Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2021 11:12:32 GMT -6
Of course, if we took that to the extreme, we might even be able to call OD&D as much as 4 or 5 years, since I believe the Greyhawk supplement was still in print until '78 or '79. Didn't they remarket the white box as some sort of "special collector's edition" for a while to sell all the back stock? I'm also pretty sure Holmes was still being sold alongside the next generation of Basic set as well. TSR just did business bafflingly different from later publishers. It's no wonder people mixed and matched so much. Without context or understanding of the product's history, a person simply sees something labeled "Dungeons & Dragons" on a shelf and assumes anything similarly labeled goes with it. I kind of partially fell into that same trap during a very brief glance I made toward the game during the 3e days. I remembered a black box with a knight and a dragon on it when I was a kid, and that's the way the 3e starter set was put together. Both were simply labeled "Dungeons & Dragons" with no indication they weren't the exact same game. I'm sure they did that on purpose, the same as repurposing the Mentzer cover for a 4e product later.
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 12, 2021 13:27:02 GMT -6
Of course, if we took that to the extreme, we might even be able to call OD&D as much as 4 or 5 years, since I believe the Greyhawk supplement was still in print until '78 or '79. Didn't they remarket the white box as some sort of "special collector's edition" for a while to sell all the back stock? I'm also pretty sure Holmes was still being sold alongside the next generation of Basic set as well. TSR just did business bafflingly different from later publishers. It's no wonder people mixed and matched so much. Without context or understanding of the product's history, a person simply sees something labeled "Dungeons & Dragons" on a shelf and assumes anything similarly labeled goes with it. I kind of partially fell into that same trap during a very brief glance I made toward the game during the 3e days. I remembered a black box with a knight and a dragon on it when I was a kid, and that's the way the 3e starter set was put together. Both were simply labeled "Dungeons & Dragons" with no indication they weren't the exact same game. I'm sure they did that on purpose, the same as repurposing the Mentzer cover for a 4e product later. TSR had no strategy. It was the most incompetent batch of amateurs who lucked out with a runaway hit product. They had no idea what they were doing and as far as I can tell were a bunch of buffoons. Not to say they didn't have some brilliant designers and writers in their employ. And Gygax had a fantastic imagination (or at least a vast library of great Swords & Sorcery and historical literature in his head). But their business...what a mess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2021 13:59:31 GMT -6
Actually been thinking of something 5e does that I enjoy. It didn't originate in 5e but it's prominent there. A Cleric of a thunder deity - let's say Thor since he appears in an actual OD&D booklet and is specifically mentioned in the 5e PHB as an option for Clerical devotion - can channel certain Magic-User spells that relate to Thor's domain in addition to the stock Cleric spells. "Lightning Bolt" and "Thunder Wave" to name two. I wanna say this goes back to AD&D as an extended player option for priestly types in addition to special weapon allowances. (Bows for Clerics of Artemis, etc) I see absolutely no reason to disallow this in OD&D, in worlds with defined pantheons.
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 12, 2021 16:43:15 GMT -6
TSR had no strategy. It was the most incompetent batch of amateurs who lucked out with a runaway hit product. They had no idea what they were doing and as far as I can tell were a bunch of buffoons. Not to say they didn't have some brilliant designers and writers in their employ. And Gygax had a fantastic imagination (or at least a vast library of great Swords & Sorcery and historical literature in his head). But their business...what a mess. Woke up today and reread what I posted. Man, who pissed in my Wheaties? While somewhat accurate this is much harsher than I meant it to sound. Of course I have a huge fondness and nostalgia for TSR. Their products shaped my childhood, invigorated my imagination, and led to a career as an artist in video games and tabletop games. And most of my free hobby time is spent making homages to their games.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2021 18:14:21 GMT -6
TSR had no strategy. It was the most incompetent batch of amateurs who lucked out with a runaway hit product. They had no idea what they were doing and as far as I can tell were a bunch of buffoons. Not to say they didn't have some brilliant designers and writers in their employ. And Gygax had a fantastic imagination (or at least a vast library of great Swords & Sorcery and historical literature in his head). But their business...what a mess. Woke up today and reread what I posted. Man, who pissed in my Wheaties? While somewhat accurate this is much harsher than I meant it to sound. Of course I have a huge fondness and nostalgia for TSR. Their products shaped my childhood, invigorated my imagination, and led to a career as an artist in video games and tabletop games. And most of my free hobby time is spent making homages to their games. Well...in other words, you're right, but you were wrong. Or maybe that meme from Falcon and Winter Soldier. "He's out of line, but he's right."
