D&D General Why TSR-era D&D Will Always Be D&D

[Mercurius]

Not sure how you could have told me for the 4th time since this is my 3rd response.

I just disagree based on what I experienced and what we saw based on estimates of sales. But I didn't mean to get into edition wars, carry on.

I meant I was saying it for the 4th time! I don't like to repeat myself, but certain things are touchy and often misconstrued.

 

[Oofta]

But the thing is 5e, the most successful edition, is closer to 4e than the TSR editions. 5e is basically 4th Edition Essentials on a 3rd edition skeleton.


The only real TSR elements in 5E are the names of the terms and the forcing of TSR PC and NPC archetypes into working the base system. And the latter is the most complained about "flaw" of 5e and is the part WOTC has been moving from the most.

Not sure I could disagree much more. To me 5E feels like TSR D&D evolved with cleaned up math and additional functionality. We got some things from all previous editions. The bits we got from 4E though are minor additions, not a rewrite of the core system and game costructs. Some abilities fo some classes return on a short rest, but powers and everyone using the AEDU structure is gone. We may heal up after a long rest, but in TSR D&D it was effectively just downtime until the cleric could heal everyone.

Going from TSR D&D to 5E feels like the same game in ways 4E never did. Heck, I think 5E feels more like TSRD&D than 3.5.

 

[overgeeked]

Not sure I could disagree much more. To me 5E feels like TSR D&D evolved with cleaned up math and additional functionality. We got some things from all previous editions. The bits we got from 4E though are minor additions, not a rewrite of the core system and game costructs. Some abilities fo some classes return on a short rest, but powers and everyone using the AEDU structure is gone. We may heal up after a long rest, but in TSR D&D it was effectively just downtime until the cleric could heal everyone.

Going from TSR D&D to 5E feels like the same game in ways 4E never did. Heck, I think 5E feels more like TSRD&D than 3.5.

I kind of agree, kind of disagree. I think the drastic changes made from TSR D&D to 5E are rather jarring. Though, it still feels more like TSR D&D than 3X or 4E. Sure, healing in AD&D was "downtime until the cleric could heal everyone," but that downtime was a big part of the draw...especially for people who think combat as sport is boring. It meant that instead of just endless, mindless combat you'd be forced to have downtime between fights, at least downtime between the big fights. And that was good. Now, you can just endlessly, mindlessly plow through fight after fight after fight with no end. At worst you need to stop for a guaranteed safe rest wherever you want thanks to your handy-dandy Leomund's Tiny Hut and never ever have to worry about food or water thanks to your handy-dandy six different ways to automatically secure food and water. 5E compared to AD&D is all the stuff that's not combat stripped to the bone, basically nothing to spend your gold on, and no incentive to do anything but fight your way through anything you face. Reaction rolls are gone. The concept of even being able to talk to monsters was kicked down the road until Tasha's. Morale is an optional rule tucked into the ass-end of the DMG. There's also things like save or die and level drain. Spell research and magic item crafting...and the quests that go with each. Domain-level play. Etc. And the switch from various dice and subsystems to the boringly unified mechanics of WotC is a dramatic change. So, while yes, 5E is more similar to TSR D&D than 3X or 4E, I can tell you as someone who's played AD&D for almost 40 years, the differences are big and noticeable.

 

[Oofta]

I kind of agree, kind of disagree. I think the drastic changes made from TSR D&D to 5E are rather jarring. Though, it still feels more like TSR D&D than 3X or 4E. Sure, healing in AD&D was "downtime until the cleric could heal everyone," but that downtime was a big part of the draw...especially for people who think combat as sport is boring. It meant that instead of just endless, mindless combat you'd be forced to have downtime between fights, at least downtime between the big fights. And that was good. Now, you can just endlessly, mindlessly plow through fight after fight after fight with no end. At worst you need to stop for a guaranteed safe rest wherever you want thanks to your handy-dandy Leomund's Tiny Hut and never ever have to worry about food or water thanks to your handy-dandy six different ways to automatically secure food and water. 5E compared to AD&D is all the stuff that's not combat stripped to the bone, basically nothing to spend your gold on, and no incentive to do anything but fight your way through anything you face. Reaction rolls are gone. The concept of even being able to talk to monsters was kicked down the road until Tasha's. Morale is an optional rule tucked into the ass-end of the DMG. There's also things like save or die and level drain. Spell research and magic item crafting...and the quests that go with each. Domain-level play. Etc. And the switch from various dice and subsystems to the boringly unified mechanics of WotC is a dramatic change. So, while yes, 5E is more similar to TSR D&D than 3X or 4E, I can tell you as someone who's played AD&D for almost 40 years, the differences are big and noticeable.

