Jonathan Tweet: Prologue to Third Edition

The story of Third Edition D&D starts, perhaps, with Peter Adkison reading 2nd Edition AD&D (1989) and being sorely disappointed. For one thing, he felt the new system left several underlying problems in place, so players didn’t get much benefit from the effort it took to switch to a new system. For another, 2nd Ed stripped away all the charm and character of 1st Ed. No more half-orcs, arcane sigils, monks, or assassins. Demons and devils were renamed to avoid the ire of superstitious parents. The new AD&D was tamed and genericized.

116618.jpg


Peter wasn’t the only one to dislike 2nd Ed. When it came time for Mark Rein•Hagen and me to release a “second edition” of Ars Magica, our collaborator Lisa Stevens warned us that there was a great deal of hostility around that word at the time. She was involved in TSR’s RPGA program of organized play for AD&D, and the members were unhappy with the changes. As for me, I had stopped running AD&D round 1979, switching to RuneQuest and then a home-brew hack instead. D&D seemed to be behind the times, it was interesting to see TSR stumble with their 2nd Edition.


Note from Morrus: This is the first article in a monthly column from WotC alumni Jonathan Tweet. You'll know him from Ars Magica, for being the lead designer on D&D 3rd Edition, and for co-designing 13th Age, amongst many other things. Upcoming articles include My Life with the Open Gaming License, and Origins of Ars Magica. Let us know in the comments what stories and topics you'd like to hear from Jonathan! Also, don't miss Jim Ward's excellent column!


TSR’s goal in creating a generic version of AD&D was to allow an endless number of settings that could use the same basic rules system. For 2nd Edition, TSR released Forgotten Realms, Maztica, Al-Qadim, Spelljammer, Planescape, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Masque of the Red Death, Dragonlance, and Greyhawk, not to mention one-offs like Jakandor. All these incompatible AD&D lines split the market so that each line sold less and less. How did things go off-track? At TSR, the people who did the creative work did not coordinate with the people who did the business planning, and the owner of the company was an heiress, not a gamer. From outside, some of us could tell that the business model was a big problem. At Wizards in 1994, we reviewed a science fiction RPG for possible acquisition, and it featured an AD&D-style business model of one ruleset and many worlds. I said no way because that model would be a huge negative. TSR managed to hide how bad things were for years—until it all came apart in 1997. When TSR couldn’t pay its bills, Wizards of the Coast bought them out.

In 1995, two years before the acquisition of D&D, Wizards cut all its roleplaying game lines. I moved off the defunct “Alter Ego Games” team and started working on card games. Magic: The Gathering and Netrunner are two of my favorite games, and I got to work on both of them. One bright side to roleplaying lines being cut, my boss pointed out, was that I could now do my own roleplaying design on the side and it would not be considered competition. So it was that in 1997 I was working on a faux-Greek-myth RPG, inspired in part by Xena: Warrior Princess. The idea was that the gods were all oppressive jerks, and the player-characters were all rebel demigods, the half-mortal children of the bullies they’re fighting. Half-gods as player-characters seem like a good niche—powerful enough to feel formidable, aligned with the common people against the elites, connected to a recognizable deity such as Ares or Zeus, and hailed as heroes while being outsiders to everyday life. But before I got anything up and running, Wizards bought D&D and the game of Greek half-gods got shelved.

After acquiring D&D, Peter Adkison traveled around talking to AD&D players, especially RPGA players. He would ask whether they would like to see a new edition, and they all said the same thing. They did not want a Third Edition. Then he would ask what changes they might like to see if there were a Third Edition. In response, the fans talked at length about all the problems with Second Edition and what a better rule set would look like. The fans didn’t want a Third Edition, but they needed one.

We knew that the game needed a major overhaul, and we knew that players didn’t want a Third Edition. We explicitly discussed the prospect of losing players with this new edition. We figured that even if we lost 10% of our players up front, the benefits of a better game system would accrue year by year and eventually would be glad we did the Third Edition. In 1999, however, Ryan Dancey started rolling out publicity for Third Edition. He did such a good job month by month that we could see the enthusiasm build. By the time Third Ed released, we knew we had a major hit on our hands, and all thought of losing players in the short term was forgotten.

The first work I did with the new D&D system was for an unpublished project, a roleplaying game set in the world of Magic: The Gathering and using streamlined rules derived from the AD&D rules. We experimented with ways to use cards, such as putting monster stats on cards and constructing random encounters by selecting from random draws. In one version it was a board game where the characters turned off mana nodes as they pressed deeper into the dungeon, one raid at a time. In another version, it was a light RPG with D&D-style rules set in the world of Dominia. I gave characters three types of saving throws and made Armor Class the target number for your attack roll. Other game designers had independently come up with these same common-sense ideas. My work on these games turned out to be good practice for later when I ended up on the 3rd Edition design team.

The rule I really liked from the Dominia RPG was that the characters had to stick it out exploring the dungeon until they had accumulated a minimum amount of treasure. If they retreated to town to heal up before reaching the treasure milestone, they were penalized XP. Years later at Wizards, I would experiment with similar milestone rules for random dungeon crawls, another experimental design that never got published. 13th Age has a similar rule based on battles rather than treasure: the group suffers a “campaign loss” if they take a full heal-up before they have defeated a minimum force of enemies.