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 12, 2021 21:11:24 GMT -6
I should add that I also thought erring on the side of adding a potential "extra" year to the accounting was appropriate since, in my experience, previous edition product was still easy to find at retail for quite some time after the printing presses went silent and the next edition was announced. Of course, if we took that to the extreme, we might even be able to call OD&D as much as 4 or 5 years, since I believe the Greyhawk supplement was still in print until '78 or '79. I wasn't that committed, though, so rather than try to track down printing dates for all the individual books, I settled on using the publication date of the final new release for each edition, and then counting years the way that I did where it's basically automatically rounded upward. According to acaeum, the OD&D OCE (6th-7th print) boxed sets continued to be printed until the end of 1979. The OD&D supplements were also printed until November 1979. Then, as you say, the last stocks would have been on store shelves through 1980. So... OD&D's total print run was something like 1974 thru 1979.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 12, 2021 22:02:54 GMT -6
That's true, but I think it misses the part about how 5e entirely lacks a suggested procedure for Reactions and Morale for said Orcs. Page 273 of the 5e DMG The section is around 5 paragraphs and covers the basics of morale. As for reactions there are no formal rules beyond what there for Persuasion and Intimidation ability checks.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 12, 2021 22:14:10 GMT -6
I should add that I also thought erring on the side of adding a potential "extra" year to the accounting was appropriate since, in my experience, previous edition product was still easy to find at retail for quite some time after the printing presses went silent and the next edition was announced. Of course, if we took that to the extreme, we might even be able to call OD&D as much as 4 or 5 years, since I believe the Greyhawk supplement was still in print until '78 or '79. I wasn't that committed, though, so rather than try to track down printing dates for all the individual books, I settled on using the publication date of the final new release for each edition, and then counting years the way that I did where it's basically automatically rounded upward. According to acaeum, the OD&D OCE (6th-7th print) boxed sets continued to be printed until the end of 1979. The OD&D supplements were also printed until November 1979. Then, as you say, the last stocks would have been on store shelves through 1980. So... OD&D's total print run was something like 1974 thru 1979. TSR was still hawking the Collector's Editions in the Gateway to Adventure catalogs circa 1981. There's a the whole page for them (OCE and supplements). They were still selling supplements in the 1988 catalog, but not the boxed set. I'd need to check further to see when exactly between those they stopped offering the OCE set in the catalog. Personally, I bought a new OCE set off a game store shelf in the later part of the '80s.
