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

[Jer]

There is no subjectivity or room for opinion on the oubjective provable fact that modern d&d omitted both the less powerful/more restrictive attribute generation methods as well as the kind of guidance that once accompanied them for how they influence the results.

To counter - the ability scores are now so much more important to the game than they were before many of those attribute generation methods would actually break the game in many ways. Having low scores in games prior to 2e just meant you were shut out of certain classes and maybe didn't get some bonuses that others would get. Having low scores in games from 3e forward means that the probabilities that the game depends on to complete most actions are skewed in ways that the game engine just can't handle. "Making attributes matter" in 3e means that the ways that attributes can be generated now matter much more than they used to.

(2e has characteristics of both - if you were using the non-weapon proficiency rules in 2e then attributes mattered for resolving checks. If you weren't then they mostly mattered as much or as little as they did in 1e. once you start to add an ability score-backed skill system to the game ability scores are going to have a much bigger impact and that has to be accounted for).

 

[Lanefan]

Tangent, but may be relevant...

Do not confuse probability with observed frequency. A given group of people does not generate a statistically relevant number of characters.

What's the threshold for "statistically relevant"?

I ask because our crew have over the years, using char-gen methods similar enough for rock'n'roll, generated well north of 1000 characters.

 

[Azzy]

NPCs were built like PCs in those days you will recall.

To a degree. In 1e, at least, NPCs rolled ability scores differently from PCs.

 

[Helldritch]

This does not address whether it's fair, and that was the entire point of the post. What you do in response to unfairness does not affect whether it's unfair in the first place.

RAW is always fair. Simply because RAW applies to everybody.
RAI can be in the eye of the beholder and might even change from one person to the other because what one understands from RAI might be the exact opposite of what an other believes.

Paladins were rare in 1ed. The philosophy was not to prevent a player from playing a paladin. It was to make paladin a rare sight. Nothing more, nothing less. The philosophy was to roll dice, look what you were able to do, and make do with the results you had.

Today, the philosophy is to make a character. Period. Players choose the character race and class and put points in the relevant stats. These are two very different philosophies. Neither is better than the other. It is a matter of preference. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Azzy]

RAW is always fair. Simply because RAW applies to everybody.

That's not how things work. Just because something applies equally to everone doesn't make it "fair". See also, not all laws are "just". :/

 

[HammerMan]

To counter - the ability scores are now so much more important to the game than they were before many of those attribute generation methods would actually break the game in many ways. Having low scores in games prior to 2e just meant you were shut out of certain classes and maybe didn't get some bonuses that others would get. Having low scores in games from 3e forward means that the probabilities that the game depends on to complete most actions are skewed in ways that the game engine just can't handle. "Making attributes matter" in 3e means that the ways that attributes can be generated now matter much more than they used to.

(2e has characteristics of both - if you were using the non-weapon proficiency rules in 2e then attributes mattered for resolving checks. If you weren't then they mostly mattered as much or as little as they did in 1e. once you start to add an ability score-backed skill system to the game ability scores are going to have a much bigger impact and that has to be accounted for).

I have to pull out my 2e book and my 2e retroclone book and really look at the stats again. I keep saying that 2e had a better balance then 3e, and different but on par with 5e.

 

[Helldritch]

That's not how things work. Just because something applies equally to everone doesn't make it "fair". See also, not all laws are "just". :/

We are talking about a game. If you enter a game, it is willingly so. You abide by the rules. Thus all rules are fair as long as they apply to everyone. Your example does not fit in a willing choice. A game is not imposed on anybody. You can accept or you can walk out. It is the fact that it applies to every participant that makes it fair.

 

[tetrasodium]

To counter - the ability scores are now so much more important to the game than they were before many of those attribute generation methods would actually break the game in many ways. Having low scores in games prior to 2e just meant you were shut out of certain classes and maybe didn't get some bonuses that others would get. Having low scores in games from 3e forward means that the probabilities that the game depends on to complete most actions are skewed in ways that the game engine just can't handle. "Making attributes matter" in 3e means that the ways that attributes can be generated now matter much more than they used to.

(2e has characteristics of both - if you were using the non-weapon proficiency rules in 2e then attributes mattered for resolving checks. If you weren't then they mostly mattered as much or as little as they did in 1e. once you start to add an ability score-backed skill system to the game ability scores are going to have a much bigger impact and that has to be accounted for).

Attributes being more important since 3.5 is true without question but those alternative methods still existed in the 3.5 dmg (pg 169-170) & I've referenced /quoted from them quite a few times in this thread. With the math of 3.x assuming magic items & wbl vrs 5e's bounded accuracy assuming no magic items they were even more important then. Regardless of if you think attributes in 5e are more or less important than in 3.x it's a simple provable fact that the rules & guidance for how they impact characters made with stricter & less generous rules are omitted from modern d&d in favor of the exclusive one true way present in the books

edot: Lower starting stats results in more room for the gm to give out magic items

 

[HammerMan]

We are talking about a game. If you enter a game, it is willingly so. You abide by the rules. Thus all rules are fair as long as they apply to everyone. Your example does not fit in a willing choice. A game is not imposed on anybody. You can accept or you can walk out. It is the fact that it applies to every participant that makes it fair.

so the ability to walk away from a table makes it fair... but others say that even SUGGESTING you would walk away is you showing entitlement...

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Fortunately we live in enlightened times where you can plug the phrase "random condiment generator" into Google and hey presto here we are!

Random Condiment Generator

perchance.org

I can't trust a 3rd party Random Condiment Generator. I'll bet it hasn't been playtested AT ALL and half those condiments would ruin my hand crafted setting.