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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mister Doug" data-source="post: 4421231" data-attributes="member: 66623">So, looking at 4e and my old 3e and 1e stuff (I had abandoned D&D for other systems throughout the 2e system) and trying to understand where people feel 4e has truly departed from the older versions of the game has left me pondering various versions of the game to see where things have changed in the essential nature of the game.So, while  taking a break from preparing MA Thesis defense on Friday and my final rewrite of my thesis, I think I have come up with an appreciation of the fact tha D&D has actually changed a lot in its focus from 1e through 4e. While I don't think this is a bad thing, I think it is significant enough to warrant some though.Let me preface this by saying that I'm not arguing any version is better or worse based on these differences, though I think there are some problems with each version. Other than 2nd edition, which I played only a few times and 4th edition which I have only playtested a little bit, D&D in many additions has given me much joy and, like most roleplaying game, many doubts.AD&DWhen I played at AD&D back in the early to mid 80s as I moved into my teens, we played AD&D by the proverbial style of "kill things and take their stuff". But, looking back at the rules, I don't think that's the way AD&D was written. Looking at the abilities of characters, the way that experience points are awarded, and the looseness of the system, I think that we had gotten it backwards. AD&D as written, with its experience awards based on gold gained, its brutal death for characters, and its support for thieves, assassins, and illusionists whose main contribution to the game are out of combat makes it clear to me now (as opposed to when I was 13) to bring the focus of the game on acquiring wealth, but not through fighting. In fact, the scarcity of healing and magical spells support the idea of trying to find ways to avoid conflict early in the game. It's not a game of killing things and taking their stuff. It's a game about finding clever and sneaky ways of getting stuff.It also has set of clear assumptions: the rules support a human-centered world. Characters must work in groups because of narrowly-focused rules. The rules serve to resolve conflicts, but the locus of control in the game is in the DM, who serves as referee and who is intended to make ad-hoc rulings about events at the table. The game books also assume that PCs will get support in the form of henchmen, hirelings and followers rather than relying just on the PCs.AD&D as written supports an interesting mix of restrictive rules and the assumption that players are going to regularly stray from them, and an atmosphere less of shining heroes (despite the inclusion of paladins and rangers) and more a world of cunning mercenaries seeking their fortune through wiles and daring.AD&D 2nd EditionI won't address this edition in detail, but 2e's settings and fairly minor revisions to the rules  aimed at opening up heroic adventuring with an eye to buidling something more like literary fantasy. However, the fact that the rules were largely the same led, in my opinion, to a conflict between the rules and the change in goals.1st level AD&D 1e or 2e characters are not well suited to action and daring -- they are too limited in power and options. They are well-suited to negotiating, sneaking, cheating or avoiding fights, using role-play to overcome their limitations. But layering on rules for skills, added spells for specialist wizards, and the later addition of kits headed the game into a different direction, away from ad-hoc DMing. IMHO, this makes it harder for PCs to find a space to succeed, and undermines the system. However, adding story awards and the like to experience points does support the use of role-play over combat, which does a lot to help reward players for avoiding combat.3rd EditionThird edition expands the changes begun in 2e and the Players' Option books, trying to make PCs start as more heroic characters. The increase in starring hit points, additional bonus spells, added feats, a developed skill system, all add to the ability for PCs to survive at first level, but they also change the focus of the system. PCs are not rewarded for avoiding combat at low levels, but for engaging in it. This moves the game solidly into killing things and taking their stuff.The rules changes abandon level limits, change multiclassing, and open up character options. This adds to customization of characters and a style of play closer to literary sources, but the things that add to options also undermine the party-focused nature of character classes from earlier editions. Non-humans become more prominent due to viability over more levels. Changes in the experience system make higher levels more likely to be achieved in campaigns starting at first level, and leveling up low-level characters joining a party much harder. More codified rules make table expectations more consistent, but move the locus of control for the table away from the DM and more to the group.I think some of the balance issues of 3e come from the fact that the game does not abandon previous paradigms, but embraces new ones, too. The addition of bonus spells and easy magic item creation, for instance, makes it easier for spellcasters to dominate the game. Multiclassing, prestige classes, and expanded classes did a lot to muddy the idea that classes each had a specialty. The fact that most characters had something to do  in combat focused the game more on action and less on cunning and scheming than AD&D 1e.4th Edition4e takes a turn fully to action gaming. I don't think that's a problem, but it's not the game that 1e is. 1e characters needed to run away, avoid threats, or find ways to negotiate with them or they would get killed. But 4e heroes are built for action. That's an exciting game, too, but a different one.So while I think 4e is a perfectly fine game, I also see where more old-school gamers (in style more than in age) might have issues with 4th edition. But I also see where gamers used to any given edition don't understand the appeal of the other editions. There have been some key paradigm shifts from edition to edition that change style and focus of play on some very fundamental levels.</blockquote>

Verification