The purpose of D&D's evolution?
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Nothing.
Stays.
The same.
Things change, and it doesn't have to be for greed. Such is the nature of all things today, if they're still around.
Which makes evolution surprisingly apt. It's not a lower into a higher progression, but that's not evolution, either. Evolution is a continuous process of change and refinement for what the current environment demands.
Stays.
The same.
Things change, and it doesn't have to be for greed. Such is the nature of all things today, if they're still around.
Which makes evolution surprisingly apt. It's not a lower into a higher progression, but that's not evolution, either. Evolution is a continuous process of change and refinement for what the current environment demands.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
I would have to say that 3E is an 'evolved' set of rules, and that like or not change would have been implemented based on general rules evolution even if other factors had not interfered. Something as (now) basic as skills would have to be included for the game to remain competative in the modern marketplace. D&D was able to resist that change and other changes for a long time - far, far longer than it should have - simply because it was D&D but that time has passed.
Abstraction
First Post
I dislike when people say that a new edition came out just for the company to make money. Business is about supply and demand. The supply of new rules means nothing if there isn't demand in the marketplace. This is why 2E was really dying. Plenty of supply, but little demand for hack-job rules.
As somebody who has never felt forced to buy any game books, and I own very few now, I look forward to 4E. There are a lot of changes I'd love to see made, but any effort to clean and simplify rules even more will be met with enthusiasm by me.
As somebody who has never felt forced to buy any game books, and I own very few now, I look forward to 4E. There are a lot of changes I'd love to see made, but any effort to clean and simplify rules even more will be met with enthusiasm by me.
One of the chief reasons the rules get revamped is so that more supplements can be sold.
I'm not actually saying that 3.5e came along so that S&F (etc) would be made obsolete...
No, what is actually happening that the rules develop to a point that the framework of the last set of core rules isn't good enough to hold them anymore, and they must be revised to take into account all the design work that has come before.
oD&D was a very simple system - and somewhat incomplete. d6 hit dice for everything. No initiative system in the original set. Only three classes. Things like that.
With the supplements, it quickly evolved into a different system, and the game of oD&D + supplements was vastly different to just oD&D.
When you publish a new book for oD&D, can you assume that everyone has all the supplements and also uses them? You can't - not with any set of core rules. (And oD&D was also hugely house-ruled).
Thus, AD&D. oD&D cleaned up, combined with the supplements and other material, with the odd bit of material that didn't work (see Eldritch Wizardry and its initiative system) thrown out.
Ten years later, AD&D was in the same state. (Actually, 6-8 years later with the release of Unearthed Arcana!) Once again, clean it up, put it all back together and release it so that everyone is on the same page.
AD&D 2E quickly ran off the rails, in fact. The Complete Books kept adding optional material that just wasn't quite a good fit with the basic rules. (The Complete Priest's Handbook is the best example of that - a woeful effort). Player's Option really confused the issue when it came about. Great ideas, occasionally brilliant execution, mostly problematic execution.
D&D is a game where for all of its history, people have been designing new options for it. There is never been a time when some aspect of the game hasn't been tweaked. (And Gary Gygax was one of the biggest tweakers.)
D&D 3E was necessary because of the mess 2E had become. Player's Option had pointed the way forward, but the structure of 2E didn't allow its expansion any further. (The Proficiency system was the biggest problem, btw - see how that gets used in Player's Option and then compare to the Feat/Skill system of 3E. That's the ancestor of today's system).
And 3.5E? Well, 3E worked well, but it had a lot of rough edges. Any system so big is going to have them. From the problems with haste and harm, to the rocketing DCs of spells, to the deficiencies in the weapon size system exposed by Savage Species, and to the overly complex monster generation system (also exposed by Savage Species, as monster characters were being made more feasible), it got overhauled and the problems ironed out. Consider also the importance of the wilderness adventuring sections in the 3.5e DMG and how they then integrate with Frostburn and Sandstorm...
Is 3.5E "the system" then, and there will be no 4E? Not at all. 3.5E has displayed more problems - rocketing caster levels in relation to Holy Word, the ongoing problems with polymorph, an incomplete weapon sizing system (reach & missile weapons need better definition), and so on.
Then too, there are more fundamental questions to be answered. For instance, how should Diplomacy be handled?
However, I do believe that the future of D&D is in very good hands.
Cheers!
I'm not actually saying that 3.5e came along so that S&F (etc) would be made obsolete...
