Rolemaster vs. AD&D, or 3e vs all other D&D

[Imaro]

It is very funny how we all perceive things- as I've always felt that 3.X was written by all the kids growing up playing 1E or what have you that moved along to Rolemaster, RQ, GURPS, HERO, and other more "realistic" games. The people who didn't like D&D as a rule set,the "rules lawyer" type, and those players who suffered at the hands of poor DMs and felt the need for everything to be codified and clarified to the 9s. I certainly got that feeling from the 3E design team (Monte, and Tweet in particular). I think this is precisely why I never have been able to come to terms with 3.X (and lately PF).

The thing is I could totally see this (though it was never a problem for me because my players trusted my rulings in whatever edition we played), but for me at least... 3.x retained the feel, and tropes that I had come to associate with D&D pretty much intact... I feel like "essentials" may be doing that for me with 4e now. Though honestly, after purchasing the 4e corebooks, I wonder if I should buy another round of books for a game I'm not sure about.

Oh and just for the record I started with BECMI... though I was really too young to understand it at the time.

 

[xechnao]

I too agree with the OP.

3.xe was an effort to make D&D a generic system that could suit every kind of fantasy game. You should be able to make any character you want and play along any other character. OTOH, 4e is more focused on team balance around certain archetypes.

D&D sprang out of wargames which have a foundation on figuring out the synergies of different units. 3.x tried to apply this synergy exploration mentality to each individual character (class levels and feats become these units) while D&D classic and 4e tried to apply this mentality to the team of characters (character roles become these units).

In 4e and classic D&D, it is crystal clear what a character is about regarding the team. One could not say the same thing about the characters of 3.xe.

 

[pawsplay]

I tend to agree with the original poster; looking with 20/20 hindsight, I see ways in which 3E is definitely different in scope than 1E, 2E, or 4E. I would actually call OD&D a different game from everything that came after it, making "feel" branches of:

OD&D
1E, 2E, 4E
3E, 3.5E, & Pathfinder
BECMI D&D

Each with its own different feel. I'd have to elaborate, because there are many things in common among each group, but I'd have to do it when I have a chance, to give proper thought.

I'm having a hard time seeing the 2e --> 4e lineage, especially considering AD&D's focus on exploration and special subsystems, versus 4e's set-piece focus.

 

[xechnao]

I'm having a hard time seeing the 2e --> 4e lineage, especially considering AD&D's focus on exploration and special subsystems, versus 4e's set-piece focus.

What do you mean by "set-piece"?

 

[prosfilaes]

I too agree with the OP.

3.xe was an effort to make D&D a generic system that could suit every kind of fantasy game. You should be able to make any character you want and play along any other character. OTOH, 4e is more focused on team balance around certain archetypes.

I don't see it; in 3E, like its predecessors, you need a cleric on the team. You need a rogue. You need a fighter. From what little I've seen of 4E, you don't actually need a cleric any more. And if 4e goes back to archetypes, they don't feel the archetypes I'm familiar with.

 

[Greg K]

I don't see it; in 3E, like its predecessors, you need a cleric on the team. You need a rogue. You need a fighter. From what little I've seen of 4E, you don't actually need a cleric any more. And if 4e goes back to archetypes, they don't feel the archetypes I'm familiar with.

I disagree that you "neede" them. Some of the 2e Complete Handbook supplements discussed campaigns that were all Fighter, all Rogue, all Wizard . If I recall correctly, the same was discussed in specific 3e supplements or Dragon.

The 3e games I ran had no Cleric or Wizard. I ran one that had no full spellcasters at all.

1. Barbarian, Fighter, Druid, Paladin, Rogue, and Sorcerer
2. Barbarian, Fighter, Fighter (variant using the PHB example as a guideline), Ranger, Rogue (There as a cleric for one or two sessions before the player moved to Northern California, but we ran with just the remaining characters when she moved)

 

[Greg K]

I would agree that there are branches, but I'd arrange mine differently:

OD&D
1e, 2e, 2.5 (PO versions), 3e, 3.5, PF
4e
BECMI D&D

This is the same for me (although the tier structure of 4e makes me think of BECMI).

 

[xechnao]

I don't see it; in 3E, like its predecessors, you need a cleric on the team. You need a rogue. You need a fighter. From what little I've seen of 4E, you don't actually need a cleric any more. And if 4e goes back to archetypes, they don't feel the archetypes I'm familiar with.

Well, the archetypes in 4e are not class based but role based. I agree that these archetypes are not that intuitive on the grounds of role playing as they were on previous editions but the point is that they are more clear regarding their function in the game: characters that do a lot of damage, characters that control, characters that support...

And it is disputable whether you really need some specific archetype in 3.xe.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I think the OP is spot on, but I also think it doesn't tell the whole story. There are more dichotomies than just skill based vs class based.


What I tend to look at when I look at the editions is the game's focus. For 1E/2E AD&D, the focus of the game was kill the monsters, take the treasure, gain exp. Those three things are a lot of fun, and AD&D did them fairly well. 3E changed the focus to creating customized PCs and explaining the entire campaign world within the game rules. It still could do D&D the old way, but all the fiddly bits tended to get in the way a lot of the time. 4E refocused the game back on killing things and taking their stuff.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think the OP is pretty spot on as to 3E's design philosophy. 4E is pretty clearly taken straight from the current trends in skirmish wargames and indie game theory.

OD&D is designed with a nearly entirely forgotten game design philosophy. The inverted THAC0, race/class combos, dice roll tables, and natural language descriptions with number, ratios, and dice distributions attached make more sense when it is viewed therein. It was a cooperative simulation wargame with the rules hidden from the players and played as a situational puzzle behind a screen. It asked for strategizing / pattern finding from the players just as many hardcore wargamers were used to.

AD&D and 2E were the time when these rules came out from behind the screen. Moreno and role theory were forgotten and the military inspiration for the game renamed itself roleplay simulation to try and distance itself from the hobby. Role playing was forgotten to be playing a class role and instead became playing a personality type other than one's own. Almost every DM only used the rules more or less to their liking and then improvised everything else. This normally came in the form of NPC conversation, which was no longer scripted.

I think in terms of complexity d20 and 3.x hit the high water mark, even though they were trimmed down from their inspirations like Rolemaster. 4E is extra-heavy in its' combat simulation encounter game and advice heavy with everything else. 2E published almost as many books as 3E, but most were description heavy and rules light. I see OD&D as sort of code/rules medium with 1E a heavy suggestion set stated as being "real D&D" in order to get all the convention goers playing the same puzzle/game.

D&D has never been rules light IMO, but it can be for the players depending on the design.