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

[pemerton]

There is no directed requirement to create a fictional element for the character. We assume this as part of the ad hoc and arbitrary fiction that might be used. I say might because I believe few tables bother with descriptions of every bit of hp loss. I say arbitrary because no description that is generated ever holds any weight past the description. Whatever you describe never has any further use in the fiction and effectively goes away once it's done. No further fiction ever keys on or uses that description.

<snip>

Even in "hitpoints are neat" no description of injury ever has any further use in the fiction.

I think that this is a point that is pretty fundamental to hp as a system, but that has very different weight at different tables, because of play expectations.

If a particular table expects the fiction that comes next to flow (in some fashion or other) from the fiction that has already been established in play, then "epiphenomenal" fiction - like the narration of hp loss that you are describing - will stand out as relatively useless or pointless. And is perhaps likely to be dropped altogether. (That's generally the case at my table, unless someone is in an oratorical mood.)

But if a particular table engages or encounters the fiction of RPGing in a more "performative" fashion, with an emphasis on colourful narration rather than (what I might call) "trajectory", then the fact that the narration of hp loss is mere colour without any trajectory to it may be neither here nor there.

I think 2nd ed AD&D tended to promote this second sort of approach (building on trends in AD&D play that emerged around the DL period), and it seems to have survived at a reasonable number of tables through the 3E and 5e eras. (I think that there were significant tensions between this sort of approach and 4e, but that's another story!)

One result of these differences of approach is that the significance of mechanical systems - and also a sense of what counts as a significant difference between systems - can be experienced quite differently. For the first sort of table, RM or RQ is very different from AD&D because the former systems tell you what is happening in combat - they create a "trajectory" - which is absent from AD&D.

But for the second sort of table, the fact that RM produces colourful narrations that are read of crit tables, whereas AD&D produces colourful narrations that are made up spontaneously by the GM, may not be a significant difference - ie the only experienced difference might be where the narration comes from. The second sort of table might also notice, and dislike, the RM death spiral but that can be divorced from the idea of fiction "mattering", because for the second sort of table fiction "matters" in the way they care about even if it doesn't generate a "trajectory" in the way the first sort of table is looking for.

Knowledge checks in D&D are a terrible bit of mechanics in my book anyway. They're used either for GM info dumps or a gates on what information the GM will allow players to operate on.

I think the use of knowledge checks to represent the actual undertaking of research is probably a bit under-utilised in D&D play (compared to, say, CoC - let's leave to one side whether it's good for CoC play to have a lot of knowledge gated behind successful research checks).

In 4e, knowledge checks get used at least two ways. One is in skill challenges, where in structural terms they work like any other skill. The second is monster knowledge checks, where they provide the players with mechanical information that permits more informed decision-making about resource deployment.

I think that second sort of use is quite functional. Whether it's balanced, from the perspective of contribution-to-player-success-per-unit-of-PC-build-element-expended, is another question. I suspect it might be a little OP, but I'm not confident in that judgement because at my table the sage PC was often the weakest in combat (a wizard/invoker whose feats were nearly all spent on out-of-combat abilities) and so bringing monster knowledge to the table was part of what he did rather than sitting on top of what he did (I hope that makes sense).

 

[Willie the Duck]

It's basic game design. Reward the behavior you want to encourage. The designers rewarded securing gold instead of killing monsters because they wanted to encourage a smarter, more thoughtful style of play. Sneak in, be smart, steal the loot, avoid combat as much as possible. Once you started getting XP for killing monsters, the game became a bad combat sim. Kick in the door, kill the monsters, loot the bodies, search the room, repeat. More and more about combat, longer and longer combat rules, more and more spells just about dealing damage and imposing conditions, etc. XP for gold encourages exploration and smart play. We could use more of that, not less. And with how inconsequential combat is in 5E, the players need something to do that's not a waste of time. 5E combat is a really long series of rolls to see if you die. I'd rather just make a single save vs monster and get on with the rest of the game.

