Theories regaurding the change in rules of D&D.

[DungeonMaester]

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

I play closer to RAW then anyone else I've ever seen, making wizards pick spells they prepare and only giving players 1 hp back for every hour of rest.

My theroy is that D&D rules are changing from edition to edition to go from D&D rules based off war games, (Where you battle, use up all you can and the next fight is presumed to be the next day, and all your spells and equipment and men are whole again) to being more like a video game) (Fight, buffer up, fight, buffer up, fight, rest for the night, repeat.)

While I much prefer D&D to feel like a war game, (It is more realistic in a abstract way) people want there characters to me more like superheros where they can be pushed as far as they can in a epic fight, rest for a little while then blow journey off to the next epic fight.

But, that is the beauty of D&D. People play the game they way they want to play it. It is why I prefer AD&D 1st ed and all my friends prefer 3.5

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

---Rusty

 

[maddman75]

Eh, 'its like a video game!' is just another way to say 'your favorite game sucks'. If anything 3e is more wargamey than previous editions except maybe OD&D (which used Chainmail for the combat rules, don't get more wargame than that).

 

[Particle_Man]

1st ed is the Dwarf.

2nd ed is the Elf.

3rd ed is the Human.

 

[jdrakeh]

If anything 3e is more wargamey than previous editions except maybe OD&D (which used Chainmail for the combat rules, don't get more wargame than that).

Agreed. It made tabletop movement and tactics matter again, in a big way. In AD&D 2e, I'm not certain that we (i.e., my many play groups) ever measured movement or reinacted combat on the tabletop. You could, of course, though it was just as easy to ignore the movement in inches (and there really weren't any tactical rules to speak of). I think it odd to criticize D&D 3e for moving away from wargaming, in this light. If anything, it was AD&D 2e that stepped away from the tabletop and D&D 3x that brought it back.

 

[DragonLancer]

Eh, 'its like a video game!' is just another way to say 'your favorite game sucks'. If anything 3e is more wargamey than previous editions except maybe OD&D (which used Chainmail for the combat rules, don't get more wargame than that).

Not sure I agree there. 3.X is very much more like a computer game than the prior editions, IMO. While I don't see that as good or bad, I blame the ease with which the game can be powergamed or min/maxed. The game has become much more fixated on the rules over the roleplaying. Different games, no folks.

 

[Chaldfont]

I think the big influence on 3rd edition is Magic the Gathering. Simplifying bonuses to named bonuses and the rules that define when they stack as well as well-defined conditions smells a lot like collectible card games. Not that I'm slamming on these innovations, I think they make the game easier to run.

But as an old schooler who learned to play with AD&D, I think constraining and defining everything takes something away from the game. I want to encourage DMs to wing it. DM Fiat is not a bad thing in and of itself. Its only bad when the DM is bad.

And I'll agree with the earlier post about moving back to wargaming. I never played with miniatures until I started playing 3rd edition. In both AD&D and 2nd Edition AD&D, we played much more fast and loose with combat position of characters--typically drawing them on a map and erasing and redrawing to get a rough idea of where everyone was. When we switched to 3rd Edition, we began counting squares and figuring cones and blast radii--something we never did before.

 

[jeffh]

I play closer to RAW then anyone else I've ever seen, making wizards pick spells they prepare and only giving players 1 hp back for every hour of rest.

Ironic that you have a significant deviation from the RAW right in the first sentence of this post. Not criticizing, necessarily, just an observation.

I think the big influence on 3rd edition is Magic the Gathering. Simplifying bonuses to named bonuses and the rules that define when they stack as well as well-defined conditions smells a lot like collectible card games.

You do realize that M:tG has none of those elements, right?

 

[FireLance]

I think D&D is just a reflection of what gamers in general are interested in and want in a game. You get all kinds of influences in a D&D game: it has its wargaming roots, elements of classic fantasy fiction, themes borrowed from folklore and fairy tales, bits and pieces of real-world cultures and beliefs, ideas from superhero comics, puzzles for the gamers who like puzzles, mysteries for the gamers who like mysteries, action for the gamers who like action, storytelling for the gamers who like storytelling, and so on. Gamers influenced by Chinese and Japanese culture will bring in elements such as martial arts and anime. Naturally, gamers who also like computer games will bring in computer game elements as well.

 

[Delta]

Ironic that you have a significant deviation from the RAW right in the first sentence of this post. Not criticizing, necessarily, just an observation.

QFT.

 

[Thurbane]

Eh, 'its like a video game!' is just another way to say 'your favorite game sucks'.

I disagree with that - I agree, many people do use it in that manner, but speaking for myself (and many others I suspect), it is to describe a style of gameplay, not just a blanket put-down. I consider "videogamish" to simply be another descriptor like "roleplay heavy", "combat heavy", "beer n pretzels" etc.