the evolution of D&D (my oppinion) - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

the evolution of D&D (my oppinion)

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
redkerrusk
Jun 23, 2011 3:06:04
1st edition - Story Teller with some mechanics problems

2nd edition - Story Teller with less mechanics problems

3rd edition - Story Teller / boardgame dynamic, with major pacing issues.

4the edition - Story Teller / boardgame / Cardgame dynamic with major pacing issues.

---------------
#2
Finarvyn
Jul 01, 2011 5:56:51 I hesitate to respond because I'm not sure if your intent is to have an actual discussion or to fan the flame of an edition war. I'm going to assume discussion and reply appropriately.

I think your model is incomplete because you left out quite a few editions, and you have oversimplified without being specific in your analysis. "Some mechanics problems" doesn't really tell me what you dislike. I know a lot of AD&D players who feel like the system is perfect, never moved onto 2E, never wanted to move on.

In general I think the evolution from one edition to the next comes down to the fact that the authors continue to tinker with it. They add supplements and write articles for magazines. Pretty soon the rules are scattered all over and a new edition is created in order to reorganize the rules.

Also, it's worth pointing out that each successive edition has a couple of side effects: (1) There appear to be more options for the player, and (2) there appears to be more work for the DM. Player options include the abillity to play more races, have higher stats, more hit points, more classes, more spells at a given level, and so on. DM workload comes in the form of larger statblocks for monsters, larger statblocks for NPCs, and greater detail to keep track of in the game.

However, I think you'll find that all of the editions of the game have both lovers and haters.

The evolution is more like this:

OD&D -- Rules scattered through original rulebooks, supplements, and magazines. Game style is designed to give the DM freedom to improvise on rules decisions. Most characters go to level 10 or so, but some rules are in place for levels above this.

AD&D -- Rules reorganized and expanded in order to give a "standard" rules set for tournaments. Characters are designed to go to 20th level.

D&D Variants -- The D&D system (compared to AD&D) runs through several editions: Holmes Basic, Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert, Mentzer BECMI, Rules Cyclopedia, various "Classic D&D" boxed sets. These tend to follow the race=class model of the game, which sets it apart from the AD&D evolution path.

AD&D 2E -- Rules reorganized further to allow for kits, skills, and additional player options.

3E -- Rules rewritten to standardize some things (saving throw charts, XP charts, etc) and to expand further player options (feats, skills, etc). "Epic" characters are designed to go to 30th level.

4E -- Rules rewritten to simplify certain things (basic d20 actions) and to expand further player options (powers). Character advancement to 30th level is a standard in the game.
#3
Houndstooth
Jul 19, 2011 23:36:13

Also, it's worth pointing out that each successive edition has a couple of side effects: (1) There appear to be more options for the player, and (2) there appears to be more work for the DM. Player options include the abillity to play more races, have higher stats, more hit points, more classes, more spells at a given level, and so on. DM workload comes in the form of larger statblocks for monsters, larger statblocks for NPCs, and greater detail to keep track of in the game.

I don't want to get to far into this, but I will say this statement was true until 4e at which point the DMs job became much easier. Monsters no longer have to be built, now they are just picked and run, and encounter design is a formula. It goes without saying, a DM can chose to add complexity to add fun if they wish, but the basic system gives the DM a lot to work with, with out giving a lot of work.
#4
Seeker95
Jul 20, 2011 5:54:18
this statement was true until 4e at which point the DMs job became much easier.

Agreed in full. I suspect it is even easier than running a basic game was back in 1978, when I was first introduced to D&D at Camp Crosley. But that comparison might be tinged with nostalgia.

I know that in 4e, I can throw a balanced encounter together on the fly. I can convert a 1e/2e/3e module to 4e *while we play*. This last point is something I could never do in 3e. (It wasn't necessary from 1e to 2e, and I never even tried converting basic to 1e or 2e in my younger days, so it is a comment of limited comparison data.)