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Aug 13, 2021 1:48:31 GMT -6
According to acaeum, the OD&D OCE (6th-7th print) boxed sets continued to be printed until the end of 1979. The OD&D supplements were also printed until November 1979. Then, as you say, the last stocks would have been on store shelves through 1980. So... OD&D's total print run was something like 1974 thru 1979. TSR was still hawking the Collector's Editions in the Gateway to Adventure catalogs circa 1981. There's a the whole page for them (OCE and supplements). They were still selling supplements in the 1988 catalog, but not the boxed set. I'd need to check further to see when exactly between those they stopped offering the OCE set in the catalog. Personally, I bought a new OCE set off a game store shelf in the later part of the '80s. And now with PDF sales, nothing ever leaves the catalog. Trying to go down that rabbit hole just makes selecting a cutoff date impossibly arbitrary, hence my choice of "release date of last new product/supplement" as the end of each edition.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2021 5:33:33 GMT -6
That's true, but I think it misses the part about how 5e entirely lacks a suggested procedure for Reactions and Morale for said Orcs. Page 273 of the 5e DMG The section is around 5 paragraphs and covers the basics of morale. As for reactions there are no formal rules beyond what there for Persuasion and Intimidation ability checks. In my experience, things that are buried in the DMG are seldom used or referenced. In old school D&D, it's mentioned in sections players might actually read that monsters surrendering or fleeing is an option. In the current PHB, all they read are the many ways they might gain a mechanical advantage, usually in combat. That completely reverses the expectation and supports my initial statement. It's there, but it's not really there. It's not part of the 5e culture of play. It's not a recommended or expected procedure and nobody is using it. Also, it's the lack of Reactions more so than Morale that fundamentally changes the game IMO. Of course you *can* use Persuasion/Intimidation but it's no longer a suggested or expected part of the normal cycle of Encounter initiative. In short, the whole concept of a reaction roll is not part of 5e culture at all. It's considered a forgotten or old school aspect of D&D, but it really was and still ought to be a cornerstone.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Aug 13, 2021 7:21:43 GMT -6
Theoretically, if you actually wanted to play in early 1979, it was still OD&D, since it wasn’t until Gencon that year that the AD&D1e DMG was released…but that’s quibbling.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 13, 2021 7:37:26 GMT -6
Theoretically, if you actually wanted to play in early 1979, it was still OD&D, since it wasn’t until Gencon that year that the AD&D1e DMG was released…but that’s quibbling. That's true, although Dragon #22 in Feb 1979 had a DMG preview that included the Attack Matrices. I've heard a fair number of stories of folks using this to run "AD&D" prior to getting a hold of the DMG.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 13, 2021 8:11:40 GMT -6
[In my experience, things that are buried in the DMG are seldom used or referenced. Your thesis is not supported by several actual play videos where 5e is played. For example Critical Role. There is a lot of fighting and there are a lot of non-violent encounters as well. My experience in refereeing 5e in game stores and conventions versus OD&D in the same setting is that it all about the what the players is interested in doing (or not). And what the referee does in response. It has little to do with the specifics of the mechanics. Assuming that rules govern how players and referee play out a campaign is a fallacy. Instead the rules are used to back up what referee and players want to do already. If the rules doesn't do that they they are not used. Case in point, D&D 4th edition. Sure players and referees circa 2010 love playing out combat. But that not all they want to do and not at the expense of all the other things you could do. Fourth edition outside of combat was about as lite as OD&D as to what you could do. And it exception based design made it difficult to tweak. Individual element were easy to make but to make something different you had to come up with dozens of new element even it is just a new option for an existing class. So players grew tired of 4e' one note wonder of fantasy superheroes 24/7. As a result D&D 4e didn't have any legs and was eclipsed in popularity by Pathfinder. D&D 5e avoided that by making sure that players had plenty of options for non-combat roleplaying. As for specific mechanics. D&D 5e doesn't handle social encounters in the same way as OD&D. As far as mechanics goes they both have Morale and NPC Loyalty. Instead of a reaction table modified by Charisma, 5e has Charisma Ability check and a task resolution system. Both are equally good ways of doing the same thing. Determining how a group of NPCs interact with the players. Furthermore the 5e DMG and PHB devote sections to giving advice about the possibilities one can do as one's character both combat wise and non-combat wise. Mostly in the context of adventuring. Last I don't appreciate the comment about