Our varied play experiences -- then and now

[Bullgrit]

When people here talk about their AD&D1 experiences, the variation in our play shows to have been drastically different. Someone says their experiences were A, and another person says their experiences were Z, and they get into a big argument over whose experiences were right with the game as written or more common among the general player population. It really astonishes me how completely different, even opposite, our experiences can be with the same game.

I don’t see much of this kind of disparate experiences with people talking about D&D3 and D&D4? (Am I just missing the arguments?)

Is this change from extreme-variance in play experiences to more uniform play experiences a result of the edition of the game, or a result of our culture? Has the Internet and vast discussion forums brought people’s play experiences closer to similar, or is there something about the later game rules that did this?

Was this variance in experience with AD&D1 also present in OD&D and BD&D? I don’t see so many arguments about how OD&D and BD&D were played differently by different people and compared to the rules as written. Or is it because we have less discussions (arguments) over OD&D and BD&D compared to AD&D1?

How about AD&D2? No one seems to argue experiences (actual or intended) so much about AD&D2. But surely AD&D2 didn’t give a more uniform experience compared to AD&D1. Is this because AD&D2 seemed to be actually made to have highly varying experiences, what with all the supplements produced in its era?

Bullgrit

 

[weem]

Like many others, I have played every edition of D&D.

In all of those editions, I DM'd at least a few games (one-offs etc) and at least 2 full campaigns and played in many more with many DM's.

For any given edition, each game I played in with a different DM was vastly different from another for many reasons. Each DM has his/her own style, but also the makeup of players plays (imo) a big role in the feel of the game... the environment, the speed, the places at which things will hang up or run smoothly.

The way I see it, there are simply too many variables to compare one game to another in the same edition, so you can't accurately (imo) compare experiences between different editions.

If I had the most fun during 3e and considered it my favorite edition, but found that my experiences with 4e were terrible, it would be easy for me to say that 4e sucked - it would seem to make sense...

...But if the 4e system were to have come out first, and the 3e system were to be the new kid on the block right now, I would have no way of telling you with any certainty which would be my favorite. After all, the players for each system will have been different. The time in my life I was playing would be different, and things going on in my life can effect my enjoyment of just about anything, including a game. There are simply too many variables.

That's why I have never (until now) commented on anything relating to edition wars (that's the first time I have said that term in fact).

It's also one of the things that I really don't understand about the conflict. EN World is an awesome community made up of very very intelligent people - much more intelligent than I am. But there is still this argument between two things that can not be experienced in the exact same way by any two groups of people - and I don't get it.

Even the most broken system can be enjoyed by people - and whether they say "yea it's broken, but we enjoy it" or "no it's not broken" the fact remains that they enjoy it, and you don't - the reasons don't really mean anything at that point. Discussion of them is awesome, but fighting over it is a waste of time.

But this simply reflects my experiences. I'm a simple guy, and I do not claim to be half as smart as anyone here - I know better. All I care about is playing the game and having fun.

Perhaps I have not applied a critical enough eye over the years, and I'm sure I will have missed any number of points and will have them illustrated to me - but I know I am having a blast playing D&D, and the rest doesn't really matter.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Is this change from extreme-variance in play experiences to more uniform play experiences a result of the edition of the game, or a result of our culture? Has the Internet and vast discussion forums brought people’s play experiences closer to similar, or is there something about the later game rules that did this?

It's probably a bit of both. The more recent rule systems (I think) require less DM adjudication, which will make things more similar, and we have the internet to guide people (especially new DMs) somewhat.

In my case, I think the internet made a HUGE difference. When I got into a 3e game, there was a gaming culture that I could access to find out what was normative. This was not the case when I was growing up. We were a bunch of kids isolated from gamers at large, with nothing but the books to guide us. Additionally, my youthful groups had a mish-mash of 2e books and older books inherited from slightly older cousins and such. Occasional attempts were made to run something "by the book", but usually DMs just sort of kit-bashed something together from whatever books they liked at the time. It was usually a disaster from any sort of logic or game balance perspective. Still, it was crazy fun at times (which I guess is why I'm here now), but it frequently devolved into a complete and utter disaster, too.

High highs, low lows. But that could just as easily come from being 11 years old as the game system. Hard to parse the two now.

