Hypothetical Question about future D&D

[MerricB]

The Primary Development line of D&D:

Original D&D
=>
Supplement I: Greyhawk (Very important supplement; added Thief, Paladin, Ability Scores that Matter; variable hit dice, XP awards, etc.)
=>
further Supplements (Blackmoor & Eldritch Wizardry), and The Strategic Review/The Dragon magazines (more new classes, incl. Bard, first "prestige" class)
=>
AD&D 1st edition (gathers together OD&D+Supplements)
=>
Unearthed Arcana (most significant addition: Weapon Specialisation. Most other changes discarded).
=>
Oriental Adventures; Dungeoneer's Survival Guide; Wilderness Survival Guide (significant addition: Non Weapon Proficiencies. Later to become Feats (e.g. Blindfight) and Skills (e.g. Ride))
=>
AD&D 2nd Edition (gathers together AD&D+Supplements, some revisions to make mechanics clearer)
=>
"Complete" Books (major addition: kits, and the variability of PC abilities. This would be revised...)
=>
Player's Option (major additions: strict miniatures rules; very customisable characters; skill points so skills could improve each level; levels of weapon specialisation (influenced by BECM D&D); some attempt at game balance)
=>
D&D 3rd edition (revamping, but many elements based on previous editions, especially PO, or adapted from other systems based on previous editions).
=>
D&D 3.5e (fixing broken things; making PC monsters more feasible)

The Secondary Development Line:
OD&D
=>
Supplement I, Greyhawk
=>
Basic Edition (Eric Holmes) (influenced by AD&D)

The Tertiary Development Line:
OD&D
=>
Supplements (some elements of Basic/Holmes)
=>
Basic Edition (Moldvay) + Expert Edition (Cook) - a radical revisioning of D&D. Elf, Dwarf and Halfling as classes; a new ability score system
=>
BECM Edition/Cyclopedia (Mentzer) - adding new systems, a very complex weapon mastery system at upper levels, a skill/proficiency system (influenced by DSG & WSG)

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

That's a good question. How radically did 3E depart from earlier versions? I really only got into D&D when 3E came out. How different of a game is 3E from the previous edition? I know it had the same ability scores and a lot of the same termionolgy, but how much changed?

Almost all the elements in 3e were present in one form or another in one or more of the previous editions. Some of the mechanical elements were reexpressed, so they look different while they haven't changed in essence.

Cheers!

 

[Wayside]

Well, I guess one could make that argument. But then, following that logic, one might also say that about many other RPGs -- viz. they're really just 'D&D', since the 'basic elements' were present in D&D in an 'underdeveloped form' (Rolemaster is 'D&D' because it too has classes, levels, hit points, etc.).

That actually seems pretty accurate to me. A lot of RPGs are really just D&D, the same way a lot of CCG's are really just Magic.

 

[MerricB]

That actually seems pretty accurate to me. A lot of RPGs are really just D&D, the same way a lot of CCG's are really just Magic.

There come divergence points, though.

Rolemaster shares remarkably little in common with D&D. (e.g. both systems have "hit points", but in D&D, you die to a loss of hit points. In Rolemaster, you'll far more likely die to a critical). Combat - the main essence of D&D-type games - is significantly different in both systems.

If you compare the basics of oD&D combat to 3E combat, the systems are extremely similar: roll d20 to determine if you hit, roll another die to determine damage, subtract from hit points.

Cheers!

 

[Nikosandros]

I think my 'translation test' is a good indicator: translating pre-3e material into 3e terms is just as much work as translating material for one game system (e.g. MERP) into another system (e.g. GURPS). In contrast, most material is usually easy to translate between different editions -- just look at the many editions of CoC, WFRP 1e and WFRP 2e, GURPS 3e and GURPS 4e, AD&D 1e and AD&D 2e, etc.

I agree that the translation test is indeed a good indicator. From my experience with this test, 3e is a different game from the older editons of D&D, but far closer then games such as GURPS, Rolemaster or Warhammer.

 

[Blue_Kryptonite]

there were a large number of "sacred cows" kept intact in this edition to prevent people feeling like "it's not D&D without armor class/hit points/mind flayers/halflings."

I'm one of those people. I'd buy the new game, but I buy a lot games. I would probably still play from my 3.5 books.

 

[MerricB]

I agree that the translation test is indeed a good indicator. From my experience with this test, 3e is a different game from the older editons of D&D, but far closer then games such as GURPS, Rolemaster or Warhammer.

Compare Giants or Dragons between AD&D and 2nd edition AD&D.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Incidentally, minor things can badly skew the translation test results. Consider the reversing of AC for 3e - that didn't actually change anything except appearance.

Cheers!

 

[Nikosandros]

Compare Giants or Dragons between AD&D and 2nd edition AD&D.

Cheers!

True... I actually shudder at the thought of what they will be like in 4e!

However, despite the undeniable power bump of those monsters there is a strong degree of compatibility between the two editons of AD&D... conversion between the two is fast and easy... not so much between AD&D and 3e... of course it all pales in comparison of trying to go between any editon of D&D and GURPS!

 

[Nikosandros]

Incidentally, minor things can badly skew the translation test results. Consider the reversing of AC for 3e - that didn't actually change anything except appearance.

Yes, but in 3e ACs go much higher (or lower as the case may be) than they used to...