How dungeons have changed in Dungeons and Dragons

[Nikosandros]

While I like AD&D a lot, I've never seen the lack of clarity in the rules as a bonus.

 

[tx7321]

MerricB, "The primary focus of 3e (like every edition of D&D) is on combat. It isn't on avoiding combat. Dungeons are still a primary part of adventures, although we've moved away from large megadungeons to a series of smaller dungeons with more defined goals."

If you reread my post you'll see I stated outside adventures offer more options to the PCs to gain the advantage (and vise versa) by moving more freely. The net result quicker resolution by gaining an advantage, also, shorter battles (where its not room after room).

As far as: "we've moved away from large megadungeons to a series of smaller dungeons with more defined goals."

It sounds like PCs and DMs are being given a break from the trudgery of room after room of monster encounters (which was a halmark of 1E modules). Also, these "micro dungeons" with defined goals (other then collecting treasure) sound alot like railroading "defined plot" . Railroading is something that turns off many old schoolers who prefer not be tied up into the writers plot (like cheap romance heroes in some dime store pre-teen romance novel). This is nothing new mind you. It started with Dragonlance, really hit its stride in 2E and has carried on today. Compare that with a classic like B2. Your at a keep, there's treasure in those caves. Do what you like. There is no plot beyond this. Anything else that develops is of the players' or DM's creation. There is no, finish 1 then go to 2, after 2 go to 3 B....ll sh...t. Not that a game like that has to be bad, as long as the module is written in such a way as to not lead the players, nore require steps.

Nik: "While I like AD&D a lot, I've never seen the lack of clarity in the rules as a bonus. "

The lack of clearity offers flexibility without having to feel like your house ruling everything. But your right, I'd probably have preferred the rules be clearly defined (as long as I liked what they said that is) .

 

[Nikosandros]

Nik: "While I like AD&D a lot, I've never seen the lack of clarity in the rules as a bonus. "

The lack of clearity offers flexibility without having to feel like your house ruling everything. But your right, I'd probably have preferred the rules be clearly defined (as long as I liked what they said that is) .

I've no qualms about house ruling a system (even extensively), but I always prefer clear rules.

 

[Crothian]

Thats the problem, WOTC wants everyone playing 3E, but most people I know aren't "cut out" for 3E.

It's a problem that Wizards wants people to play the game? They are a business, I'd hope they want everyone to play their game. If a campany doesn't have the confidence in their product and want everyone to have it, then I'm not sure I want to support that company

the mechanics quickly dominate the game (which traditionally is supposed to feel mechanic-less to the player). I realize some people prefer this, and others don't notice...but to those that do its a game killer.

No it is not. We run the game like we want to run it. I hate merchanic driven games, so I don't run them. Yet, I run D&D 3rd edition and it works. I know the game is not for everyone, but it is always one thing I've never been able to grasp is why it works for me. I'm not a skilled gamer or DM. But I actually find it easier to run d20 then C&C. I haven't tried the micro d20 yet. Of the slimmed down versions of the game I like True 20.

 

[tx7321]

Q: "It's a problem that Wizards wants people to play the game? They are a business, I'd hope they want everyone to play their game."

Its a problem because its a rules set that doesn't please everyone. Infact, as others have mentioned in this thread, not everyone is cut out for this game (highly modifide (via skills, feats, prestige classes, etc.), stacking, long monster stat blocks, drawn out resolution systems etc.). I strongly suspect that the game was designed for Magic Players as much as it was for 1E and 2E players.

Anyhow, your correct, its not WOTC problem if it meets or exceeds their profit goals, its only a problem for people who prefer something closer to 1E style gameing.

 

[Crothian]

Its a problem because its a rules set that doesn't please everyone. Infact, not everyone is "cut out" for it.

I don't see the problem. Sure, it is not for everyone but that should not prevent Wizards from wanting everyone to have it. If it doesn't work for a group, move on there are many many many other games out there. I don't see where the problem comes from here.

 

[tx7321]

No other company compares in size to WOTC/HASBRO. If you want to drop down to B&N or your local gaming store and buy a module thats in the style of 1E, you can't. Sour grapes on my part....yes.
At least PPP, C&C, GG, and some smaller publishers are releasing 1E compatable material. It will be interesting to see if this 1E revival picks up steam or not. Maybe more publishers will join in now that WOTC seems to be holding off from objecting.

 

[Crothian]

No other company compares in size to WOTC/HASBRO. If you want to drop down to B&N or your local gaming store and buy a module thats in the style of 1E, you can't. Sour grapes on my part....yes.

Size of the comapny doesn't matter, quality does. In todays RPG market with on line retailers and directsales on companies websites it is very easy for even the smallest company to sell things. If a gamers is only finding Wizards books then that gamer is not looking very hard for other things.

I have many, many 1e style adventures that are d20. Also, I can take a none 1e style adventure, and because like yourself I have a solid grasp at what a 1e adventure feels like, I can take these new modules and give them a 1e feel. I don't let anything stop me from running the game I and my players want to run.

 

[megamania]

I would say the reason dungeons are less in use now than in the beginning is complexity. The world is becoming more and more complex while attempting to simplify itself. As such, we expect this within our games.

We want to say why and be able to answer it reasonably well. Dungeons are still in use but they are no longer the focus.

I like it personally.

 

[MerricB]

As far as: "we've moved away from large megadungeons to a series of smaller dungeons with more defined goals."

It sounds like PCs and DMs are being given a break from the trudgery of room after room of monster encounters (which was a halmark of 1E modules). Also, these "micro dungeons" with defined goals (other then collecting treasure) sound alot like railroading "defined plot" . Railroading is something that turns off many old schoolers who prefer not be tied up into the writers plot (like cheap romance heroes in some dime store pre-teen romance novel). This is nothing new mind you. It started with Dragonlance, really hit its stride in 2E and has carried on today. Compare that with a classic like B2. Your at a keep, there's treasure in those caves. Do what you like.

Err... this is a feature that has been around since G1, actually.

G1: Defined goal: Stop the giant raids, oh and find out if anyone's behind the raids.

Although there are 1e adventures where the only goal is "kill and loot", consider...

White Plume Mountain: Recover the stolen swords
Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun: Stop the humanoid raids
Pharoah: Steal the gem and staff to break the curse

A goal is not railroading. A goal is a purpose. Railroading is "Oh, and you get captured regardless of what you do." (Slavers... and Dragonlance. )

I think my point on elegance in initiative stands: if the rules for AD&D initiative aren't clear, they can't be elegant!

Cheers!