D&D General Mike Mearls' blog post about RPG generations

[Steampunkette]

But the viability of virtually all of those choices come down to whether you rolled up an exceptionally amazing character at first level. Only with that incredibly statted out first level character could you entertain the idea of going down that path of dual classing your way to a bard.

There is also some question whether the original author ever intended anyone to actually become a bard, or whether that entire appendix entry was a long form prank.

It -would- be funny if it was a long form prank...

But Skills and Powers as a book wasn't a long form prank, even if the community often treated it that way!

And that was unleashed in 1995, just 2 years before WotC bought D&D from TSR in order to make 3rd edition.

You'll also see at least a few of the names behind Skills and Powers in the 3e PHB. Skip Williams was one of the core designers. Richard Baker did additional game design. Bill Slavicsek would become the director of RPG R&D, Dale Donovan would be one of the other contributors alongside Jeff Grub and Rob Heinsoo and Sean K Reynolds... Names that most players of 3e will recognize pretty quickly.

Heck. Baker started in '91 alongside Slavicsek and left in 2011 when Wizards eliminated his position and Slavicsek's with it.

3e's "Character Focus" was just a continued evolution of AD&D 2e's design hits and misses.

 

[Mannahnin]

The Bard Prestige Class. They were literally the -origin- of the term Prestige Class.

In AD&D 1e to be a bard you had to hit at -least- 5th level as a fighter, and swap to Rogue before 8th level (so you could be a Fighter 5/Thief 1, or a Fighter 7/Thief 1 but not a Fighter 8/Thief 1). Then you had to get a Druid level before 9th. So you could be a Fighter 7/Thief 1/Druid 1. Or a Fighter 5/Thief 3/Druid 1.

THEN you would become the bard with Druid spells, get limited in weapon proficiencies, gain your poetry, sing to negate sonic attacks, etc.

Also you had to be a Human or Half-Elf with a 15 Str, Dex, Wis, -and- Cha. With at least a 12 Int and 10 Con.

And then in AD&D 2e it was just a whole class. Just like it was in Basic D&D.

Yes, I know all that*. Which is why I wrote "2E" in the comment that you're responding to.

And virtually no one played 1E Bards because of their absurd complications. If you wanted to put an RPG reference in a dictionary of idioms they could be the example for "the exception which proves the rule."

*(except there were no Bards in Basic D&D, unless they tucked them into one of the post-BECMI Gazetteers. Maybe you meant OD&D? There was a Strategic Review regular Bard class).

Character Points.

Introduced in Skills and Powers you would gain Character Points every time you gained a level (number determined by your class) which you could use to gain new Weapon Proficiencies for 3-5 points and Nonweapon Proficiencies (skills) for 2 to 5 points.

Could also improve your Proficiency Score itself by a permanent +1 bonus for a single character point.

Points can also be used to gain Racial Traits like an Elf's Infravision for 5-10 points. Or new Class Abilities such as a Paladin's "Lay on Hands" which generally cost 10 points. You could also save some of your racial character points for weapon and nonweapon proficiencies. (Humans got 10 extra character points for Weapon/Nonweapon 'cause they didn't get racial traits)

Priests and Wizards could buy extra spells. Anyone could spend points on extra HP. And could even use Character Points during gameplay to buy extra attempts at picking locks, reroll failed attacks or saves, new proficiency checks, or even reroll damage.

That's right: Character Points also functioned like 5e's Inspiration mechanic.

So... I'll say it, again: 3e was building on what came before it. Refining earlier ideas. Including the idea of making meaningful choices as you gained levels.

I'll never dispute the point that 3E built on things which came before. I've discussed many times how much spell verbiage, for example, is verbatim quoted from AD&D.

Skills & Powers with character points by level is a good counter-example of a part of AD&D which did involve level by level choices, though it also largely falls into the bucket of an exception which proves the rule, given that it was optional expansion material and to the best of my knowledge few people used it. None of the tables I ever played at; but that's obviously anecdotal.

 

[TiQuinn]

It -would- be funny if it was a long form prank...