As DM, I love 4e for its ease.
As a player, I love 4e for its class parity.

But...
I have loved every edition before 4e as well. So no edition war slams from me.
#5
Finarvyn
Jul 20, 2011 6:59:30

Also, it's worth pointing out that each successive edition has a couple of side effects: (1) There appear to be more options for the player, and (2) there appears to be more work for the DM. Player options include the abillity to play more races, have higher stats, more hit points, more classes, more spells at a given level, and so on. DM workload comes in the form of larger statblocks for monsters, larger statblocks for NPCs, and greater detail to keep track of in the game.

I don't want to get to far into this, but I will say this statement was true until 4e at which point the DMs job became much easier. Monsters no longer have to be built, now they are just picked and run, and encounter design is a formula. It goes without saying, a DM can chose to add complexity to add fun if they wish, but the basic system gives the DM a lot to work with, with out giving a lot of work.

Well, I had some problems with running monster encounters but I think that's due to my lack of practice with 4E.

Honestly, part of what troubles me in 4E is that I'm used to knowing all of the rules and I get the sense that 4E isn't designed that way. My son plays Warhammer miniatures and I think in my mind I can compare 4E to that -- each person masters one army and no one individual really has to master them all. Seems to me like 4E has this pattern, where there are so many Powers that each player masters his class and doesn't need to know what the other classes can do. As a DM I feel like I should master them all but really I just need to trust that the players are doing their part right. At least, that's the way it feels. Again, it may simply be my inexperience with the rules or my "old guy fuddy-duddyness" setting up a mental block for me.

I can't tell which it is. I hear lots of folks tell me how easy 4E is and I continue to struggle with the details. The core seems easy enough, but all those Powers just melt my brain. My players love them, however!

I have loved every edition before 4e as well. So no edition war slams from me.

Nor I.

