Theories regaurding the change in rules of D&D.

[painandgreed]

Gap-filling, codification and systemization. ...
That's about it.
...

I'd have to disagree. The change from 2E to 3E was much greater in scope than that because there were certain design assumptions that were made that had not been there previously or were changed. This led to a much different game and game play than any pervious system changes. Some being:

-parties of 4
-that weekly play over a year would take them to level 20
-the above leads to the assumption of 13.3 level appropriate encounters per level, which requires a way to determine what is "level appropriate"
-each level appropriate encounter will expend 20% of parties strength
-the world would be shaped by the system (or the other way around)

Then parts of the system were designed around these assumptions. This led to meteroic rises in level over short periods of real and game time. Dungeon Crawls usually became dungeon romps as a party could not handle more than four encounters without risk. Obsession over making encounters level appropriate. Gameplay is way different in 3E than other editions because of these issues.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

In a thread in the house rules section, I had posted this:



The purpose of this thread is to discuss theories on how D&D has changed over the years, not WrongBadFun.

---Rusty

Sorry, but as soon as I read the "like a video game" line, I rolled my eyes and decided not to participate in this thread. Uh, except for this one post.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'd have to disagree. The change from 2E to 3E was much greater in scope than that because there were certain design assumptions that were made that had not been there previously or were changed. This led to a much different game and game play than any pervious system changes. Some being:

-parties of 4
-that weekly play over a year would take them to level 20
-the above leads to the assumption of 13.3 level appropriate encounters per level, which requires a way to determine what is "level appropriate"
-each level appropriate encounter will expend 20% of parties strength
-the world would be shaped by the system (or the other way around)

Then parts of the system were designed around these assumptions. This led to meteroic rises in level over short periods of real and game time. Dungeon Crawls usually became dungeon romps as a party could not handle more than four encounters without risk. Obsession over making encounters level appropriate. Gameplay is way different in 3E than other editions because of these issues.

I think if you go back and look at Ryan Dancey's essays, you'll find that they didn't set out to design 3E around these "assumptions" (your term) -- they instead tailored their baseline to more closely match how the average group surveyed actually played (parties of 4, 4-6 hour sessions, one encounter per hour, campaigns lasting 12-18 months tops, etc). The assumptions followed from a detailed study of the market; they were not pre-assumed tropes everyone was forced to accept.

Whether your group matches the base assumptions is another subject entirely.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Then parts of the system were designed around these assumptions. This led to meteroic rises in level over short periods of real and game time. Dungeon Crawls usually became dungeon romps as a party could not handle more than four encounters without risk. Obsession over making encounters level appropriate. Gameplay is way different in 3E than other editions because of these issues.

Nah, from my point of view it's different: These things are non-issues, because they only affect you, if you're always using level-appropriate encounters (i.e. EL approx. equal to average party level, adjusted for party size).

These assumptions are most important for the CR-system, which is a tool for the GM to get an approximated difficulty of combat - and he only needs the assumptions to compare the "basic party" to his own party.

And the principle of the 'party of four' is only a fall-back to the classic "fighter/magic-user/healer/thief"-roles. And concerning "-the world would be shaped by the system" - what do you mean, and where do you observe this, beyond Eberron?

 

[Varianor Abroad]

First Edition - inspired, fun, wild, and a fantastic start. I think the rules evolved in part from wargame play and in part from a desire to find a solution to a question that needed expression. There was the "officialdom" of an E. Gary Gygax pronouncement that clarified (or confuzzled) something. There was also the randomness and constant houseruling by everyone that I know that played.

Second Edition - no first hand knowlede; I played something else

Third Edition - The game that brought me back to D&D. A tight, concise and clear rules engine. It both simplifies the DMs role while expanding upon a significant body of rules with many more.

I would say it's analogous to car design. A car from the 50s and 60s and 70s you could take apart and rebuild by hand. Heck, you could stand inside the engine block. A car from the 21st century you can take apart and rebuild by hand, but the guy on the street that likes tinkering is probably only changing the oil and getting a custom license plate and seat covers. It's easier to rely upon someone else to do the work.

 

[jdrakeh]

Seriously, I'll buy D&D is videogamish when my characters get extra lives, and when dungeons have save points in case of a TPK.