No, what is actually happening that the rules develop to a point that the framework of the last set of core rules isn't good enough to hold them anymore, and they must be revised to take into account all the design work that has come before.
oD&D was a very simple system - and somewhat incomplete. d6 hit dice for everything. No initiative system in the original set. Only three classes. Things like that.
With the supplements, it quickly evolved into a different system, and the game of oD&D + supplements was vastly different to just oD&D.
When you publish a new book for oD&D, can you assume that everyone has all the supplements and also uses them? You can't - not with any set of core rules. (And oD&D was also hugely house-ruled).
Thus, AD&D. oD&D cleaned up, combined with the supplements and other material, with the odd bit of material that didn't work (see Eldritch Wizardry and its initiative system) thrown out.
Ten years later, AD&D was in the same state. (Actually, 6-8 years later with the release of Unearthed Arcana!) Once again, clean it up, put it all back together and release it so that everyone is on the same page.
AD&D 2E quickly ran off the rails, in fact. The Complete Books kept adding optional material that just wasn't quite a good fit with the basic rules. (The Complete Priest's Handbook is the best example of that - a woeful effort). Player's Option really confused the issue when it came about. Great ideas, occasionally brilliant execution, mostly problematic execution.
D&D is a game where for all of its history, people have been designing new options for it. There is never been a time when some aspect of the game hasn't been tweaked. (And Gary Gygax was one of the biggest tweakers.)
D&D 3E was necessary because of the mess 2E had become. Player's Option had pointed the way forward, but the structure of 2E didn't allow its expansion any further. (The Proficiency system was the biggest problem, btw - see how that gets used in Player's Option and then compare to the Feat/Skill system of 3E. That's the ancestor of today's system).
And 3.5E? Well, 3E worked well, but it had a lot of rough edges. Any system so big is going to have them. From the problems with haste and harm, to the rocketing DCs of spells, to the deficiencies in the weapon size system exposed by Savage Species, and to the overly complex monster generation system (also exposed by Savage Species, as monster characters were being made more feasible), it got overhauled and the problems ironed out. Consider also the importance of the wilderness adventuring sections in the 3.5e DMG and how they then integrate with Frostburn and Sandstorm...
Is 3.5E "the system" then, and there will be no 4E? Not at all. 3.5E has displayed more problems - rocketing caster levels in relation to Holy Word, the ongoing problems with polymorph, an incomplete weapon sizing system (reach & missile weapons need better definition), and so on.
Then too, there are more fundamental questions to be answered. For instance, how should Diplomacy be handled?
However, I do believe that the future of D&D is in very good hands.
Cheers!
William Ronald
Explorer
As usual, you present a very sound analysis, MerricB.
I have played D&D since 1980, and noticed the creep of the rules in late 1st edition. It was not just Unearthed Arcana but also the Wilderness Survival Guide and the Dungeoneering Survival Guide. Certain rules, to be blunt, were more trouble to use than they were worth most of the time. (I knew some players who had their characters avoid grappling, overbearing, and pummeling ... as the game would grind to a halt when consulting the DMG. A similar thing occurred with psionic combat.)
I thought second edition offered some improvements, but by the late 1990s, it might have been physically impossible for most people to carry all the core rules books in a single backpack. Some books, such as the Complete Book of Elves, seemed better than others. Similarly, 2.5 -- my former group's name for the Skills and Powers Option Books -- presented several good ideas but it seemed that you could literally play very different games using the core rules.
I thought 3.0 was an improvement, but the high DCs of spells tended to exalt spellcasters over other classes. (I prefer to play spellcasters, but let us say that I was shocked at the DCs. Similarly, I find that there is a lot of difference between the existing magic system for levels 1-20 and the epic level spell system .) I think that 3.5 offers improvements, but is not perfect. Ironically, there is a good discussion of the social aspects of the game, including diplomacy atFive Things that Would Change the Game Forever . In the long run, I suspect that a future edition will take some of the best of the new rules from other sources. The pace of change seems to have increased. Communication is now much faster with the Internet, and third-party publishers are offering interesting twists on the core D20 rules. The game will change, because it has to in order to adapt to the current interests of its customers. This is beneficial, as a company that does not cater to its customers and attract new ones often fails.
I have played D&D since 1980, and noticed the creep of the rules in late 1st edition. It was not just Unearthed Arcana but also the Wilderness Survival Guide and the Dungeoneering Survival Guide. Certain rules, to be blunt, were more trouble to use than they were worth most of the time. (I knew some players who had their characters avoid grappling, overbearing, and pummeling ... as the game would grind to a halt when consulting the DMG. A similar thing occurred with psionic combat.)