it being buried in the 5e DMG. I was addressing the claim that D&D 5e didn't have any mechanic about morale. It not hard to find and it in a section of the DMG that all about various mechanics the referee can use during an adventure and not the advice section. I.e. the part of the DMG devoted to crunch not fluff. And yes 5e doesn't have reaction table it has equivalents that a long history in the hobby starting with Traveller and Runequest. And on further reading it has a loyalty scale mechanic for NPCs. Wrapping it up.From the late 70s to present day, if I had to bet on how a unknown player would act when they walk up to my table the odds would be in favor of that they are 'shoot first ask question later' type. I seen this from AD&D 1e, Fantasy Hero, GURPS, OD&D/Swords & Wizardry, and 5e is no exception. But that not all players or even the majority. Most fall in between and are willing to talk it out with many things they are encounter. It highly situational. Less likely with orc, ogres, and trolls, more likely with human, elves, and dwarves. As I said above the major exception I found in the four decades I been playing is D&D 4e. It achieved that exception by being difficult to modify in the time one has for a hobby, and by it laser focus on fantasy superheroics 24/7. But if fantasy superheroic was one's thing, then it is a excellent RPG for that. It offered a lot of detail in a way that wasn't complex borrowing heavily from Magic the Gathering approach. Outside of combat 4e was pretty lite but didn't get in your way. For stuff happening outside of combat you would have to run things pretty much like you would in OD&D. As for 5e. Most of it is easily modifiable within the time one has for a hobby. It offer support and details for doing stuff outside and inside of combat but not going overly deep in any one area. It secret sauce is two-fold. It assume players are generally competent through the proficiency system*. It inflated hit points and damage while clamping the range for to-hit rolls which allowed detailed mechanics (Warlock and Fighter-Battlemaster) to exist equally along more straight forward mechanics like Fighter-Champion or Wizard-Evoker. The two in conjunction resulted in a system that I found through actual play that is the most faithful to how OD&D handled relative power between levels and between PCs and monster. I can easily flip my stuff between 5e and my Majestic Fantasy RPG which is based on Swords & Wizardry. Now this doesn't mean that OD&D fans should like 5e. For my part I have a Majestic Fantasy supplement in the works for 5e. But I like my Swords & Wizardry based Majestic Fantasy RPG a lot better. I feel it does what 5e does with a lot less fiddly bits. *I was told that Mearls had a copy of my Majestic Wilderlands supplement and really like the philosophy behind my Ability section.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 13, 2021 8:46:41 GMT -6
Case in point, D&D 4th edition. Sure players and referees circa 2010 love playing out combat. But that not all they want to do and not at the expense of all the other things you could do. Fourth edition outside of combat was about as lite as OD&D as to what you could do. This was a feature, not a bug, and intended by the designers. They didn't feel people needed rules for roleplaying. I agree. That the player base was unable to/unwilling to actually read the books and figure that out is another story. Unfortunately D&D players have been groomed since AD&D to need rules for everything (maybe since Greyhawk). And when they got a game that didn't do that, they just assumed the whole game was about combat. * *To be fair, WOTC screwed the pooch as the intentions for 4E product, and the actual products were not on the same design page due to several internal issues and changes in staff. By the time WOTC got back to providing solid material (Lore, adventures, setting) outside of combat, it was too late.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2021 8:49:52 GMT -6
That's all very fair and well-stated, sir. I suppose I should have added the caveat that it doesn't appear to be the predominant 5e culture I've personally encountered, either online or in person. I tried to game with a diverse group of people from all over the world but I ran into a lot of murder-hoboism in all these instances. Perhaps that was simply poor luck on my part. I agree that 5e can in theory be anything a group wants it to be, but there are an awful lot of mechanics that support 5e as a combat-oriented day, down to a specific suggestion for fights per day in the core book. (Wasn't it something like eight encounters per adventuring day?)
I'd like to give 5e another shake some day. I think I'll purposely run a game on a forum with experienced and mature players. Perhaps here or DF if people were interested in a "Greyhawk flavored" 5e with the free Basic rules only. Should be a fun experiment.
As for Mearls, I wanna say he was one of the driving forces for trying to make 5e more old school than 4e. He's definitely a proponent of AD&D and made a series of twitter posts about how awesome Luke Gygax's Castle Greyhawk game was when he played in it. Of course, it seems his role at Wizards has been diminished after a certain controversy a while back, so it remains to be seen how this affects the future of the game.