And here I was thinking it was a high-score mechanic akin trying to get your initials in the top slot of a Gauntlet arcade machine. How much gold could you acquire before GAME OVER.

It’s weird how “play smarter” and “outwit your enemies” and “leverage every advantage” isn’t the order of the day rather it’s “make the game easier.”

I think this is kind of the antithesis of what I play RPGS for, exclusively. Knowing those skills as a player will help, but honestly, if all I want to do is test that, I will get out Advanced Squad Leader or World in Flames instead of a game where the DM has to hold back and not everyone might be on the same page. I can see the perspective of D&D as "the ultimate boardgame", and I do see how that was how the early editions went, but it's the last thing I play an RPG for.

Whether people 'played smarter' bitd is always going to be a discussion fraught with issues. In particular, it has threads of the, 'no, see, we're the actual smart nerds, unlike you guys' within-group posturing that seems so prevalent in nerd culture and threads of the 'back in my day, we walked to school uphill both ways' that happens with any endeavor that exists across decades. Suffice to say, there were people that were awfully clever in their gaming back then, and plenty enough who do so now.

I think the notion that the system of old school D&D actually incentivized being clever is... well, mostly true only in that there wasn't all that many other levers to pull... for non-casters... and before people had lots of magic items... and assuming you include negotiating with monsters (which is hard to call clever when it is described right in the dungeon-crawl procedure section)... and (once you get to this many caveats, obviously there's going to be a lot of YMMV). I mean, obviously if defeating monsters doesn't garner you xp you will look for opportunities to bypass fights, but that's just minimally 'being smart.' When I first heard this adage about early gaming, I imagined playing smart was some kind of Oceans 11/Mission Impossible heist, complete with crawling through ductwork and stuff. However, having now met with the early gamers when both of us were adults (as opposed to when I started in '83 when they were scary grownups), it seems it was more about 'duck down this passage and let the guards pass by.' Everyone's experience is going to vary, of course.

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)?

Enchanting items ran headlong into the Con sacrifice, and often ended up something that NPC casters did, but not the PCs. It also highlights that the game had wildly different uses for money based on whether you were name level or not --the fighter having a use for their gold too.... at least if you did the leader/general route.

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.

That's one of those 'it stands to reason' moments that is true if you try to square the circle on a D&D world's economy, but it by no means was a truism in-game. Plenty of DMs followed the 'can sell magic items' rules* without making a commensurate way of buying them. Exact reasoning will have differed, but predominantly (IMO) based on the conceit that you were supposed to go diving into the dungeons to get the treasure
*which was something of a requirement, if you used the level-up training rules, as you always would be just a little GP poor when you hit the XP point for level-up.

 

[Helldritch]

I think the reason is that the curve is shallower. It starts higher, but doesn't rise as exponentially as it had previously. PCs are more competent and durable than previous editions, but they don't raise taller as much as wider. Raw numbers don't go up as high due to BA, but PCs get more abilities to choose from.

On this I fully agree. I really like 5ed. It is the best ever in my books. But the heroic fighting powers of high level 1-2ed is hard to beat. But, yes, the exponential rise of power is something that I sorely miss for my players.

 

[Helldritch]

Is the fighting hoards of goblins kind of a red herring for judging power? In 1e, it doesn't apply to, say, fighting Dwarfs (1HD), Hobgoblins (1+1 HD), or Orcs (1HD).

A History of the Fighter’s Extra Attacks versus Low-Level Monsters

In page 25 of the AD&D 1e Players Handbook, beneath the “FIGHTERS’, PALADINS’, & RANGERS’ ATTACKS PER MELEE ROUND TABLE”, you have this special note for a Fighter: The origin of…

songoftheblade.wordpress.com

As an aside, did having a rule like that have any inspirational effect on the mook rules in later games (4e or 13th age), or did they just spring independently from an earlier idea?

I know full well that the extra attacks were only for 1-1HD. But it was a blast to do (actually see) players doing it. It was a nice thing to see fighters tell the wizards: "Keep your fireballs, I got this under control".

