Our varied play experiences -- then and now

[Theo R Cwithin]

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.

QFT.

Very well said! Thanks!

 

[Cadfan]

For what its worth, I think a fair amount of the claims of wildly divergent past experiences with D&D are just mendacious. Obviously not all of them. But some. About the same percentage as the percentage of mendacious claims about one's "playstyle."

So I'd be careful about drawing too broad of a conclusion from them.

 

[Votan]

For what its worth, I think a fair amount of the claims of wildly divergent past experiences with D&D are just mendacious. Obviously not all of them. But some. About the same percentage as the percentage of mendacious claims about one's "playstyle."

So I'd be careful about drawing too broad of a conclusion from them.

It's also the case that there are unwritten rules that have an important effect on the game. Social norms can make or break an approach to the system.

Power-gaming, for example, was seen as a major concern in 3rd edition (and I actually experienced it) but some groups could mix power levels broadly (i.e. having 5th and 16th level characters in the same party) and still have a fun game.

 

[Ariosto]

I don’t see much of this kind of disparate experiences with people talking about D&D3 and D&D4?

It looks to me as if 3e and 4e are designed to facilitate more conformity; they simply have more rules, especially for more common situations, to match in the first place!

AD&D1 ended up not really laying down clear rules for so very much more than OD&D. The "major systems" in which uniformity might by any stretch be reckoned actually possible added up to very little next to WotC's games -- even if some (such as initiative and spell casting) had not been plagued with errata amounting simply to imponderables. Even the professed intent needs, I think, some context for understanding other than the anachronistic imposition of 3e or 4e values.

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?

Both, I think quite clearly. For instance ...

Was this variance in experience with AD&D1 also present in OD&D and BD&D?

Yes! Gygax clearly and explicitly (considering statements not only in the DMG but in TSR/TD both before and after publication) meant for AD&D to produce more uniform play experiences than had OD&D. He meant the new (Basic and Expert, projected Companion) D&D line to take over from the Original Collectors Edition (which was then discontinued) the role of tool-kit for free experimentation.

As it happened, though, most old hands moved on to AD&D (having started back in 1977 with the Monster Manual). Most of the newcomers who remained actively involved for decades seem also to have made that move, if they even started with a Basic set at all. (Indeed, I suspect that most who prefer "Classic" today returned, or even came newly, to it after some time using the "Advanced" books.)

The two demographics seemed in my experience to tend to opposite responses to the new line from the self-proclaimed "final arbiter of fantasy role playing" -- who previously had proclaimed that conformity was absolutely not to be desired, and never would be promoted so long as he had a say.

The old hands tended to treat the new books simply as compilations of D&D material, requiring no sudden 180-degree turn in approach. If they paid any great heed to the pomposity, it was to find it at best silly; to take it seriously was more likely to nurture resentment.

Newer (and especially younger) folks were more likely to take it as Holy Writ earnestly to follow. Moreover, whereas before there had been a selection pressure toward people who liked the mutability, now it was if anything in the other direction. The new and much bigger, more "mainstream", market was a different demographic.

Although AD&D was by then far from the only FRP game available, quite a few brand loyalists seemed to regard it as if it might as well be the only game in town.

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.

There's a vast variation not only how the games "were" but in how they are played -- but it's not a big subject for argument. There are not a lot of arguments, either, about how AD&D is played -- in the sense of "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."

No, the argumentation of that sort usually has to do with an attempt to claim that some other game is "just like AD&D, only better". Few offering such rhetoric seem very familiar with Original; they seem largely to dismiss Basic+ as of little interest; and seem widely either to regard 2e as a "red-headed step child" or to conflate it with 1e.

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?

The supplements were produced and consumed in a feedback loop reinforcing conformity to "by the book" rules, culminating in the Players Option volumes. In other words, by picking and choosing among expansions you could get a wide variety in details that were all "Official Rules". By the end of the decade, I understand that it was pretty common to be using the latest version of "everything". I don't see a huge difference between that and the situation that was repeated in 3e and expected from the start in 4e.

Quite apart from that, 2e not only had clearer rules in the core books but also had more rules for the sorts of things -- such as non-weapon proficiencies -- that have continued to figure so prominently in WotC's games.

I think the clarity was a big deal. The style and organization of the books helped greatly, as did editing with an awareness of what had been unclear before.

Note that TSR solicited -- and received! -- a lot of suggestions as to how the Second Edition should be. From what I have seen, many of the "official" changes were in line with already common house rules.

Making the game into something that Mike really likes may mean making it something Becky really dislikes. That increases in likelihood the more that Mike was dissatisfied in the first place with what Becky liked.

Now, the Beckys drop out, and so the Mikes are a new majority. As the game gets even more to their taste, even fewer Beckys join in -- and so "everyone playing the game" is even more mostly Mikes.

From the commercial standpoint, the natural hope is that a base of Mikes is more profitable. That is not necessarily synonymous with more numerous, or any one of a number of other things that the Mikes might desire.

 

[Vegepygmy]

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?)

It seems to me like there are at least as many arguments about what 3e is actually like in play as there are for 1e/2e, but it doesn't look like anyone else has disagreed with your premise, so maybe I'm the one who has a skewed view.

 

[jmucchiello]

What is the criteria for being important in this timeline?

Check your timelines.

AD&D (1e) was published in 1978.

