Someone tell me if they agree with this... or if this makes no sense at all.
AD&D 1.0 (1977) - a classic, thank you Gary!
AD&D 2.0 (1989) - some improvements in rules
"D&D 2.5" (2006) - Castles & Crusades mixes some 2.0 with some 3.0
D&D 3.0 (2000) - Facelift and "fixes" for 2.0
D&D 3.5 (2003) - Some tweaks to 3.0
"D&D 3.75" (2009) - Pathfinder RPG, modifications to 3.5 rules
D&D 4.0 (2008) - Major rules revision over 3.5
Kinda weird...
You forgot the D&D Skills and Powers stuff in the mid-'90s.
Would you say that was 2.5?
|
You seem to be missing the 'Basic D&D' era that came in the boxes (red, blue, etc. as an example). They were classified as Basic Rules (red cover), Expert Rules (blue), Companion Rules (green, supporting levels 15 through 25), Master Rules (black, supporting levels 26 through 36), and Immortal Rules (gold, supporting Immortals - characters who had transcended levels).
The Original D&D is usually regarded as a separate entity also.
I found a decent wiki page on it-
Editions of D&D.
It has a wealth of info.
Well, I wasn't really trying to track all of D&D as much as I was trying to track the revisions to the "AD&D" rules.
For example, I was teaching my brother-in-law the basics of D&D the other day and one thing I found myself stumbling over was "why do ability scores range between the numbers 3 and 18".
The only thing I could come up with is that it's a hold-over from previous editions of D&D. If you chart the various incarnations of the rules, generally this has remained consistent along with rolling a d20 to attack.
|
Basic D&D--Out of the box and into the role play in under twenty minutes.
AD&D--Out of the book, onto the simple lined paper and into a cliche character in under twenty minutes with some complicated and occassional illogic for the roll-playing but plenty of room for role play. Playing half-elves all the time.
AD&D 2nd--Out of the books, onto the preprinted character sheet in about an hour with even more complicated and frequent illogic to cover more roll-playing, even more cliches, and some pretty heavy scenario information for role play. Playing elves, half-elves, and dwarves all the time.
AD&D Skills and Powers--Out of the books, onto the preprinted character sheet with seven pages of supplemental scratch paper in about two hours with a ton of options to avoid the cliche in roll-playing but no way for a new role player to learn how to play. The beginning of munchkinitis.Playing anything but a human, including a dragon (Council of Wyrms).
D&D 3rd--Out of the books and onto a computerized character sheet in about forty minutes with your human/dwarf fighter, elf/gnome wizard, and half elf rangers disappear completely from play. Logical roll-play and such a temptation to let go of role-playing thanks to prestige classes and a skill system for which every task has a roll associated.
D&D 3.5--Out of the books, into the supplements, then the campaign supplements, then the D20 books, and onto a computerized character sheet in about three hours to map out an epic character build that will stop playing at about level 9. The ranger returns but the half-elf stays lost. Logic works in roll-play, but only so far. DM's are now all bald and hunched from having done way too many monster builds by hand and template. Base classes are good for 2 levels and only until a Player can beat down a DM into letting in something 'cool' from somewhere else.
Pathfinder--Out of the books and onto the sheets in the same way as 3.5, with the benefit that a base class can stay in the game past level 2. A shot at role playing because the system has been around long enough that DMs have evolved to do descriptive roll playing within the D20 system.
D&D 4th--A system where everything before is wiped out and we can all begin again with an empty bookshelf, for the good of WOTC.
My 2 eps. :)
|
I' not really sure as I think that was the idea but it ended up being a dead-end and eventually just disappeared.
Skills and Powers was actually my favorite time for D&D...maximum choices with good effects...though 3.5 is almost as good...
the problem there I think, was thats when WotC was taking over and they wanted to streamline the rules system to make it more compatible for computer games. Skills and Powers had lots of potential...it just was never plumbed to its depths.
For example, I was teaching my brother-in-law the basics of D&D the other day and one thing I found myself stumbling over was "why do ability scores range between the numbers 3 and 18".
A sacred cow perhaps?
For example, I was teaching my brother-in-law the basics of D&D the other day and one thing I found myself stumbling over was "why do ability scores range between the numbers 3 and 18".A sacred cow perhaps?
Cow 3:18 ?
I don't see 4.0 so much as major revisions, but as an entirely different game, rebuilt from the ground up.
AD&D 1.0 (1977) - a classic, thank you Gary!