I agree there are differences - mostly in how quickly people recover which is why a long rest in my campaigns take a week or more - but whether that made a big difference just depended on the group. Heck, I remember playing one of the old gold box D&D games and it had a "rest and cast until healed button". There was a spot where I was climbing a tower that was collapsing around me and I just kept hitting that rest button until I no longer got "rocks fall and interrupt your rest".

In other words, to other people the flow of the game may have been more jarring depending on play style. For me the downtime is about the same as it always was. I think there was a pretty vast difference between tables in AD&D because most of what you mention as different were things I simply didn't see back in the day. In any case, my point was that I don't see much similarity between 4E and 5E other than 5E borrowed a couple of bits and pieces from 4E.

 

[Minigiant]

Hmm. I think they do use a fair amount of old lore.

One thing I think they're sensitive to in 5E design that they were less so in 4E design is look and feel. Does Fireball look and FEEL like Fireball? How about Magic Missile? How about Wizards? Does the Wizard class do the stuff a player expects a D&D Wizard to be able to do?

Where 4E had (for example) a Daily spell called Fireball, it represented a much more significant mechanical departure. The square (cube) shape, for example. The base damage being much lower on first glance. The fact that as a Daily power you couldn't "memorize" it multiple times.

The 5E design hearkens back much more to the look and feel of 1E Fireball. Even the fact that they boosted the damage above what would be expected by the general design guidelines, to better fulfill the memetic IDEA of Fireball in the mass consciousness.

But that's my point.

It's really just looking like TSR D&D and making sure TSR D&D more or less work in the game system.

Buts it's all looks.

The mechanics and lore work different. For one there is more uniformity. Then there is more complexity. For example your DEX, WIS, or CON can affect your AC. All with a mess of stuff that can change damage. And all kinds additions to how races look and act and divide themselves.

 

[Minigiant]

I do agree with the first part (not quite so much the second...but I can see how you see it)

3e 4e and 5e are all built on the same frame, and it is a frame called the d20 system. At the end of the day good or ill TSR era was not. the stats work different the entire idea of unified mechanic the concept of how saves work... 2e and 1e were very different.

It's more than the d20 system. The skeleton of 5e is basically 3e's skeleton with a slower number progression, farmer goals, and a simpler bonus system in ADV/DISADV.

Not sure I could disagree much more. To me 5E feels like TSR D&D evolved with cleaned up math and additional functionality. We got some things from all previous editions. The bits we got from 4E though are minor additions, not a rewrite of the core system and game costructs. Some abilities fo some classes return on a short rest, but powers and everyone using the AEDU structure is gone. We may heal up after a long rest, but in TSR D&D it was effectively just downtime until the cleric could heal everyone.

We'll have to disagree.

To me 5e shares little with the TSR Era besides the names, IP, and starting point

I see it a Edward Smith. Edward Smith is the grandson of Edgar Smith. Edward is named after Edgar and had fair skin, a stout body, and dark brown hair like Edgar. So if Edward cuts his hair and wears a suit, he looks just like Edgar.

But outside of formal traditional setting like wedding and funerals, Edward acts nothing like Edgar. His har grows long with his beard like his Uncle Dre. His tattoos are displayed in his unserved arms. His clothes are as colorful as his mother's as well as his words and swears. He acts and views things more like his mother than his grandfather. Edward's, or E's or Eddie's style has subtle influences from his black sheep, city slicker and a bit shady Uncle. Edward is a more modern and genderflipped version of his mother Sandy. He just looks and has the say name as his grandfather.

5e feels so much closer to 3e than 1e and 2e that it's really just the TSRisms that 3e kept that exist in 5e.

 

[CleverNickName]

What's the saying? "The past cannot be changed, it can only be remembered." Or something like that?

