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

File under: literally judging a book by it's cover.
Maybe you have occasional difficulties in contextualize what you are reading. We were talking about inspiring/uninspiring illustrations and how the illustrations are more and more uninspiring TO ME as time goes by. I also have written: Obviously I'll wait to know the content before deciding to pass/buy.

So please, exit polemic mode.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

My personal theory was that 6-8 was the typical amount of encounters in a moderate-sized dungeon. Assuming about 20 rooms, you would fill about 6-8 with combats (from peons to boss monster), another 4-5 with tricks and traps, and the rest mostly devoid of harmful elements, but could still drain resources like casting detect magic. I think they also assumed more uses of resources in exploration and social pillars and that PCs would take short rests in the dungeon, but long rests outside.

The issue of course is that there is lots of D&D that isn't medium-sized dungeons, and the resource drain mechanism doesn't work as well in those scenarios.
The fundamental problem any D&D design faces is that playstyle is relatively bi- or tri-modal, with massively multi-roomed dungeons, smaller mini-dungeons (/enemy hideouts/small keeps) and then 1-2 encounter days. Balancing to all of those at once is nontrivial. The problem is that they took the average, which is really in one of the valleys of the multi-mode model.
 
Last edited:


The fundamental problem any D&D design faces is that playstyle is relatively bi- or tri-modal, with massively multi-roomed dungeons, smaller mini-dungeons (/enemy hideouts/small keeps) and then 1-2 encounter days. Balancing to all of those at once is nontrivial. The problem is that they took the average, which is not really in one of the valleys of the multi-mode model.
Which is, for what it's worth, why 4e opted to balanced per encounter rather than per day. I acknowledge that design goal was laudable, even if I didn't like the result.
 

I think some of this coincides with the fact that 1e was created at a time when gamers didn't interact with game designers and didn't argue for preferences that hard. So there was no sense of assertiveness instill in D&D players to DMs
As someone who DMed at the time - no, just no. Players had preferences and would push back on DMs. At the extreme they would leave games if the DM was perceived as being a jerk, but even with DMs who weren't trying to be a jerk the players would push forward their ideas of what they wanted in the game. And we'd negotiate things because that's just how things work.

The difference between then and now is that back then the DM "advice" (such as it was) was to set yourself in opposition to the players. The players were viewed as at best people trying to destroy your beautiful game world and at worst children who needed to be "taught lessons" through your abuse of their characters. DM advice since the 90s has been much better about recognizing that the DM and the players shouldn't be in opposition in most gaming situations. The DM sets up the world but they aren't trying to "beat" the players and the players don't "beat" the DM when they overcome their encounters.
 


Maybe you have occasional difficulties in contextualize what you are reading. We were talking about inspiring/uninspiring illustrations and how the illustrations are more and more uninspiring TO ME as time goes by. I also have written: Obviously I'll wait to know the content before deciding to pass/buy.

So please, exit polemic mode.
Dude, you complained about colors and a cute creature, then made a five-years dead My Little Pony Joke.
 


Which is, for what it's worth, why 4e opted to balanced per encounter rather than per day. I acknowledge that design goal was laudable, even if I didn't like the result.
4e had daily powers as well, though, right (AEDU)?
Pretty much all games have something along these lines (games like Champions/Hero tend to have the default being everything recharges in 5-10 minutes, which has its own issues). The only great solutions are to have a curated playstyle ('this is what this game expects, deviate from it only if you are specifically intending to'), or the ability to vary the recharge frequency (13A, or the rest variants in the 5E D&D DMG-both of which can have game verisimilitude effects).

Hearing complaints about 'Modern' D&D and what it 'should be' just conjures an interminable, mud-colored slog of resource management and constant stress like an early 2000's FPS only lacking the charm of WWII.
I'm surprised how many people treat it as a new thing. TSR-era D&D was chalk full of this stuff too. Per-day effects, resource management, etc. Less of it was in class abilities and more of it was equipment vs encumbrance, magic item abilities, and of course the all-important and yes harder to recover HP as primary managed resource; but it is/was all there.
 

4e had daily powers as well, though, right (AEDU)?
One of the actual sins of the edition, to be sure.
I'm surprised how many people treat it as a new thing. TSR-era D&D was chalk full of this stuff too. Per-day effects, resource management, etc. Less of it was in class abilities and more of it was equipment vs encumbrance, magic item abilities, and of course the all-important and yes harder to recover HP as primary managed resource; but it is/was all there.
The only old school adventures I paid attention to involved things like gnomes building a giant robot, a crashed space ship, meeting Thor and finding out he's an actor, and let's never forget Monster Who Are Thinly Veiled Excuses For Puns.
 

Remove ads

Top