AD&D 2.0 (1989) - some improvements in rules
"D&D 2.5" (2006) - Castles & Crusades mixes some 2.0 with some 3.0
D&D 3.0 (2000) - Major revision from 2.0
D&D 3.5 (2003) - Some tweaks to 3.0
"D&D 3.75" (2009) - Pathfinder RPG, modifications to 3.5 rules
D&D 4.0 (2008) - Major rules revision over 3.5 or new game depending on opinion
I think what I found really curious is that even now, people are not only going back to EARLY editions of the game, but also revising those editions and creating "new" games.
It's either the staying power of the D&D concept in terms of fantasy roleplaying OR it's that it has become so familiar that people think it better to revise rather than go to new systems entirely.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
It's either the staying power of the D&D concept in terms of fantasy roleplaying OR it's that it has become so familiar that people think it better to revise rather than go to new systems entirely.
I think you're not including the other option of "4E is a new game that many players and DMs simply don't like, and therefore are staying with an older edition with or without modifications." I'm in that group, along with many of the people I game with. I'm always up for new systems, just not the particular new system that is 4E.
It's either the staying power of the D&D concept in terms of fantasy roleplaying OR it's that it has become so familiar that people think it better to revise rather than go to new systems entirely.I think you're not including the other option of "4E is a new game that many players and DMs simply don't like, and therefore are staying with an older edition with or without modifications." I'm in that group, along with many of the people I game with. I'm always up for new systems, just not the particular new system that is 4E.
I think I'm not really explaining my point well. Most of the roleplaying gamers out there that I know started with D&D. Any time they tried a different system, for example Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, something didn't feel right and so they came back to D&D.
Do people stick with the core elements of D&D and keep coming back to various editions of D&D because they make sense or because it's just what we're used to? For me, I don't like 4th not because it's a bad ruleset, but because it doesn't "feel" right and 3.X feels much more like what I felt D&D always should have been.
It's either the staying power of the D&D concept in terms of fantasy roleplaying OR it's that it has become so familiar that people think it better to revise rather than go to new systems entirely.
A curiosity I have been trying to puzzle out for 20 years.
|
Basic D&D--Out of the box and into the role play in under twenty minutes.
AD&D--Out of the book, onto the simple lined paper and into a cliche character in under twenty minutes with some complicated and occassional illogic for the roll-playing but plenty of room for role play. Playing half-elves all the time.
AD&D 2nd--Out of the books, onto the preprinted character sheet in about an hour with even more complicated and frequent illogic to cover more roll-playing, even more cliches, and some pretty heavy scenario information for role play. Playing elves, half-elves, and dwarves all the time.
AD&D Skills and Powers--Out of the books, onto the preprinted character sheet with seven pages of supplemental scratch paper in about two hours with a ton of options to avoid the cliche in roll-playing but no way for a new role player to learn how to play. The beginning of munchkinitis.Playing anything but a human, including a dragon (Council of Wyrms).
D&D 3rd--Out of the books and onto a computerized character sheet in about forty minutes with your human/dwarf fighter, elf/gnome wizard, and half elf rangers disappear completely from play. Logical roll-play and such a temptation to let go of role-playing thanks to prestige classes and a skill system for which every task has a roll associated.
D&D 3.5--Out of the books, into the supplements, then the campaign supplements, then the D20 books, and onto a computerized character sheet in about three hours to map out an epic character build that will stop playing at about level 9. The ranger returns but the half-elf stays lost. Logic works in roll-play, but only so far. DM's are now all bald and hunched from having done way too many monster builds by hand and template. Base classes are good for 2 levels and only until a Player can beat down a DM into letting in something 'cool' from somewhere else.
Pathfinder--Out of the books and onto the sheets in the same way as 3.5, with the benefit that a base class can stay in the game past level 2. A shot at role playing because the system has been around long enough that DMs have evolved to do descriptive roll playing within the D20 system.
D&D 4th--A system where everything before is wiped out and we can all begin again with an empty bookshelf, for the good of WOTC.
My 2 eps. :)
Oh, yeah! I really enjoyed this summary.
And, allow me to highlight one line: "A shot at role playing because the system has been around long enough that DMs have evolved to do descriptive roll playing within the D20 system." I think it is critical that we (believers in/supporters of 3.5/OGL/PRPG) continue to refine our skill at role-playing within the D20 system. Anything truly worth having does not come easy. IMHO when a DM has achieved the "best of" 3.5/OGL/PRPG rules adherence along with superior role-play, then they have arrived, through effort, into an awesome playstyle.
