Something 3E and 4E lost (that 2E had)

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Much of the essence of the 1974 OD&D lies in this: its essence is that it has no essence. By which I only mean that the barest skeleton is provided, and each Referee will judge it differently. Supplement I: Greyhawk is only the Gygax house rules; other supplements by other authors could be their house rules. The OD&D of Mercurius will be different from the OD&D of Korgoth. And that is how it should be.

According to this hermeneutic, D&D started to morph into something else with AD&D, when Gary's house rules started to become a standard, and the game was considered open to tournament play. OD&D (1974) is not amenable to tournament play... it could be played at a convention, but each Ref will have his own house rules. He must have them, because without them there is not a useable game.

This is essentially what the OP feels the game has lost. When it began it was loose, open and BY DEFINITION reliant upon DM additions, interpretations and alterations. That WAS the game for the DM - building YOUR world from the mere framework suggested by the rules.

Yes, Gary's "house rules" did become the default but honestly it did little more than bolster the framework and nothing to inhibit DM's from folding, spindling, and mutilating that framework at will to still make THEIR world from that framework. Hell, Gary himself never used a lot of the rules that were provided in AD&D and never really wanted to include them - he did so to please others who DID want them. But the game remained the DM's to reinvent as they saw fit, just as Gary himself used his own set of house rules layered onto his officially printed AD&D "house rules".

What eventually happened, particulary with 3E and 4E is that well-meaning, clever people with experience and understanding of GAME DESIGN began to... DESIGN the game. They removed as much of the need and desire to "fill in the blanks" as they possibly could. Game design principles suggested to them that the game should be PRESENTED in as complete a form as could be managed. A form that required the least amount of additions, interpretations, alterations and deletions. A set of game rules that neither needed nor wanted to be messed with.

I agree with the OP that doing so was a significant mistake. I firmly believe that this was facilitated by the fact that WotC was a company which at the time of acquiring the D&D game was wholly oriented around M:tG and Pokemon - card games which lived and died by RULES. Hard-coded, officially designed and sanctioned and deemed unalterable and graven-in-stone by everyone. It was this understanding and approach to GAMES that was brought to bear upon D&D.

Don't get me wrong - to SOME extent this kind of cleanup and standardization of such loose, haphazardly-assembled rules was desperately needed. What was NOT needed (and what the OP feels is missing) is that over the next decade the company publishing the game would handle it, and its rules, in the same manner as they handled their card games. They treated the rules as officially sanctioned, unalterable and graven-in-stone. Never, ever, NOT ONCE since they have acquired D&D has anyone in an official capacity said that the answer to ANY rules question is EVER to just do what you want. The response has always been "DO IT THE WAY WE TELL YOU." Oh, they're not Nazi's about it, they're just earnestly approaching the game the way they think they should.

The tragedy is that they're dead wrong. And THAT is what's missing.

 

[malraux]

They treated the rules as officially sanctioned, unalterable and graven-in-stone. Never, ever, NOT ONCE since they have acquired D&D has anyone in an official capacity said that the answer to ANY rules question is EVER to just do what you want. The response has always been "DO IT THE WAY WE TELL YOU." Oh, they're not Nazi's about it, they're just earnestly approaching the game the way they think they should.

The tragedy is that they're dead wrong. And THAT is what's missing.

The OGL called; it says you are exactly wrong. Seriously, the OGL move in 3e directly gives a framework for not just making up your own rules but for releasing them. That is entirely inconsistent with making the rules unalterable, since it gives you the right to alter the rules and then publish those changes.

Arguably, 4e is a bit more that way. Making an entire class from scratch would be tricky because of huge amount of material involved. That said, 4e is a lot better about other areas of DM improvisation, notably monsters.

 

[Mircoles]

I remember those class creation rules. I made one class with them, realized that any class i made using them would suck and never used them again.

Rules for making gimped character classes are just plain lame to include in a game. Proper guidelines would have been much prefered, because the majority of homebrew classes were always unbalanced and over powered.

The 2e Dmg was worse of all the editions. I've had the thing for 20 years and never finished reading it. I mostly used it for info on the magic items and really not much else.

 

[Oni]

I am quite fond of 2e, and I think it has an unfair reputation as being bad. One of the things that I like is that, to me, the text begs the reader at every turn to take the game and make it their own, there is this idea that the rules aren't sacred or immutable, or that there is only one way to play. Now sometimes the specific advice for changing things isn't the best and there are occasional hangups on certain mechanics, but the general message and feel of the 2e core rules sets very well with me. And I do think it is something that is lacking in the newer editions, that urging to make the game your own.

 

[malraux]

And I do think it is something that is lacking in the newer editions, that urging to make the game your own.

I'd argue 4e's strong encouragement to reflavor anything and everything does much the same. I don't have an opinion on which is "better", but certainly 4e encourages players and DMs to make the game their own.

