The Nature of Change (or, Understanding Edition Wars)

[jensun]

Originally Posted by darkseraphim
D&D is a game of cameraderie and atmosphere. The way the game "feels" to you is just as important, if not more than, the actual rules themselves.

My systems of choice are (in order) AD&D1E, Moldvay D&D, Holmes D&D and BECMI. Pieces of later editions serve to clarify rules, offer new monsters or magic items, or to be mined for great ideas.

The idea that someone's commercial "system" can replace mine is laughable, in that sense. I started parting ways with the party line when Gygax was kicked out in 1985. The fact is, I make better DMing decisions when I am comfortable with the rules, milieu, characters and master framework, so my rules are always the right ones. My play is noticeably more clunky and inferior with 2E and beyond, even if I'm well-versed with the rules.

Then you add this in to the nostalgia factor - friends, music, movies, culture - of the time when you fell in love with D&D. I don't care if that's 1974, 1980, 2000 or 2009, it is an inherent and irreplacable factor in the game's atmosphere.

The best edition of D&D is the one that gave you your first "wow" moment, the one you fell in love with. I used to be mocked for that sentiment but curiously, now that the 3E and 3.5ers are feeling the pinch of 4E and the splintering of the player base, I find that players across the spectrum are more mindful and empathetic when it comes to what is important to you and why.

TLDR - D&D is the players' happiness. The players' happiness is the DM's skil in presenting the world. The DM's skill is the comfort with the rules. The comfort is the first edition you loved. This is why getting groups that are willing to share the same experience is such a crucial thing.

I agree with this with the exception of the last part. The DM's skill comes from both comfort with the rules, practice and a bit of natural flair.

Your best edition might be your first or your last.

I loved playing 1e. I loved running 2e. My system of preference is 4e.

 

[FireLance]

By the way, thedungeondelver, for an example of what exacerbates edition wars, have a look at your sig. There's nothing wrong with expressing the opinion that 4e plays like a videogame, but comparing the various ability score generation methods throughout the editions, and misrepresenting the 4e process (even though it should be obvious to anyone familiar with the game) makes it seem less like a valid criticism and more like a statement deliberately intended to antagonize people who like 4e.

 

[Jasperak]

By the way, thedungeondelver, for an example of what exacerbates edition wars, have a look at your sig. There's nothing wrong with expressing the opinion that 4e plays like a videogame, but comparing the various ability score generation methods throughout the editions, and misrepresenting the 4e process (even though it should be obvious to anyone familiar with the game) makes it seem less like a valid criticism and more like a statement deliberately intended to antagonize people who like 4e.

With respect, when D&D goes from 3d6 in order, to three methods of which random generation is only one and the DM has the ability to change your scores generated to match his campaign preferences, D&D has dropped any thought of allowing true random generation. This in the name of game balance.

That is what I see in thedungeondelver's signature.

 

[FireLance]

With respect, when D&D goes from 3d6 in order, to three methods of which random generation is only one and the DM has the ability to change your scores generated to match his campaign preferences, D&D has dropped any thought of allowing true random generation. This in the name of game balance.

That is what I see in thedungeondelver's signature.

If the point was simply about random generation, I do not see the need to attribute "<+<+<+^+^+RS+RS+START" to 4e, when "40 points, 1:1 up to 15, 2:1 thereafter" was attributed to 3e.

 

[Jasperak]

If the point was simply about random generation, I do not see the need to attribute "<+<+<+^+^+RS+RS+START" to 4e, when "40 points, 1:1 up to 15, 2:1 thereafter" was attributed to 3e.

I don't mean to speak for thedungeondelver but I can say that the ability score generation in the PH 3.0e and 3.5e is fine. 4d6 drop thew lowest and arrange as desired. If the player wishes to point buy, then take 25 points and run with it. You'll be stuck with something like the standard array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 but you'll be sure to not get stuck with an unplayable character.

I do not like point-buy systems for abilities as a matter of personal preference. I don't have anything against them mechanically.