 

[Dausuul]

The Internet is certainly a contributing factor. Beyond that, however, WotC has made a deliberate effort to push the game toward a more consistent play experience:

• The rules are more extensive and much more rigorously written, reducing the need for house-rules and homebrewed systems to fill in the gaps.
• Campaign settings are designed to stay within the scope of the core rules as much as possible, rather than having extensive variations and setting-specific elements.
• "Rule Zero" has been de-emphasized; I'm not sure it's even in the 4E DMG, whereas it was featured quite prominently in 1E.
• Greater reliance on miniatures built into the rules pushes players and DMs toward a certain approach to combat encounters (minis, battlemat, tactical as opposed to cinematic). WotC further encourages this by providing a line of cheap, prepainted minis.
• Living Greyhawk and Living Forgotten Realms help to push the "official" play style.
• Character Builder has virtually no support for house rules, nor for homebrewed classes/races.

Some of these I regard as good things (more rigorous and extensive rules, availability of cheap plastic minis); some I regard as bad things (reliance on minis built into the rules, no support for homebrew in Character Builder); and some are more or less neutral for me. Taken all together, though, they represent a strong push to standardize the game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

WotC has made a deliberate effort to push the game toward a more consistent play experience

This.

AD&D 1e was intended to be modified by each group (allbeit to a lesser extent than in Basic D&D or OD&D), and was written with this in mind. The emphasis on the DM's role in the game included, often and obviously, that the DM could change the rules to suit the camaign. Indeed, in the afterword of the 1e DMG, the DM is urged to consider the needs of the game first, the campaign second, and the players third.

3e as written in the Core 3 was likewise intended to be modified, but its focus on balance, combined with loads of naysaying on the InterWeb, made very few people comfortable with making changes. Couple that with the overwhelming nerdrage over products that were "unbalanced" in the initial crop of 3pp materials, and a climate hostile to game individualization arose.

4e seems (to me, anyway) to be intentionally hostile to game individualization (while paying the concept just enough lip service to arm its defenders against those who notice this). Hence, unlike the OGL, we have a license that specifically mandates that 3pp will not change what terms mean. IOW, no alternative hit point or healing surge rules allowed.

When the hobby began, it was common sense that every group would have different needs, and that the DM would be in the best position to determine what those needs were, and to supply the means to fulfill them. That is not the "common sense" of the industry today.....IMHO, not by a long shot!


RC

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

When the hobby began, it was common sense that every group would have different needs, and that the DM would be in the best position to determine what those needs were, and to supply the means to fulfill them. That is not the "common sense" of the industry today.....IMHO, not by a long shot!

Perhaps because the experience of many, like myself, is that it is not true. Or, at least, it is not true often enough to be sustainable.
EDIT: Sustainable for a mass market game, at any rate, which D&D strives to be.

 

[Umbran]

• Living Greyhawk and Living Forgotten Realms help to push the "official" play style.
• Character Builder has virtually no support for house rules, nor for homebrewed classes/races.

These last bear some consideration. I think they reveal a bit of bias in our thoughts.

How many people play "Living" games? How many people are paying for the character builder? I think we tend to overestimate such things - just because we on EN World go to cons and play Living games, and use computer aids. But I don't know if those impose a similarity of experience throughout the entire gaming population.

I will note one other thing - there were few games out there when AD&D was king. These days, people looking for a variant experience could alter D&D, or they could play another game entirely.

 

[avin]

4e seems (to me, anyway) to be intentionally hostile to game individualization

In my experience it's no much different from 3E.

The 2E games I playes were heavily house ruled creating a different atmosphere, depending on the DM.

3E and 4E, on the other hand, even when house rules are applied, seem to be more coherent. Why? One more vote for the Interwebs here...

 

[Stoat]

3.X and 4E push toward consistency from group to group, particularly with wealth by level/treasure parcel and CR/monster level guidelines.

That said, my experience playing various convention games is that there's considerable variation in the way different DMs run/ran 3.X. A quick roll through the houserules forums shows that different DMs still spend a lot of effort customizing their games.

Perennial 3.X threads about "the magic Wal-Mart" have convinced me that lots of folks around here deviated from the 3.X wealth by level guides. Ditto perennial threads about the "uselessness" of the CR system.

 

[avin]

How many people play "Living" games?

I would bet: very few. I started live in this small city three years ago.

So far I've counted three D&D games and their only "Living" experience was a few one shots I've DMed. I would go farther: these games had zero influence on my DMing style, we absolutely hated their railroad aspect.

Knowing D&D players in more three cities on my state I'd say "Living" represents almost zero games.

Maybe it's more popular on US.