But Skills and Powers as a book wasn't a long form prank, even if the community often treated it that way!

And that was unleashed in 1995, just 2 years before WotC bought D&D from TSR in order to make 3rd edition.

View attachment 412582

You'll also see at least a few of the names behind Skills and Powers in the 3e PHB. Skip Williams was one of the core designers. Richard Baker did additional game design. Bill Slavicsek would become the director of RPG R&D, Dale Donovan would be one of the other contributors alongside Jeff Grub and Rob Heinsoo and Sean K Reynolds... Names that most players of 3e will recognize pretty quickly.

Heck. Baker started in '91 alongside Slavicsek and left in 2011 when Wizards eliminated his position and Slavicsek's with it.

3e's "Character Focus" was just a continued evolution of AD&D 2e's design hits and misses.

2e Skills and Powers IMO was a really different, fun early attempt at creating flexible characters and I think they needed to fail at S&P before coming up with the 3rd edition approach. But again, it did come very late in the 2e lifecycle as well. I would say it was the opening salvo of the reaction to 2e (and 1e before it really) - it foreshadowed that a new edition was going to be needed.

 

[Steampunkette]

Yes, I know all that*. Which is why I wrote "2E" in the comment that you're responding to.

And virtually no one played 1E Bards because of their absurd complications. If you wanted to put an RPG reference in a dictionary of idioms they could be the example for "the exception which proves the rule."

*(except there were no Bards in Basic D&D, unless they tucked them into one of the post-BECMI Gazetteers. Maybe you meant OD&D? There was a Strategic Review regular Bard class).

I did mean OD&D, yeah. Strategic Review.

I'll never dispute the point that 3E built on things which came before. I've discussed many times how much spell verbiage, for example, is verbatim quoted from AD&D.

Skills & Powers with character points by level is a good counter-example of a part of AD&D which did involve level by level choices, though it also largely falls into the bucket of an exception which proves the rule, given that it was optional expansion material and to the best of my knowledge few people used it. None of the tables I ever played at; but that's obviously anecdotal.

It's definitely true that the core, basic, AD&D rules didn't have a whole lot of leveling choices (other than the aforementioned decision points on multiclassing stuff). But the point I'm making is there isn't this big generational cultural shift where "Oh, we HAVE to make it like videogames do it!" that Mearls is pitching.

It was a progression. Largely driven by designers who built on what came before and went "What if there was more room for me to design stuff?"

People who had been playing since the 70s, got hired in the 80s and 90s, designed material that would form the basis of the 2000s, as soon as their bosses gave them enough slack to do so.

2e Skills and Powers IMO was a really different, fun early attempt at creating flexible characters and I think they needed to fail at S&P before coming up with the 3rd edition approach. But again, it did come very late in the 2e lifecycle as well. I would say it was the opening salvo of the reaction to 2e (and 1e before it really) - it foreshadowed that a new edition was going to be needed.

I mean... Kind of.

Almost every new edition is just trying to compile the stuff that got added to the previous edition with a more streamlined and harmonious overall design. AD&D took what came before and struggled to put it into a 'More Balanced' framework that compiled all the previous options into something that made more sense. AD&D 2e was the same. Then came 3e building on 2e's designs. 4th edition was largely a departure... but the Book of the Nine Swords, Expanded Psionics Handbook, and more formed some of the bones of the new system.

3e's late addition of the Warlock class got made more or less core in 4e and then actual core in 5e.

I don't think Skills and Powers represented a need to develop a new edition, so much as being the codification and gameification of the materials that came before it, which helped to support a new edition by laying the groundwork of collecting material from across 2e.

'Cause with Skills and Powers in hand you had 2e's (entirely optional) nonweapon proficiencies expounded upon, the various subraces introduced in the Complete Book of Dwarves/Elves/Humanoids, classes and kits from the Class Handbooks, and a ton of other material.

Honestly? In retrospect, Skills and Powers with Combat and Tactics and Spells and Magic probably could've been a new "Revised Edition" of 2e, or the 'Real' 3e...

Huh. Microedition.

