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

[tetrasodium]

The three players situation you described can’t be helped by any DnD edition.
it’s a matter of agreement on game parameters, style and mood.
it can be very hard to play a game with a pc level 4, 11 and 20 With background from various fantasy. But if players don’t matter on challenge and performance it can be try.

You skipped the rest of the post to avoid the point about the shift in d&d over the years & blame the players/gm. I could still run hero to super hero in old editions by giving the sort of stuff I described to players but in doing so the GM could ensure that they were a cohesive band of heroes who fit the style & themes of game the GM wanted to run. The shift from "zero to hero" up to full on "hero to fully assembled super hero squad acting at maximum capacity" removes the GM's ability to provide incentives like I described & relegates the GM to "tour guide" or "cruise ship guide".

 

[teitan]

Ah yes, the joys of funnels. Characters with names like "Bob the Rogue" 'Elf #4" and "____".
Whose backstories are "was conveniently tied up in the next room" or "showed up minutes after his brother died and joined to avenge his death" who tell legendary stories of being one-shotted in the first round by a kobold, dying to a poison needled because they only have a 1/5 chance to find it, or finding out your only spell memorized, charm person, is useless against the ogre who just tpk'd your party.

I think DCC hits on the nature of that style well: it's a deathmatch style game that requires you don't take it seriously until you get lucky enough to have a PC live to get a few levels. DCC takes it to an absurd endpoint. It's fun, but much like I don't hop on PUBG for in-depth storytelling in the vein of Final Fantasy or Elder Scrolls, I don't look at DCC for anything more than having a good time tossing 0 levels into a dungeon and laughing over beers when they triumph or die or both.

But a long running campaign where my PC was the luckiest of the seven elves I rolled up to beat the first dungeon? Probably not.

You describe 0 level DCC sure... but not higher level play at all or campaign play. Everyone always thinks about the funnel when they think of DCC and of course, it is a novel approach to character creation and/or convention play where wizards spellburn themselves to hell and back and luck points are thrown around like candy. In campaign play that is a less than intelligent way to play. Going nova is not the best option, ever, and gonzo goes out the window. Everything has to be thought out and while the charts still provide some pretty wild results, in pratice, without spellburn and blazing through luck, the higher ends of the chart are much rarer, more down to earth.

 

[Remathilis]

You describe 0 level DCC sure... but not higher level play at all or campaign play. Everyone always thinks about the funnel when they think of DCC and of course, it is a novel approach to character creation and/or convention play where wizards spellburn themselves to hell and back and luck points are thrown around like candy. In campaign play that is a less than intelligent way to play. Going nova is not the best option, ever, and gonzo goes out the window. Everything has to be thought out and while the charts still provide some pretty wild results, in pratice, without spellburn and blazing through luck, the higher ends of the chart are much rarer, more down to earth.

To be honest, my experience with DCC as a ruleset is limited, except to know that it took my least favorite part of B/AD&D and cranked it to 11 in an attempt to parody it. I'm sure DCC is fun at mid level. D&D is a blast when you're in the sweet spot between "dies to a kobold sneeze" and "can't be harmed by Orcus."

My point is that D&D "funnel" play (that is, generating super-weak 1st level PC per RAW, the 3d6 in order, roll for HP, spells determined randomly) tends to generate a lot of dead PCs before one got lucky or good enough to stick can be fun if what you want is a bunch of amusing anecdotes about triumphs and deaths, but that style itself doesn't do anything in terms of character development or story. Bob the henchmen becoming a PC after Knuckles the Thief failed his Move Silent roll isn't a character. It's a toon. A respawn point. Maybe after a few successful adventures and levels, Bob the henchmen becomes Sir Robert the Gallant and starts to get more character development, but for me, I'd rather skip the character roulette and just play the character idea I want from the beginning.

So I absolutely see why modern D&D (and modern RPGs) moving away from "dies at character creation" for a style that allows for interesting character design from first level on.

 

[dytrrnikl]

I find that the learning curve has decreased, making it much easier to just start playing. Tone seems to have shifted into the idea that characters are heroes from day 1 as opposed to having to “pay there dues” or just survive.