I've been meaning to look into your rules variant for a while. I keep getting distracted by other shinies when I spend my monthly self-imposed allowance on books and games.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 13, 2021 9:27:53 GMT -6
This was a feature, not a bug, and intended by the designers. They didn't feel people needed rules for roleplaying. I agree. That the player base was unable to/unwilling to actually read the books and figure that out is another story. Unfortunately D&D players have been groomed since AD&D to need rules for everything (maybe since Greyhawk). And when they got a game that didn't do that, they just assumed the whole game was about combat. * I thought the 4e DMG was the best D&D DMG since Gygax's AD&D 1e DMG. And as you mentioned in your asterisk comment. Wizard screwed the pooch and didn't follow their own advice in the supplemental products. As for players being groomed. My considered opinion is that after reading all the different D&D history book, anecdotes, this forum, etc what made the late 60s and early 70s work as far gaming was how the novices were taught via word of mouth. Due to the relative dearth of published products, being taught by word of mouth was the primary gateway into the hobby. Basically an outsized Founder's Effect But when the industry matured and published product got out there, their reach far outstripped the ability of word of mouth to spread the hobby. For wargaming this wasn't too bad because the trend there was to play out a scenario by it rules which generally focused on emulating reality or in some cases a specific piece of fiction. One could judge fairly whether the mechanics for a WW II German Tiger tank was in the ballpark or not. However for RPGs being more flexible and expansive a set of rules wasn't sufficient. You needed the written equivalent of Dave Arneson or Gary Gygax sitting beside you to get how the rules were meant to be used. Even then, one would quickly realize, especially with Arneson, that rules are being updated or amended to account for different things as the campaign progressed. But this explanation wasn't that detailed in OD&D. So the default reaction to somebody encountering D&D outside of the early 70s gaming community was "Well it game, you play the game by its rules or you are cheating". Thus an important foundation for more rules was sunk into the ground of the new born hobby. And more important the reasoning behind why stuff like hit points, armor class, etc wasn't in OD&D. But that not the sole reason. Another was that on average, a gamer likes to have option, mechanics to fiddle with while playing. You can see this in wargaming even with those based on fiction. Over time Avalon Hill and SPI wargame became ever more complex. The RPG hobby was not immune to this. And gamers are competitive and because D&D didn't have a lot of competition at the time, naturally folks wanted to try their hand at D&D tournament to see who was the best D&D players. If you attempt that then fairness and consistency become paramount in the rules you use. Having run various gaming tournaments especially as fundraiser for my college gaming club, you want to make sure everybody feels they had a fair shot at winning or the next tournament will be a bust. We don't see that as much anymore because there are other games, like Magic the Gathering, First person shooters, that scratch that itch better. Now the focus of organized play on is on the shared experience of hundreds if not thousands players tackling the same adventures in the same setting. And because it organized play, then the rules need to be fair and consistent. Which was one of the major drivers behind D&D 4e design. With D&D 5e they backed off that somewhat and better segregate what is done for organized play and what is done for general sale. To sum it up, the blame is on us the hobbyists. Luckily we have this little thing called the Internet which for all its ills has allowed the old word of mouth culture of game to be reborn and grow. I would say the fanbase an order of magnitude larger thanks to what folks in this forum and elsewhere have time. Because communication is cheap and distribution channel are no longer bound by physical shelves. It doesn't matter what the "mainstream" is doing. Those who are interested in the style of gaming talking about here can effectively support this specific niche in the time one has for a hobby. Not just support but make works to share (or sell) that publishers and fans in the early 70s could only dream of doing. So I consider the glass not just half full but overflowing in this regard.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 13, 2021 9:45:24 GMT -6
