D&D General Why is tradition (in D&D) important to you? [+]

[Lyxen]

Actually, 20 levels was standardized back in AD&D 2nd Edition; it's how many levels were presented for each class in the PHB, with none of the Core Rulebooks having information about going beyond that particular limit (though various supplements would take the game further than this).

Ah, it explains why it was not important, 2e did not bring anything interesting.

The settings were glorious, though.

 

[Maxperson]

Not really. The way the game is designed influences how you play it, it's obvious (for example the 3e/4e design mandates detailed - and therefore long - tactical combat played on a grid). And each of us has a preferred playstyle. Whether it matches or not has absolutely no relation to the "tradition" of the game.

3e was a conundrum for me. One the one hand it vastly played up the grid and tactical combat, and I preferred less of that. But on the other hand the sheer breadth of classes, races, templates, prestige classes, skills and feats meant that virtually any character that I could envision, I could create. Sadly, that's nowhere near the case for me with 5e. 3e despite its flaws, remains my favorite edition due to ability to create so many different concepts.

 

[Lyxen]

3e was a conundrum for me. One the one hand it vastly played up the grid and tactical combat, and I preferred less of that. But on the other hand the sheer breadth of classes, races, templates, prestige classes, skills and feats meant that virtually any character that I could envision, I could create. Sadly, that's nowhere near the case for me with 5e. 3e despite its flaws, remains my favorite edition due to ability to create so many different concepts.

I know, it's a bit of a shame, but I think it's the lesson from every edition, there are things in there which resonate with the way you want to play, and others which clash. As usual, it's about finding the right compromise, the one that suits you.

Because it's a simple fact that tastes vary and that my compromise would probably not be the same as yours. There was a thread about what people preferred from various editions, it clearly showed the difficulty...

 

[Lanefan]

Actually, 20 levels was standardized back in AD&D 2nd Edition; it's how many levels were presented for each class in the PHB, with none of the Core Rulebooks having information about going beyond that particular limit (though various supplements would take the game further than this).

The difference, though, was that 2e happened to use 20 levels as a convenient cutoff point where it could have just as easily used 16 levels or 25 levels or whatever number for that cutoff: the game was designed as being largely open-ended in the knowledge that most tables played within the 1-10 or maybe 1-15 range and enver went beyond that.

It wasn't until 3e that the expectation became formalized that you were supposed to play through all 20 levels and - later tack-ons notwithstanding - pretty much stop there as 20th level was a hard cap.

 

[Gravenhurst48]

I have had more thought on this threads question to steer us back to why we all believe, or not believe, in tradition being important instead of blaming which edition sucks.

* Moving from one edition to the next edition should be without having to repurchase all the core books again. Each new edition should be creating newer expansions to support the core books. Why are we relearning the game each edition?

* Polyhedron dice, primarily the d20.

* Character sheets.

* Module maps inside cover and sleeve becomes the DM Screen; no need to purchase a new screen everytime; this was unique to D&D.

* Inserts: Tomb of Horrors had it right when the image art was separated into a booklet, similiar to today's Encounter Cards that fold over the DM Screen from Beadle and Grim.

* Original class titles: the fighter, magic-user, thief, and cleric.

* 4 player group (depending on the DMs skills, I have had one player at one time and 8 players many times, with a party of many others viewing it all on the sidelines.), with 4 classes balancing out the adventures.

*HD represents the Challenge Rating of a creature so an actual CR Stat is not needed.

*THACO (Since 3e now THAC10)

* Sitting around a table - not virtual, not at a con, but in a basement. It's that atmosphere that is intimate, private, secretive, and away from spectators.

* More roleplaying, light rules.

Keeping traditional tools, mechanics, structure from edition to edition helps share experience from one generation to the next generation and bonds everyone to the same rules we can all relate to one another.

 

[Thunderfoot]

I have had more thought on this threads question to steer us back to why we all believe, or not believe, in tradition being important instead of blaming which edition sucks.

* Moving from one edition to the next edition should be without having to repurchase all the core books again. Each new edition should be creating newer expansions to support the core books. Why are we relearning the game each edition?

* Polyhedron dice, primarily the d20.

* Character sheets.

* Module maps inside cover and sleeve becomes the DM Screen; no need to purchase a new screen everytime; this was unique to D&D.

* Inserts: Tomb of Horrors had it right when the image art was separated into a booklet, similiar to today's Encounter Cards that fold over the DM Screen from Beadle and Grim.

* Original class titles: the fighter, magic-user, thief, and cleric.

* 4 player group (depending on the DMs skills, I have had one player at one time and 8 players many times, with a party of many others viewing it all on the sidelines.), with 4 classes balancing out the adventures.

*HD represents the Challenge Rating of a creature so an actual CR Stat is not needed.

*THACO (Since 3e now THAC10)

* Sitting around a table - not virtual, not at a con, but in a basement. It's that atmosphere that is intimate, private, secretive, and away from spectators.

* More roleplaying, light rules.

Keeping traditional tools, mechanics, structure from edition to edition helps share experience from one generation to the next generation and bonds everyone to the same rules we can all relate to one another.

I will agree with everything by two.
1) Though I love 1E I thought the change from thief to rogue was positive and progressive (The class I almost exclusively play since 1st)
2) 4 person parties is frankly a dumb limitation IMNSHO. If you build a system around ANY set number and that number suffers when either adding to or taking away from the total, you have made an error. I miss the days of 15 people at a table or when 2 people could tag team a module if they were smart and patient.

Requiring an effective party of 4 with 1 each core class is tantamount to playing a strange non-arcade variant of Gaunlet ( ok not really but tpu get my point.)

 

[Hussar]

I hope that was not a response to me, because it was under my post.
/snip

I think you have a bunch of people on ignore because there was about five posts between your post and what I wrote - which was in response to GravenHurst48

What broke too much with tradition (my guess) :

I reiterate: those were mostly great ideas and I am glad those found their way into 5e in some form. But the appeal of 5e is that it enabled more traditional play with modern rules. Hopefully 5.5 will revive more 4e Ideas in some way, as 4e is now also tradition, so anyone can play as the wish.

Again, not going to go around this one again, but, the part that I find so funny is that all the things you say broke with tradition actually exist in 5e. shrug Which makes it really hard to understand why 4e got such a negative reaction but 5e gets celebrated.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think you have a bunch of people on ignore because there was about five posts between your post and what I wrote - which was in response to GravenHurst48

Again, not going to go around this one again, but, the part that I find so funny is that all the things you say broke with tradition actually exist in 5e. shrug Which makes it really hard to understand why 4e got such a negative reaction but 5e gets celebrated.

No. Didn't update the site...

 

[Lyxen]

Again, not going to go around this one again, but, the part that I find so funny is that all the things you say broke with tradition actually exist in 5e. shrug Which makes it really hard to understand why 4e got such a negative reaction but 5e gets celebrated.

Because it was not only because of traditions broken (in particular on the classes, powers and spells), but because it was a very different game system, formal, complex, and with many requirements (jargon, grids, etc.). It went even further than 3e in terms of tactical combat being at the core of the game, where 5e went the completely opposite way, while restoring tradition.

4e really was ground-breaking, in some ways more than 3e and certainly more than 5e (in terms of pure innovations), just - at least for our tables - a game with a core that possibly did not match its audience.