Has D&D changed Dramatically over the Years?

[Hussar]

I don't think so. I really don't. Oh, sure, the mechanics have, I'll grant that, but, the actual play at the table? Not so much. Let me share an anecdote:

Way, way back when my friends and I finally played in a long term AD&D campaign (would have been around 82 or so), we managed to get our characters up to name level. So, being pretty flush with cash (having knocked over the G series of modules meant we had LOADS of cash), we proceeded to build our various keeps, castles and towers.

The first thing we did after building those was to put Continual Light spells in large parabolic mirrors and have permanent spotlights covering the grounds. Next, we put up small towers with more Continual Lights with shutters to act as semaphore towers between our individual keeps, castles or towers. Following that, perusing The Dragon, we saw rules for how to build air ships. So, we went out, gathered up the requisite items and built two or three airships to rule the skies with. Since we also knew where nests of hipogriff lived, we went out, raided lots of nests and began building an aerial cavalry.

So, my 1e campaign had magically lit cities, airships and a telegraph. Not terribly different from Eberron today really.

My point though, is this. Nothing we did was against the rules. Everything was perfectly legal. We did all this using the 1e ruleset. As I recall, we also managed to subdue a dragon to use as a guard while we went out on adventures as well. Being the horrible little munchkins that we were, it doesn't surprise me too much.

It always greatly surprises me when people talk about how the game has undergone this massive shift in fantasy paradigm. That games "back in the day" were about dark fantasy, a la Conan, with low magic and all that entails. It may very well have been, for you. It wasn't for me. For me, D&D has always had lots of wahoo magic and pervasive fantasy. And the rule set doesn't seem to matter too much. 1e can make wahoo campaigns and 3e can do low magic grim and gritty. And, of course, vice versa.

To me, the DM and his campaign has a much, much larger effect on how the game "looks" than the ruleset.

 

[warlord]

Let's see AC goes up instead of down and now the creators of all the settings have lost almost all control so I'd say it's changed alot.

 

[The Shaman]

Nothing we did was against the rules. Everything was perfectly legal. We did all this using the 1e ruleset.

So we're back to this again, Hussar?

Case in point . . .

As I recall, we also managed to subdue a dragon to use as a guard while we went out on adventures as well.

All this indicates to me is that you played with an extremely compliant dungeon master who didn't take the admonitions about subdued dragons in the MM to heart.

This says nothing about the rules, and everything about the gamers in your group and their interpretation of those rules.

 

[Hussar]

Sorry TheShaman, not trying to start anything, like you apparently think I am. Considering you could only point to one example, and the one example isn't even illegal, just a different interpretation from yours, I'll stand by the idea that the game hasn't changed all that much.

 

[Glyfair]

Oh, sure, the mechanics have, I'll grant that, but, the actual play at the table?

While it's certainly a matter of degrees, I say yes it has.

The actual game style has changed a lot over the years. The assumptions when you travelled from game to game were much different in the late 70s than they are today.

Now, I will admit, most basic gaming styles were there. Even back in '78, when I started playing, you could find groups into deep character immersion. However, that style of play (even lesser versions of it) wasn't the norm. Today you are much more likely to find a group into that style of play, if you prefer it.

On the other hand, there were styles of play back then that aren't as common today as it was then. You are pretty unlikely to find the antagonistic DM style today, while it wasn't uncommon back then.

 

[darkseraphim]

Absolutely, the game has changed so much since I started (79) that it is no longer recognizable as the same thing.

I sense an edition war, however, so I won't elaborate.

 

[DragonLancer]

I think the game has changed a lot from it's earliest days in print, both in rules and play style.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think the gaming style has changed. There's a lot less long dungeon crawls, for instance. Most adventures that I read now usually take place in cities or the wilderness. Dungeons are "virtual dungeons", eg an old temple, rather than an actual dungeon.

 

[SavageRobby]

I think the playstyle has changed greatly as the mechanics have shifted. Consider just these purely mechanical items, which all lead to a different kind of game:
* Leveling is much faster
* Spells gained at levels are chosen by the PC
* Search and Spot are done via randomizer (dice)

Not just that, but because combat is more rules-intense and takes longer, it changes the focus of a session as well as adventure design (which in turn, changes play). I recall sessions with bunches of quick fights, instead of a few longer fights that seems to be the norm now.

I'd also say the kitchen sink approach of 3E changes the dynamic a lot. 1E, for good or for ill, had a lot more restrictions on creating characters. 3E opens nearly everything up for character creation. However, 3E characters are much more limited in what they can/can't do based on what is one their sheet. (If a rule says, "You must have skill/feat/ability X to do Y", and you don't have skill/feat/ability X, then you can't do Y. In 1E, those kinds of rules were fewer, and more general - like spellcasting or tracking.) This also changes the dynamic a great deal.

So sure, maybe the end point - castles, telegraphs, airships, etc - are the same. But the getting there is much different.

On the other hand, there were styles of play back then that aren't as common today as it was then. You are pretty unlikely to find the antagonistic DM style today, while it wasn't uncommon back then.

Yup. Now you have antagonistic players.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Absolutely, the game has changed so much since I started (79) that it is no longer recognizable as the same thing.

I sense an edition war, however, so I won't elaborate.

Yeah, I hesitated about posting at all; I'm not interested in arguing about it. Suffice it to say that I agree with you; I think the game has changed in both mechanics (obviously) and in assumptions/style/feel.