I thought second edition offered some improvements, but by the late 1990s, it might have been physically impossible for most people to carry all the core rules books in a single backpack. Some books, such as the Complete Book of Elves, seemed better than others. Similarly, 2.5 -- my former group's name for the Skills and Powers Option Books -- presented several good ideas but it seemed that you could literally play very different games using the core rules.
I thought 3.0 was an improvement, but the high DCs of spells tended to exalt spellcasters over other classes. (I prefer to play spellcasters, but let us say that I was shocked at the DCs. Similarly, I find that there is a lot of difference between the existing magic system for levels 1-20 and the epic level spell system .) I think that 3.5 offers improvements, but is not perfect. Ironically, there is a good discussion of the social aspects of the game, including diplomacy atFive Things that Would Change the Game Forever . In the long run, I suspect that a future edition will take some of the best of the new rules from other sources. The pace of change seems to have increased. Communication is now much faster with the Internet, and third-party publishers are offering interesting twists on the core D20 rules. The game will change, because it has to in order to adapt to the current interests of its customers. This is beneficial, as a company that does not cater to its customers and attract new ones often fails.
Last edited:
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Yeah, but IMHO, what would be best is not overhauling it into 4e, but tweaking and re-tweaking.
The comparison I use is to an MMORPG. You buy the initial game, and all the while you play it, it gets little updates and tweaks -- abilities get added or subtracted, changed or manipulated, characters become different, class powers are adjusted. Mnor things -- 3.5 things.
D&D as it is today could use a patch or two. But it doesn't need a whole new game just yet.
For instance, we could use a monster system that keeps HD from monster type in line with HD from class levels, thus eliminating the awkward LA paper tiger syndrome. We could use a power system that didn't rely on character treasure to measure power.
However, that doesn't really require a 4e.
To put it in persepctive, 3e changed the way that D&D was played. AC no longer counted down. THAC0 vanished. We had a grid. Only 3 saves. More classes, and 20 levels of each for any race. This idea of one unified XP chart. That definately changed the feel of the game.
I don't think 3e needs to be changed like that. We don't need to re-write the basic "d20 + mods vs. DC" mechanic. We don't need to alter the way AC, attack bonuses, or save bonuses work. We don't need to give uo the grid, or go back to 2e multiclassing or different XP charts for different characters. We don't need to change the feel of the game -- just the implementation of certain ideas.
We can always use minor adjustments -- a revision every handful of years is probably just what the doctor ordered, and keeps the core rulebook sales brisk. I definately know I don't need a new game, though. And if I did, I have dozens of d20 or d20-compatible games to choose from right this very moment without having to invest in a completely new edition with completely new supplements.
I don't think that a problem with a single spell is enough to dictate a new edition. I would think a new edition would be DRASTIC. And drastic isn't something that I'm really interested in happening to my D&D game at the moment.
I disagree. I think a new edition doesn't have to be drastic.
I do agree that the changes needed to 3.5e don't warrant a new edition at the moment, but that is also a factor of time. You need to give the current edition time to show what is wrong with it, and what things can be improved.
(On my list of "things to do" are Turn Undead and Metamagic, not that I'll be the one fixing them. Oh, and Spell Focus.
)
Cheers!
I do agree that the changes needed to 3.5e don't warrant a new edition at the moment, but that is also a factor of time. You need to give the current edition time to show what is wrong with it, and what things can be improved.
(On my list of "things to do" are Turn Undead and Metamagic, not that I'll be the one fixing them. Oh, and Spell Focus.
)Cheers!
Turanil
First Post
C&C brings back a flavor from AD&D 1e, not OD&D. In any case, C&C is clear and playable, and uses mechanics largely inspired from d20 (you roll a d20, add bonuses, and must be equal or higher to DC, AC, etc.). However, OD&D (original brown books) rules are extremely badly written, almost incomprehensible, with odious art and layout. If you never read them, you cannot understand what I mean. Read the PDF (somewhere on the Internet) of the OD&D, and read C&C, and you will see they are clearly not the same things!radferth said:
MonsterMash
First Post
Funnily enough when I first started playing 3e (after about a 20 year gap since playing D&D, probably B/XD&D being the last version I played) my first thought's on the rules were 'smells like BRP, but with D20 replacing D100/percentage dice' - certainly with skills, though of course things like the combat rules, levels, Vancian magic and a lot of other things fitted it more to the D&D archetype than BRP.
Similar Threads
