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

[Micah Sweet]

Remove might and put will instead. If they are brought back, it means that they are vital to the fight. Intelligent monsters can assess that easily.

It was, mostly. It was a very very tactical edition to say the least.

But it does make for a more objective criticism. Saying what a game was, in your point of view, and that you liked it does not make a comment about edition bashing. 4ed had more to offer than people gave it credit for. Unfortunately, it went a bit too far toward the MMORPG style for the likes of the intended audience. A shame that it was received so poorly as it really was better than this little approximation of what it was. But it was truly a good combat simulation.

My friends and I used it for exactly that purpose every week for about a year. Had a great time. Burned out on it as an RPG after a while though.

 

[BookTenTiger]

One thing I haven't seen anyone mention (and it honestly seems pretty obvious to me), is that in older editions we used to play like this, and nowadays we play like that.

 

[Fifth Element]

Eliminating an enemy permanently is almost always a better move than inconveniencing one for what might not even be a full turn.

That's far too contextual to generalize.

 

[Fifth Element]

Which lie?

The one that it was all about combat, ie, the one that was specifically called out.

 

[Jer]

It doesn't have a focus because it's too busy being D&D's Greatest Hits rather than an album in itself. It was safe and nostalgic. It's only after its newfound success that it has attempted to try anything beyond tried and tested material.

I mostly agree about the lack of focus - not just because it's trying to be D&D's Greatest Hits but also because it's a compromise edition. The D&D Next playtest had a lot of innovation in it and there was pushback because it didn't "feel" like D&D. That compromise leads to an aimless feeling as the developers wanted one thing and the public playtests pushed them to have it be something else. (And honestly the reason it's D&D's Greatest Hits is because the public playtests pushed it that way, so maybe we're saying the same thing after all).

What's interesting to me is that in becoming that compromise edition it opened the game up to be a more narrative game than previous editions - which makes it a good edition for streaming, which has helped fuel its popularity. The more I tear apart 5e and work to figure out its innards the more impressed I am with what was created, whether it was intentional or not.

 

[Helldritch]

The one that it was all about combat, ie, the one that was specifically called out.

If for you the truth is a lie, so be it. This is the only edition that could bring its tactical combat mode into the Skirmish game with the minies without any trouble or adaptation. They even made board games with the combat system intact! 4ed for all intent and purpose was mainly about combat. Whether you like or not. It brought a lot more than combat, that is for sure. Skill challenge were brilliant but also cut in the Role Play aspect. A bit toned down would have made it perfect. Making it less dependant on the skill and more on the players' decisions would have made wonder. If fact, we had added a lot of bonuses for the skill challenge from the Role Play that players would do to decide how a skill challenge would resolve. The better the Role Play, the higher number of auto success that skill would start. It was a common decision but god was it fun!

 

[Ovinomancer]

If for you the truth is a lie, so be it. This is the only edition that could bring its tactical combat mode into the Skirmish game with the minies without any trouble or adaptation. They even made board games with the combat system intact! 4ed for all intent and purpose was mainly about combat. Whether you like or not. It brought a lot more than combat, that is for sure. Skill challenge were brilliant but also cut in the Role Play aspect. A bit toned down would have made it perfect. Making it less dependant on the skill and more on the players' decisions would have made wonder. If fact, we had added a lot of bonuses for the skill challenge from the Role Play that players would do to decide how a skill challenge would resolve. The better the Role Play, the higher number of auto success that skill would start. It was a common decision but god was it fun!

That 4e had a strong combat engine isn't the claim. It had this. It's the claim it did only this, when it actually increased non combat tools and systems as well, and gave many robust tools for our of combat stuff. It did both. 4e went further than any other edition in putting tools in the hands of players to resolve non combat stuff and to provide clear frameworks to the GM for resolutions.

Now, if you wanted to keep the GM Say methods of prior and later editions for non combat things, then these systems had little value. But not being what you wanted doesn't remove them from actually being there. If you choose to not value them, then sure all that is left of 5e is combat stuff. But that's a choice to discard systems, not evidence that they weren't there. It's also the exact pattern of attack seen during the edition wars. I have little emotional weight here because I missed those wars and only learned about them later. But it is a patterned attack and one based on misrepresenting the system based on preference and ignoring what was actually there.

 

[overgeeked]

The one that it was all about combat, ie, the one that was specifically called out.

It’s not a lie. It’s my literal experience with the game.

To quote myself, again, this time from the “So what % of D&D IS combat?” thread…

For me it tends to be higher, generally, as the longest standing group I’ve played with is focused on combat. But it also depends on edition. For us the entirety of 4E was easily 95-99% combat. After the literal first few minutes of the first session of roleplaying and getting a quest, etc the entire rest of our time playing 4E was nothing but combat and rests between combats. Combat simply took too long so it took all our time at the table. We played 4E from release up to the 5E playtest.

So when I say “4E is all about combat” I’m not making a generalization or attacking the game. I’m reporting my actual lived experience with the game. If your experience is different, that’s great.

 

[Helldritch]

That 4e had a strong combat engine isn't the claim. It had this. It's the claim it did only this, when it actually increased non combat tools and systems as well, and gave many robust tools for our of combat stuff. It did both. 4e went further than any other edition in putting tools in the hands of players to resolve non combat stuff and to provide clear frameworks to the GM for resolutions.

Now, if you wanted to keep the GM Say methods of prior and later editions for non combat things, then these systems had little value. But not being what you wanted doesn't remove them from actually being there. If you choose to not value them, then sure all that is left of 5e is combat stuff. But that's a choice to discard systems, not evidence that they weren't there. It's also the exact pattern of attack seen during the edition wars. I have little emotional weight here because I missed those wars and only learned about them later. But it is a patterned attack and one based on misrepresenting the system based on preference and ignoring what was actually there.

I was not part of the edition war either. I was not aware that it was the angle of attack that was taken by one side. For me, the downside of 3ed was that it was a bit too close to MMORPG in execution. And yet, for me it was exactly this that we really liked. 4ed edition was great, but claiming that combat and combat mechanic were not its focus is simply ignoring the truth.

5ed does combat a lot less efficiently than 4ed but what it lacks in combat, it makes up on the narrative side. 5ed is a generalist edition and it is exactly why it was so well received. You can easily do what you want with. No struggle at all.

 

[AnotherGuy]

My experience with 4e as a player was that it was heavily combat focused. It was only via Enworld that I discovered how some played 4e with greater focus on the other aspects of the game and learned to appreciate it more. I will also admit the 4e DMs I had were not great.