TDD's use of 40 points etc... calls to mind a case of designed power creep by the DM by means of stat inflation. Give the players more ability bonuses at first level and they can face more stuff. Each ability bonus is equivalent to a level bonus. (A strength of 18 is a equal to a +4 BAB compared to an average score.) It will eventually not matter as the characters reach higher level but it does give them a little kicker.

TDD's use of what reminds me of Konami's cheat code starts characters off with something close to 32-point-buy from 3e instead of 25 introducing an immediate jump in power for starting characters. Not a great one but one none-the-less. But between the increase in base ability scores and other new systems (healing surges I'm looking at you). D&D characters now have an extreme amount of power compared to earlier editions.

Granted his representation for 3e and 4e may not be subtle, but for players that continue to enjoy earlier editions they are accurate and represent what some feel is a near exponential growth in power for characters as the edition has "evolved "

Even though I hate analogies: OD&D/BD&D/AD&D : Contra with 3 lives :: 4e : Contra with 30 lives

Anyway, who played Contra without using the cheat code

 

[Cadfan]

In what way are they inaccurate?

Its your terminology that's inaccurate. "Healing surges" and "non magical healing" are not the same thing.

When you say, "I hate healing surges, they remind me of a little green health bar" we hear "I hate a system whereby the amount of healing is calculated based on the healed target's base hit point value with a capped amount of healing per character per day, possibly as opposed to previous edition's methods of basing healing almost purely upon the skill of the caster of a healing spell, it reminds me of a little green bar."

Which is ludicrous.

And based upon your later statements, after some investigation, it probably isn't what you actually hate, either. What you seem to actually hate is

I do have a problem with a huge influx of healing within a combat round without the use of magic.

that.

Which I've already said, twice, in direct reply to you, I get. I don't agree, but I can get why you might feel that way. I don't see the "little green bar" comparison, it seems like you're taking "4e healing I don't think is appropriate" and "videogame healing that wouldn't be appropriate in 4e" and just declaring an equivalency. But whatever, its not that important. I get that you don't like it, and I get why you don't like it.

I'm only saying that if you keep going around expressing that opinion by saying "I don't like healing surges" people will keep having no idea what you mean because "healing surge" and "large influx of non magical healing during combat" are not the same thing. Its like saying that you hate 3e's spell slots, when what you really mean is that you hate conjuration spells. Even if your point is valid, no one will understand.

 

[Harlekin]

It makes sense to me.

That's OK by me- HP are abstract.

I have no problem with healing that much over a period of days. I do have a problem with a huge influx of healing within a combat round without the use of magic.

That is the point. HP are abstract, they mean almost anything.

HP have always been an extremely gamist concept, and from the 1st edition DMG onward they did not represent physical injury only (or at all).Tthis leads to a whole host of issues with verisimilitude, from falling over poisoned blades to coup de grace situations.

Hence it is hard to understand how one way of recovering these abstact units of survivabillity is inherently superior to an other way of recovering them. How fast does luck return to you after it kept you alive? Or divine protection? Or will to live?
So there is nothing objectively superior to recovering hp one way or the other.

Of course we are all used to the warts and boils of the old OD&D-3.x system, so those don't appear as a big deal to us, we had 20+ years to get used to them. On the other hand, every inconsistency of 4th edition is new, so this different set of warts and boils looks really frightening, even if those new problems are actually smaller than the old ones.

 

[PaulofCthulhu]

So looking again at my copy of the 4e DMG it does say on page 104 that if you give the players "perfectly balanced" encounters all the time it will get stale (true, I think) - so it's up to the DM to mix it up. That seems fair!

 

[pawsplay]

Summon Monster IX

Moderator LG
Grognard, Barbed LE
Fiendish monstrous fanboy, Gargantuan NE
Powergamer (demon) CE
Elemental, homebrewer (any) N
Fiendish dire snark NE
Hater (demon) CE
Celestial game designer CG

 

[The Little Raven]

The second-wind mechanic in fighting games predates SWSE by at least a decade.

Let's see an example of a fighting game that allows all characters to heal themselves during combat.

Any possibility of you providing a link to the post where this was said?

If I had the search feature in order to go back 6-14 months in order to dig through the thousands of posts that have happened in the mean time, yes. Since I don't, no.