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

[Hussar]

I think that's an interesting observation and experience. I could certainly see how the relative ease of saving characters from death could lead to a bit of laxness as well as the reputation of 5e as "easy mode" leading to overconfidence and then overextension into vulnerability.

In my experience, death is pretty uncommon (the PCs are 11th level in the game I'm running) but there's also a substantial difference between 3e/PF play and 5e. With magic items being "special" again, there are a lot less self-tailored/purchased utility items like wands or scrolls of flying. And as a result, the group is relatively low on oddball utility magics that tend to make obstacles in dungeons too easy. They're back to more creative uses of what they have like in 1e/2e days. And that, to me, feels ideal.

I have to say, I find a similar experience.

A Ring of Jumping has probably seen the most consistent use in my current campaign. The player picked it up, more or less on the, "Well, no one else wants this, so I'll take it" line of thinking and it's since become a really signature item. The bard's Wand of Illusions has also become a real go to thing. OTOH, the magic items the Artificer has made have been mostly completely background stuff - an AC bonus here, and a magic crossbow. Sure, she uses the magic crossbow a lot, but, it's like a +1 sword - it's there, we use it, but, it's not really adding anything to make the game more interesting.

That's phrased poorly, but, I hope my meaning is clear.

 

[Hussar]

No.

For me, it is figuring out how the capabilities of the different characters synergize and the players being creative.

For example, the party is running away from a demon through a cave tunnel. After some intense discussion, the cleric stone shapes a teardrop boulder in the ceiling with a shaft that allows someone down the hall to have line of site to the point of the teardrop. The fighter gives up his magic sword to be melded into the base of the drop, giving it a sharp, magical point. He then stands with his shield on the near side of the teardrop. The demon charges forward and begins to hammer the fighter. The wizard magic missiles the stem of the teardrop, causing it to fall. The massive weight of the boulder drives the magical sword through the demon, pinning it if not outright killing it.

They couldn't kill it in a fair fight, so they made the fight decidedly unfair in their favor. That's "A Game". Not just looking at your character sheet as a set of keys to clear the DM's locks, but actually figuring out what your character can do in the setting of the game and working together.

Hang on though.

The cleric cast a spell - ability inherent to the character class. The wizard casts a spell - an ability inherent to the character class. The fighter gives up a magic sword - the only thing in this story that isn't inherent to the class. Fighter goes full defense (takes the Dodge action) - straight up rules from the character sheet and nothing particularly creative here.

How is this not looking at character sheet as a set of keys? Because the players looked at each other's character sheets and came up with a plan together? It's creative, sure, but, it's still 100% looking at character sheets to solve the problem. It's not like they did anything that required anything other than direct spell descriptions.

IOW, this example could have been done in any edition and uses nothing but the mechanics of that edition. That's generally not what people mean when they say that the players are being creative. Now, to me, I love it and I would absolutely reward the group for doing this. It's a fantastic solution to a problem and I love it when players actually work together to solve something. It's why I adored the Warlord class which rewards this sort of play directly all the time. But, this isn't really what is generally meant when people talk about how this or that edition forces creativity.

 

[Older Beholder]

One thing that’s changed over the years is the dice.
There are much fancier dice available these days.

There‘s also more of a culture around collecting and even making your own dice.

 

[Thomas Shey]

"I don't see it" Clearly you are simply exhibiting selection bias .

Entirely possible. But you'd think if anyone was going to notice, it'd be someone who came in at the beginning, dipped out for two decades, then came back in, left again, and then came back just recently. I've got at least the advantage that I'm not that big a D&D fan so I don't have a particular dog in the fight.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have to say, I find a similar experience.

A Ring of Jumping has probably seen the most consistent use in my current campaign. The player picked it up, more or less on the, "Well, no one else wants this, so I'll take it" line of thinking and it's since become a really signature item. The bard's Wand of Illusions has also become a real go to thing. OTOH, the magic items the Artificer has made have been mostly completely background stuff - an AC bonus here, and a magic crossbow. Sure, she uses the magic crossbow a lot, but, it's like a +1 sword - it's there, we use it, but, it's not really adding anything to make the game more interesting.

That's phrased poorly, but, I hope my meaning is clear.

The basic numerical items have never been particularly interesting. Its hard to see how they could be.

On the other hand, the special-purpose items have always been situational and requiring active engagement (and sometimes GM cooperation) to get value out of, so many people learned to go with the numeric ones which weren't as dependent on all that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've had similar experiences with 3e. And I do not miss it.

Yeah. Like I said, I'm really not happy of the necessity; it was one of the things that put me off about 4e. But I've grudgingly accepted it as a practical necessity in the exception-based land of D&Doids.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ah, 3e iconic monsters. "Let me tell you about the cantrips and level 1 spells the PCs will NEVER see."

And of course having to decide on what spells were worth the time to cast when, as a GM, you might well not have that much a sense of them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is a pretty common trend. People never want to discuss the game as its published. They cannot distinguish between the game as it is/was published and the game they played for decades and have fold, spindled and mauled beyond any recognition beyond their own table. They have played so long that they have internalized many of the changes/interpretations they have made for their own table and cannot comprehend why these things don't apply beyond their own table.

You used to see this in people discussing AD&D1e all the time. They'd been playing with houserules throughout most of their play-life in that edition (and if they weren't hardcore, that still might have been decades before) and had long since forgotten what parts of the experience were houserules (or in some cases, as players, may have not even known). It sometimes lead to some really stupidly fraught discussions.

 

[Helldritch]

I can't really agree, at least by the low teens.

I recall running a relatively high level wizard with two moderate high level fighters as opponents.

It was prohibitively tedious to manage. That was intrinsic simply in the number of moving parts those classes had, with spells in the first place, feats in the second and even the reduced number of magic items in both. Some complex monsters (particularly dragons and demons) could end up having both, along with a fairly large number of special abilities.

It wasn't the construction I found problematic, but the operation, and that's intrinsic in the combination of large numbers of components and the fact D&D has been solidly centered on exception based design from day one.

Really? Operation was quite good. Even at high level (highest campaign in 3.5ed ended at 24th level). I did not have any problems to run any opponents, not even casters.

It was building my data base to create fast NPC with casting abilities and feats that has been tedious. It one of the main reason I switched to 4ed. The ease of play was much more fluid at all levels. Tedious in execution at times but once we got the hang of it.
The thing we avoided like the plague with 4ed was the essential the various PHB... The three core books were more than enough.

 

[BookTenTiger]

One thing I'm surprised no one else mentioned is that in old editions of D&D, all you really needed to play was a pencil, some paper, and dice. Now in modern editions you need a pencil, some paper, dice, and the Wizardsoft™ RPGWow Imaginationchip© installed beneath your left temporal lobe so that you can access the incredible library of Wizardsoft™ RPGWow Streamdice©, MetaMiniatures©, and ARAdventures©.

I miss the old days!