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

[Greg Benage]

5e is probably more complex (lots of parts), but 1e is more complicated (because none of the parts have any coherent structure or relation to the other parts and because Gygax was a charming but hilariously bad writer).

 

[Fifth Element]

Apparently immortal superheroes sells better, so it won’t happen.

This is something that certainly hasn't changed over the years - the tendency to denigrate other peoples' entirely-subjective preferences by grossly mischaracterizing them.

This isn't Exalted we're talking about here. Characterizing any edition of D&D as tending toward "immortal superheroes" is demonstrably inaccurate.

 

[Fifth Element]

Oh, no! Not maths! Evil terrible maths!

Time-consuming maths that would be entirely unnecessary if the game had been better-designed. Maths that take you out of the game, forcing you to reckon with game systems because that particular sub-system was poorly-designed. It is absolutely an example of complexity, and it is unnecessary complexity, which is the worst kind.

 

[tetrasodium]

This is something that certainly hasn't changed over the years - the tendency to denigrate other peoples' entirely-subjective preferences by grossly mischaracterizing them.

This isn't Exalted we're talking about here. Characterizing any edition of D&D as tending toward "immortal superheroes" is demonstrably inaccurate.

There's been quite a lot of detail in this & other threads that support the suggestion that PC's are immortal as well as on the superhero end of the scale compared to older editions. Some of that even compared it to other systems designed for supers games. You say that it's "demonstrably inaccurate" without referencing any specifics, More importantly you don't appear to give any detail in support of what seems to be your subjective opinion on this matter even if we include the few posts you made in this thread.

 

[David Howery]

5e is probably more complex (lots of parts), but 1e is more complicated (because none of the parts have any coherent structure or relation to the other parts and because Gygax was a charming but hilariously bad writer).

I got into D&D during the 1E era, and enjoyed it immensely, but... yeah, this. 1E was the third iteration of the game, and it wasn't very coherent. My initial and biggest disappointment with 2E was that it wasn't a 'cleaned up and coherent' version of 1E. But you always gotta remember that 1E was way back when the whole RPG thing was new, and TSR wasn't really staffed by professional writers....

 

[Lanefan]

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.

And in that, we all must admit, it does an admirable job.

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.

The bolded bit points right at something that's changed over the decades: in older times, players didn't necessarily go in with a pre-formed character concept before rolling any dice. Instead, they waited until a) they saw what the dice gave them to work with, then b) they saw in play the general tone of the party and-or campaign and came up with a character and-or personality that would either fit in (or not, sometimes), and then c) they saw what ongoing play did to that character and allowed/expected those experiences to shape its development.

It's a big change in player-side philosophy: where it was once "I'll make the best of what the game gives me and see how it goes" it's now much more "I insist that the game give me what I want, right now". That the designers keep catering further to this with each passing edition is unfathomable, as doing so just encourages a type of thinking that IMO doesn't need any encouragement whatsoever.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Oh, no! Not maths! Evil terrible maths!

Yeah, I've seen that ridiculous thing. It's more than a bit disingenuous to claim that's the baseline rules when the document itself cites its sources as things like Dragon articles, modules, supplements, and unrelated 3rd party magazines.

So I picked a rule that is is in play frequently (spellcasters being attacked to interrupt a spell) and found in one of the base 3 books (DMG) that is obscure and rarely enforced.

Your defense is that the document is bunk because its a bunch of minutae pulled from the entire range of 1e product.

 

[Lanefan]

The perceived complexity of AD&D is mostly due to optional rules almost no one used like weapon speed and weapon vs armor charts.

The problem is, in theory those rules - and various others that were often ignored or kitbashed e.g. initiative - weren't optional at all.

The fact that in practice many tables (including mine) played as if they were optional doesn't change this.

 

[payn]

It's a big change in player-side philosophy: where it was once "I'll make the best of what the game gives me and see how it goes" it's now much more "I insist that the game give me what I want, right now". That the designers keep catering further to this with each passing edition is unfathomable, as doing so just encourages a type of thinking that IMO doesn't need any encouragement whatsoever.

Folks got tired of Nintendo hard D&D. Its not hard to fathom at all.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

And in that, we all must admit, it does an admirable job.

The bolded bit points right at something that's changed over the decades: in older times, players didn't necessarily go in with a pre-formed character concept before rolling any dice. Instead, they waited until a) they saw what the dice gave them to work with, then b) they saw in play the general tone of the party and-or campaign and came up with a character and-or personality that would either fit in (or not, sometimes), and then c) they saw what ongoing play did to that character and allowed/expected those experiences to shape its development.

It's a big change in player-side philosophy: where it was once "I'll make the best of what the game gives me and see how it goes" it's now much more "I insist that the game give me what I want, right now". That the designers keep catering further to this with each passing edition is unfathomable, as doing so just encourages a type of thinking that IMO doesn't need any encouragement whatsoever.

Way back in the day when playing a computer RPG like Wizardry Bards Tale, or Pool of Radiance it was an expected annoyance to have to click "reroll" 17 million times until your primary stat was an 18. In modern games you just distribute points to get the character you want from creation to skip the 17 million reroll clicks.

It's not just a RPG tabletop change of expectation, but more of a gameplay expectation in general.