I think it is critical that we (believers in/supporters of 3.5/OGL/PRPG) continue to refine our skill at role-playing within the D20 system. Anything truly worth having does not come easy. IMHO when a DM has achieved the "best of" 3.5/OGL/PRPG rules adherence along with superior role-play, then they have arrived, through effort, into an awesome playstyle.
I think that's the most intelligent point I've ever heard about D&D. If I understand your point, it's about staying with the system for the sake of familiarity with the system, the rules become second nature, and the roleplaying rises as the most challenging part of the game?
For me, I don't like 4th not because it's a bad ruleset, but because it doesn't "feel" right and 3.X feels much more like what I felt D&D always should have been.
This is starting to sound like a potential edition war thread.
For example, I was teaching my brother-in-law the basics of D&D the other day and one thing I found myself stumbling over was "why do ability scores range between the numbers 3 and 18".A sacred cow perhaps?
"Mooooo!"
It sounds to me like Sutekh the Destroyer would like a rules light system.
I think it is critical that we (believers in/supporters of 3.5/OGL/PRPG) continue to refine our skill at role-playing within the D20 system. Anything truly worth having does not come easy. IMHO when a DM has achieved the "best of" 3.5/OGL/PRPG rules adherence along with superior role-play, then they have arrived, through effort, into an awesome playstyle.
I do not follow you, Pax Veritas. Would you please elaborate.
If I understand your point, it's about staying with the system for the sake of familiarity with the system, the rules become second nature, and the roleplaying rises as the most challenging part of the game?
Tevye: “Tradition!”
Veector - yes.
Then why did we go to 3.5? As I recall, there were one or two people who were pretty familiar with 2.0.
|
|
You're all forgetting the original "Chainmail Rules" from 1971. It was a precursor to Dungeons and Dragons, and co-created by Gygax. He even recommended that the Chainmail Rules be used to play D&D.
Veector - yes.Then why did we go to 3.5? As I recall, there were one or two people who were pretty familiar with 2.0.
I think the original version of the D&D rules never had the concept of making a "RPG System" just making a game. By modifying the rules to make it into a true system, you're much more able to compete with Vampire and GURPS. Something I completely agree with.
|
|
If you chart the various incarnations of the rules, generally this has remained consistent along with rolling a d20 to attack.
That will change with 5ed though because no one likes rolling a one so instead it'll be 2d10 and there will be no chance of critical missing. And anyone who still plays 4th ed will be playing a broken system that really isn't as fun as all the cool streamlined things you get with 5th ed, why would you still play 4th? [/sarcastic threadjack]
do people consider C&C 2.5? I thought that 2ed ad&d was considered 2.5?
If I understand your point, it's about staying with the system for the sake of familiarity with the system, the rules become second nature, and the roleplaying rises as the most challenging part of the game?Tevye: “Tradition!”
Hey! Watch where you sling those show tunes!
Tevye: “Tradition!”Hey! Watch where you sling those show tunes!
If the musical fits, wear it.
Hey! Watch where you sling those show tunes!If I understand your point, it's about staying with the system for the sake of familiarity with the system, the rules become second nature, and the roleplaying rises as the most challenging part of the game?Tevye: “Tradition!”
Veector has never seen Fiddler on the Roof. Had to Google the response to find the reference.
Veector has never seen Fiddler on the Roof. Had to Google the response to find the reference.
I apologize for the obscure reference. I must remember my audience.
|
For me, I don't like 4th not because it's a bad ruleset, but because it doesn't "feel" right and 3.X feels much more like what I felt D&D always should have been.This is starting to sound like a potential edition war thread.
Nah, everything he said was clearly stated to be about what he feels and what he likes. Only the most rabid fans of either system are going to get all het up trying to argue whether his preferences are 'right' or 'wrong.' It's not 'right' or 'wrong' to prefer chocolate over strawberry.
If he'd said something like, 'if you prefer strawberry, then, I'm sorry, you're a boring person,' or 'chocolate is for [insert insult here],' then yeah, them could be fighting words.