 

[Ariosto]

If that particular 2e rule system is really an example of what Mercurius wants, then I think M. is "part of the problem", has personally lost what 0E had. Not that one can never find it again, mind you, and the feeling of unease may be the first step.

 

[Starbuck_II]

3rd edition has class creation rules as well. They sucked and were not followed by any 3.5 book (no class will be as good at fighting as the Fighter).

I mean, really. If they defined what they meant by fighting: maybe that would help. But no, just never be as good.
Seeing as how Druid could be better while wildshaped...they kinda failed.

 

[Garmorn]

I don't think the inclusion of 2 pages makes any difference at all. Most DM's did some house rules because they where required to run the game. Out of all of the groups only a handful even tried to create a world. Most just used a published setting or threw together any thing that fit the campaign. Why add rules or try to encourage creativity when those who are not need it and those who aren't don't want it. The very ideal of picking up a rule book that tells you how to run a cooperative story (any RPG) means you should have the ideal that you will have to make some things up.

I have seen a slow change from the DM making almost every up him/her self to we don't want to be bothered with the rules part. I want to spend time to create a great story/combat encounter. We also have seeing more transportability between groups when there are fewer house rules/classes ect.

With tools like the Adventure tools and encounter maker the emphasis is on story and world creation not rules like use to be.

 

[Lancelot]

Based on the thread title alone, I came in here expecting to see something about "Rich Campaign Worlds".

That, for me, is the only thing that 2e had going for it. The 2e material for Planescape, Dark Sun, Birthright, Ravenloft, etc... there's just no comparison in 3e or 4e. I was never that into Ravenloft, but I've got a couple of the boxed sets with the huge poster maps... and the Tarokka cards... and the 100-page books that are nearly all descriptive fluff to immerse you in the world...

You can talk about Freeport, or Golarion (Pathfinder), or Eberron... but none of those settings have the innovative artwork, creative design, or sheer wackiness of a 2e Spelljammer, Dark Sun or Planescape.

Of course, everything else about 2e was terrible. The rules blew, the business model sucked (...the diversity of the campaign worlds helped sink the company's profits...), and the "configurable" options helped destroy what little game balance existed.

When I started reading the thread and saw the praise for the 2e DMG's rules on creating character classes, it caused me to throw up in my mouth a little. I intensely disliked the 2e DMG, and never got a good result from those "guidelines". And, as other posters have pointed out, I don't see them as unique to 2e.

• 3e's multiclassing rules (by far the most complex and detailed of any version) allow some extremely wiggy combinations, and the insane plethora of base and prestige classes released for 3e give plenty of guidance on how to create new ones.
• Likewise, 4e has provided more design tools than any previous version (traps, skill challenges, monster design, encounter balance, etc, etc). There's a ton of material in the DMG and DMG2 to promote the sort of creative juices you've mentioned.

Oh, but the 2e campaign worlds... sigh. Glorious stuff.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Based on the thread title alone, I came in here expecting to see something about "Rich Campaign Worlds".

That, for me, is the only thing that 2e had going for it. The 2e material for Planescape, Dark Sun, Birthright, Ravenloft, etc... there's just no comparison in 3e or 4e. I was never that into Ravenloft, but I've got a couple of the boxed sets with the huge poster maps... and the Tarokka cards... and the 100-page books that are nearly all descriptive fluff to immerse you in the world...

You can talk about Freeport, or Golarion (Pathfinder), or Eberron... but none of those settings have the innovative artwork, creative design, or sheer wackiness of a 2e Spelljammer, Dark Sun or Planescape.

Of course, everything else about 2e was terrible. The rules blew, the business model sucked (...the diversity of the campaign worlds helped sink the company's profits...), and the "configurable" options helped destroy what little game balance existed.

When I started reading the thread and saw the praise for the 2e DMG's rules on creating character classes, it caused me to throw up in my mouth a little. I intensely disliked the 2e DMG, and never got a good result from those "guidelines". And, as other posters have pointed out, I don't see them as unique to 2e.

• 3e's multiclassing rules (by far the most complex and detailed of any version) allow some extremely wiggy combinations, and the insane plethora of base and prestige classes released for 3e give plenty of guidance on how to create new ones.
• Likewise, 4e has provided more design tools than any previous version (traps, skill challenges, monster design, encounter balance, etc, etc). There's a ton of material in the DMG and DMG2 to promote the sort of creative juices you've mentioned.

Oh, but the 2e campaign worlds... sigh. Glorious stuff.

*SIGH* Yes, 2e did have some wonderful settings - I love Birthright, like Ravenloft, and very much miss Al Qadim. (Hell, if WotC really wanted to tempt me into buying any 4e material, all that they would have to do is make a 4e Birthright setting - I would have to convert it to 3.X, but I would be sorely tempted to buy it.)

That said - I also love Eberron, the first official D&D setting that I had wanted to play since 2e. Like the 2e settings it was different, not just yet another Tolkien rip off high fantasy setting.

The Auld Grump