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

[Remathilis]

I don't know what sesquipedalian means. Is it your fault, the word's fault, or my fault communication failed ? [emoji38]

It means the author should eschew obfuscation.

 

[Lanefan]

But a bunch of mismatched tools aren't useful if they don't work together to get the project done.

Each tool is used at the appropriate moment on the appropriate part of the project. They're not all used at once - when you move from one part of the project to another you put down the one tool and pick up a second.

So, in the 1e example, when you're rolling for surprise you roll a d6 (tool 1) then when rolling to hit you roll a d20 where high is good (tool 2) then when making a check you roll a d20 where low is good (tool 3) and if you need to make a system shock roll you roll d% (tool 4); and so on and so on.

This is the equivalent of starting a band and your band's instruments include a concert piano, an electric base, a tambourine and a metal trashcan turned upside-down and beaten with sticks. Each will produce music and work on its own, but you gotta do a lot of work to make them all play nice together.

This assumes you're trying to make them all work together at the same time. In D&D that's not the case: you're only ever using one tool at any specific moment and so it doesn't matter if twenty different tools all work differently.

 

[Fifth Element]

It means loquacious.

Loquacious sesquipedalians are just the worst.

 

[Fifth Element]

From Britannica:

Those examples talk about expression - which is synonymous with communication in this context. They're just talking about different types of communication.

 

[Fifth Element]

Almost all vocabulary is useful contextually--but its just that, contextual.

Agreed on the almost. I suspect words like sesquipedalian are never really useful, regardless of context. English is littered with big words that seem to have been coined solely to be big words.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Each tool is used at the appropriate moment on the appropriate part of the project. They're not all used at once - when you move from one part of the project to another you put down the one tool and pick up a second.

So, in the 1e example, when you're rolling for surprise you roll a d6 (tool 1) then when rolling to hit you roll a d20 where high is good (tool 2) then when making a check you roll a d20 where low is good (tool 3) and if you need to make a system shock roll you roll d% (tool 4); and so on and so on.

This assumes you're trying to make them all work together at the same time. In D&D that's not the case: you're only ever using one tool at any specific moment and so it doesn't matter if twenty different tools all work differently.

I think some issues with 1e are that, using your analogy, most initiative screws bolts use a d6, but there are some needing a d8, and others still need a d100. The GM is forced to figure out how a d6 bolt works with a d8 nut when matched with a d100 bit.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Perfectly said. I get that impression too.

The Identify spell comes to mind...:

The amount of detail is staggering, lol.

And this is the same magic-user that began the so-called legacy of over-powered casters.

 

[Jahydin]

Those examples talk about expression - which is synonymous with communication in this context. They're just talking about different types of communication.

Pretty sure we were talking about communication in the context of clearly getting information across...

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's an pretty harsh take on oD&D. There's a lot there, and what is there speaks to the point of it being very systematic towards a very narrow set of play (to which the accessory point was that it was expanding beyond that range without playtest or reexamination of fundamental principles was the downfall, and yes we agree things started getting problematic by supplement I). It has movement and time rules, monster reaction, morale, encounter rules (including sighting, surprise, wandering monsters, chases and when monsters break off, both for in-dungeon and in-wilderness), dungeon design, generating treasure, generating monster encounters (dungeon, wilderness, and castle), advancement (using examples in places where we might now use hard and fast rules, but they exist), procedures for DM to player information transfer (such as the expectation of DM describing and players electing a mapper), and player to DM communication (the 'caller'), stronghold creation rules, perfectly serviceable unit (character) creation rules, and yes a perfunctory-at-best combat engine. There's an incredible density of rules there, however, most of them are procedural rules about the play of the game or the exploration of the dungeons (with differentiation of characters a distant priority and combat rules only making sense under the assumption that it was marketed to people who already had 6-60 combat rules sitting on their shelves).

It's undoubtedly unlawful (being effectively piracy), but a guy named Greyharp took just the words in the LBBs and rearranged them to increase clarity, and the game (minus a combat system) is relatively indistinguishable from a BX-inspired OSR game.

That's kinda what I was getting at. For every nerd kid that was maltreated and shoved into lockers, there was one who was superior and condescending and self-congratulatory. Most grow out of it, others don't. Maturity is maturity and intellect is intellect, and there are no shortcuts to either -- be they knowing words the teacher doesn't or taking HS stats a few years early or a really high standardized test score or whatever.

That's a lot of throwing shade on something a person just said they were proud of. Is that really necessary?

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's an pretty harsh take on oD&D.

I've never hidden that I have a pretty harsh opinion of OD&D. The only reason its not worse is because I'll give people credit for not knowing any better when it came out.

There's a lot there, and what is there speaks to the point of it being very systematic towards a very narrow set of play (to which the accessory point was that it was expanding beyond that range without playtest or reexamination of fundamental principles was the downfall, and yes we agree things started getting problematic by supplement I). It has movement and time rules, monster reaction, morale, encounter rules (including sighting, surprise, wandering monsters, chases and when monsters break off, both for in-dungeon and in-wilderness), dungeon design, generating treasure, generating monster encounters (dungeon, wilderness, and castle),

I was including all those in "odds and ends of GM situation generating tools". I included the movement rules as part of the minimalist combat system, but if you want to say the strategic movement rules don't land in that, I won't argue with you. Notice how little of that is player facing other than said movement rules.

(As an aside, I don't remember any rules for when monsters break off pursuits outside of the dungeon.)

That's kinda what I was getting at. For every nerd kid that was maltreated and shoved into lockers, there was one who was superior and condescending and self-congratulatory. Most grow out of it, others don't. Maturity is maturity and intellect is intellect, and there are no shortcuts to either -- be they knowing words the teacher doesn't or taking HS stats a few years early or a really high standardized test score or whatever.

Yeah. The point really was that a larger vocabulary is only really beneficial if you're in a situation where using it is. That can involve what you read, or it can involve use of communication on some levels, but for day to day use, its no great benefit.