Tbut I ran into a lot of murder-hoboism in all these instances. Perhaps that was simply poor luck on my part. No it not poor luck. I run into all the time throughout the decades myself. My fix for it is that regardless of the system I use is that insist on first person roleplaying. I don't require one to "act" like a actor, but I expect that act as if they are there in the situation. Long ago I found that many players don't want to be actors but play a version of themselves with the abilities of the character. Maybe with one or two "quirks" to change things up. So to make that work, I experimented and found all that I needed to do is get the player to first person roleplay. I consider first person roleplaying key because it engages the player's social instincts. They are less apt to treat their character as a piece on the gameboard. The first person focus is just enough to make them consider the situation before deciding to act. It still could be a murder fest but now it would be a considered murder fest. I.e. there was a point for why combat happened. The result is the campaign I run flows more naturally. It not predictable by any means but the choices made better sense in hindsight. I agree that 5e can in theory be anything a group wants it to be, but there are an awful lot of mechanics that support 5e as a combat-oriented day, down to a specific suggestion for fights per day in the core book. (Wasn't it something like eight encounters per adventuring day?) In a earlier post I was critical of how OD&D was written, that it didn't explain enough. Well 5e has that as well in some areas. And of those areas is the encounter per day guidelines. I think the 4e DMG did a better job of this of course with 4e wizards ignored their own advice in the follow-up products and rigorously followed it. I think it useful to know how long a full strength party will last at certain level against X foes. But not for adventure design but rather to calibrate the campaign to how I depict my setting. See I dragged my Majestic Wilderlands setting through multiple systems and edition. Key that process is figuring what is an apprentice, journeyman, master, etc. Then I can convert my notes over into the mechanics of the new system and get something that in the same ballpark. The same with adventures, if the chief foe is a master swordsman, I would like to know what is a master swordsman in that system without having to actually playtest. So the mechanics that surround Encounters per Day help with that. But What I don't feel behold to only having X of anything per day. I consider that part advice not rules. And aid not something hard and fast like rolling 1d6 for initiative. I know some treat that material as rules but that represent a failure of the author to explain thing. I know for a fact that the authors of 3e, 4e, and 5e did not hew to encounter building rules. But rather like me used as guideline in creating adventures and campaigns. I'd like to give 5e another shake some day. I think I'll purposely run a game on a forum with experienced and mature players. Perhaps here or DF if people were interested in a "Greyhawk flavored" 5e with the free Basic rules only. Should be a fun experiment. Sure but my strong recommendation to consider anything out of rolling 1d20 for initiative, you get x spells per day, etc style mechanics to be advice only. To be used when useful, ignored when you want to do something different. I've been meaning to look into your rules variant for a while. I keep getting distracted by other shinies when I spend my monthly self-imposed allowance on books and games. PM me, and I will comp you a copy of the PDF. If you find it useful then get the phyiscal book In the meantime there is this which is a free download focused on what players need. www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Majestic%20Fantasy%20Basic%20RPG%20Rev%2010.pdf
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2021 10:06:40 GMT -6
I've grown increasingly fond of 5e rules over the years, but I use them in a very loose way, old-school you could say. Advantage/Disadvantage: one of the best dice mechanics, perhaps ever. It is so satisfying to roll 2 dice and choose the higher for advantage. And dramatic to choose the lower with disadvantage. Conditions: simple and effective mechanic to assign a status to a character like Dazed, Exhausted, Prone, Blinded, etc. I like having these on cards to hand to the player for quick reference. The various Checks; Contests: basically opposed checks, highest roll wins. Passive Checks: as noted above, keeps the game running smoothly. Working Together: adding +1 for each character that helps accomplish a task for things that can be done together, like pushing a boulder. Group Checks: In a situation, the characters who are skilled at a particular task help cover those who aren’t. To make a group attribute check, everyone in the group makes the attribute check. If at least half the group succeeds, the whole group succeeds. It seems to me that I have read that Arneson did (Contests) opposed rolls in Blackmoor pre D&D. I think I read it at havard's site but I am not sure. But none of these things are new in 5E. People were doing all or most of these when I started with AD&D and I would assume that most of these things pre-date that. For instance, Working Together, I don't know any game that did not use that, and some gave more than a +1.
