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

[Oni]

The loss of 2 pages of rules that the general consensus here feel were unsatisfactory seems to pale in comparison to 4E's emphasis on encouraging treating the rules and mechanics as a framework to reflavor and customize.

The thing is, it's not 2 pages of rules in 2e that are the sum total of its encouragement to take ownership of the game, the whole of the core rules text is littered with urgings to make the game your own, in a way that I just don't get from other versions of the rules set. That's not to say that 2e is better made for tinkering, or that the rules themselves preclude tinkering in later editions, but the tone of the text is very, very different IMHO.

I would highly encourage people to go back an look at the 2e core books with an unbiased eye if they haven't anytime recently.

 

[BryonD]

Then still we have the OP trying to pin down what it was that was lost with 3E and beyond... And again, you're talking about how things were different for PUBLISHERS. .

No, I'm talking about actions taken by the different D&D publishers which demonstrate their attitude toward other parties creating alternative ways to do things alongside the core approach.

That point is about attitude. The OP very clearly references the idea that the publishers were outspoken against tinkering and instead supported a one true and complete design position. That is absurd and the reality of them saying here are the rules, here is the OGL, here is the SRD, go and use our tools and bring them back sharper is highly compelling evidence.

The idea that the game itself runs contrary to creation of alternatives is disproven by the vast variety of products produced under this allowance, and ten time that by the vast variety of house rules and variations that existed at table after table. I agree 100% that the variety of houserules is not remotely new to 3E. But the claim that it was lost in the slightest is asinine.

The OP presents claims from both an attitude position and a mechanics position. Both are unfounded. The OGL portion of my response only directly addressed one of the two. But the complete picture addresses both.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The thing is, it's not 2 pages of rules in 2e that are the sum total of its encouragement to take ownership of the game, the whole of the core rules text is littered with urgings to make the game your own, in a way that I just don't get from other versions of the rules set. That's not to say that 2e is better made for tinkering, or that the rules themselves preclude tinkering in later editions, but the tone of the text is very, very different IMHO.

Oh, I remember how much the 2e rules encouraged you to tinker with them clearly. That was the bane of my existence. Every DM I played with(since I played a LOT and with a number of different groups) had different rules and assumptions. Keeping them all straight was a nightmare.

Sometimes you'd go to grab an enemy and remember after you pick up your dice that this was the DM who said that grabbing an enemy requires an attack roll followed by an opposed dex check followed by an opposed strength check at -5 to succeed. And you immediately regret your decision since your chance of succeeding is so low. But you briefly got it mixed up with your own house rule for grabbing when you run the game. You used it so much and it worked so well, you just assumed you must have got it from a book after all this time.

 

[Mournblade94]

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.

I made the TROLLSLAYER from WHFRP 1st edition with those class rules. All my munchkin highschool friends wanted to play one when I was finished. I wish I could find it in one of my old notebooks. What a lesson in comedy. I used to think he was awesome. Yeah because he could kill a troll in three rounds at first level.

I don't like 4e's balance, but I like SOME balance. Back then I only thought balance was for bicycles.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

"Sage Advice" from Jean Wells (The Dragon #32, December 1979)

Q.E.D. Advice to 1E (2e?) players c. 1979. If there were a similar response from c. 2000 to present I'd have to eat my hat - and the headbands on MY hats get all sweaty and icky.

 

[Philosopher]

Not as much as it should have. Specifically, in the printing of the 3.0 PH it is listed NOT as a general principle for the entire game but as the first of 10 STEPS under the heading "Character Creation Basics". That is, it's presented only as a warning that for CREATING a character a player should be sure the DM isn't doing something different. It is not a general suggestion to DM's that they can or should do things differently if they desire to do so. In the 3.5 PH (and perhaps even in later printings of the 3.0 PH) it is NOT listed even with a "0." but as simply one of an unnumbered list of steps - and again it's only under the subject heading of "Character Creation".

While internet discussion established that it SHOULD be called "Rule 0" that is NOT how it is ACTUALLY presented. Even if you think it IS, it is not an idea that recieves a whit of reinforcement in the rules. Players receive no further warning that not ALL rules might be RAW. DM's recieve no indication that in former editions it was understood (and admittedly unsaid) that DM's make changes to suit themselves and their individual game, and no suggestion that the rules do not cover all eventualities; that they should not EXPECT to have official answers for everything. Whereas _I_ would have noted that part of their job as DM's is to exercise their own best judgement rather than constantly seek official support all I see in the DMG is reinforcement of the idea that they are arbiters of the rules as written more than customizers creating the game they want to play with rules and alterations of their own.

Just to be clear, are you saying that the problem with 3e and 4e is that you can't customize them because the rules don't tell you that you're allowed to customize them? But that earlier editions are less set in stone because the books tell you that you're allowed to customize them?

 

[M.L. Martin]

Just to be clear, are you saying that the problem with 3e and 4e is that you can't customize them because the rules don't tell you that you're allowed to customize them? But that earlier editions are less set in stone because the books tell you that you're allowed to customize them?

My two cents: Any game can be customized, but the writing of the game is a key factor in informing the culture that surrounds that game, and the culture of the game does a lot to encourage or discourage things like customization, tinkering and house-ruling among groups.

2E had a culture generally amenable to such customization, probably due to a confluence of factors--the vast array of options produced that were often mutually contradictory, the tone of the books, the inconsistency of the system and the need (both real and perceived) to fix or stretch it.

3E, though I have less familiarity with its culture, seems to place more emphasis on sticking to the books--not necessarily so much within the game itself as within the larger game culture. This is the edition, after all, where RAW became a catchphrase.

For an example of the differences in game culture, pull out a copy of the 1993 TSR Catalog and read Steve Winter's essay on "Why I Play the AD&D Game." (Or if you have search functionality, do a search on my name; I believe I've posted the relevant material before. ) What he says there about varying resolution methods, the looseness of the game's systems, and the de-emphasis of tactical elements strikes me as being anathema to the design philosophies of 3E and 4E.

 

[CapnZapp]

This bothers me. To me this is where D&D is veering dangerously close to video games. One of the main differences between computer games and RPGs is that the former are programmed; they are finite--you can only go where a pre-determined program allows you to go. 1s and 0s. But with RPGs there is no limit, or rather the limit is the imagination of the people playing it. And that, my friends, makes all the difference in the world.

The official explanation is that open-ended guidelines that are balanced are hideously difficult to design and extremely easy to abuse.

The real explanation is that they make more money by selling you a truckload of pre-made variants than by selling you a single DIY formula.

If Jesus had any economic sense he would never have taught you how to fish, he would simply keep on selling you fish instead. (Or something like that )

 

[CapnZapp]

No, the drawback is not the character generator - it is the inability to add custom or third party content - and that is a drawback. A small drawback to mainstream players, a larger one to folks who like third party material, and a huge one for the third party publishers.

I'm pretty sure current management at WotC views those drawbacks as strengths.

 

[Jhaelen]

The real explanation is that they make more money by selling you a truckload of pre-made variants than by selling you a single DIY formula.

Says CapnZapp