Theories regaurding the change in rules of D&D.

[Hussar]

Honestly, I don't know why anyone would complain about having rules that work. If you house rule rules, that means that the original rule didn't work for you or there was no existing rule in the first place. If you don't have to house rule, then the rule works for you.

To me, having rules that work means a huge load off the DM's shoulders. It also means that a number of the problems which can occur when house ruling don't happen as well.

I've never really understood the need for vague or obscure rules. Rules should be simple, straightforward and easy to apply. Why is that a bad thing?

 

[Doug McCrae]

I see 3e as a return to the gamism of Gygaxian 1st ed. Between the two was the more 'storyesque' approach of Dragonlance and 2e.

 

[Doug McCrae]

You're right that superheroes can use their powers non-stop, pretty much, but then so can most fantasy wizards. A departure from Vancian magic doesn't necessarily mean a superheroy game, just non-Vancian fantasy.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I assume that most of the time when I see D&D being described as becoming like a video game or like superheroes, that's a criticism. In many ways I'd like to see both those happen though, cause I love superheroes and I think D&D could learn a lot from video games (as seen in the MM5 monster design).

 

[Laman Stahros]

In 1e, I made things up as I went to cover the holes in the game and was not very consistent in my rulings. I spent most of each game making rulings.

In 2e, I ended up with a 100+ page house rule book in order to deal with the problem rules so that I would be consistent. I spent a large part of each game making rulings.

In 3e, I have a 50+ page house rule book that contains the tweaks that I have done for the fun of it. I rarely have to make a ruling other than to refer the player to the correct book and page.

So, how has D&D changed over the 28+ years that I have been playing?

Well, for one thing, I sure enjoy the sessions more now. I can focus on the adventure and make sure that the game is fun for me and the players because they know the rules since they are right there in the books.

Most of the players that I have gamed with during 3e enjoy having the DM focus on the adventure. Those who played older versions make mention of the greater consistency in the newer version because of the rules being wrote out.

Some people speak of the "good old days" when the DM had all the power and moan about the players "have all the power" in 3e. I don't understand that attitude at all. But then I never understood the "DM vs. the PCs" attitude that Gary Gygax's "Up On a Soapbox" articles in Dragon showed either.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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

The game has become much more fixated on the rules over the roleplaying.

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.

I consider "videogamish" to simply be another descriptor like "roleplay heavy", "combat heavy", "beer n pretzels" etc.

....

Uhm....

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

It was a good try, man, but it's too late. This has now become an "Is 3e Videogamey" thread.

D&D has changed over the years. 1e was idiosyncratic and changed by leaps and bounds between DMs and tables, even despite Gygax's infamous Dragon mag quote. 2e embraced narrative and storytelling to a near-destructive level, but couldn't shake the wargame origins, and remained oddly obsessed with telling you what you shouldn't be allowed to do because "that wouldn't be D&D." 3e has embraced modding, embraced the gaming aspects, has slightly beaten back storytelling in pursuit of reclaiming some of the game that 2e seemed to gloss over. 3e has much more lateral consistency, the rules all basically hang together without a NEED to mod (though the community will always desire it).

3e has some of it's own issues (for instance, the modding embracing often leads to a host of optional rules that aren't always welcome by a collector-mindset audience), and it ain't perfect, but the rules hang together as a system better than any previous edition, with less of a need to ignore the rulebooks unless you're playing a highly modded game (which 3e very much supports you doing).

If a cohesive whole system makes a ruleset "videogamey," then I guess 3e is more so than previous editions, but I really don't think that's a good term for that.

 

[RFisher]

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

I was completely confounded by the "too much like a video game" criticism of 3e. It made absolutely no sense to me.

Then, one day, I found myself playing a 3e game & thinking, "This feels too much like a video game."

Maybe you're right, but I can't deny that I honestly felt that way.

 

[Numion]

Then, one day, I found myself playing a 3e game & thinking, "This feels too much like a video game."

It was the graphics, wasn't it?

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I was thinking one thing 3rd edition did is unify the rules mechanics - for example there are far less 'except in this circumstance' than I recall from previous editions. Where they exist, they are often selected in the form of feats rather than freely available to all.

Kinda linked to that, the ranges of things are larger. IMO attack bonuses and ACs are bigger. May be faulty recall, but I'm sure high level characters didn't have thaco's of -15 or ACs of -15 either. Whereas high level characters with ACs of 35 or main attacks in the high 30's isn't uncommon. Some monsters hit larger still values for those. Melee damage and HP are definitely higher. Enchants that add +D6's of damage, power attack. Vs full Hit dice past level 10.

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. Combinations of splatbooks can be even more strange than previously.

To sumarise - think the RAW are much more consistent than previously, but find house rulings and splatbooks can more radically change the way things work.

 

[JustinA]

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.

But, for me, it's a descriptor that's almost meaningless.

When you say it's "videogamish", what video games are you talking about? FPS? CRPG? RTS? Fighting games? Puzzle games? Side-scrollers? Adventure games?

I've never seen anyone explicitly provide answers to the question: What, exactly, about 3rd edition is more "videogamish" than previous editions? Name precise features. And tell me what video games you feel they're emulating.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net