|
|
aramis
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 170
|
Post by aramis on Aug 17, 2021 21:15:55 GMT -6
I counted 3.0 and 3.5 as separate because the books themselves specify "v.3.5" on the cover - at least the core rulebooks, anyway. Also different from the multiple printings of AD&D in that the actual contents of the rulebooks changed, whereas in 1E and 2E only the layout and artwork was changed. Actually, several printings changed various things in the AD&D 1E period. For example, earlier printings lack certain NPC-only multiclass options in the DMG, some tables had an entry change, some errata changes... None of which are called out. I found this out when someone was arguing with me about one of the demi-human clerics; I was using a 6th pring 1E DMG, he was using an earlier print, and there were several in my DMG that weren't in his. And one small edge case rule was not in my copy. And with 2E, there is a well documented but not noted change in later printings: the process for specific weapons vs specific armors was changed for a better wording, but it also changed the way the table reads. There are also a few smaller changes scattered throughout that can really shock a rules-lawyer type. Likewise, nothing on the OD&D boxes note that there is a significant change between pre-6th vs 6th and later: the deletion of the tolkienian names, and a few minor wording changes. Then there's also the issue of low quality control ... my dead tree OD&D (9th printing, I think) lacks the line about all hits doing 1d6, so I was using all hits are single hits. Which turned OD&D from medieval street-level superheroes to serious 4-color... (it's a great variant, BTW.)
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Aug 17, 2021 21:48:45 GMT -6
I counted 3.0 and 3.5 as separate because the books themselves specify "v.3.5" on the cover - at least the core rulebooks, anyway. Also different from the multiple printings of AD&D in that the actual contents of the rulebooks changed, whereas in 1E and 2E only the layout and artwork was changed. Actually, several printings changed various things in the AD&D 1E period. For example, earlier printings lack certain NPC-only multiclass options in the DMG, some tables had an entry change, some errata changes... None of which are called out. I found this out when someone was arguing with me about one of the demi-human clerics; I was using a 6th pring 1E DMG, he was using an earlier print, and there were several in my DMG that weren't in his. And one small edge case rule was not in my copy. And with 2E, there is a well documented but not noted change in later printings: the process for specific weapons vs specific armors was changed for a better wording, but it also changed the way the table reads. There are also a few smaller changes scattered throughout that can really shock a rules-lawyer type. Likewise, nothing on the OD&D boxes note that there is a significant change between pre-6th vs 6th and later: the deletion of the tolkienian names, and a few minor wording changes. Then there's also the issue of low quality control ... my dead tree OD&D (9th printing, I think) lacks the line about all hits doing 1d6, so I was using all hits are single hits. Which turned OD&D from medieval street-level superheroes to serious 4-color... (it's a great variant, BTW.) Every edition of every major RPG has errata. I don't consider fixing errata to qualify as a substantial change to the contents, let alone worthy of calling out as its own edition. Plus, I was specifically addressing a question about how to count the 1983 (1E) and 1995 (2E) printings that had new cover art; by the time those were coming out, pretty much all of the errata for those books had already been addressed over the course of the past 4 to 6 years. So the textual changes between the last printing with the original cover and the first printing with the new cover amounted to little or nothing.
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 17, 2021 22:58:48 GMT -6
Every edition of every major RPG has errata. I don't consider fixing errata to qualify as a substantial change to the contents, let alone worthy of calling out as its own edition. Plus, I was specifically addressing a question about how to count the 1983 (1E) and 1995 (2E) printings that had new cover art; by the time those were coming out, pretty much all of the errata for those books had already been addressed over the course of the past 4 to 6 years. So the textual changes between the last printing with the original cover and the first printing with the new cover amounted to little or nothing. If there is anything I've learned from the gaming community, from middle-schoolers all the way to old grognards I've gamed with at school, conventions, game stores, online, and at work is that to a large number of gamers a change is a change is a change. If you so much as dot an i or cross a t in a different way that practically becomes an incompatible new edition. Much gnashing and grinding of teeth ensues. I've played with the Holmes edition, Moldvay, BECMI, Basic Modules, AD&D modules all together in a sort of edition stew of D&D since I was 12. At times I have a hard time separating them in my head. So I am very comfortable with picking and choosing the mechanics I like, and inventing new ones, to play with.
