The "real" reason the game has changed.

I'm not saying each edition IS improved flat out, simply that with each change to the game, the person making the change did so with the thought of "This makes the game better."

Again, it's not as if changes only started happening with 3e. Elf used to be a class, after all.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm not saying each edition IS improved flat out, simply that with each change to the game, the person making the change did so with the thought of "This makes the game better."

Again, it's not as if changes only started happening with 3e. Elf used to be a class, after all.

Speaking of older editions, making the game better isn't exactly true is it? 1st edition was a move to go away from Dave, 2nd to move away from Gary, 3rd to move away from TSR completely.

There are more than just one game within the editions is the problem. If it was one game, then they would be interchangeable, but between the editions I can count 7 different games all using Dungeons and Dragons in part or all of their names.
 

Good stuff, Herschel. As an aside, it is interesting to note how some folks have misunderstood or nitpicked what you are saying and missed the key element, which is (as I see it) that the game hasn't changed as much as we have, as our lives have as we have gotten older.

I think what you are saying may be a major reason, even the biggest reason, that the game has changed (the feel and experience of it), but there are other factors such as, as someone said, the simple desire to better the game system itself. But I think what you are talking about isn't recognized as much and should actually be taken into account in game design itself.

The mention of Savage Worlds is interesting because it is, in many ways, the type of game that I wish D&D was. I don't play Savage Worlds mainly because I'm hooked on the D&D milieu and just love the whole package of D&Dania, but I have wondered what the whole D&D edifice would be like if it were more like Savage Worlds in terms of being a simpler, core system. In some sense Savage Worlds is like OD&D in terms of simplicity and flexibility, but with 30+ years of design theory and experience behind it.

I also hold out the hope that the 5E of D&D will take this route, that Essentials is a small stepping stone in that direction. But I doubt it, so I dabble with ideas for my own simple and flexible heartbreaker version of D&D.

Some have and will say that it is a matter of taste, that some like a fast and simple game and others like it to be more complex, that 3.5E, for instance, was the height of D&D design because you could make anything, no matter how long it took. The way I see it, however, is that they are missing the point - that the game can be fast and simple at its core, but with tons of flexible options to customize to your heart's content. The mistake that both 3rd and 4th edition made, imo, was to make the core default game too complex. If we take a scale of 1-10 for game complexity, both start in the 5-6 range and then add on complications that take the game to 8+ (especially 3.5). What they should have done, imo, would be to make the core game in the 2-3 range ala Savage Worlds. You can still add whatever complexities you want, make as many optional systems as you like. In other words, it doesn't take anything away from those that like complexity, it just opens the game up and potentially keeps it alive for those of us who want a simpler, faster game.

It would be an interesting exercise to write a simple version of D&D that is compatible with 4E in, say, 20,000 words or less. A complete, usable game, with everything you need to play D&D in 20,000 words. Then you look at the whole corpus of 4E and Essentials books (or 3.x if you like) and say "these are optional." That might mean that Powers and Feats and Skills must all be optional, with Ability scores and class features being the most essential things that a character has. This would mean, of course, that certain powers and feats would have to be converted to class features, but I'll leave it at that for now...

My point is simply this: It is possible, I think, to make a version of D&D for we aging members of the earlier generations of D&D players that no longer have the time to put into hours and hours of preparation, or miss the days when a given combat didn't take two hours. I've veered a bit off topic, but your excellent post inspired this yearning which is, I think, very much related to the essence of what you are getting at. Yes, we have changed, our lives have changed, but we still want to play D&D - just a form that is conducive to our busier, fuller lives.
 


The designers changed too.


This very true too.

I've got the impression since WOTC bought the property that the designers of the last 2 editions, loved the idea of D&D, but were the kind of people who hated the rules as kids (and probably moved on to stuff like Rolemaster, or Champions)
 

This very true too.

I've got the impression since WOTC bought the property that the designers of the last 2 editions, loved the idea of D&D, but were the kind of people who hated the rules as kids (and probably moved on to stuff like Rolemaster, or Champions)

Man, by the time WotC bought D&D, just about everyone hated the rules. 2e did not have a quiet, dignified death.
 

I've got the impression since WOTC bought the property that the designers of the last 2 editions, loved the idea of D&D, but were the kind of people who hated the rules as kids (and probably moved on to stuff like Rolemaster, or Champions)
Monte Cook designed Rolemaster stuff before he came to TSR. And when 3E came out the first thing I said was "It's more like Champions now!"

Of course, I loved Champions and I loved 3E/3.5E.
 

The game has changed... because we have changed. Yes and no.

Some games are eternal. Once you know poker, you can always play poker. Movies, sadly, are not eternal. The original "Psycho" was a masterpiece. The remake, predictably, was not. And then there are novels; some are original and eternal, some are made into movies, and some are inspired by movies.

D&D floats around in the middle of those metaphors, like glitter in a snow globe. The idea is eternal - knights, dragons, maidens in distress, monsters, treasure. The idea is remade time and time again, seeming at times like a novel based on a movie that the author never actually saw but only heard about secondhand.

Everyone's a critic. Thus everyone sees the same movie yet takes something unique away from the experience. I didn't play every edition of D&D. I skipped 2e as it seemed to take elements away from the game I enjoyed. The same applies to 4e. More about my gaming history HERE

Yes, I grew up. I've been playing D&D in one form or another for over thirty years. I am not a lost boy (despite what my wife might say about my degree of maturity). This does not diminish my enjoyment of sharing a world of my design within a common framework accessible to others. It simply changes the medium.

People play Scrabble in heated face-to-face competitions. People play Scrabble with complete strangers using an app on their iPads. It's the same game. The expectation of what one will get from the game; challenge, frustration, enjoyment, and exhilaration are the same. To enjoy Scrabble face-to-face requires coordinated schedules, a communal meeting place, and a suitable environment to enjoy the game. To enjoy Scrabble via an iPad app, one can be waiting in line for one's turn at the ATM.

This is where I see D&D heading - real imaginations using a new medium. Computer programs, iPad apps, or holographic augmented-reality simulations; the root of the game remains the same.

But then again I may be biased, as I have not played a face-to-face game in over sixteen years.
 

This is where I see D&D heading - real imaginations using a new medium. Computer programs, iPad apps, or holographic augmented-reality simulations; the root of the game remains the same.

You had me until we got to here. The medium of D&D is the imagination, not computer programs, iPad apps, or any kind of virtual realities or simulations - all of which are, essentially, the opposite the activity of the imagination. That is primarily what makes D&D different from, say, World of Warcraft or just about any other game in which the focus is on a "thing" of some kind, something that is visible and/or sensible. The palette, the medium, is the imagination itself. That is what makes it so exquisite and so unique.

Now this may just be my opinion, my bias, but the degree to which D&D moves from imagination-based to simulation-based (of any kind, apps, or programs) is the degree to which it loses its most essential, important, and precious quality.
 
Last edited:


Remove ads

Top