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

[Thomas Shey]

Contrarily, I'd say that 5e PCs are far more interesting, mechanically, than TSR-era PCs.

At least compared to OD&D ones, it'd be hard for them not to be.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Really?
Out of the bat, I could mentioned about 20+ DMs that allowed it and if I use my connections, it could go as high as a hundred if not more. At least for the lowest items.

It may not have been clear, but I was only referring to things outside of low to modest end scrolls and basic potions. You've been able to buy those since OD&D in most cases, but consumeables only have so much motivating costs, so at best they were a strong motivater to arcane casters for the most part (at least after it became clear the all-or-nothing nature of divine caster access) and then got into diminishing returns after they'd found scrolls for the major spells they wanted to learn.

Past that, I still have to conclude being able to do so with any reliability was vanishingly rare. Too many GMs were, honestly, too controlling about giving access to magic items to want it to be done instead of by adventuring. A fair number were offended at it even being possible (again, I'm excluding higher level casters who could do it themselves, but that was dependent on access to the necessary spells).

 

[Remathilis]

5e characters need nothing but life support from the largely powerless cruise ship director gm resulting in shallow wish fulfillment Mary Sue "stories" that most of the table is almost guaranteed to not give a flip about by virtue of it not being their story or a story about the party they are part of..

I'm sorry, but this is blatant cowpuckie. You are equating a particular player type that had existed since the game did with an entire edition. There is nothing going on in 5e that didn't happen in 3e, 4e, Pathfinder, or even earlier. Your perception of a few people you have encountered has colored your perception of the current game to the point that you cannot believe anyone else had different experiences. Bad Mary Sue players existed before 5e. They are not a product of nor encouraged by, nor has the DM lost any particular authority except the ability to micromanage PCs with arbitrary restrictions, character choice based on luck, or required loot to remain even remotely playable.

You are lamenting that players no longer see you as a God-King DM for whom the game begins and ends, and that loss of total authority and importance gnaws at you.

 

[Helldritch]

It may not have been clear, but I was only referring to things outside of low to modest end scrolls and basic potions. You've been able to buy those since OD&D in most cases, but consumeables only have so much motivating costs, so at best they were a strong motivater to arcane casters for the most part (at least after it became clear the all-or-nothing nature of divine caster access) and then got into diminishing returns after they'd found scrolls for the major spells they wanted to learn.

Past that, I still have to conclude being able to do so with any reliability was vanishingly rare. Too many GMs were, honestly, too controlling about giving access to magic items to want it to be done instead of by adventuring. A fair number were offended at it even being possible (again, I'm excluding higher level casters who could do it themselves, but that was dependent on access to the necessary spells).

Were these GM the same that would have players unable to spend their hard earned gold? Maybe it is why some said gold was worthless in 1ed and 2ed....
Would these DMs restrict the basic access to spells such as Enchant and Permanency? If so, How and why?
Would they allow wands, rod and staves (in addition to potions and scrolls)?
Did they read Homlet, one the first AD&D adventure in which you can buy potions and scrolls from the get go at the church of St-Cuthebert? Or even sell your magical items to the wizard at the tower (or even buy spells and commission for scrolls to him)?

Just having an NPC be ready to enchant something for you could spring quite a few quests. A DM restricting himself in such a way is almost unheard of in normal settings. Only those playing Darksun or Ravenloft would do so. And of these two, Ravenloft campaigns/games usually were one shot adventures/incursion. I have been aware of a few campaigns where people were adventuring all the time in Ravenloft, but as much as I love the setting, it was growing tedious very fast. It was better as a one shot (this could mean many sessions though) where the PC had to fight a lord (or help) to get out.
Otherwise, having access to places where magical items were sold was pretty much assumed.

Also, if any player would be able to sell a magical item, it automatically means that there were some buyers for it. And where there are sellers and buyers... a market (and a black market too, thieves existed in 1-2ed) will spring into existence.

Edit: And even restricting spell access would be futile. A wizard can and will research any spell he wants. It is built-in in class capacity in 1-2ed. It is called spell research, in the DMG and if a spell is known to exist, the wizard will almost automatically succeed in about half the time expected for a new spell. So creating basic items such as +1 to +3 weapons/armor was either the DM not knowing the rule, or the DM being too restrictive for nothing. Again, a setting might change this. But most would not.

 

[Remathilis]

Contrarily, I'd say that 5e PCs are far more interesting, mechanically, than TSR-era PCs.

Yeah, the fact that fighters have something resembling class features and rogue/thief is actually playable is a good indicator of that. It's not perfect, but I won't trade it for 1e or 2e RAW classes.

 

[Umbran]

You are lamenting that players no longer see you as a God-King DM for whom the game begins and ends, and that loss of total authority and importance gnaws at you.

Mod Note:

Is this how any of you want the discussion to go? Is degeneration to personal attacks your jam, or something?

Everyone is hereby warned to cut that nonsense out, now.

