Has D&D changed Dramatically over the Years?

[Herobizkit]

IMXP, the game has DRASTICALLY changed mechanically (for the better, IMO), and as for the actual feel:

1ed: The general premise was "kill things and take their stuff, then rule the world".
2ed: As characters became more streamlined and with the advent of the Complete handbooks, the game became more about "how cool I can make my character look/act while killing things and taking their stuff, and maybe I'll rule the world if I'm not too busy looting".
3ed: As the games appraoches a similar feel to video gaming, the attitude now seems to be "Let's see how I can stack xyz feats/abilities and classes and Prestige Classes so I can most efficiently kill things and take their stuff, then I might rule the world as long as I can still use xyz feats/abilities while doing so".

 

[JeffB]

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

+1

Play style and "theme" are quite different IME.

 

[Treebore]

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.

All I can say is I have also been gaming for over 22 years. I played 3E for almost 5 years before "going back". In my going back I have reread every system to adapt to C&C. All I can tell you is my gaming experience is MUCH different than it was with 3E now that I have gone more "old style". So I would say to you, and everyone else who claims the 3E experience is the "same", go back to playing old style for a couple of months. Why a couple of months? Because that is how long it took me to get the 3E mindset out of my system. So I am assuming it will take that long for others. It may even take longer because I quit playing, period, for almost 6 months before I picked up C&C. So that may have helped me "detoxify" from 3E is as well.

Still, experiences differ for various people. I went to C&C because I remembered having a lot of fun back with the older editions, and I knew it wasn't the same fun I had with 3E, plus only 3E burned me out to the point of wanting to quite RPG's forever.

So I went "retro" and am having the best gaming fun of my life with D&D/C&C. Even my kids don't want to go back to 3E. Why? Simply because 3E isn't worth the effort. We get the fun we want out of our house ruled C&C.

So due to my experiences, I would say that the "perception" that 3E is as fun, or even more fun, than older editions has a lot to due with human memory being "bad".

Do the older editions have all the problems so many people mention? Yes. But you know what? Its a heck of a lot easier to write up a page or two of "fixes" and play them than it is to "fix" 3E.

Still, it also depends on what you like about a game. Many people like rules intensive game systems. I don't. Its why I never became a fan of "Rolemaster" or "Chivalry and Sorcery". I liked them, but the extra effort wasn't worth it. I liked "simple" but "gets the job done". 3E is simply too complex for me. I have gone back to "simple and gets the job done".

So, bottom line is, there are certainly "similarities" between the editions, but they are far from being the same. Rules wise, feel wise, play wise, etc...

 

[Desdichado]

Yes. The rules have changed pretty dramatically (obvious.) The "basic implied setting" of the game has had some changes, as much of the 4e weeping and wailing demonstrates. Even when the "basic implied setting" is Greyhawk. The players (in general) have changed; they're either much older and often have different tastes, or else they're other people coming to the game from very different backgrounds. The impact of non-D&D RPGs has been tremendous, as many, many gamers looked around and saw other systems that did certain things better.

I'd say that my experience at the table and my expectations from the game are vastly different now than they were in 1981 or so when I was playing B/X and AD&D. And the more I meet other gamers, the more I'm convinced that I parallel a significant chunk of gamers overall.

 

[Desdichado]

All I can say is I have also been gaming for over 22 years. I played 3E for almost 5 years before "going back". In my going back I have reread every system to adapt to C&C. All I can tell you is my gaming experience is MUCH different than it was with 3E now that I have gone more "old style". So I would say to you, and everyone else who claims the 3E experience is the "same", go back to playing old style for a couple of months. Why a couple of months? Because that is how long it took me to get the 3E mindset out of my system. So I am assuming it will take that long for others. It may even take longer because I quit playing, period, for almost 6 months before I picked up C&C. So that may have helped me "detoxify" from 3E is as well.

Still, experiences differ for various people. I went to C&C because I remembered having a lot of fun back with the older editions, and I knew it wasn't the same fun I had with 3E, plus only 3E burned me out to the point of wanting to quite RPG's forever.

So I went "retro" and am having the best gaming fun of my life with D&D/C&C. Even my kids don't want to go back to 3E. Why? Simply because 3E isn't worth the effort. We get the fun we want out of our house ruled C&C.

So due to my experiences, I would say that the "perception" that 3E is as fun, or even more fun, than older editions has a lot to due with human memory being "bad".

Do the older editions have all the problems so many people mention? Yes. But you know what? Its a heck of a lot easier to write up a page or two of "fixes" and play them than it is to "fix" 3E.

Still, it also depends on what you like about a game. Many people like rules intensive game systems. I don't. Its why I never became a fan of "Rolemaster" or "Chivalry and Sorcery". I liked them, but the extra effort wasn't worth it. I liked "simple" but "gets the job done". 3E is simply too complex for me. I have gone back to "simple and gets the job done".

So, bottom line is, there are certainly "similarities" between the editions, but they are far from being the same. Rules wise, feel wise, play wise, etc...

You know, it's really funny: I could have written this almost, except that where you say C&C, I'd say 3e. And where you say 3e, I'd say 1e.

But I like 3e for it's simplicity and ease of use, which is apparently what you value too. It's odd that you find 3e so inimical to that goal and I find it so ideally suited.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

You know, it's really funny: I could have written this almost, except that where you say C&C, I'd say 3e. And where you say 3e, I'd say 1e.

But I like 3e for it's simplicity and ease of use, which is apparently what you value too. It's odd that you find 3e so inimical to that goal and I find it so ideally suited.

Some people like Toyotas, others like Hondas. I liked some of the changes from 3E, but not all of them.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Some people like Toyotas, others like Hondas.

I like Chevelles (SS 454).

 

[Desdichado]

Some people like Toyotas, others like Hondas. I liked some of the changes from 3E, but not all of them.

I don't like either, but that's not the point. The point is that although our stated goals are exactly the same, what he sees as wildly inappropriate to meet that goal, I see as one of the better RPG systems yet designed specifically to meet that goal.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

I don't like either, but that's not the point. The point is that although our stated goals are exactly the same, what he sees as wildly inappropriate to meet that goal, I see as one of the better RPG systems yet designed specifically to meet that goal.

And I chalk it up to the individual and how the system feels to them.

 

[Treebore]

And I chalk it up to the individual and how the system feels to them.

That does seem to be the defining difference.