What changed between editions

[GreyLord]

Minis or not, 2e did make one small-ish rule change from 1e that turned out to very much affect how the game played out at the table: it did away with experience for gold.

What this did was take a lot of focus away from treasure-hunting and put it on to combat...and on to story, if any sort of story-reward system was used. Combine that with the growing emphasis on publishing story-based adventures and while the rules themselves may not have been all that different the end result at the table was.

Lan-"and 2e in 1991 was a very different beast than 2e in 1998"-efan

While true, there was an option in 2e to continue to play with GP=XP as a rule. There was also the grandfather clause which basically said for DMs that if they wanted, anything could be grandfathered in from 1e into 2e.

On the otherhand, with the rules explosion (I always stuck with core 2e, didn't really expand that much into the kits, and especially not into Skills and Powers), 1998 D&D was FAR different than AD&D and definitely when core 2e was released.

 

[jasper]

1E brand new gaming system made up on the fly with bad editing. But lots of fun. Only 3 books needed
2E system cleaned up with just enough and naughty bits covered up.
3E One die twenty to rule them all! and on the west coast bind them!
4E There was no 4E! you felled out your bed! you felled out the bed.
5E Die twenty rules them all but locked in AC max, every class does damage each round and less fizbin rules.

 

[Igwilly]

For all the hate, 4e was much better than what many people tell. It is quite different, because the mindset changed in regards to adventure building, but it’s quite good, and combat can be great with a good DM. Nice memories I have: could house-rule easily to make my setting, there were some great combats, skill list was compact and nice… Could go on and on, but…
I left just to experience other editions, too! ^^ After completing my collection of 2e books, I may go back and start buying all those 4e books I didn’t have.

 

[Lanefan]

For all the hate, 4e was much better than what many people tell ... the mindset changed in regards to adventure building ... and combat can be great with a good DM ... there were some great combats ...

From having converted (to 1e) and run some 4e adventures, I realize you do seem to have hit on one thing 4e had going for it: it was very good at the spectacular set-piece combat. The mindset did change with regard to adventure building, in that adventures were (or at least often seemed to be) built around one or two really big set pieces. The downside to this was that 4e adventures - at least the ones I've seen/bought/run - tended to be very "linear" in design in order to funnel the party into these set pieces; there were few if any choices as to where to go next as one room/encounter sequentially followed the other. But the set pieces were generally excellent, and fun to use.

Every time I ran a 4e adventure - particularly the dungeon-crawl types - I found myself adding in a bunch of extra passages/entrances/features in order to present some choices and-or variety.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Ironically, despite popular opinion, I'd say the same thing about 5e. The bonded accuracy has...not gone over well with just about every true old school player I've presented it too (those who hated 3e and D&D versions afterwards...even when they try 5e, the entire bonded accuracy thing seems to be a major sticking point, though it may just be an excuse they hold for not playing 5e in favor of going back to AD&D or another older D&D version).

In that light, if someone is looking at the New D&D from AD&D, if they are going for 5e I'd say come with a VERY open mind and do NOT expect anything like the D&D you knew. Look at it as an entirely different and new system, sort of like you would if you were trying out Cyberpunk, or Warhammer FRPG or something entirely different. Use that mindset when you look at 5e and you may like what you see. I find the most disappointments I get are those who come from AD&D or older and are expecting something like what they've played before. Don't think that way, it's probably the number one way to get disappointed with 5e.

Well, that depends entirely on the DM and what parts of the 5e system she wants to use...and how she wants to DM it. Strip out feats entirely (except maybe keep a very few iconics as baked-in class abilities), strip down the skill system to its very basics, put some serious dangers back in (level loss, welcome home), and for flavour ban all races and classes that aren't in 1e if you like. Then, DM it like you'd DM a 1e game (high risk, high reward compared to 5e as written) and you'll be reasonably close to old-school.

But if a DM keeps all the 3e/4e trappings that 5e offers then yes, it'll play like those systems and not nearly as much like 1e.

I'd echo the idea (if not the exact opinions on each edition expressed) that after 2e, the changes between each edition are really pretty vast, and expecting the same gaming experience from them from one to the other isn't really going to occur for many people.