Gradually my involvement with the new D&D edition grew, from working on a parallel project to being assigned the beginner version, to landing on the design team itself and then finally getting assigned the lead role.
 
Jonathan Tweet

Comments

dave2008

Legend
I, for one, don't necessarily want more dangerous monsters (though I think the 5e MM is a bit under-tuned at everything beyond the very lowest level). I want more fun monsters. This is one area where 4e was excellent - you had things like kobold slingers with special trick ammo, hill giants with sweeping attacks that pushed you around and knocked you over, ettins that get to act twice per round, and stuff like that. 13th age is awesome at doing this, and Pathfinder 2 seems to be doing all right as well. But 5e monsters are mostly boring as heck.
Honestly I think that is an old assumption about 5e. The more monsters they have added the more interesting they have become. A good example are gnolls: with the MM and Volo’s you can create quite a dynamic war band. The problem is the basic versions that are included in the MM (though there are good ones in the MM as well).

Interestingly, for all the love people give PF2E monsters, their dragons are even worse than the 5e ones IMO. Actually, almost all 5e creatures with Legendary Actions are more interesting than the PF2e version.
 

Staffan

Adventurer
Honestly I think that is an old assumption about 5e. The more monsters they have added the more interesting they have become. A good example are gnolls: with the MM and Volo’s you can create quite a dynamic war band. The problem is the basic versions that are included in the MM (though there are good ones in the MM as well).
Quite possible, but the Volo's and Mordenkainen's monsters aren't what get included in adventures (and especially not adventures released before those). I'm running Princes of the Apocalypse right now, and when the main thing differentiating an orc from an ogre from a hill giant are the hit points it takes to kill it, things get a bit dull. I do what I can to spice things up, but I'm wary of overtuning monsters because doing so has had bad effects in the past.

Edit: I think part of the issue is that the devs really wanted 5e not to need a battle map, and therefore they were very wary of including abilities that use one. That's why there's no Warlord class (because so many of its abilities revolved around tactical movement), and that's why it's rare for monsters to have abilities that manipulate the battlefield.
 

dave2008

Legend
Quite possible, but the Volo's and Mordenkainen's monsters aren't what get included in adventures (and especially not adventures released before those). I'm running Princes of the Apocalypse right now, and when the main thing differentiating an orc from an ogre from a hill giant are the hit points it takes to kill it, things get a bit dull. I do what I can to spice things up, but I'm wary of overtuning monsters because doing so has had bad effects in the past.

Edit: I think part of the issue is that the devs really wanted 5e not to need a battle map, and therefore they were very wary of including abilities that use one. That's why there's no Warlord class (because so many of its abilities revolved around tactical movement), and that's why it's rare for monsters to have abilities that manipulate the battlefield.
That makes sense, I never run published adventures so I don’t run into that problem. There are multiple orcs, ogres, trolls, and the like now. And of course I also have a bag of tricks I use keep things interesting even with the MM versions.
 

darjr

I crit!
Ogres and hill giants grab people.

one of the reasons my players fear hill giants is cause they’ll throw them back and forth to each other and toss in a attack vs prone.
 

dave2008

Legend
Edit: I think part of the issue is that the devs really wanted 5e not to need a battle map, and therefore they were very wary of including abilities that use one. That's why there's no Warlord class (because so many of its abilities revolved around tactical movement), and that's why it's rare for monsters to have abilities that manipulate the battlefield.
that is likely, though I think they could include more tactical elements without needing a grid. Pushing 10 ft is easy enough to understand. I also think adding the dazed condition would help.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
If you've never read the 1st Edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide, you should track down a copy as soon as possible and read it cover to cover. Every RPG player, no matter what game they play, should read that book. So much densely packed information!
In strange places. What would a con save throw of dc 5 now days was a resurrection survival roll of 98%. If you roll 99+ you didn't come back. Now what page was that on?
 

jasper

Rotten DM
Whereas I think that any Demon or Devil worth its salt would absolutely revel in the name, and all of the historical, cultural, and religious connotations that come with it. Some rando peasant isn't going to have the slightest idea what in the Hell a Baatezu is, but he will damn well know what a Devil is and know to absolutely not cross it on peril of his immortal soul.

The trouble with the terms Tanar'ri and Baatezu is what is known as "Calling a Rabbit a Smeerp" on TVTropes. Your characters are going out to hunt small, furry creatures with long ears and cotton-puff tails that hop around. Are they hunting rabbits? Nope, they're hunting smeerps! It's an attempt to gain the benefits of all the pre-existing cultural connotations of a known creature or mythological entity except, instead of calling it what it is, calling it a weird, made up science fiction name in a lazy attempt at "adding flavor."

In other words, Baatezu "Not Devils" are a type of Evil supernatural entity known for being ruthlessly clever ultimate "evil lawyer" archetypes, infamous for making supernatural legal contracts with mortals who trade their souls in exchange for magic and temporal power... and they're from Hell where they preside over the souls of the damned (or Baator "Not Hell.") But they're not Devils... because.


