Community

I decided to create this thread so we could discuss how the history of D&D has led us to 4e and to the plans for 5e (insofar as they have been revealed.) I hope that by doing this we can better see why WOTC has decided to make 5e a "unification" of the previous editions. I am a former 1e player who has only played 2e and 3.xe as computer games. However, I have spent a lot of time over the past decade going over many of the rulebooks for 3e and 3.5e. (That's why I decided to just stick to the NWN games). I also got a copy of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook from the library and I was intrigued to find out that Pathfinder started as a "homeruled" version of 3.5e made by some of the 3e developers. It's dependence on 3.xe is, of course, common knowledge. I also found out about the "Myth and Monsters" game coming out that is based on 2e. With this specific competition, (To say nothing of WoW and the other popular MMO's!) I think it helps us to appreciate the position WOTC is in right now.

I'm putting this in the mechanics forum since I'm most interested in the history of the mechanics changes in the game (not changes in "flavor text", artwork, format...etc.) and why those changes were made. I've been following a couple of other threads which have recently started discussing this issue and I wanted to create this one to avoid "hijacking" the other threads.
  

 

Most of my experience has also been with the later editions, but I'll do my best.  There have been at least two important trends in rules over the last 4.5 editions that have led to a dramatic change in playstyles.  The first is a move from player-driven mechanics based on player skill (you search a room by describing what you search and how you search it, you fail to mention you searched the right thing and you die) to character-driven mechanics based on character skill (you roll perception, if you fail to do so the DM just uses passive).  The second is a shift towards more customizable characters, with feats and skills and backgrounds and themes and more classes and point buy attributes.  This came hand in hand with more HP, because nobody wants the character they spent hours building to die to a single sword swing in the first room of the dungeon.

The result of this has been a huge shift in playstyles.  1e was designed for dungeon crawls (from my limited experience, anyway).  You would cautiously go from room to room, fully expecting every door to be trapped and every room to be your last.  You didn't bother with story and background and roleplaying, because you weren't likely to make it out alive to finish a story arc or to fully realize the payoff of getting invested in your character.  It was a game of outsmart the DM by learning all his tricks and figuring out how to counter them.  By 4e, you have a completely different game.  Death is no longer on the table, unless the DM wants it to be, and even when it is you're a near-costless resurrection away from continuing the story.  That means its worth the effort coming up with backgrounds for your characters and stories for your games, and most of us do.  Games become story arcs instead of dungeon crawls, where the goal is to save the world not get out with enough loot to hit the next level.  Tactical combat makes it a lot more interesting and timeconsuming, so it ends up swallowing much more of your game time, mostly at the expense of the nitty-gritty of dungeon crawling (mapping, traps, low-level resource management like oil flasks, arrows, and healing).  Customization means player skill is typically rewarded more at character creation than in game, at least outside of tactical combat.  Outsmarting the DM has been replaced by charop.

This huge shift in playstyles has in turn left many of the people who don't like the new playstyle griping in the cold and going back to old editions.  Fracturing the fanbase both means they're selling half as many books as they'd like, and that it's harder to get together a game for everyone because even if you've got five people in the area not all of them want to play the same rules set.  WotC is hoping that by creating a modular rules set, those who want heavily customized characters and tactical combat can sit down at the same table with those who want simplified character creation and player skill in exploration. Put this way, it may in fact be a hopeless endeavor (even aside from the inevitable fact that as much of the 4e hate is humanity's innate conservatism rather than any legitimate inferiorities even from a subjective "preferred play style" standpoint).  Maybe we can all agree that 5e supports our preferred playstyle via modules, but I don't think it's possible to support both a 1e and a 4e playstyle at the same table.  Thinks like character vulnerability cannot be effectively varied across party members (at least within a given party role).  You can't have one player doing quick and dirty combat encounters in ToTM while the guy next to him is doing tactical combat on a grid.  Rather, the only thing 5e can hope to accomplish is to allow those who want 1e with a tad more customization or 4e with a tad less invincibility to construct that system and impose it upon everyone else at their table.

Apr 16, 2012 -- 5:37AM, Emerikol wrote:

@powerroleplayer
I get that a lot of people feel this way.  Did you play 1e?  My groups roleplayed then as more if not more than at any time.  Yes we had a gritty game but gritty isn't death every time unless you are clueless.   

 

Heros who arent really the protagonists die easily... fighting evil is wrong, that was the 1e philosophy... steal the stuff and run away.... or get insulted.

Oh and never name a character before 5th level.... PAC MAN D&D hurrah. 

Apr 16, 2012 -- 5:59PM, Emerikol wrote:

  We also knew that we didn't have anything given to us.   Your caricature of gritty play is sad.   
 

Gygaxian paranoia was sad... poke along with a stick and listen at every door, till the DM throws ear mites  and kills you (to hell with save or die pick the wrong door and die) was so condusive of "fantasy"  I mean slasher horror flicks.  Combine that with a plethora of level drains (A DM I had was obcessive with them thought they were cool) which included some fairly low level enemies ... DMs who used random tables in the DMG instead of imagination or sense? why is this room here... no reason the dice did it. Why are all the rooms locked in this silly complex (it gives the thief a reason to be right? and that was a published adventure even) inhabited by a bunch of nonsensical enemies. I seen people who activelly considered the DMs their enemy. After I got to be DM I couldnt even convince some of them there was any other way to play... it was incredibly us vs them. My DMs were bad at it, but I never assumed intensionally so the game had built in features that promoted a lot of judgemental this is how a superior player behaves... nothing about describing what they did vividly or acting in character. There was a DM who litterally had his  wife playing a Mary Sue god character wizards (I didnt play long with them).

Apr 16, 2012 -- 6:21PM, Garthanos wrote:

Apr 16, 2012 -- 5:59PM, Emerikol wrote:

  We also knew that we didn't have anything given to us.   Your caricature of gritty play is sad.   
 

Gygaxian paranoia was sad... poke along with a stick and listen at every door, till the DM throws ear mites  and kills you (to hell with save or die pick the wrong door and die) was so condusive of "fantasy"  I mean slasher horror flicks.  Combine that with a plethora of level drains (A DM I had was obcessive with them thought they were cool) which included some fairly low level enemies ... DMs who used random tables in the DMG instead of imagination or sense? why is this room here... no reason the dice did it. Why are all the rooms locked in this silly complex (it gives the thief a reason to be right? and that was a published adventure even) inhabited by a bunch of nonsensical enemies. I seen people who activelly considered the DMs their enemy. After I got to be DM I couldnt even convince some of them there was any other way to play... it was incredibly us vs them. My DMs were bad at it, but I never assumed intensionally so the game had built in features that promoted a lot of judgemental this is how a superior player behaves... nothing about describing what they did vividly or acting in character. There was a DM who litterally had his  wife playing a Mary Sue god character wizards (I didnt play long with them).

Again sad you had those experiences.  They weren't everyones.  The game would never have gotten off the ground if all groups were like yours.  I hate that some DMs ruined the game for you and others.

I DM'd my games and while they were challenging and gritty they were not instant kill games.  In a roleplaying game, there are bound to be DMs that are bad or who abuse the system.  That doesn't condemn the game.