As for 4th edition. The minions were an incredibly great idea! I loved the feel of power it was giving the players. Especially high level players. I remember the first time they were killing ogre minions. They went from desperate to enthusiast as the ogres were threatening a village they deeply cared about. Yep, minions were great!

 

[Cadence]

I know full well that the extra attacks were only for 1-1HD. But it was a blast to do (actually see) players doing it. It was a nice thing to see fighters tell the wizards: "Keep your fireballs, I got this under control".

Certainly. I just meant they don't seem a great way for arguing the fighters are super-powerful if the drop-off is huge when going from creatures with 1d7 hitponts to 1d8 hitpoints is going from hitting thirteen+ per round to hitting two per round.

As for 4th edition. The minions were an incredibly great idea! I loved the feel of power it was giving the players. Especially high level players. I remember the first time they were killing ogre minions. They went from desperate to enthusiast as the ogres were threatening a village they deeply cared about. Yep, minions were great!

I didn't play much 4th edition, but was always torn about mooks in 13th age. It works for me as a pack of rodents (where having to get each individual one with normal creature rules seems painful), but having damage jump to another member of the mook group 10 feet away seemed strange. The 4th edition minion feels a lot better to me than the 13th age thing.

 

[Helldritch]

Whether people 'played smarter' bitd is always going to be a discussion fraught with issues. In particular, it has threads of the, 'no, see, we're the actual smart nerds, unlike you guys' within-group posturing that seems so prevalent in nerd culture and threads of the 'back in my day, we walked to school uphill both ways' that happens with any endeavor that exists across decades. Suffice to say, there were people that were awfully clever in their gaming back then, and plenty enough who do so now.

I think the notion that the system of old school D&D actually incentivized being clever is... well, mostly true only in that there wasn't all that many other levers to pull... for non-casters... and before people had lots of magic items... and assuming you include negotiating with monsters (which is hard to call clever when it is described right in the dungeon-crawl procedure section)... and (once you get to this many caveats, obviously there's going to be a lot of YMMV). I mean, obviously if defeating monsters doesn't garner you xp you will look for opportunities to bypass fights, but that's just minimally 'being smart.' When I first heard this adage about early gaming, I imagined playing smart was some kind of Oceans 11/Mission Impossible heist, complete with crawling through ductwork and stuff. However, having now met with the early gamers when both of us were adults (as opposed to when I started in '83 when they were scary grownups), it seems it was more about 'duck down this passage and let the guards pass by.' Everyone's experience is going to vary, of course.

I don't think that players back then were more clever. They just had to adapt a bit more to each DMs as most rules were in the DMs' hands. The goal was not to fight head on but to fight on your own terms. (and to duck when it was obvious that you were outmatched).

Enchanting items ran headlong into the Con sacrifice, and often ended up something that NPC casters did, but not the PCs. It also highlights that the game had wildly different uses for money based on whether you were name level or not --the fighter having a use for their gold too.... at least if you did the leader/general route.

PC would do it, if necessary. And NPC would charge a lot. This loss was often circumvented by the enchanter using magic jar on the person doing the request. The recipient of the magic jar would be the one opened to the CON loss and not the caster. It took a lot of trust to do such a thing and quests were usually used so that at the end, both caster and buyer would get into their respective body.

That's one of those 'it stands to reason' moments that is true if you try to square the circle on a D&D world's economy, but it by no means was a truism in-game. Plenty of DMs followed the 'can sell magic items' rules* without making a commensurate way of buying them. Exact reasoning will have differed, but predominantly (IMO) based on the conceit that you were supposed to go diving into the dungeons to get the treasure
*which was something of a requirement, if you used the level-up training rules, as you always would be just a little GP poor when you hit the XP point for level-up.

And I saw this not only at the table of my old DM, but at mine and those of many other DMs over the 1-2ed era. I was very active in the tournament scene and I have had the chance to meet many DMs. I never ran into a DM that did not have some form magical items trade market going on. It was expensive, yes. But it was there.

