I think so but I think (because some of these I wasn't old enough to play when they came out) the only edition of D&D that ever focused solely on site-based exploration was possible OD&D? BECMI took you beyond site-based exploration with Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal. AD&D 1e had the Wilderness Survival Guide, AD&D 2e had too many settings/adventures outside the realm of site-based exploration for me to list. 3e had rules beyond site-based exploration as did 4e and 5e. So when you say "now" do you mean starting in the 70's/80's?
No, I meant now, with the current edition. This has been a slow process where things have expanded a little at a time, leading us to where we are now. the biggest incremental leap was likely the advent of 2E in many ways, but it wasn't something that was immediate, but I think happened over the edition. But that's me looking at it retrospectively. I didn't quite realize it at the time.
While certainly a possibility... I don't think that's a requirement. You can have a general structure which the DM then uses as a basis to extrapolate for other situations. As an example the skill usage structure can be applied across numerous situations.
Fair enough. I think I disagree here. I think it varies a lot, and I would say you are correct that you can do a lot with a basic structure that can be broadly applied... but I don't know if D&D's is quite as adaptable as many claim. Structures can really bring out tone and theme, as well as more specific elements like naval combat or mass combat rules.
I can only answer for myself...Yes and yes (with the caveat that the "game" encompasses more than the DMG). I have been running 5e for years now and there hasn't been a situation that arose where I was at a complete loss on how to handle it. The game has, IMO a robust structure around combat and magic, as well as a suitably flexible structure concerning skill usage along with enough suggestions in the DMG and supplemental material that I would argue it's sufficient for the vast majority of things that arise... Though admittedly said answers, suggestions, etc. may not suit everyone's particular tastes.
I think I disagree here, too. I think what's happening is that a lot is offloaded onto the DM. It does depend on what they do with it, though.
Nope... since individual GM's will decide how to implement their structures differently.
Right, and this is what I mean. How many DMs do you know that create something like the exploration rules from earlier editions versus just winging it?
Don't get me wrong, I wing it all the time. There's nothing wrong with that. But a what it means is that in order to make informed choices, the players need to be reading me instead of understanding whatever rules may apply.
And I'm not sure how you feel about it, but often when it's mentioned that some games are about playing the GM rather than playing the game, many take offense.
This seems to be implying that rules differences are the determining factor? So would you agree to the statement that all PbtA games feel the same? What about FitD games? If not... what's the difference?
The rules are a big part of it, yes. There are other things, but the rules are a big one.
I think that all PbtA games that I've played do have similarities, yes. Do I think that the changes made to each PbtA game can make some significant differences in how they play? Yes, for sure. Same for FitD.
What I will say is that with those two systems, if asked what makes one game different from another... what makes Monsterhearts different from Stonetop or what makes Band of Blades different than Blades in the Dark... I can actually pinpoint the mechanics that make the difference. It's not just "oh well John GMs it this way and Mike GMs it that way".
I don't know if the same is true of 5E. Sure, Adventures in Middle Earth has some differences from standard 5E D&D, and we can pinpoint why. But what about folks' home games? What actual rules systems do people add to make the game so different in their actual games?
We often get a lot of mentions of the suggestions in the DMG... oh add hero points or gritty healing and so on. Maybe those are significant. But no one's offering specific rules structures like "Here are the things I did to make 5E do this..." with actual examples rather than hypotheticals. I'd love to hear some.
Because without those structures in place that actually help shape the game and deliver a different experience than the standard... then it's back to gaming the GM.