Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 8564417" data-attributes="member: 4348">Well, personally speaking, it's changed quite a bit.OD&D was sort of the wild west.  Anything and everything was possible and people did all sorts of things.  You want to play a Dragon (like an actual Dragon, not dragonborn, not half-dragon, and actual dragon)...go ahead.  You want to play a Unicorn...go ahead.  Not that many did, but it was allowed and understood that YOU COULD if you wanted to and the DM figured out how they wanted to allow you to do so.AD&D codified things.  It was a LOT stricter than OD&D.  It was no longer the wild west.  Sure...in many ways it was houseruled much more freely than anything we see today, but it was a LOT stricter than OD&D was.  It was also STRONGLY humanocentric...and if you didn't play a human it was strongly aligned towards Dwarves and Elves (half-elves being included along with the elves here) as Demi-humans.  Others played other races, but not as much as Dwarves and Elves, with Elves being more popular than Dwarves overall.   It also had the feel of more sword and sorcery and dungeon crawling.  2e was still Humanocentric, but NOT quite as strongly.  It was far more often that you would see Elves, Dwarves, or Halflings at the table.  Also, while options opened up (Kits), options were also closed down and disappeared (where are my Half-orcs, Assassins, and Illusionists?  Where are my Acrobats, Cavaliers, and Barbarians?   They are Kits...not the same thing).  Late 2e started to try to introduce ludicrous amounts of complexity via Player's options which translated to 3e.  The campaign became more heroic focused on the high fantasy campaign where the heroes are out to save the world.  Outdoors exploration and fantastical exploration became more of what it felt like the books were pushing than the dirt and grunge of 1e.  I'd say it was like the clean sterilized form of Prequel Trilogy compared to the Dirty lived in atmosphere of the Original Star Wars Trilogy.3.X changed the entire boat.  It was no longer Humanocentric.  In fact, there were distinct encouragments to play anything BUT a human.  Magic became the defacto tour de force, anything that had been used to balance it out in prior editions was tossed out the window.  Instead of others slowly becoming more resistant to magic, they became more susceptible to it in 2/3's of their saves.  It became very complex to the point that some called it Rolemaster lite.  It had more of a fantasypunk tone in it's art.  If 2e was Star Wars Prequels, this was different in tone as to be Star Trek Deep Space Nine in comparison.4e also felt vastly different.  I liked it, but it was like it was a completely different game in how it felt.  Now, any focus on humans was gone.  In fact, I'd say a majority played anything BUT humans.  It was all sorts of races.  And it was sterile and clean.  It's hard to figure a good comparison, but I suppose if I had to say something, it could be like the Andromeda or Stargate Atlantis to the Star Trek DS9 feel of 3e.  Much crisper, but very different in tone and feel.5e is sort of a return to more of a 3e feel, but also feels cleaner than 3e.  Sort of like a Star Trek the Next Generation to 3e's DS9.  It has many things similar, but also VERY different in tone.  It feels more like what a natural progression of 3.X would have been without 4e being in between.  The campaign settings feel more open, but due to lack of them and lack of information, also sort of feel more limiting (I don't really know how to put that into words).  It feels more like it is pushing the homebrew campaign aspect, but one that conforms to the 5e rules rather than the wild west of OD&D.</blockquote>

Verification