Late-era 2e to 3e wasn't a huge change, all things considered, as a lot of what became core 3e had been run out in late 2e splats. 3e to 3.5e is a stepping stone. 3.5e to 5e is a significant jump, but bigger are the jumps from 3.5 to 4e and 4e to 5e: 4e really was a detour.

If 5e is something one can't enjoy because it's not the D&D they remember, but they want something in print, but NOT the PDFs that are cheaply available on DMsguild, I'd suggest something like Basic Fantasy, Castles and Crusades, or if they can do something a little bit more in the transition, but not as drastic a change as 4e or 5e, then they might give Pathfinder a shot.

Here I'd disagree: to me Pathfinder is a very long way from old-school D&D both in design and play, where 5e - as I've noted above - can be relatively easily made to echo an old-school style.

The good thing is that 5e basic is free to try, as is Pathfinder via their PRD. No need to do a big buy in before one has a try in it first.

Also, if you want to just stay old-school WotC have started releasing the 0-1-2e stuff as print-on-demand - it's not all there yet but in theory eventually will be - the costs won't kill you and from the reviews I've seen the quality is reasonable. And Dragonsfoot.org has a pile of free 0-1-2e resources for the taking.

Lanefan

 

[Igwilly]

From having converted (to 1e) and run some 4e adventures, I realize you do seem to have hit on one thing 4e had going for it: it was very good at the spectacular set-piece combat. The mindset did change with regard to adventure building, in that adventures were (or at least often seemed to be) built around one or two really big set pieces. The downside to this was that 4e adventures - at least the ones I've seen/bought/run - tended to be very "linear" in design in order to funnel the party into these set pieces; there were few if any choices as to where to go next as one room/encounter sequentially followed the other. But the set pieces were generally excellent, and fun to use.

Every time I ran a 4e adventure - particularly the dungeon-crawl types - I found myself adding in a bunch of extra passages/entrances/features in order to present some choices and-or variety.

Lanefan

I think that was your “mistake”: most early 4e adventures were just terrible, and I’m not sure on the later ones.
I tried Keep on the Shadowfell. Game got much better when I started creating my own adventures.

 

[pemerton]

3.5e to 5e is a significant jump, but bigger are the jumps from 3.5 to 4e and 4e to 5e: 4e really was a detour.

4e killed off LFQW, by getting rid of scaling spells. 5e preserves that change.

4e came up with the idea of balancing the combat aspsects of PC builds around DPR - 5e cosolidates that development, although it spreads it over 6-8 encounters per day.

4e invented the short rest/long rest recharge model, and 5e preserves that, although it changes the distribution of spell caster abilities in relation to the rest cycle (much heavier emphasis on long-rest recovery).

4e is not a detour: almost none of the mechanical "innovations" in 5e, relative to 3.X, are original to that edition; they have their origins in 4e. The only expceptions I can think of are inspiration (taken from indie-games) and the exploration rules/roles.

 

[chaochou]

I hope this brief summary will be of some assistance:

Dungeons & Dragons: Novelty value of playing individuals in a minis wargame. Proved inexplicably popular, much like flares, Alvin Stardust and Shawaddywaddy.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: The original kitchen sink design. Already outdated upon release by sleeker systems like Traveller and Runequest it nevertheless hung around through the 80s like a bar-room drunk who won't hand over the only pool cue.

'Basic' Dungeons and Dragons: The same as the above but with shorter words. Gygax famously said it was written for people with the reading age of a hen.

'Expert' Dungeons and Dragons: Was only bought by people with a high opinion of themselves.

Dungeons and Dragons, Second Edition: Took all the failings of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons and added the idea of 'story' to the game. Preferably a story everyone had already read by paying for very, very mediocre novels.

Dungeons and Dragons, Third Edition: Took all the failings of Second Edition, and then made certain combinations of classes so powerful that they could effectively play their own equally bad game in a parallel dimension, while waving and mooning out the window.

Dungeons and Dragons, Fourth Edition: Chucked the whole lot away apart from a few names of things and started again with a system that kept everyone reasonably equal, and with achievable roles for all the participants. Almost unanimously loathed. No-one likes a smartass, it seems.

Dungeons and Dragons, Fifth Edition: Threw that lousy fourth edition out the door, shouting 'And don't ever come back!' Wowed people with the idea that sometimes... wait for it... you roll 2d20! That's right! Twice the fun! That crazy Mearls, he just loco.