 

[James Gasik]

I kind of agree, kind of disagree. I think the drastic changes made from TSR D&D to 5E are rather jarring. Though, it still feels more like TSR D&D than 3X or 4E. Sure, healing in AD&D was "downtime until the cleric could heal everyone," but that downtime was a big part of the draw...especially for people who think combat as sport is boring. It meant that instead of just endless, mindless combat you'd be forced to have downtime between fights, at least downtime between the big fights. And that was good. Now, you can just endlessly, mindlessly plow through fight after fight after fight with no end. At worst you need to stop for a guaranteed safe rest wherever you want thanks to your handy-dandy Leomund's Tiny Hut and never ever have to worry about food or water thanks to your handy-dandy six different ways to automatically secure food and water. 5E compared to AD&D is all the stuff that's not combat stripped to the bone, basically nothing to spend your gold on, and no incentive to do anything but fight your way through anything you face. Reaction rolls are gone. The concept of even being able to talk to monsters was kicked down the road until Tasha's. Morale is an optional rule tucked into the ass-end of the DMG. There's also things like save or die and level drain. Spell research and magic item crafting...and the quests that go with each. Domain-level play. Etc. And the switch from various dice and subsystems to the boringly unified mechanics of WotC is a dramatic change. So, while yes, 5E is more similar to TSR D&D than 3X or 4E, I can tell you as someone who's played AD&D for almost 40 years, the differences are big and noticeable.

Having played AD&D, I agree with most of this, but didn't all those spells exist too? Clerics could create water (and later food and water), Leomund's Tiny Hut was there (though, admittedly, it wasn't an invincible bivouac), etc.?

This is something that always surprised me when I started playing 3e. Suddenly, a spellcaster's ability to trivialize wilderness survival was a big deal among a lot of DM's I played with, and quite a few on early forums, and has remained so to this very day- but the precursors of all these spells were around in 1st and 2nd Edition! Did no one use them back in the day?

 

[Minigiant]

Having played AD&D, I agree with most of this, but didn't all those spells exist too? Clerics could create water (and later food and water), Leomund's Tiny Hut was there (though, admittedly, it wasn't an invincible bivouac), etc.?

This is something that always surprised me when I started playing 3e. Suddenly, a spellcaster's ability to trivialize wilderness survival was a big deal among a lot of DM's I played with, and quite a few on early forums, and has remained so to this very day- but the precursors of all these spells were around in 1st and 2nd Edition! Did no one use them back in the day?

You didn't have the slots to use them AND adventure. And the magic items to get more slots were harder to get, rarer, and crafting wasn't built into the base system. And the class features and feats to get more slots didn't exist.

The TSR and WOTC spellcasters have the same names and cast the same spells. However the TSR spellcasters are nothing like WOTC spellcasters because the game system, design, and lore is so different. It's kinda where WOTC's first edition got its "issues".

 

[Hussar]

/snip

That said, let's imagine an alternate history. Dial back to 2008 and 4E never came out - WotC squeezes out another half-decade of 3.5, and then declares a new edition in 2012-13. Then, in 2014, 4E comes out. Now let's assume that the same cultural forces were at work: you had minor celebrities on board, and the zeitgeist is just right for Zennials to fall in love with the game. Certainly, you'd have the same old-timers jumping ship, but would that have stopped the rising tide that we see now? Maybe, maybe not. But my point being, maybe 4E would have worked just fine for the current player base - and thus perhaps more so than it did back in 2008, when the player base was mostly folks who had started with 3E or before and for whom 4E felt too different from the D&D they knew and loved.

I don't think this is particularly alternate history at all. 5e is mostly reworked 4e mechanically, easily makes as many changes to the game that 4e did but is written in such a way that it appeases the established player base and then throws a few of the poster child 4eisms under the bus to "prove" how they are "going back to basics". 5e, to me, is proof that 4e would have done fantastically well. It DID do fantastically well, they just had to call it 5e first.

I mean, good grief, just as a recent example, I'm running the very excellent The Tarrasque Task of Moreen Trask Super fun adventure and my players have really enjoyed it. But, then you compare the 5e Big T to any other edition and you realize it's completely different. No regeneration. No needing a Wish to kill it. No Sword of Sharpness bite. Virtually nothing from earlier editions survived the edition change. Certainly not any of the important stuff anyway.

But, I keep getting told over and over again how 5e hasn't changed things from earlier editions.

The problem with the conversation about 4e is that people want to point to the economic failure of 4e as proof that 4e was a "bad" game. I'm not saying you're doing this @Mercurius. I don't think you are. But, so many people want to justify their playstyle preferences and justify forcing those preferences on everyone else by claiming that "Well, that was tried in 4e and 4e was rejected, so, we can't do that now." when the economic failure of 4e had virtually nothing to do with the mechanics or the changes 4e made and a lot more to do with timing, outside forces and unreasonable marketing goals.