 

[Helldritch]

Certainly. I just meant they don't seem a great way for arguing the fighters are super-powerful if the drop-off is huge when going from creatures with 1d7 hitponts to 1d8 hitpoints is going from hitting thirteen+ per round to hitting two per round.

Not only that, but a martial character in 1ed could solo a dragon of respectable power. Not only dragons but other monsters too that are now considered Solo encounters now. A high level fighter could solo a beholder (especially with a bow but using thrown weapons would work too). Martial lost a lot in the 2ed era where some of the monsters got over buffed. It was one of my main criticism of 2ed.

I didn't play much 4th edition, but was always torn about mooks in 13th age. It works for me as a pack of rodents (where having to get each individual one with normal creature rules seems painful), but having damage jump to another member of the mook group 10 feet away seemed strange. The 4th edition minion feels a lot better to me than the 13th age thing.

I have no experience with 13th age. So I can't argue on that. But minions, I repeat, were truly great!

 

[Jer]

I didn't play much 4th edition, but was always torn about mooks in 13th age. It works for me as a pack of rodents (where having to get each individual one with normal creature rules seems painful), but having damage jump to another member of the mook group 10 feet away seemed strange. The 4th edition minion feels a lot better to me than the 13th age thing.

I find that when we're doing 13th Age completely theater of the mind with no minis it works out fine - cinematic descriptions of the mooks moving in only to get smacked by the rebound of sword or an arrow that tears through their comrade and hits them work quite well.

When we're using minis it does start to bend reality a bit - when it matters I'll subdivide the mooks up into different pools based on how close they are to each other and how easily I think I'll be able to narrate a damage effect on them (joining pools together when someone hits them with an AoE effect of course).

 

[Remathilis]

On this I fully agree. I really like 5ed. It is the best ever in my books. But the heroic fighting powers of high level 1-2ed is hard to beat. But, yes, the exponential rise of power is something that I sorely miss for my players.

The thing was, that exponential power curve itself stalled out for non-casters around 10th level. There are plenty of stories of high-level thieves being rather useless, and LFQW has been a factor in high level play since inception. So the rise was steep, but the plateau hit at name level for any class not named "magic user".

 

[overgeeked]

Whether people 'played smarter' bitd is always going to be a discussion fraught with issues. In particular, it has threads of the, 'no, see, we're the actual smart nerds, unlike you guys' within-group posturing that seems so prevalent in nerd culture and threads of the 'back in my day, we walked to school uphill both ways' that happens with any endeavor that exists across decades. Suffice to say, there were people that were awfully clever in their gaming back then,

Yeah. I absolutely love that style of play.

and plenty enough who do so now.

I'd love to find some.

I think the notion that the system of old school D&D actually incentivized being clever is... well, mostly true only in that there wasn't all that many other levers to pull... for non-casters... and before people had lots of magic items... and assuming you include negotiating with monsters (which is hard to call clever when it is described right in the dungeon-crawl procedure section)... and (once you get to this many caveats, obviously there's going to be a lot of YMMV). I mean, obviously if defeating monsters doesn't garner you xp you will look for opportunities to bypass fights, but that's just minimally 'being smart.' When I first heard this adage about early gaming, I imagined playing smart was some kind of Oceans 11/Mission Impossible heist, complete with crawling through ductwork and stuff. However, having now met with the early gamers when both of us were adults (as opposed to when I started in '83 when they were scary grownups), it seems it was more about 'duck down this passage and let the guards pass by.' Everyone's experience is going to vary, of course.

Sure. Maybe a better way to put it is "don't play dumb" or even better would be "don't try to brute force everything."

When I started it was '84 and the older kids were already playing and had already played for a few years. They very much went for that "clever idea to bypass the deadly fights" style of play. The baseline now seems to be "just kill it" with a new undercurrent of "just befriend it" style. I really miss the older style of "bypass" and "don't brute force" style of play.