I did like how 3rd Edition handled the problem by making Tanar'ri and Baatezu specific subtypes, with the terms Demon and Devil referring to any native inhabitant of the Abyss and the Hells respectively.
Back in the 70s calling a rabbit a smeerp us kids say "Cussing around the censor" I frak you not,
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
The trouble with the terms Tanar'ri and Baatezu is what is known as "Calling a Rabbit a Smeerp" on TVTropes. Your characters are going out to hunt small, furry creatures with long ears and cotton-puff tails that hop around. Are they hunting rabbits? Nope, they're hunting smeerps! It's an attempt to gain the benefits of all the pre-existing cultural connotations of a known creature or mythological entity except, instead of calling it what it is, calling it a weird, made up science fiction name in a lazy attempt at "adding flavor."
It's not even slightly that. The reason they were called that was to get around religious pressures in America, not to be lazy and add unearned flavour to the term 'devils'.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
It's not even slightly that. The reason they were called that was to get around religious pressures in America, not to be lazy and add unearned flavour to the term 'devils'.

Satanic panic was one of the best things to happen in D&D. Free publicly.
 

Aaron L

Adventurer
It's not even slightly that. The reason they were called that was to get around religious pressures in America, not to be lazy and add unearned flavour to the term 'devils'.
Oh trust me, I know that it was a misguided attempt to appease people who were never going to buy the books and were going to hate D&D no matter what; back in high school a group of people within our church started spreading rumors about my brother and I because we played D&D, such as that we sacrificed animals and put the blood on the church steps, and other things like that. The rumors took hold quickly and we were made to feel so unwelcome that I was essentially shunned from taking part in church youth group activities and trips, which had been my only real social outlet when I was young and the only thing that got me out of the house to interact with people in a (seemingly) friendly environment.

I wasn't meaning to imply all that the Baatezu and Tanar'ri renaming itself was a lazy attempt to co-opt existing mythology (they had originally been flat out called Devils and Demons, after all.) I still fully believe it was a poor decision, but not a lazy one. I started playing with 2nd Edition and was originally exposed to the monsters under those names, and I actually quite like them, even though at first I thought it was weird that such obvious demons were called by these odd names, and why the Devas, Planetars, and Solars weren't referred to as Angels even though they clearly were. (And I still much prefer the replacement terms Gehereleth and Yugoloth to Demodand and Daemon.)

With Baatezu they obviously made an attempt at creating a term that still invoked a similiar feeling of malicious supernatural creatures, and Tanar'ri is just a cool name in itself. It was ony a year or so after I started playing that I discovered that they had originally actually been called Demons and Devils withut the obfuscation, and then I eventually realized the reason why they had changed the names. I just disliked that they removed the names Demon and Devil from the game, and I especially disliked the reasons why they did it.
 

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
When I say 3e, I only mean 3.5.

3.0 is off of my radar.

What are the important differences between 3.0 and 3.5, if any?
I'm not sure what to call an "important" difference per se. My impression is that a lot of little tweaks got made that, taken together, were notable in a way that none of them were on their own.

The thing is, for all the good work that the 3.0 designers did, little things fell through the cracks. That is, there were various corners where the rules seemed to be written without fully comprehending the scope of how things worked under the new d20 System. The result left some areas open to rather odd exploits, while other areas were neglected.

For example, druids and rangers in 3.0 didn't receive animal companions as part of their class features. Admittedly, it was technically listed on their class tables, but the listing just noted how they had the animal friendship spell, which was only on the druid and ranger spell lists and which they cast to receive a number of Hit Dice worth of animal companions equal to their caster level, divided up among however many animal companions they wanted. (Non-adventuring characters, i.e. NPCs, got twice that many.)

Now, that doesn't sound so bad overall; that was how things had worked in AD&D 1E and 2E, basically. But this is where the 3E mechanics come into play. Since animal friendship was a 1st-level spell unto itself, you can put it on a scroll or even in a wand. At that point, someone with the Use Magic Device skill can come along and get a free animal companion (or several, if the magic item was made with a higher caster level). That wasn't quite as bad as it sounds, because UMD was a restricted skill in 3E; only bards and rogues could take any ranks in it at all. But that just meant you only needed to level-dip into bard or rogue, and you could buy up to four ranks in it (and add your Charisma modifier on top of that). Since there wasn't really a penalty for failing a UMD check (even on a natural 1 you just had to wait a day before trying the check again), there was no reason why you couldn't try the skill check again and again until you succeeded, so long as you could potentially hit the target number in the first place. So it was basically free animal companions for everyone until 3.5, when the animal friendship spell went extinct and animal companions became a pure class feature.

Another one was multiclassing. Remember those "patch" classes for multiclass spellcasters? Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, and the Mystic Theurge? Those weren't in 3.0. It was like the designers were all remembering the way dual-classing worked in AD&D and didn't fully grasp what multiclassing did to spellcasters in 3E.

Little things like that were all over the place.
 
Last edited:

In Our Store!

Advertisement

Latest threads

Advertisement

Top