Has D&D changed Dramatically over the Years?
- Thread starter Hussar
- Start date
Hussar said:
I don't know. I think I mostly, if not completely, agree with you, but then I'm unsure. The influence of some rules can show through even after you remove the mechanics. And while you can certainly do just about anything with any system, system A can definitely make X easier than system B, while system B can make Y easier than system X.
& I still think that for some of us the game has dramatically changed whether the rules have had an affect on that change or not. For some of us it's due to maturity & experience. For some of us it's due to changing tastes. For some of us it may indeed be due to mechanics. I can't seriously say "nothing has changed" when there has clearly been a lot of change. I might be able to say that some things have stayed the same...
...probably posting too late...must stop now...
IME, the biggest difference lies not within the games themselves -- sure, there's lot of niggling details that makle certain playstyles easier to achieve in certain editions (my tastes run toward the 1E style) -- but in the players/DMs themselves.
Those that learned the game with 1E, or B/x or BECM (I am leaving out OD&D because, frankly, I don't know anyone who learned from that game -- I may be a grognard, but I am not that old) have an entirely different foundation on which their tnednecies and playstyles rest than those that learned in 2E and those that learned in 3E. To be more specific (in a gross generalization kind of way -- I understand this is hardly encompassing) 1E players metagame a lot more (not ina bad way) because that game was explicitely as much about challenging the players as it was about challenging their characters. DMs, like myself, tend a little closer toward the RBDM mode because it was (and is) our job to challenge those players. With 2E, "story" seemed to become king and players and DMs alike seem to focus on crafting a narrative. incidentally, I think this explains the rise to prominence of White Wolf -- a lot of folks, very interested in epic, personal narratives -- left D&D for games like Vampire which were ostensibly about[/] epic, personal narratives. 3E learners tend, IME, to focus on mechanics more than the others, "leaning" on their character sheets and looking for combos and synergies that work, and not engaging in the kind of interacting with the environment you see in 1E learners or the deep role-playing in 2E learners. (Incidentally, I think White Wolf slipped in here, too, with Exalted -- which I wrote for by the way, when it was in its 1E -- becuase nothing does combos and synergy like Exalted does.)
Again, I am speaking in generalities and there are going to be tons of people that don't fit that mold. But havbing been DMing for 22 years, I can say I am confident in my experiences supporting the above assertion.
What's kind of interesting are the people that have followed through all the editions and found that they either a) were changing a sgamers, so changes between systems weren't problematic, or b) found they could work any of the editions to meet whatever preferred playstyle they started with. I am not one of those people, unfortunately. trying to get a "1E feel" out of 3E has cuased me no end of trouble, not least because I have had players that prefer the mechanics/build driven, player focused, DM-recutionism of 3E to their liking so, when playing 3E, the last thing they wanted was the guy behind the screen treating it like 1E with a cohesive core mechanic.
Anyway, to sum up: yes, the game has changed, but the changes are particularly noticable in the players who came into the game at its various points of development and evolution.
Those that learned the game with 1E, or B/x or BECM (I am leaving out OD&D because, frankly, I don't know anyone who learned from that game -- I may be a grognard, but I am not that old) have an entirely different foundation on which their tnednecies and playstyles rest than those that learned in 2E and those that learned in 3E. To be more specific (in a gross generalization kind of way -- I understand this is hardly encompassing) 1E players metagame a lot more (not ina bad way) because that game was explicitely as much about challenging the players as it was about challenging their characters. DMs, like myself, tend a little closer toward the RBDM mode because it was (and is) our job to challenge those players. With 2E, "story" seemed to become king and players and DMs alike seem to focus on crafting a narrative. incidentally, I think this explains the rise to prominence of White Wolf -- a lot of folks, very interested in epic, personal narratives -- left D&D for games like Vampire which were ostensibly about[/] epic, personal narratives. 3E learners tend, IME, to focus on mechanics more than the others, "leaning" on their character sheets and looking for combos and synergies that work, and not engaging in the kind of interacting with the environment you see in 1E learners or the deep role-playing in 2E learners. (Incidentally, I think White Wolf slipped in here, too, with Exalted -- which I wrote for by the way, when it was in its 1E -- becuase nothing does combos and synergy like Exalted does.)