I have no interest in an edition war, since I own and sometimes play each one of them. I'm just trying to give my impression of each. Of course, I'm biased by the fact that I am a lot more familiar with the older editions so it's no surprise that I find the newer editions harder to play.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 redkerrusk Jun 23, 2011 3:06:04	1st edition - Story Teller with some mechanics problems 2nd edition - Story Teller with less mechanics problems 3rd edition - Story Teller / boardgame dynamic, with major pacing issues. 4the edition - Story Teller / boardgame / Cardgame dynamic with major pacing issues. ---------------
#2 Finarvyn Jul 01, 2011 5:56:51	I hesitate to respond because I'm not sure if your intent is to have an actual discussion or to fan the flame of an edition war. I'm going to assume discussion and reply appropriately. I think your model is incomplete because you left out quite a few editions, and you have oversimplified without being specific in your analysis. "Some mechanics problems" doesn't really tell me what you dislike. I know a lot of AD&D players who feel like the system is perfect, never moved onto 2E, never wanted to move on. In general I think the evolution from one edition to the next comes down to the fact that the authors continue to tinker with it. They add supplements and write articles for magazines. Pretty soon the rules are scattered all over and a new edition is created in order to reorganize the rules. Also, it's worth pointing out that each successive edition has a couple of side effects: (1) There appear to be more options for the player, and (2) there appears to be more work for the DM. Player options include the abillity to play more races, have higher stats, more hit points, more classes, more spells at a given level, and so on. DM workload comes in the form of larger statblocks for monsters, larger statblocks for NPCs, and greater detail to keep track of in the game. However, I think you'll find that all of the editions of the game have both lovers and haters. The evolution is more like this: OD&D -- Rules scattered through original rulebooks, supplements, and magazines. Game style is designed to give the DM freedom to improvise on rules decisions. Most characters go to level 10 or so, but some rules are in place for levels above this. AD&D -- Rules reorganized and expanded in order to give a "standard" rules set for tournaments. Characters are designed to go to 20th level. D&D Variants -- The D&D system (compared to AD&D) runs through several editions: Holmes Basic, Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert, Mentzer BECMI, Rules Cyclopedia, various "Classic D&D" boxed sets. These tend to follow the race=class model of the game, which sets it apart from the AD&D evolution path. AD&D 2E -- Rules reorganized further to allow for kits, skills, and additional player options. 3E -- Rules rewritten to standardize some things (saving throw charts, XP charts, etc) and to expand further player options (feats, skills, etc). "Epic" characters are designed to go to 30th level. 4E -- Rules rewritten to simplify certain things (basic d20 actions) and to expand further player options (powers). Character advancement to 30th level is a standard in the game.
#3 Houndstooth Jul 19, 2011 23:36:13	Also, it's worth pointing out that each successive edition has a couple of side effects: (1) There appear to be more options for the player, and (2) there appears to be more work for the DM. Player options include the abillity to play more races, have higher stats, more hit points, more classes, more spells at a given level, and so on. DM workload comes in the form of larger statblocks for monsters, larger statblocks for NPCs, and greater detail to keep track of in the game. I don't want to get to far into this, but I will say this statement was true until 4e at which point the DMs job became much easier. Monsters no longer have to be built, now they are just picked and run, and encounter design is a formula. It goes without saying, a DM can chose to add complexity to add fun if they wish, but the basic system gives the DM a lot to work with, with out giving a lot of work.
#4 Seeker95 Jul 20, 2011 5:54:18	this statement was true until 4e at which point the DMs job became much easier. Agreed in full. I suspect it is even easier than running a basic game was back in 1978, when I was first introduced to D&D at Camp Crosley. But that comparison might be tinged with nostalgia. I know that in 4e, I can throw a balanced encounter together on the fly. I can convert a 1e/2e/3e module to 4e while we play. This last point is something I could never do in 3e. (It wasn't necessary from 1e to 2e, and I never even tried converting basic to 1e or 2e in my younger days, so it is a comment of limited comparison data.) As DM, I love 4e for its ease. As a player, I love 4e for its class parity. But... I have loved every edition before 4e as well. So no edition war slams from me.
#5 Finarvyn Jul 20, 2011 6:59:30	Also, it's worth pointing out that each successive edition has a couple of side effects: (1) There appear to be more options for the player, and (2) there appears to be more work for the DM. Player options include the abillity to play more races, have higher stats, more hit points, more classes, more spells at a given level, and so on. DM workload comes in the form of larger statblocks for monsters, larger statblocks for NPCs, and greater detail to keep track of in the game. I don't want to get to far into this, but I will say this statement was true until 4e at which point the DMs job became much easier. Monsters no longer have to be built, now they are just picked and run, and encounter design is a formula. It goes without saying, a DM can chose to add complexity to add fun if they wish, but the basic system gives the DM a lot to work with, with out giving a lot of work. Well, I had some problems with running monster encounters but I think that's due to my lack of practice with 4E. Honestly, part of what troubles me in 4E is that I'm used to knowing all of the rules and I get the sense that 4E isn't designed that way. My son plays Warhammer miniatures and I think in my mind I can compare 4E to that -- each person masters one army and no one individual really has to master them all. Seems to me like 4E has this pattern, where there are so many Powers that each player masters his class and doesn't need to know what the other classes can do. As a DM I feel like I should master them all but really I just need to trust that the players are doing their part right. At least, that's the way it feels. Again, it may simply be my inexperience with the rules or my "old guy fuddy-duddyness" setting up a mental block for me. I can't tell which it is. I hear lots of folks tell me how easy 4E is and I continue to struggle with the details. The core seems easy enough, but all those Powers just melt my brain. My players love them, however! I have loved every edition before 4e as well. So no edition war slams from me. Nor I. I have no interest in an edition war, since I own and sometimes play each one of them. I'm just trying to give my impression of each. Of course, I'm biased by the fact that I am a lot more familiar with the older editions so it's no surprise that I find the newer editions harder to play.