Traveller 1977

Champions I was first published in 1981

[/quote]GURPS was first published in 1986.[/QUOTE]

Champions was certainly a prime RPG at that time. Anyone not playing it was playing Villains and Vigilantes (1979), though it's hard to say if it was popular before the revision in 1982.

--------

I think the OP doesn't remember the early parts of 3e. People played in many different ways. There's just more tolerance for it here on ENWorld (because the mods require tolerance). So I play on a grid and others don't. I have 2 combats in 4 hours, others don't touch the dice for 2-3 sessions at a time. I allow 3pp books, others stick to core, other only allow WotC splats, etc. How is this homogeneous?

 

[Ariosto]

I will note one other thing - there were few games out there when AD&D was king.

I don't think it was quite king before the publication of the DMG in August of 1979 (more than a year after the PHB), although it was certainly heir apparent.

Among the RPGs published before that year were:
The Arduin Grimoire (not quite completely stand-alone -- but neither was AD&D yet!)
Original D&D
Basic D&D (Holmes)
Boot Hill
Empire of the Petal Throne
Metamorphosis Alpha
Gamma World
En Garde
Tunnels & Trolls
Monsters! Monsters!
Bunnies & Burrows
Chivalry & Sorcery
Starships & Spacemen
The Fantasy Trip (although In the Labyrinth was not until 1980)
Spacequest
Traveller
RuneQuest

Also published in 1979 were:
Adventures in Fantasy
Tunnels & Trolls 3E
Boot Hill 2E
RuneQuest 2E
Villains & Vigilantes

In 1980:
Tunnels & Trolls 4E
The Fantasy Trip ("Advanced" Melee & Wizard, ITL)
Bushido
Land of the Rising Sun
Space Opera
Dragonquest
Basic & Expert D&D 2E (Moldvay/Cook/Marsh)
Top Secret
The Morrow Project
Rolemaster (Arms Law & Claw Law)

And in 1981:
Aftermath
Bushido 2E
Dragonquest 2E
Universe
The Arduin Adventure ("basic set" for The Arduin Grimoire)
Call of Cthulhu
Stormbringer
Champions
Crimefighters (in Dragon #47)
Fringeworthy
The Mechanoid Invasion
Rolemaster (Spell Law)

and in 1982:
Champions 2E
Villains & Vigilantes 2E
Universe 2E
Worlds of Wonder
Behind Enemy Lines
Fantasy Wargaming (Try anything once, eh?)
FTL: 2448
Gangbusters
Star Frontiers
Star Trek
Recon
To Challenge Tomorrow (with Challengers; messy Ysgarth spin-off)
Rolemaster (Character Law & Campaign Law)

1983:
Call of Cthulhu 2E
Chivalry & Sorcery 2E
Empire of the Petal Throne 2E
(also Swords & Glory "2/3 E")
The Morrow Project 3E
Basic & Expert D&D 3E (Mentzer)
Gamma World 2E
Star Frontiers 2E
Star Trek 2E
Bureau 13: Stalking the Night Fantastic
Espionage (1985 2nd ed. = Danger International)
James Bond 007
Lands of Adventure (Lee Gold's "house" rules set, published by FGU)
Mercenaries, Spies & Private Eyes
Other Suns
Palladium Fantasy Role Playing Game
Powers & Perils
Ringworld
Superworld
Timemaster

Wow! 1984 was another watershed year -- but perhaps by then AD&D was no longer "king", eh?

Those are only games I encountered in actual play. Those in bold seemed especially prominent over periods of years and beyond my own circle. There were others I saw at first hand but not in play (e.g., Heroic Fantasy, Star Rovers), and still more of which I knew (e.g., Dragon Warriors, Swordbearer, and FGU's Wild West, Merc, Gangster!, Daredevils, Privateers & Gentlemen).

Most, if not all, of the above -- and more -- were either advertised or reviewed (or both) in Dragon, and probably in White Dwarf as well.

 

[Ariosto]

Then of course, there's the "what Gary said" factor. He always had an answer ...

But it would seem that maintaining a consistent, canon response to rules queries wasn't one of his top priorities. Star Wars geeks would have been apoplectic if he was placed in charge of their canon.

Seriously, after thirty years, there's still no agreement on what "whichever is applicable" means for spell casting during melee.

 

[Aus_Snow]

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?)

Yes. (emphasis mine, btw.)

Partly because of third party products being available as ever they were (particularly with 3e!), partly because of house rules being alive and well (again, as ever) and. . . mainly because people play RPGs (which are extremely open-ended thingies) well, differently.

 

[Garmorn]

What I have seen is that the net has allowed a greater flow of ideals and approaches to the game while the same time giving players a greater choice on who the play with. The internet has made learning of finding a new more compatible group easier. Players are more aware of different styles and approaches now. Most of the group/player wanted have more information exchanged about play style then the early bulletin board method. This has to some extent help rein in the more abusive players on both sides of the screen.

This is true of even those who use the net only to find new games/player. It of course is not universal, but affects even the ones that are playing with a player aware of the information on the net.

Another reason the net has had a big affect. House rules. serious gamers come to boards like this and get help on rules and house rules. This in turn affects what happens to some extent on WOtC boards. All of this lead to a more uniform understanding of the rules.

The old and so called role v.s. roll playing debate is just a lot of hot air as that is just a style choice that will swing back and force due to age/experience and social changes.