With the next update/version, I’d love to see D&D take some cues from DCC and unabashedly reintroduce lethality lacking with todays mechanics.

 

[overgeeked]

I find that the learning curve has decreased, making it much easier to just start playing. Tone seems to have shifted into the idea that characters are heroes from day 1 as opposed to having to “pay there dues” or just survive.

Really? I’ve found almost the exact opposite. 5E is better at this than 3X and 4E, but there’s still heaps more complexity in character creation than older editions and the basic rules are far more detailed and complicated.

With the next update/version, I’d love to see D&D take some cues from DCC and unabashedly reintroduce lethality lacking with todays mechanics.

It would be nice. But don’t hold your breath. Apparently immortal superheroes sells better, so it won’t happen.

 

[payn]

I find that the learning curve has decreased, making it much easier to just start playing. Tone seems to have shifted into the idea that characters are heroes from day 1 as opposed to having to “pay there dues” or just survive.

With the next update/version, I’d love to see D&D take some cues from DCC and unabashedly reintroduce lethality lacking with todays mechanics.

I have a feeling that OSR will maintain the high lethality type mechanics and D&D will continue to move away from it.

 

[Umbran]

One thing is for sure. Gaming as evolve in certain areas and devolved in others.

I call abuse of the term "evolve". Evolution does not have a preferred direction, so there is no "devolving".

If there is an evolutionary process in RPGs, that means the games change somewhat at random. Some will die off, and others will live. And broadly, the ones that live will better fit some niche in the gaming ecology.

What you call "devolving" is thus likely "filling a need that you don't prefer". Don't conflate your preferences for broad value in the gaming ecology.

 

[Helldritch]

Strange, I have seen more TPK in 5ed than in any other edition. I even found 5ed more dangerous than OD&D. All you have to do is use no healing on rest and the characters starts sweating and swearing like there is no tomorrow. It is exactly because players anticipate easy mode that 5ed can be so lethal. If a DM enforces 5-6 encounters between long rests and limit short rests to two per long rest, the players must learn to manage their ressources very efficiently. This in turn lengthen combat and actually forces the players to use such tactics as dodging and disengaging and use summons to fight and tank for them.

 

[overgeeked]

Strange, I have seen more TPK in 5ed than in any other edition. I even found 5ed more dangerous than OD&D. All you have to do is use no healing on rest and the characters starts sweating and swearing like there is no tomorrow. It is exactly because players anticipate easy mode that 5ed can be so lethal.

By that do you mean the “slow natural healing” variant or something else?

If a DM enforces 5-6 encounters between long rests and limit short rests to two per long rest, the players must learn to manage their ressources very efficiently. This in turn lengthen combat and actually forces the players to use such tactics as dodging and disengaging and use summons to fight and tank for them.

Are you using gritty realism to do that?

Seems like it would just force the five-minute work day unless there’s constant time pressure for everything.

 

[Helldritch]

I call abuse of the term "evolve". Evolution does not have a preferred direction, so there is no "devolving".

If there is an evolutionary process in RPGs, that means the games change somewhat at random. Some will die off, and others will live. And broadly, the ones that live will better fit some niche in the gaming ecology.

What you call "devolving" is thus likely "filling a need that you don't prefer". Don't conflate your preferences for broad value in the gaming ecology.

Some evolutions are good. This is called evolution. When an evolution is not good, it is called devolution. Both terms are in the dictionary.

What I find a devolution might be an evolution for you. That is perfectly valid. But read on further and you will notice that there was some devolution in 5ed.

Take the feats for example. They were introduced in 3ed and kept expanding. 4ed added and modified some and Pathfinder fully embraced them. 5ed? It not only reduced them quite substantially in numbers, it made them an optional rule! Same with flanking and a few other. Where the number of rules and situations were more and more quantified in the evolution of D&D (just look at the amount of skills in 3ed....). Some devolution can be seem as an expungination of unneeded rules. An unneeded rules are often in the eye of the beholder (or edition creator in this case) only.