Naturally, there are those who *want* to be offended, to 'prove' that all supporters of 'the other side' are [insert deluge of insulting names, such as fascist, irrational, deluded, fatbeard, hater, etc, here] and will troll the threads looking for something to go 'ah-ha!' and cry about how they are being oppressed / mistreated in full righteous-indignation-mode, but we strive heroically to avoid the siren's call of responding to them. Both editions are too good to deserve to be tainted by association with those sorts of 'supporters.'
|
|
Court Fool - imho, on moving to 3.5: 3.5 is simply a better coherent system than 2nd edition, however, I don't begrudge those who chose to continue/stay with 2nd (or 1st for that matter). Better, because of its unified structure; the d20 is rolled and high equates to good; as you already know, 3.5/3.0 replaced various odd dice systems with one integrated system, and this system provides a sophisticated (and yes complex) system for representing all things in the multi-verse.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I think I'm not really explaining my point well. Most of the roleplaying gamers out there that I know started with D&D. Any time they tried a different system, for example Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, something didn't feel right and so they came back to D&D.
Do people stick with the core elements of D&D and keep coming back to various editions of D&D because they make sense or because it's just what we're used to? For me, I don't like 4th not because it's a bad ruleset, but because it doesn't "feel" right and 3.X feels much more like what I felt D&D always should have been.
If that's what you're getting at then I think the answer is network externalities, to throw around a technical term. Basiscally, this means that there's often an inherent value in using whatever has the most users. Examples are VHS over Betamax, or now Blue Ray over HDVD, PC vs. Mac (at least in the old days when you needed software to run on your machine and the Mac couldn't emulate). For RPGs, the value of playing D&D for many people is simply that it has the largest player base, by several orders of magnitude, and therefore, if you want to be in a game, any game, then it's a LOT easier to bring together a group that plays D&D, compared to other systems.
There's lots of other great systems out there (many of which have supporters that will tell you why their system of choice is technically superior to D&D), but all of those systems have a much lower number of players, and therefore have a harder time attracting new players, since you need a group to play them, and a group is harder to find for those systems. Back in college, where there was a large group of gamers concentrated on campus compared to the general population, I played in a variety of systems, but once I was out of school I came back to D&D (not that I ever left 100%), because that's the game everyone I met who was a gamer knew and could easily play.
That's the biggest danger I think from 4E splitting the market a lot more than previous editions have, is that it will become harder to find people to play with in your preferred edition.
That's the biggest danger I think from 4E splitting the market a lot more than previous...
I think you're onto something here. When the shift from 2.0 to 3.0 happened, maybe I wasn't listening to the right people, but I didn't hear anyone say that the new system didn't feel like D&D. Even if you don't agree with the changes they made to the system, I feel like the changes they made then reflected a need to compete with other roleplaying systems rather than other games themes.
I see the shift in 4E D&D as an extension of this evolution, only because the competition is no longer tabletop games, but online RPGs.
|
|
I see the shift in 4E D&D as an extension of this evolution, only because the competition is no longer tabletop games, but online RPGs.
my question is, and has been for sometime, Is this the right competition to RPGS? is this where WoTC should be spending their effort in trying to emulate or compete against? It is obvious that they feel it is and I know some players who think that this is a great way to have designed the game. I guess only time will tell if this is a good decision or not. It could end up like Champions/Hero system which had a major overhaul in 2000 and well, it didn't just flop, it belly flopped and then it was sold, cheaply, to a group who actually cared about the game, and now has a bit of a resurgence and what do the "new" champions rules have to do with the old? well 5th edition champions looks and acts almost exactly like 4th and the game that came out in 2000 has nothing left of it. You can't even sell it on e-bay I know I tried.
my question is, and has been for sometime, Is this the right competition to RPGS? is this where WoTC should be spending their effort in trying to emulate or compete against?
I think they feel like old-school guys will always play tabletop in addition to WoW, but new kids (the impressionable 9-12 age group) who don't know tabletop won't even bother trying it because they've already been sucked into WoW.
What's still the same in D&D since v1.0?
- Roll a d20 to attack/save/make a check
- 3-18 ability scores
- Some spells still function relatively the same with the same spell level
Trying to compile this list was actually harder than I thought.
Any others? Maybe this deserves a new thread.
|
|
my question is, and has been for sometime, Is this the right competition to RPGS? is this where WoTC should be spending their effort in trying to emulate or compete against?I think they feel like old-school guys will always play tabletop in addition to WoW, but new kids (the impressionable 9-12 age group) who don't know tabletop won't even bother trying it because they've already been sucked into WoW.
I know there are people who think that table top games are a relic of the past and will gradually die down til they go the way of the buffalo...and this may be their destiny.
I disgree though. Table Top games are no diferent than Table Top Board Games, or cards, or sports, or bowling...or anything else that brings people together. Its more about socialization than anything else...online games dont have that. I think, we as players, have to keep pushing the envelope here and keep introducing younger folks to table top games...to keep them alive.
