D&D General How has D&D changed over the decades?

[Vaalingrade]

I'd say that anyone who thinks Vance and Leiber are mundane low fantasy really hasn't read much of Vance (check out the Rhialto the Marvellous stories, for one) or Leiber.

Man, if D&D actually used Vance's work instead of mutilating its carcass to make magic tedious...

 

[RobJN]

The Garycon '18 "Five Generations of D&D' panel was very enlightening.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And I have the same rep as you. My complain is not that 5ed is not the same as the previous one. It is that many DM's tools were removed and given on a silver plater to the players. And people wonder why 5ed is seen as a super hero game....

For someone that criticise 5ed, you seem to give a lot of leeway to 5ed when it comes to players' side of things...

Whether you like or not, 5ed removed a lot of the tools that a DM could use to slow down or accelerate a character's progress. In this regard, 5ed is way worst than 3ed. At least, 3ed had a system in which creating magical took both money and experience point to spare. By ensuring that players would end their adventure with barely enough exp to level or simply with not enough gold, the magic item creation could be controlled. 5ed only way is simply to not give any magic items. And even that us not enough as characters have way more built in features than previous editions (and even comparable games).

Bound Accuracy is the best idea of 5ed. It is also one of its worst. Basic monsters can now stay partially relevant at higher level, but higher level monsters are no longer that impressive...

Let's look at the edition process, here. From 2e to 3e we saw a massive shift from GM to player. Truly massive. To be specific, the shift was GM to rules, but then the player had access to those rules. 4e was even more of a shift. So, unless we're starting at 2e (and then we need to discuss late 2e) we had two large moves that reduced GM authority over the game in favor of player-facing rules. Then we get to 5e, which largely undoes this and goes back to a late 2e authority structure. So, when you complain that 5e has removed tools, that needs a really strong caveat to suggest this is only in comparison to 2e or earlier. And there, the game has changed focus so much that the argument is on shaky ground from that alone.

 

[Helldritch]

Let's look at the edition process, here. From 2e to 3e we saw a massive shift from GM to player. Truly massive. To be specific, the shift was GM to rules, but then the player had access to those rules. 4e was even more of a shift. So, unless we're starting at 2e (and then we need to discuss late 2e) we had two large moves that reduced GM authority over the game in favor of player-facing rules. Then we get to 5e, which largely undoes this and goes back to a late 2e authority structure. So, when you complain that 5e has removed tools, that needs a really strong caveat to suggest this is only in comparison to 2e or earlier. And there, the game has changed focus so much that the argument is on shaky ground from that alone.

Again you forget that what was given in 3ed was gated in the power of the DM to exactly allow the creation of magical items. Be it experience or gold. If you had one but not the other, tough luck for the players to make magical items. Spell access for magic user was a real thing (3ed) and only the sorcer could choose its spell but the list was pretty limited.

4th edition also restricted magical item creation in the same way (more or less). It is exactly that type of restriction that was removed completely in 5ed. How do you restrict something that is no longer needed? Magic items were necessary in all previous other edition. Yes DM power was supposedly restrained but ultimately, you can not build magical items if you do not have the ressources to build them in the first place. By removing the players dependency on magical items, the control the DM on the advancement of the character was removed.

Also. Never underestimate what players know about the rules. I always assume that they know as much or even more than I. This is why that to all new players I say that some monsters are tweaked, that bought adventures might have been modified. They know, be sure about that. So if you make things up on the fly, some players will notice and of a TPK results from that tweak, be ready to get a backlash.

You can not simply look at one rule or item and say yes or no. You have to look at whole deal. 5ed is great, but it made players agency way more harder to control and direct for the DM. And here I do not mean prevent, I simply mean restricting to make things funnier for everybody so that a weak player will shine too. Now it is way harder.

 

[Helldritch]

Half right!

It is just the worst. Chump monsters should be chumps instead of trying to punch above their weight. PCs should feel like they're progressing.

No. They stay chump. But in sufficient numbers they can be frightening. The:" Flee! You fools!" From Gandalf can now be played. Nit so in 1st edition. I have a fighter that slew 500 goblins and got barely a few scratches. At least now he would flee.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Again you forget that what was given in 3ed was gated in the power of the DM to exactly allow the creation of magical items. Be it experience or gold. If you had one but not the other, tough luck for the players to make magical items. Spell access for magic user was a real thing (3ed) and only the sorcer could choose its spell but the list was pretty limited.

That's some very weak ground to stand on. If the GM is starving XP, there's serious issues with play. GP is something the GM can do, but, again, it's very noticeable and against the expectations of play. If we're going to say "but I had a tool I could use if only I ignored the expectations of play" we can do that, but this is something being directly contested as not allowed on the 5e side. The insistence is that we need to compare 3.x with violations of the expectations of play only against 5e with all expectations firmly held. It's no a tenable argument.