Again, I am speaking in generalities and there are going to be tons of people that don't fit that mold. But havbing been DMing for 22 years, I can say I am confident in my experiences supporting the above assertion.
What's kind of interesting are the people that have followed through all the editions and found that they either a) were changing a sgamers, so changes between systems weren't problematic, or b) found they could work any of the editions to meet whatever preferred playstyle they started with. I am not one of those people, unfortunately. trying to get a "1E feel" out of 3E has cuased me no end of trouble, not least because I have had players that prefer the mechanics/build driven, player focused, DM-recutionism of 3E to their liking so, when playing 3E, the last thing they wanted was the guy behind the screen treating it like 1E with a cohesive core mechanic.
Anyway, to sum up: yes, the game has changed, but the changes are particularly noticable in the players who came into the game at its various points of development and evolution.
Hussar
Legend
But, Reynard, like you I started back with the boxed Basic D&D set way back when as well.
And, yes, I agree that the play at the table has changed. Mechanics invade much of what we do, and that cannot (and probably should not) be avoided. There are certain phrases you would hear in one edition that you wouldn't in another (Does this draw an AOO? for one)
But, beyond that, beyond the minute by minute of the game, where we usually play, moving the focus back to the campaign level, I'm thinking it hasn't altered all that much. A campaign is typically a group of strangers meet, go out and do something relatively dangerous, become, if not friends then at least comrades, and then continue to go out and find strange people, explore strange places, kill everything that moves and steal its treasure.
And, yes, I agree that the play at the table has changed. Mechanics invade much of what we do, and that cannot (and probably should not) be avoided. There are certain phrases you would hear in one edition that you wouldn't in another (Does this draw an AOO? for one)
But, beyond that, beyond the minute by minute of the game, where we usually play, moving the focus back to the campaign level, I'm thinking it hasn't altered all that much. A campaign is typically a group of strangers meet, go out and do something relatively dangerous, become, if not friends then at least comrades, and then continue to go out and find strange people, explore strange places, kill everything that moves and steal its treasure.
Hussar said:But, beyond that, beyond the minute by minute of the game, where we usually play, moving the focus back to the campaign level, I'm thinking it hasn't altered all that much. A campaign is typically a group of strangers meet, go out and do something relatively dangerous, become, if not friends then at least comrades, and then continue to go out and find strange people, explore strange places, kill everything that moves and steal its treasure.
True. But it is the hows and whys that create the tone, and I think that is different between "generations" of gamers (and, as I said, their's intragenerational differences too.)
Geron Raveneye
Explorer
Hussar said:But, Reynard, like you I started back with the boxed Basic D&D set way back when as well.
And, yes, I agree that the play at the table has changed. Mechanics invade much of what we do, and that cannot (and probably should not) be avoided. There are certain phrases you would hear in one edition that you wouldn't in another (Does this draw an AOO? for one)
But, beyond that, beyond the minute by minute of the game, where we usually play, moving the focus back to the campaign level, I'm thinking it hasn't altered all that much. A campaign is typically a group of strangers meet, go out and do something relatively dangerous, become, if not friends then at least comrades, and then continue to go out and find strange people, explore strange places, kill everything that moves and steal its treasure.
But it's the "minutiae", the smaller details, that differentiate games. Otherwise I could claim that my L5R campaign was D&D, too (which it wasn't, being entirely d10 1E), or even my Shadowrun games, if I'm so inclined. And it is a lot easier to differentiate between game systems than between different editions of the same game. You know, from a distance, every game looks the same, all people are equal, and the Earth is a blue-green ball with white specks. But at some point, you need to look at the differences if you want to discuss changes.
JDJblatherings
First Post
There is a difference. In earlier editions a charcter develops into a mover and shaker as defined by the rules which can mire down in record keeping and shift from personal adventure to a political wargame. In modern versions the character develops into a hero of ever building power that faces a hamster wheel environment of ever more powerful foes.
It's Play to change the nature of play then or play to maintain the nature of play now; both fouled up by the nature of record keeping at some point.
It's Play to change the nature of play then or play to maintain the nature of play now; both fouled up by the nature of record keeping at some point.
Last edited:
Silver Moon
Adventurer
I agree - it's all D&D to me. The game mechanics may change but the bottom line is that you need a group of smart imaginative people who want to play out a fantasy story.Hussar said:
Similar Threads
