Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 8554035" data-attributes="member: 1210">I will say this: I am still running the same campaign that I have since about 1993, which connects back to my first campaign, which ended in a world-shaking event. So in essence, I have been running the same game since day 1 of my DMing career. That doesn't mean it has been the same pcs, or even all the same players, the whole time; but of my groups today, five of them go back to that original campaign setting.Has the style of my game evolved with the editions? Well- to some extent. For instance, I definitely adopted 4e encounter design principles during the 4e era, and I loved building advanced-with-6-class-levels, 2-classes, 2-prestige-classes, 4-template, racial substitute levels included bad guys in 3e. But my overall playstyle preferences have remained largely the same despite edition changes (although they've changed over time as I have changed over time).Anyway, the way I perceive different expected playstyles over the editions is roughly:od&d- very much in the dungeon; highly lethal; challenges players more than characters. (Haven't played it, can't comment.)B/X and/or BECMI- promotes evolution of adventuring over time (dungeon to outdoor to leadership roles); highly lethal; challenges players as much as characters. (Seems about right to me.)1e- more adversarial play; strong enforcement of roles (e.g. alignment, using non proficient weapons, etc); crossover potential (GW, Boot Hill, etc); highly lethal; challenges players as much as characters. (Seems about right to me.)2e- D&D is about good guys and stories; all settings are part of the multiverse; there's a metaplot imposed from above by TSR and the changes it makes are big enough to shake your campaign, if you choose to use them (e.g. fiends losing teleportation); moderately lethal; challenges characters more than players. (Not how I played it- f the metaplot, this is my game! And I kept monks and assassins, demons and devils, etc from 1e, even before some of that stuff got reintroduced as baatezu and tanar'ri.)3e- the rules are there to simulate the world; very kit-bashy/toolboxy, with some options that are bad and some that are good, and some combos you have to plan from the very beginning; focus on enabling creativity; fairly complex; encourages system mastery; moderately lethal; challenges characters more than players. (I enjoyed what 3e offered in terms of customization, and had a great time writing custom material for my game- prestige classes, etc- which has transferred forward in one way or another. However, 3e had some serious flaws for my playstyle, including ubiquitous necessary magic items, obligatory tactics at high levels, slooooow play at high levels, etc).4e- Eurostyle board game influence; big focus on teamwork and tactical play; extremely tight balance; the big thing is the encounter, not the campaign or the adventure; sloooow to play. (I embraced 4e's monster and encounter design philosophies, but tweaked it to support my playstyle rather than adjusting my style to fit 4e, at least as much as possible. There were certain things- you can't play ES@1 (Everyone Starts at First Level) in 4e or 3e, for instance.)5e- D&D's Greatest Hits. Attempts to mine the best bits from all of D&D's history, although it was far too shy about pulling from 4e, IMHO. Emphasis on enabling multiple playstyles, with lots of nostalgia appeals. Does a very fine job of it. (Seems about right, re-enables ES@1, chef's kiss... It isn't perfect, but it's fast, fun, and easy to tweak.)</blockquote>

Verification