And wizards got to choose spells at level up. Sure, a GM could starve them of additional spell opportunities, but we're back to targeting PCs in violation of expectations of play.

4th edition also restricted magical item creation in the same way (more or less). It is exactly that type of restriction that was removed completely in 5ed. How do you restrict something that is no longer needed? Magic items were necessary in all previous other edition. Yes DM power was supposedly restrained but ultimately, you can not build magical items if you do not have the ressources to build them in the first place. By removing the players dependency on magical items, the control the DM on the advancement of the character was removed.

The expectation in 4e is that the GM would assign treasure with player inputs, though. You're violating expectations of play to claim authorities again.

Also. Never underestimate what players know about the rules. I always assume that they know as much or even more than I. This is why that to all new players I say that some monsters are tweaked, that bought adventures might have been modified. They know, be sure about that. So if you make things up on the fly, some players will notice and of a TPK results from that tweak, be ready to get a backlash.

You can not simply look at one rule or item and say yes or no. You have to look at whole deal. 5ed is great, but it made players agency way more harder to control and direct for the DM. And here I do not mean prevent, I simply mean restricting to make things funnier for everybody so that a weak player will shine too. Now it is way harder.

In 5e, players cannot create magic items AT ALL without the GM creating the method for doing so. You're pointing to magic item creation rules under caveated expectations of play for control in prior editions while totally ignoring that magic item creation is explicitly up to the GM in 5e as the baseline expectation of play!

 

[Remathilis]

Also. Never underestimate what players know about the rules. I always assume that they know as much or even more than I. This is why that to all new players I say that some monsters are tweaked, that bought adventures might have been modified. They know, be sure about that. So if you make things up on the fly, some players will notice and of a TPK results from that tweak, be ready to get a backlash.

You can not simply look at one rule or item and say yes or no. You have to look at whole deal. 5ed is great, but it made players agency way more harder to control and direct for the DM. And here I do not mean prevent, I simply mean restricting to make things funnier for everybody so that a weak player will shine too. Now it is way harder.

Well yeah, you've literally given away your number 1 DM ability: the one to adjust encounters on the fly!

I'm going to assume you also roll all combat rolls and roll all treasure up in front of the PCs. I mean, they probably have knowledge of what a monster's to hit is and what is on the treasure table at a given CR, so giving your player with a weak PC bonus treasure is cheating. Besides that +3 longsword you gave the ranger with a 13 strength will surely better benefit the barbarian with a 17 strength more.

You've painted yourself into your own corner by assuming players have perfect knowledge of the rules, so don't complain you can't now modify them to correct your game.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No. They stay chump. But in sufficient numbers they can be frightening. The:" Flee! You fools!" From Gandalf can now be played. Nit so in 1st edition. I have a fighter that slew 500 goblins and got barely a few scratches. At least now he would flee.

I don't want to play out the 'fly you fools scene' or scenarios that force you to flee unheroically like Sir Robin. At a certain level, I don't think a PC should be afraid of any number of chump monsters. Because they are chumps.

 

[Helldritch]

Well yeah, you've literally given away your number 1 DM ability: the one to adjust encounters on the fly!

I'm going to assume you also roll all combat rolls and roll all treasure up in front of the PCs. I mean, they probably have knowledge of what a monster's to hit is and what is on the treasure table at a given CR, so giving your player with a weak PC bonus treasure is cheating. Besides that +3 longsword you gave the ranger with a 13 strength will surely better benefit the barbarian with a 17 strength more.

You've painted yourself into your own corner by assuming players have perfect knowledge of the rules, so don't complain you can't now modify them to correct your game.

I have no problems in my games. You do not know me and it shows in you way off the mark assumptions. I am talking about very real young DMs that comes to me. In previous editions, I rarely had these advice to give because it was not so prevalent as with 5ed. We are talking in general and not specific here.

 

[Helldritch]

That's some very weak ground to stand on. If the GM is starving XP, there's serious issues with play. GP is something the GM can do, but, again, it's very noticeable and against the expectations of play. If we're going to say "but I had a tool I could use if only I ignored the expectations of play" we can do that, but this is something being directly contested as not allowed on the 5e side. The insistence is that we need to compare 3.x with violations of the expectations of play only against 5e with all expectations firmly held. It's no a tenable argument.

And wizards got to choose spells at level up. Sure, a GM could starve them of additional spell opportunities, but we're back to targeting PCs in violation of expectations of play.

The expectation in 4e is that the GM would assign treasure with player inputs, though. You're violating expectations of play to claim authorities again.

In 5e, players cannot create magic items AT ALL without the GM creating the method for doing so. You're pointing to magic item creation rules under caveated expectations of play for control in prior editions while totally ignoring that magic item creation is explicitly up to the GM in 5e as the baseline expectation of play!

Hand wave....
When I bring play expectations I am wrong, but when it is you it is OK?

For the las part
One word.
Artificer.
Bang! No more limits.