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

[Fifth Element]

It would depend on how much it increased other forms of challenge. It decreased the first one quite a bit.

Since this this is an inherently unquantifiable measure that necessarily involves value judgments, I'd say it doesn't address the issue since two people could see it with completely oposite views.

As such, it's better to refrain from such judgments when attempting to describe the game in question since it attempts to reify subjective preferences. Just say you like one thing better than the other. Attempting to justify preferences with objective-sounding terms helps no one.

 

[Lanefan]

I like steampunk, ... and I didn't get that in core either.

I'd be insterested in some sort of steampunk variant as well, provided some means could be found of preventing steam power from taking over everything the way it did in the real world. Put another way, I'd like to see a decent version where a steampunk element is added to what's already there instead of replacing large parts of it.

 

[tetrasodium]

Please note the multiple uses of the word 'maybe' in my post.

And then note that this discussion has been about how players now "hide behind creativity" in order to justify bad behaviour. If you think both players and DMs can be bad in ths way, then you agree with me. The narrative is that the modern game allows players, and only players, to act this way.

A GM can absolutely be an abusive killer heavy handed & whatnot GM in any edition, but in modern d&d the rules are written to insulate players from such activity to such an extreme degree that even reasonable GM'ing is tarred with the same brush or left shackled when that insulation smothers them. It's that rules structure that makes one more of an issue than the other in modern d&d.

 

[Lanefan]

Except that 2e characters were significantly more powerful and the whole “don’t bother naming your character “ approach was rejected.

On intitial release I'm not at all sure 2e characters were any great degree more powerful than those in 1e, other than 2e allowed for higher levels out of the gate.

Once the splatbooks started piling up then yes, 2e characters became considerably more powerful than their 1e or even earlier-era 2e counterparts.

 

[Remathilis]

Cat on the tables never left. Just new cats and players.
...
Cats clawing from attention. Never left.

This is Truth.

 

[Remathilis]

On intitial release I'm not at all sure 2e characters were any great degree more powerful than those in 1e, other than 2e allowed for higher levels out of the gate.

Once the splatbooks started piling up then yes, 2e characters became considerably more powerful than their 1e or even earlier-era 2e counterparts.

Assuming the PHB to PHB, I think the classes got slightly more powerful on average. Fighters got specialization, mages had more spell options, thieves could adjust their scores. Of course, there were some losers: the bard was powerful but not the abomination it was in 1e, rangers likewise were good but a large downgrade from 1e, and druids and clerics lost some spell power due to the sphere system. (assuming standard cleric, not specialty priests which ranged from barely playable to godlike themselves). If you are comparing UA to the 2e PHB, it was strict downgrades for nearly all classes.

Of course, the PHBR line and the multitudes of setting-splat just took whatever balance there was and tossed it out the window, both in terms of Core material (Complete Book of Elves) and setting material (Ravenloft PCs made with Domains of Dread were crippled, Dark Sun PCs were munchkin wet dreams). By the Time Player's Options came around, the concept that 2e was even a functioning set of rules as debatable; it was more like a tub of Lego bricks and a picture of the Statue of Liberty with the instructions reading "You figure it out".

 

[Remathilis]

Let me ask you something: is any campaign in which a character dies for any reason other than their own player-generated decision run by a "killer GM"?

I don't think so, but I'll qualify it with some caveats.

• Is the DM "gunning" for the PCs? That is, does he routinely use fights that are way above the PCs capacities (such as hordes of foes or CR foes 8+), immediately use the most lethal option when dealing with traps and obstacles (death poisons and high level spell effects), or set up no-win scenarios against unkillable DMNPCS?
• Is the DM adjucating the rules fairly? Does he use houserules like critical fumbles or crippling critical hits, which on average affect PCs more than NPCs, to hobble PCs far beyond normal inconvenience (such as permanent loss of limbs or eyes, major ability score penalities, and effects that cannot be undone without 9th level magic)?
• Is the DM making PCs roll unnecessarily for mundane tasks ("roll athletics to climb an 8 ft ladder), often coupled with disastrous effects for failure. ("You failed your athletics roll, you fall off the ladder, land on your back, take 1d6 damage and snap you bow strapped on your back.").
• Is the DM constantly starving the PCs for gold, gear, or magic? Often to the point where PCs cannot upgrade gear, learn new spells, and cannot hit foes requiring magical weapons?

Any of these, taken to the extreme, are hallmarks of a killer DM. Each alone can be used for challenging a PC, but when these become the norm (or worse, several of them appear at once) you are probably dealing with a DM in Bad Faith.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One could argue that making changes because the designers cared more about what they wanted to try as opposed to what the players might want is what led to 4e's less than stellar reception.

Its an argument. But its harder to buy with 5e given the extensive public playtest.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Except that 2e characters were significantly more powerful and the whole “don’t bother naming your character “ approach was rejected.

But designed the same I guess?

Wasn't that when the whole negative ten hit point thing kicked in, too? That could make quite a difference.

 

[tetrasodium]

Wasn't that when the whole negative ten hit point thing kicked in, too? That could make quite a difference.

Spoiler: 2e player's handbook pg141

Character Death
When a character reaches 0 hit points, that character is slain. The character is immediately dead and unable to do anything unless some specialized magical effect takes precedence.

the negative 10 was a 3.x or possibly player options/UA/dragon addon to 2e if it was in 2e. I remember 2e characters being significantly more hardy

edit: Others have noted the rule was in the dmg, I couldn't remember what the rule was & didn't think to check that when I went back to look. Going to leave this here since they kinda go together