of wealth-by level. AD&D had lots of monsters that needed weapons with a specific amount of "plusses" on their weapon to even damage, and if you were high enough level to be able to fight them, the game had an unwritten assumption you'd have weapons of that power. . .but if it isn't spelled out, then the DM might not be giving you enough gear in treasure distribution to fight them effectively, or by the other token, you could be getting insane "Monty Haul" loads of treasure. It ended the nonsense of starting character in a new game at above 1st level, but only getting starting gear, because there was no rule for what a character above 1st level should get (I had this happen a LOT in 2e, where DM's would say you just get basic starting gear, even if your character is 10th or 12th level starting the campaign, because there was no rule otherwise).

 

[billd91]

I'm skeptical. I think the major shift happened during late 2e with the introduction of Skills and Power and Combat and Tactics. So many of 3e's developments came from those two books. Early and late 2e are two completely different games.

I suspect a minority of people actually adopted the PO books, so I don’t think they changed a lot of 2e groups’ games. But what they do illustrate how much of what would become 3e was under development at TSR, years before the WotC rescue.

 

[cmad1977]

If D&D died when 3e came out, I guess I've never actually played D&D. It's changed greatly, from what I've heard, but it feels very much alive to me and the millions of current D&D 5e players around the world.

It is vastly improved over prior editions.

 

[DND_Reborn]

@Retreater

Yes, I understand your views and I would agree D&D died with TSR.

This "new" D&D is like a PC being reincarnated, though, IMO. It is similar, but things are different. The feel is not the same, it seems more "super-hero"-like by default, more generic (in some ways), and such.

As to those who discuss 5E's popularity and such nowadays, I think that has a lot more to do with the internet being much more prevalent than in the 80's and even the 90's. You have more mainstream exposure and so it isn't seen as much as a "nerd's" game as it was before.

Whether the version is simpler to learn, easier to play, etc. is immaterial in a lot of ways because the Basic D&D was also very easy to learn and play. Many of us older players started as young as 5 y.o. with older siblings showing us the game. Now, young kids are also playing 5E.

There is a lot of stuff I've liked since 3E to 5E, but the game feels different to me, certainly. Most of the meat is still there, but now the dressings are different, and so it has a different "taste". Agreed, not better or worse--just different flavor.

 

[jgsugden]

It is vastly improved over prior editions.

It is more efficient and better balanced. but some of that balance and efficiency hinders the storytelling as the game has reduced to a strategy and tactics game for many players, while players in the 70s, 80s and 90s often experienced deeper role playing because the strategy game was less engaging. I would not go back to a prior edition by choice, but they were a good breeding ground to encourage the storytelling aspects of role playing.

 

[Umbran]

But it seems to be that the game forever shifted in 3rd edition.

With respect, the game has always been shifting. There's actually a big shift between 1e and 2e. There was a shift between Basic and 1e. It is just that those shifts were made when the hobby was young, and we were young, and not set in our ways - our very lives were shifting too, after all

I can't even run the games in the style I used to 20 years ago or play characters the same way.

The iPhone was first introduced in 2006. We don't even make phone calls the way we used to 20 years ago! And you figure a hobby game should be static over decades? The only constant is change.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Can't say that I agree. I believe that 5e courted OSR briefly at the beginning of its market life, but then reneged on that once it garnered immense popularity, particularly among more mainstream audiences. It undoubtedly brought a number of prior gamers back, but that doesn't really mean that it consumed the OSR movement. Though 5e appeals to some people who like the older editions of D&D (from which OSR draws inspiration) - mainly those with the understanding of OSR as "rulings not rules" and more streamlined classes/rules - there is a LOT about 5e that still feels antithetical to OSR movement. (Hello, adventure path design.) So I'm not really sure how much of the OSR that 5e actually consumed as the OSR indie scene is still strong and kicking. OSR is arguably stronger now than it was at the time that 5e was released.

I agree with this. In the beginning during NEXT playtests, the OSR was courted with "here's a basic fighter class, and look at us redoing a 5e version of Against the Slave Lords classic module!"

But there hasn't been anything since. Every book and UA brought more complexity, so clearly the champion was just a token nod to OSR fans and they have no desire to have other classes that are streamlined. And as you mention, the adventure design is nothing like OSR; the short 1-2 session adventures that you could cobble together easily don't really exist outside of AL, as they are all larger campaign books. It's also extremely less deadly and gritty than OSR, even with optional rules. OSR also is heavily influenced by mature themes, and 5e is going the opposite (a better business decision IMO, anyway)

I really like 5e, but it has not absorbed the OSR at all.

You know what? Let's go even further here!

D&D DIDN'T "DIE" WITH 3E! D&D WAS ACTUALLY BORN WITH 3E!

Up until 3E, we had this amorphus blob of a thing lying within an amniotic sack that was nothing more than a bunch of disparate rule cells that needed to spend years gestating in order to eventually be born as a fully-formed creature! WotC was the obstetrician that helped give birth to D&D!

There we go! Let's see how that hot take plays to the cheap seats!

It won't go over very well because Basic existed prior to 3e, and it was none of those things. It was easy to learn and streamlined.