There will always be a % of people that prefer to get together with friends in person rather than in a virtual world.
At least I really hope so ;)
|
|
In addition to the socialization aspect, over-the-table gaming also has the tactile aspect; actually moving the figurines around and rolling the dice. I always loved rolling all the different kinds of dice. There's nothing like rolling a hand-full of d6s and totaling up the damage and taking out a monster.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Not to be a contrarian, but the historical warfare games that preceded D&D had those traits, and while there are still some people that play such games, that hobby is otherwise all but extinct. Unlike a lot of other hobbies, you need a critical mass of persons to play D&D and if the number of persons playing the game falls below a certain threshold, you won't be able to find players and have a game. Obviously the internet mitigates this somewhat, but the hobby could easily decline and stablize at a number that is well below what it has been during our respective gaming lifetimes. If that number is low enough, you will see fewer companies capable of producing the high quality products that we now enjoy, though again, the internet and pdf publishing does provide a channel for publishing that could keep the industry going at a level its numbers might otherwise not support in an offline only publishing model.
I guess I would just hold off on proclaiming that D&D will always be around. If kids don't pick up the game, the population will shrink and eventually the hobby will die.
|
|
Not to be a contrarian, but the historical warfare games that preceded D&D had those traits, and while there are still some people that play such games, that hobby is otherwise all but extinct.
Nothing contrary to that statement, it is a fact, and it is this reason, among others, that we now have a 4E. The question on my mind isn't should we have a 4E but is this the right direction for it to have gone, and was the timing right for it. Not to mention the whole GSL thing that is best to leave alone, as in not discuss in this thread, for everyones benefit.
|
|
I agree with Dread, the social aspect is key. The tactile aspect is also special. And, whenever two or more humans gather together, something magical occurs in terms of synergy - the parts are greater than the whole. Also, the emulation of the oral tradition of storytelling & theater also makes it unique over video games, and the spontaneous act of reasoning and speaking/interacting without mechanical apparatus to do so, creates a collective intimacy that cannot be felt/touched with video games. Seeing the nonverbal communication is also a majority of the way we relate to one another as humans, moreso than with words.
Yes, tabletop is here to stay. And I argue, virtual tabletop may also have a significant place since the game is played in the minds of players - so in theory with VOIP could carry the verbal signals made by players over the net (though nonverbal will be lacking).
What is disheartening, is the act of hacking the rules every few years for the sake of commerce, and the release of ostensibly the same or worse crap. 4e doesn't further the game. It is disheartening to see a company hit that reset button. As a community, if we hold fast to progressive revisions (PRPG) to 3.5 we can continue to focus on things like story and character development.
To the OP's list, I would add PRPG as the newest version of d&d.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Not to be a contrarian, but the historical warfare games that preceded D&D had those traits, and while there are still some people that play such games, that hobby is otherwise all but extinct.Nothing contrary to that statement, it is a fact, and it is this reason, among others, that we now have a 4E. The question on my mind isn't should we have a 4E but is this the right direction for it to have gone, and was the timing right for it. Not to mention the whole GSL thing that is best to leave alone, as in not discuss in this thread, for everyones benefit.
Ack. I don't even want to begin to have that debate again and did not mean to stir it up. All I wanted to say is that D&D nearly died before and it could die again, and there may well be nothing that anyone can do to stop it. I don't see anything inherent in D&D that will keep it from following the same fate as historical wargames.
|
|
Ack. I don't even want to begin to have that debate again and did not mean to stir it up. All I wanted to say is that D&D nearly died before and it could die again, and there may well be nothing that anyone can do to stop it. I don't see anything inherent in D&D that will keep it from following the same fate as historical wargames.
yes, I am sorry, I did not mean to stir the convo that way either. This is a very nice and cordial thread and I don't want to see it go any other direction.
As a personal Hobby I don't want it to go away, I am not sure how much I want my kids to play though. I have been trying to steer them into other hobbies just because I want them to branch out and have their own "thing." doesn't seem to be working though as my 12 year old has his heart set on a dwarven Wizard. :)
Good thread. As it is right now, D&D 3.5 and/or Pathfinder will be 10 years old when I start to introduce my son to roleplaying games. I really wonder what the landscape will look like at that time.
Will WoW still be around? Will D&D be on version 5.0? Will people switch to table-top roleplaying games as the new "cooler" version of D&D and leave WoW to online grognards?
Just mindless speculation.