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

[Willie the Duck]

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.

Y'know, it changed from 1 HD in chainmail (effectively) and oD&D to <1 HD in AD&D, and I never made the connection that that was because monster HD changed to 1d8 until you framed it that way.

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).

Adapting for sure. Fighting on own terms, always. My broader point is that I think the difference between then and now is overblown. I find people try to set up ambushes or arrange to flank in all editions, and 'ingenious plans' exist kinda depending on the individual moreso than the era or edition. If overgeeked has specific instance, examples, or the like, I'll examine how much I agree with those (edit: ninja'd, will respond as I can), but in broad strokes, I've found that playing the game (especially for non-casters) has largely stayed the same inasmuch that the predominant factor influencing how people play is what they want to do in a fantasy game (sometimes you just want to kick in the door and start fighting) over inventivization structures or the like.

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.


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.

Both of these are going to be cases of dueling anecdotes, and there's no such thing as a better anecdote. I never saw anyone trust an NPC wizard enough to let them take over their body like that, but I imagine that some groups did. As to magic item trade, we used it, but at the level of 'finding a specific item to buy was a quest onto itself.'

 

[Remathilis]

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.

I think equal blame can be put here on DMs who didn't allow "clever play" to work. The idea that monsters are automatically hostile, wise to simple cons and tricks, fight to the death, and unwaveringly loyal didn't emerge from thin air. If negotiations always end in combat, if stealth is always going to fail to a multitude of repeated checks (and they were always stacked against the PCs success; you might roll a dozen rolls to succeed, but fail one and you're noticed), then what is the point? Kick down the door!

I'm pretty sure many modules further reinforced the notion of killing everything in the dungeon as the primary method of play as well. Some of those old modules were heavy on the unavoidable encounters.

So I think that it cut both ways. Smart play is something you reward with success, and the more a DM attempts to stymie it, the less likely players will go to that option.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I'd love to find some.

Yes, this much is obvious. You have found yourself without gamers who meet your expectations, and you are putting a significant amount of weight of explanation (I will hold off on the term blame) on the rules that exist in the game. There's really not much left to say other than I do not think your experience is representative; that I hope you find that for which you are looking; and that I hope you understand how your voicing of your position can come off as akin to those 'back in my days, we did things stronger/smarter/on-hard-mode and all around better than these whippersnappers!' linethat everyone has heard a million times from some older acquaintance about just about anything (and is rarely a good look).

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.

Okay, so we started around the same time and with the same context (there were older gamers nearby that still played in an older fashion). I disagree that the modern gameplay is 'just brute force it,' or that players won't bypass opponents (I think all WotC-era editions grant experience for opponents you defeat by circumventing, just as much as if you defeat them in combat). Quick question, you never befriended (or at least allied with) enemies bitd? That was one of the options on the reaction table, and we always considered that an absolute windfall if we could ally with the goblins to go roll the orcs for their moneys or the like (of course the inevitable betrayal would be equally as harrowing).

 

[Jer]

I think equal blame can be put here on DMs who didn't allow "clever play" to work. The idea that monsters are automatically hostile, wise to simple cons and tricks, fight to the death, and unwaveringly loyal didn't emerge from thin air. If negotiations always end in combat, if stealth is always going to fail to a multitude of repeated checks (and they were always stacked against the PCs success; you might roll a dozen rolls to succeed, but fail one and you're noticed), then what is the point? Kick down the door!

I'm pretty sure many modules further reinforced the notion of killing everything in the dungeon as the primary method of play as well. Some of those old modules were heavy on the unavoidable encounters.

I think this is true, but I'm also going to place some "blame" on the emergence of other RPGs with rulesets that explicitly supported the kind of play that players were looking for. By the late 90s a lot of folks were playing D&D explicitly to have that kind combat heavy game - if they wanted to play a game of sneaking around and not getting into fights, they'd be playing Vampire or Shadowrun or some other system that had systems for sneaking around and not getting into fights that were more than the minimum that D&D provided.

 

[Helldritch]

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".

But this is where magical items for martial characters was an equalizer. The low hp of magic user made them highly susceptible to death by a fighter coming in with a potion of haste, flying or whatever. If you used "segments" then a magic user in hand to hand was effectively doomed! Need 18.00 strength? Gauntlets of ogres power, A long sword +5, double spec meant that you could mow down a magic user in just about 1 round. The average 20th level wizard without CN bonus had about 37 hp. If all three attacks of the fighter hit, just the bonuses to damage would kill the magic user. The quadratic power of martial characters were coming from the magical items they could muster.

High level thieves were far from useless. The back stab could kill the magic user in one stroke, and since the hide in shadow was not a magical ability, it meant that the damn thieves would not be stopped by magical means of detecting invisibility. This is why a magic user would have guards. Just to protect himself from the damn lurkers in the shadows. And the power curve did not stopped at 10th level, only the HD improvements. Saves were way better and the fighter gained a lot of these at high level. THACO (or attack matrices) kept improving.

 

[overgeeked]

Yes, this much is obvious. You have found yourself without gamers who meet your expectations, and you are putting a significant amount of weight of explanation (I will hold off on the term blame) on the rules that exist in the game.

Games reward the type of behavior they want to encourage. XP for gold and no XP for killing monsters elicited a particular style of play. XP for showing up, or even not showing up, elicits a completely different style of play. That's 100% mechanics. The more lethal combat rules also taught players to avoid combats in the early days. The...nearly infinitely forgiving combat rules in 5E teach players to be rather gung-ho about getting into fights. You see this in the shift from combat as war to combat as sport. So yeah, the rules of the game push and promote certain styles of play over others. That's basic game design.