 

[TiQuinn]

I mean... Kind of.

Almost every new edition is just trying to compile the stuff that got added to the previous edition with a more streamlined and harmonious overall design. AD&D took what came before and struggled to put it into a 'More Balanced' framework that compiled all the previous options into something that made more sense. AD&D 2e was the same. Then came 3e building on 2e's designs. 4th edition was largely a departure... but the Book of the Nine Swords, Expanded Psionics Handbook, and more formed some of the bones of the new system.

3e's late addition of the Warlock class got made more or less core in 4e and then actual core in 5e.

I don't think Skills and Powers represented a need to develop a new edition, so much as being the codification and gameification of the materials that came before it, which helped to support a new edition by laying the groundwork of collecting material from across 2e.

'Cause with Skills and Powers in hand you had 2e's (entirely optional) nonweapon proficiencies expounded upon, the various subraces introduced in the Complete Book of Dwarves/Elves/Humanoids, classes and kits from the Class Handbooks, and a ton of other material.

Honestly? In retrospect, Skills and Powers with Combat and Tactics and Spells and Magic probably could've been a new "Revised Edition" of 2e, or the 'Real' 3e...

Huh. Microedition.

But the point buy approach was so wildly different from anything that had really come before that I can't equate it to anything previous in 2e. It was like they attempted a wholly new edition without calling it a new edition.

I'll say this - I played it in a campaign for about a year and a half and it was a fun but often frustrating and crazy campaign. It could be viable but it parts of it were broken as hell. Like, we clearly realized that "No, you couldn't buy yourself more points by taking on disadvantages that you were never ever going to encounter." I remember all of us rolling up characters, talking over the crazy characters you could build by taking obscure combos of disadvantages, and then agreeing that we weren't going to do that.

I'd never try to play S&P again, but I will always have some love for it because of what it attempted.

 

[Steampunkette]

But the point buy approach was so wildly different from anything that had really come before that I can't equate it to anything previous in 2e. It was like they attempted a wholly new edition without calling it a new edition.

Yes... and no.

I did mention, earlier, that people also copied stuff from other games.

1991 saw V:tM drop. Point Buy got -really- sexy in the mid-90s as people came to understand how cool it was. (Just in time for the Player's Options!)

People were doing homebrew and 3rd party versions of Skills and Powers well before it got codified in a book. Generally not as "GURPSian" as the Player's Option line became... but nonweapon proficiencies went from an optional thing into a core rule at a lotta tables, and progression of that, and other mechanics, were also a thing.

 

[Psikosis]

I myself wouldn't necessarily agree with the specifics of what Mike wrote, but can understand where he's coming from. To me I always saw it like this:

First gen is the original Dungeons & Dragons and D&D adaptations that are like as he said-- the slow move from wargaming into playing a character in a fantasy genre. Building dungeons and running through dungeons is the order of the day. This is probably '75 through the early '80s through the publishing of both Basic and Advanced D&D.

Second gen starts in the early-mid '80s where other RPGs are being invented and designed that don't mechanically follow D&D's formatting, plus begin to involve all kinds of other genres besides fantasy. So our GURPS, Toon, James Bond, Paranoia, Champions and so on. They are all RPGs, but no one would ever say they were trying to mimic D&D in any sense.

Third gen starts where he mentions, around 1991... but for a reason different than what he said. To me it was the advent of Vampire: The Masquerade and the increased narrative and story-heavy types of game. Games that never expect you to use grids or miniatures, games that do not have a combat-focus, games for whom game mechanics are not the primary method of interacting with the game. Instead, its the in-depth stories being told together by the players.

Fourth gen is where I agree with him on the 2000 3E advent, which is all about going back to creating rules to mechanically create whatever type of character you want. It also is the advent of the OGL and d20 system, allowing for an inordinate number of companies and people to design more and more and more products to extend the design of a character. Splatbooks all the way down.

