Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mneme" data-source="post: 5771460" data-attributes="member: 59248">It's an entertaining game, well enough.White Box: Problem solving.  Early D&D -- White Box, AD&D, and Basic, certainly -- were all about creative ways to solve problems.  Sure, you could run up to things and wack them -- but classes like Wizard and Thief (once there was a Thief) were pretty rubbish at first level, and had to get creative--and even Fighters were often better off running a cow ahead of them than fighting everything all straightforward-like.  That problem solving atmosphere -- and the idea of traps as something for the players to think about and try to figure out, not something to make die rolls at as was all too frequent in 3e and 4e -- is a huge part of what made early D&D the sensation it was.AD&D: A sense of humor.  AD&D didn't take itself too seariously -- something you could tell just by perusing the rulebook, full fo random jokes on whatever was amusing and on topic (not to mention quasi-intentional hilarities like the prostitute table).  And since D&D's strength, when weighed against other RPGs, is as a light fantasy rpg with tactical combat, that humor is important to keep track of.   Also, the alignment system.  The 9 alignments was a core product identity in D&D, and it was simply a terrible idea to get rid of it--all downside.  Really, what were they thinking?AD&D2: I've never played this edition, but that doesn't stop me from having opinions.  So I'd say we should take the story emphasis from D&D2; the idea that reward mechanics (that's exp and treasure) don't -have- to all be about loot and death, but can be structured around anything that the game wants to encourage.  If you're a wizard, you get exp from casting spells and researching, if you're a fighter you get exp from fighting things and learning new secrets of the sword, etc -- and regardless, you get exp from solving quests and overcoming story-relevant challenges, because that's what the game is about for -everyone-.3e: The customizability.  3e was the first edition that let players go wild with customization, making items part of the customization options, and overall giving characters interesting choices all up and down the level chart.  This wasn't perfect -- there was nothing you could do as a level 15 fighter to gain some spellcasting that wouldn't give you spellcasting that simply wasn't worth your time while giving up a level that would have been far stronger in a fighter class -- and similarly multiclassing out of a spellcasting class was incredibly painful.  But the core concept was very important.4e: The reduction of the skill system.  Siloing (so each character had an option to be competent in combat).  At-will powers (no running out of spells).  Monsters, and traps as monsters (but see my comment on White Box).  Starting character durability.  Deeper races.  The "unaligned" alignment (because it should be possible to play a "darkish" character without automatic character conflict beyond that resulting from roleplay, or to opt out of the alignment system).  A vast decrease in how much the alignment system was wired into the game in the first place; no detect alignment, spells that only worked against specific alignments, and far fewer classes you could only take with specific alignments.</blockquote>

Verification