There's really not much left to say other than I do not think your experience is representative...

So what? My experience doesn't need to be representative. It's my experience. I'm not claiming it's the universally applicable experience of all gamers for all times. This is a thread about how D&D has changed over the decades. I'm lamenting things I enjoy falling by the wayside over those decades of change.

and that I hope you understand how your voicing of your position can come off as akin to those 'back in my days, we did things stronger/smarter/on-hard-mode and all around better than these whippersnappers!' line that everyone has heard a million times from some older acquaintance about just about anything.

Well, sometimes they're right. As annoying as they are to listen to. We have actual rule books to look back at and can point to. We have actual numbers and rules to look at and compare. Rolled hit points vs auto max. Rolled stats vs fairly high array. Dead at zero hp vs dead after zero hp and failing three death saves. Healing magic at low levels being costly vs healing magic being ubiquitous throughout. Yep, combat was deadlier back in the day. Yep, combat is less deadly now. That's not a subjective opinion.

I disagree that the modern gameplay is 'just brute force it,' or that players won't bypass opponents (I think all WotC-era editions grant experience for opponents you defeat by circumventing, just as much as if you defeat them in combat).

Sure, but the deck is absurdly stacked in favor of combat. The vast majority of your character sheet is about combat and fighting. Most class abilities are about combat. Most spells are about combat. The rules for combat are explicitly laid out whereas the rules for bypassing are far more...fluid. Granted, the rules for bypassing were fluid back then...but with combat being so much more deadly...and you not earning XP for killing monsters, rather XP for securing gold...it quite dramatically shifted the focus of play away from killing everything toward bypassing encounters. And the more clever your plans were, the more likely they were to succeed. When you succeed by doing a certain thing, you'll try that again. When you try it again...if it fails, you'll try something else...but if it succeeds, you'll keep on trying that. So, if you can succeed by brute forcing your way through things and it always works...you'll default to that approach. Until or unless someone gets bored with it. Gamers optimize the fun out of games. That's just what they do...if the rules permit it.

Quick question, you never befriended (or at least allied with) enemies bitd? That was one of the options on the reaction table, and we always considered that an absolute windfall if we could ally with the goblins to go roll the orcs for their moneys or the like (of course the inevitable betrayal would be equally as harrowing).

Yes, of course. But with the older style what most often happened was we were played by the factions rather than us playing the factions. Meaning, the goblins were crafty and cunning and saw us as a dangerous tool in their fight against the orcs. So they do their damnedest to use us against the orcs. The goblins are smart enough to know that if they charge in they're weakening both themselves and their enemies. So they don't do that because they're not suicidally stupid. They offer us rewards to go kill the orcs, weakening both us and the orcs, but not themselves...and won't turn their backs on us for a second. The idea of all monsters being too stupid to strategize is just not how we played.

 

[overgeeked]

I think this is true, but I'm also going to place some "blame" on the emergence of other RPGs with rulesets that explicitly supported the kind of play that players were looking for. By the late 90s a lot of folks were playing D&D explicitly to have that kind combat heavy game - if they wanted to play a game of sneaking around and not getting into fights, they'd be playing Vampire or Shadowrun or some other system that had systems for sneaking around and not getting into fights that were more than the minimum that D&D provided.

Our experiences with Vampire and Shadowrun are quite different. The majority of tabletop Vampire games were the "superheroes with fangs" combat-heavy games. It wasn't until LARPing came around that roleplaying and drama were a thing. For Shadowrun is was always, "go quiet, then go loud." Meaning you'd try to sneak around, but the second that failed, it was all guns blazing time. The "nah, kill it" play style was so pervasive it found its way into most other games.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Heh.

Going quiet in Shadowrun...

The actual solution is always 'open the back of the tractor trailer, revealing a fleet of motorcycle drones with street sweepers and supersoakers filled with the drug that makes all other drugs contact drugs with a streetsam troll at the back with a helicopter blade katana.'

 

[Helldritch]

Our experiences with Vampire and Shadowrun are quite different. The majority of tabletop Vampire games were the "superheroes with fangs" combat-heavy games. It wasn't until LARPing came around that roleplaying and drama were a thing. For Shadowrun is was always, "go quiet, then go loud." Meaning you'd try to sneak around, but the second that failed, it was all guns blazing time. The "nah, kill it" play style was so pervasive it found its way into most other games.

Exact same experience here. Especially in Vampire when you play the Sabbath...
Shadow Run, same thing.
If you ever played Cyber Punk, it was the same as SR. Plus buy an Ambulance Emergency Card... The swat team of the paramedics were killers! Strangely, D&D encouraged more stealth than supposedly stealthier games...

 

[Jer]

Our experiences with Vampire and Shadowrun are quite different. The majority of tabletop Vampire games were the "superheroes with fangs" combat-heavy games. It wasn't until LARPing came around that roleplaying and drama were a thing. For Shadowrun is was always, "go quiet, then go loud." Meaning you'd try to sneak around, but the second that failed, it was all guns blazing time. The "nah, kill it" play style was so pervasive it found its way into most other games.

That wasn't my experience with Vampire at all. The group I played with avoided combat at all costs - it was probably the most talky RPG experience I've ever played.

It was my experience with Shadowrun, but I always figured it was because of the group I played it with