 

[Mezuka]

Speaking for myself only, I gladly followed (and enjoyed) the 3e, 4e and 5e bandwagon when it passed by.

Two years ago I switched to Fantasy AGE and three months ago to Shadow of the Demon Lord (excellent games) because something was bothering me. These games didn't remove the nagging feeling that I wanted something else.

Recently, it dawned on me that what I long for is a flatter character power progression, few character powers, the return of magic items (found while adventuring) as the only way for characters to gain non-class powers. In short, less integrated verticality, more randomized horizontality.

That is how D&D changed over the years IMHO.

(I'm not saying I will play TSR editions. I just can't. Too many design decisions I didn't like back then and still don't like today. Currently, I'm reading Castles & Crusades, so far it seems to strike a good balance between old and new D&D. Maybe I found what I'm looking for. I also have The One Ring 2e which could be a solution.)

 

[Helldritch]

Yeah, the fact that fighters have something resembling class features and rogue/thief is actually playable is a good indicator of that. It's not perfect, but I won't trade it for 1e or 2e RAW classes.

That is your preference. It happens to be mine too.
But I would not say that characters were tasteless and unplayable back then.
It was a different design philosophy. Characters could die but those that survived could boast about their success. In all my years as a DM in 1-2ed, I had four groups going higher than 20th level. Most groups were finished by 9th level; either through retirement or TPK. If I had groups able to rise to such levels it means that the game was playable at these levels too. Challenging to DM, yes, but manageable.

Now, most campaign ends around level 12-15 because the campaigns are designed that way. But unless the DM applies some optional rules, reaching these levels is now almost a certainty and not a vague possibility. You do not even have to work that hard to reach those levels. 5ed can be easy mode if played as presented in the PHB. As soon as you put a bit more optional rules from the DMG, the squishiness of the characters appears very fast. By using BA and the fact that magical items are now optional, the characters can be overcome by mooch when in enough numbers. I have had a 14th level paladin hold his ground against 500 goblins in 1ed. A 5ed paladin would not be able to do such a feat. Heck a 13th level fighter single handedly killed an ancient white dragon while the other players were fighting frost giants. Can a 5ed fighter do the same? The answer is no. So which edition is more heroic? 1ed or 5ed? For me, it means that these 1ed characters had something worth coming back to them. Yes they had fewer options, but they could duel stuff that characters in 5ed simply can't. Again, it is a design philosophy.

 

[Remathilis]

That is your preference. It happens to be mine too.
But I would not say that characters were tasteless and unplayable back then.
It was a different design philosophy. Characters could die but those that survived could boast about their success. In all my years as a DM in 1-2ed, I had four groups going higher than 20th level. Most groups were finished by 9th level; either through retirement or TPK. If I had groups able to rise to such levels it means that the game was playable at these levels too. Challenging to DM, yes, but manageable.

Now, most campaign ends around level 12-15 because the campaigns are designed that way. But unless the DM applies some optional rules, reaching these levels is now almost a certainty and not a vague possibility. You do not even have to work that hard to reach those levels. 5ed can be easy mode if played as presented in the PHB. As soon as you put a bit more optional rules from the DMG, the squishiness of the characters appears very fast. By using BA and the fact that magical items are now optional, the characters can be overcome by mooch when in enough numbers. I have had a 14th level paladin hold his ground against 500 goblins in 1ed. A 5ed paladin would not be able to do such a feat. Heck a 13th level fighter single handedly killed an ancient white dragon while the other players were fighting frost giants. Can a 5ed fighter do the same? The answer is no. So which edition is more heroic? 1ed or 5ed? For me, it means that these 1ed characters had something worth coming back to them. Yes they had fewer options, but they could duel stuff that characters in 5ed simply can't. Again, it is a design philosophy.

It seems a bit counter intuitive to call 5e easy mode/can't die, but then lament how a paladin can't 500:1 against goblins or solo dragons like he could in AD&D.

 

[Helldritch]

It seems a bit counter intuitive to call 5e easy mode/can't die, but then lament how a paladin can't 500:1 against goblins or solo dragons like he could in AD&D.

Here, we are talking high level. Not low level nobodies.
Reaching that level 14th+ in 1ed was an achievement in and of itself.
Now? No so much.
There is a big difference between high level play in 1ed and in 5ed.
1ed, 1000 goblins. A group of 15th level characters will destroy them. They are no match.
5ed, 100 goblins. A group of 15th level characters? You get the Flee you fools!

Again, design philosophy is in play here. BA means that low level threat remains dangerous at high level. It also feels less heroic than 1ed where low level threat were non existent at high level because they were irrelevant. Heck, a 14th level fighter would make 14 attacks per rounds on the goblins (double that if hasted)... High level monsters had a higher AC in general making hitting them harder, but HP were lower making them more vulnerable to spell attacks.

Here, it is not because a high level fighter could stave off 500 goblins (with appropriate gear by the way) that makes it counter intuitive. It is the fact that almost every character can reach it in 5ed. That 14th level character in 1ed was an achievement worth noting. Now, it is just a number.