I would so pay for an elegant implementation of both (Console's "make photocopies" of character sheets doesn't do it). I've been thinking that something like the UO solution or Diablo's 'way point' might be fun, though

 

[painandgreed]

The assumptions followed from a detailed study of the market...

Didn't say they weren't. In fact it is Mr. Dancy's research that I was speaking of. While nobody is forced to use them, they did change gameplay (without judging those changes as either good or bad) if running by RAW much more than previous edition changes did.

 

[Piratecat]

Oh look someone wants to have a rational discussion of how the game has changed and suddenly the card carrying members of the Wrongbadfun Society show up with both guns blazing demanding explainations and picking apart peoples words...what a surprise!

Don't post in this thread again, please. Frankly, your post derails the thread more than the people you're criticizing.

Folks, as always, please be polite and sensitive that not everyone may agree with you. Report any problem posts.

Thanks.

 

[MerricB]

Didn't say they weren't. In fact it is Mr. Dancy's research that I was speaking of. While nobody is forced to use them, they did change gameplay (without judging those changes as either good or bad) if running by RAW much more than previous edition changes did.

The focus of the game has definitely changed.

Original D&D: very much tuned towards Dungeon Delving in Massive Dungeons, with low-level PCs having low survival chances! Level gain was aimed at somewhat quick from levels 1-9, and slower from then on. You gained most XP through treasure. Large adventuring parties (6-10) - PCs and many henchmen/men-at-arms the norm.

AD&D, 1st edition: Mostly similar to oD&D, although improved chances of survival for low-level PCs, and improved differentiation of PCs. It was in the adventures and later books that the game really began to open up beyond the dungeon, although it remained a focus.

AD&D, 2nd edition: The big change was the change with XP: no longer was XP for treasure the default. Instead, it was much more ad-hoc, with the DM encouraged to give story rewards (or have very slow-levelling games). Adventures also focussed more on role-playing, wilderness and urban (although this was a trend started in late AD&D days, and with Expert D&D). Level gain had... problems. The original AD&D system was based on a game finishing about 12th level, with demi-human limits enforcing that. 2e raised the limits, without looking at the XP implications for multiclass demihumans, making it progressively more problematic. The idea of henchmen was basically dropped, and party size dropped to 4-6.

D&D, 3rd edition: XP given a complete system once more: overcoming challenges - which means killing monsters to most people. High levels (12+) truly enter the game design (although not playtested enough). The big difference is that levels are gained at the same rate all the way through, rather than the fast 1-9 and slow 10+. The Dungeon is placed firmly in the spotlight. Smaller groups: generally 4-5.

D&D, 3.5e: High level campaigns (12+) are given more attention with both redesign of classes and later supplements (PHB2). Supplements also open up wilderness, storytelling and urban techniques, as do the adventures.

Cheers!

 

[JustinA]

Think one result is that it's a more delicate balance to alter the RAW. A byproduct of the unified mechanics - new rules or changes can 'ripple' through and affect unintended areas.

I'd like to read an explanation of this as well. I've read many comments about this "effect", but I've never seen anyone give an example of this happening.

The only explanation I've heard is that, in previous editions, the rules were so poorly balanced that you basically didn't notice if your new house rules weren't balanced, either.

It's the "roll your loot up into a big ball" thing.

To be fair, that would be awesome.

I'd have to disagree. The change from 2E to 3E was much greater in scope than that because there were certain design assumptions that were made that had not been there previously or were changed. This led to a much different game and game play than any pervious system changes. Some being:

-parties of 4
-that weekly play over a year would take them to level 20
-the above leads to the assumption of 13.3 level appropriate encounters per level, which requires a way to determine what is "level appropriate"
-each level appropriate encounter will expend 20% of parties strength
-the world would be shaped by the system (or the other way around)

Of the things on that list, the only thing I'm seeing as an actual and meaningful change is the speed of level advancement -- which is a very notable change, I'll admit.

But your claims that

(a) No one played in a party of 4 in previous editions or that no one can play in a group with more than 4 PCs in 3rd Edition; and

(b) That each level-appropriate encounter will expend exactly 20% of th party's strength

are simply false.

And I simply have no idea what your last point is supposed to mean. Is there some third path which isn't covered by that statement?

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net