Fifth gen? I do agree with him that we are in it, but I think the reflection point of it should be described differently that what he suggested. Mike said it's about new games making things easier for GMs to run... whereas I think the turn is reallly about the rise of Indy RPGs leading into the advent of Actual Play. With games that are more about character personality and character emotions and character relationships taking center stage, with combat and mechanical "character builds" no longer the focus. Players of this generation now are concerned with the interactions of their characters to each other and to the characters and essence of the worlds they are in, just like the actors and improvisors they watch playing RPGs online. And part of that is because the watching of the "board game" part of RPGs online through Actual Play is not the fun or compelling part and not the reason people tune in. Instead, it's roleplayers interacting vocally and emotionally with each other. Indy RPGs led the way on that, and 5E was light enough that it could be run in that manner successfully (even though it's not designed around the Indy RPG narrative aesthetic.)

And to me this has nothing to do with the attempted revocation of the OGL... as Indy RPGs had already begun to gain steam in the late 2000s and which lead to Actual Play in the mid 2010s-- all before the OGL fiasco.

My reaction was very similar; I see his perspective, but I don't necessarily agree with all his assertions. First, while D&D is important (because it's often the most 'seen' RPG by non-RPG players and because it's usually the most played RPG among RPGers), it's not necessarily a harbinger, even a barometer, of RPGs in general.

I started playing with the purple box set (fighter/female wizard/ dragon cover). Even back then, circa 1980, there was considerable heterogeneity among RPG designs. Compare ICE's Rolemaster with AD&D, as an example that comes to mind. Or compare Aftermath to Top Secret. That's a lot of variability. Though I agree that VTM was a path-breaking RPG for the reason you mentioned (and the artwork in 1e of VtM was simply amazing, far beyond the sketches in D&D and AD&D books)

His 'Fifth Gen" RPGs have been brewing since at least the beginning of the 4th gen, even if they didn't get a lot of traction until use of the internet (for publicizing and playing) because more important. Again, I think trying to use D&D as the marker of generational change is overstating its importance (though 3/3.5e was potent for a time). I'm not sure what to think about Critical Role and the rise of gaming as a spectator activity. I've watched games and enjoyed them, though I think it does emphasize characters and interactions over mechanics and settings.

Finally, the OGL debacle didn't change RPGs all that much, they DID I think cause some changes in RPG creators and publishers. It also created angst among the players (me among them) as D&D is still the flag-bearer for RPGs. Hasbro's decision very much felt like a betrayal because the community of gamers and creators is a big, overlapping Venn diagram (and anyone who runs a game is a creator of sorts, even if they are running something 'canned'). I still play D&D 5e and bought the core books for 5e revised, but that's as far as I go. I don't use D&D Beyond nor do I run anything used 5e revised. I bought them to continue to play in a group that moved to 5e revised, but that's pretty much it. I run a regular 5e game, because that's what the players want, though they have expressed an interest in PF2 lately. Everything I run for Guild Days at my local store is not D&D, it's Free League, Chaosium, or Star Wars RPG or some other publisher. The OGL foolishness sent me looking for other games/publishers to explore and play and I found lots of cool stuff. Do I still like D&D? Of course. But regardless of 'generation', a good game is a good game and if I learned anything from the OGL mess (other than Hasbro sux), it was to be open-minded and try new things.

 

[Theory of Games]

Again, I think trying to use D&D as the marker of generational change is overstating its importance (though 3/3.5e was potent for a time)

Can you name a ttrpg more important to the hobby and industry?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Mike's post resonated with me; I think we come from similar traditions.

FWIW, I'm excited about the "fifth generation" he's referring to here. Especially the focus on what he called "UX/UI," but what I might more broadly call user-focused design. I like the migration away from character builds and hypothetical fun to something a bit more focused on what an actual session of a TTRPG entails and is like. I think it's especially interesting how different a VTT is in that context from an in-person game, and I'm a bit skeptical of him using YouTube and streaming as "actual play telemetry" in that these ways of playing are also products of their format and their funding models. We'd all love to game with uniquely creative people who are great at improv and performance, I'm sure, but your typical game still isn't streaming itself to an audience in exchange for Patreon donations or meal delivery ads or whatever.