D&D General Lethality, AD&D, and 5e: Looking Back at the Deadliest Edition

[EzekielRaiden]

Whether the changes 4E made were positive or negative will always be a matter of opinion and preference. Just like whether it was more combat focused was also a matter of perspective.

But we can't really discuss this objectively, it always seems to lead to edition wars. Which is too bad, I think it could be an interesting subject about approaches to the game's structure and what people want. In any case maybe we should just move on?

Okay, but when someone is saying "it's the most combat-oriented," what they're also saying is, "it's the least supportive of anything that isn't combat." Effectively 100% of the time. You won't hear them say the quiet part out loud, but that doesn't mean the quiet part isn't there.

But yes, perhaps we should.

 

[nevin]

ummmmm till 5e we didn't really have anything but half assed ad hoc rules for "out of combat". The fact that we have some in 5e hasn't changed in any detectable way the number of people playing combat vs "out of combat" style games. This arguing the rules in 5e made a difference in playstile i'm considering a red herrring till someone can show me data in context that proves the needle moved.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

ummmmm till 5e we didn't really have anything but half assed ad hoc rules for "out of combat". The fact that we have some in 5e hasn't changed in any detectable way the number of people playing combat vs "out of combat" style games. This arguing the rules in 5e made a difference in playstile i'm considering a red herrring till someone can show me data in context that proves the needle moved.

We absolutely did have something that was not "half naughty word ad hoc rules for 'out of combat' " before 5e. We had Skill Challenges in 4e, and Page 42 for most things not covered by SCs.

And I definitely did a LOT more engaging out-of-combat stuff as a result of Skill Challenges existing, even though I didn't play anywhere near as much 4e as I would have liked.

 

[Maxperson]

LOL. Here's where I always kinda giggle when people edition war. Where do you think those role-play focused elements in 5e came from? All those expanded rules for skills and whatnot. Extended skill challenges and group skill challenges. The notion of "say yes" that found throughout 5e. Backgrounds? BIFTS? All 4e concepts repurposed for 5e.

It astonishes me that people still argue this.

Repurposing changes a thing, though. It's not like putting lipstick on a pig. As examples, I love eggs sunny side up. Repurpose the egg into scrambled egg and you have something that makes me gag and want to throw up. The texture is disgusting to me. Going the other way I hate beets, but if you repurpose those beets into borscht and I like it. Those are still eggs and beets, but the repurposing changes them in a very meaningful way. The 4e to 5e repurposing acts like that to a lot of us.

For me personally, I'm in-between you(if you liked 4e) and @Micah Sweet. There are some repurposed 4e items that I dislike in 5e and some that I now like, though to be fair, there were some things about 4e that I liked. It was just that what I disliked about 4e greatly outweighed what I liked.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay, but when someone is saying "it's the most combat-oriented," what they're also saying is, "it's the least supportive of anything that isn't combat." Effectively 100% of the time. You won't hear them say the quiet part out loud, but that doesn't mean the quiet part isn't there.

That simply isn't true. Let's say 3e was 83 combat and 44 roleplay. Those are ratings, not percentages. If 4e went to 212 combat and 87 roleplay, it's still the most combat oriented of the two editions even though roleplaying support nearly doubled.

In any case, I think playstyle is a huge part of how they view the editions. A more roleplay oriented group is naturally going to gravitate to that 87 and not the 212 so much, so it's not going to seem as combat focused of an edition to them. A group that likes to have a combat or three a session mixed into their roleplay is going to be hit by that 212 a lot more, so it's going to seem more combat oriented.

Now I don't personally have any play experience with 4e, so I have no ideas if any of those numbers are anywhere near accurate. They were just to show how someone can view an edition as the most combat oriented while NOT meaning that it's the least supportive of anything that isn't combat. To assume that such a view is there "effectively 100% of the time" is wrong.

 

[Voadam]

ummmmm till 5e we didn't really have anything but half assed ad hoc rules for "out of combat". The fact that we have some in 5e hasn't changed in any detectable way the number of people playing combat vs "out of combat" style games. This arguing the rules in 5e made a difference in playstile i'm considering a red herrring till someone can show me data in context that proves the needle moved.

3e had in depth granular skills with defined DCs for various tasks.

4e had broad comprehensive skills and a developed mechanical skill challenge system.

5e seems to basically be a variant of the base 4e skill system without skill challenges.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Okay, but when someone is saying "it's the most combat-oriented," what they're also saying is, "it's the least supportive of anything that isn't combat." Effectively 100% of the time. You won't hear them say the quiet part out loud, but that doesn't mean the quiet part isn't there.

But yes, perhaps we should.

That's not true at all. If I say the Rav4 Prime is the second fastest vehicle built by Toyota just a hair behind the Supra, that doesn't mean I'm also saying it's the least utility vehicle built by Toyota. The two things aren't related, and one doesn't necessarily mean the other.

4e could absolutely have out of combat rules, but when you look at actual play, the combat portion seemed to take up a lot of the actual game time. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, and it certainly isn't claiming it didn't have out of combat support. It's just an observation by looking at how much time was spent where. I think that's pretty common with tactical games (not just 4e)--the rules lend to more time being spent using those tactical rules.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Zeno: AD&D was a game that had a number of incredibly lethal rules as written.

Achilles: Really?

Zeno: Yeah, really! That said, while the rules as written could be lethal, there was a diversity in the styles of play. So it was possible for any given table to play it in a manner that could lead to anything from a meatgrinder dungeon to a power-fantasy of characters killing gods.

Achilles: Wow. Let me get this straight.... so what you're really saying is that people hate 4e, and we need to have ... AN EDITION WAR!

Zeno: ........ I can't even.

 

[nevin]

We absolutely did have something that was not "half naughty word ad hoc rules for 'out of combat' " before 5e. We had Skill Challenges in 4e, and Page 42 for most things not covered by SCs.

And I definitely did a LOT more engaging out-of-combat stuff as a result of Skill Challenges existing, even though I didn't play anywhere near as much 4e as I would have liked.

fair. 4e is the one I never played so I'll take your word for it.

 

[Mannahnin]

Ok, so we've had a page of 4E digression and I agree with Oofta that we should drop it.

Anyone got any more juice for the original discussion about 1E?

How do folks feel about, or what was your experience of, the expectation or availability of Raise Dead and similar magics in 1E? I get the sense that this was another area of massive variation between tables.

I remember that at the ones I played at it wasn't easily available.