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 17, 2021 23:01:43 GMT -6
I've grown increasingly fond of 5e rules over the years, but I use them in a very loose way, old-school you could say. Advantage/Disadvantage: one of the best dice mechanics, perhaps ever. It is so satisfying to roll 2 dice and choose the higher for advantage. And dramatic to choose the lower with disadvantage. Conditions: simple and effective mechanic to assign a status to a character like Dazed, Exhausted, Prone, Blinded, etc. I like having these on cards to hand to the player for quick reference. The various Checks; Contests: basically opposed checks, highest roll wins. Passive Checks: as noted above, keeps the game running smoothly. Working Together: adding +1 for each character that helps accomplish a task for things that can be done together, like pushing a boulder. Group Checks: In a situation, the characters who are skilled at a particular task help cover those who aren’t. To make a group attribute check, everyone in the group makes the attribute check. If at least half the group succeeds, the whole group succeeds. It seems to me that I have read that Arneson did (Contests) opposed rolls in Blackmoor pre D&D. I think I read it at havard's site but I am not sure. But none of these things are new in 5E. People were doing all or most of these when I started with AD&D and I would assume that most of these things pre-date that. For instance, Working Together, I don't know any game that did not use that, and some gave more than a +1. I've argued that Column Shifts (as used in FASERIP) and Dice Pools were already in use in Chainmail, albeit in proto-form. So yes, I recognize variations or early forms of these mechanics already existed (except Advantage/Disadvantage that is genuinely new as far as I know). I happen to like how they are worded and clarified in 5e.
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 18, 2021 1:18:07 GMT -6
If there is anything I've learned from the gaming community, from middle-schoolers all the way to old grognards I've gamed with at school, conventions, game stores, online, and at work is that to a large number of gamers a change is a change is a change. If you so much as dot an i or cross a t in a different way that practically becomes an incompatible new edition. Much gnashing and grinding of teeth ensues. I've found this to be particularly true of this batch of players that grew up with Critical Role and 5th edition. You will never find a more wretched hive of Rules Lawyers. You must be cautious. I've made the mistake of posting imperfect monster/character/class ideas on 5e boards before.
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Aug 18, 2021 4:00:00 GMT -6
I think it's a difference in expectations. When I've played 5e, the players have sat down at the table expecting to play that game. When I run older editions, the rules don't matter much. My players come to explore in my world, not for the ruleset.
Likewise, when I hear gamers talking about their experiences, 5e players tend to talk about who their characters are. (I'm an half-elf ancients paladin crusading freedom for freedom for all.) On the other hand, players at my table are much more likely to talk about stupid decisions they've made, unlucky circumstances they've found themselves, or cunning plans they've managed to pull off.
I can't even imagine my players talking about the mechanical capabilities of their characters. I don't even have them roll ability scores. Every fighter is mechanically identical to every other fighter of the same level. Clerics and magic-user spells sometimes talk about their spell preferences, but that's as close as it gets to mechanical considerations when bantering about their characters.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 18, 2021 9:34:29 GMT -6
(except Advantage/Disadvantage that is genuinely new as far as I know). Best or Worst of two was new to D&D proper, but was around before 5E.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2021 12:21:44 GMT -6
(except Advantage/Disadvantage that is genuinely new as far as I know). Best or Worst of two was new to D&D proper, but was around before 5E. A lot of the "great innovations" big name rpgs in general roll out are repackaged ideas yanked from smaller or lesser known rule sets, it seems.
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 18, 2021 18:37:08 GMT -6
Best or Worst of two was new to D&D proper, but was around before 5E. A lot of the "great innovations" big name rpgs in general roll out are repackaged ideas yanked from smaller or lesser known rule sets, it seems. Which game was it in before 5e?
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 18, 2021 19:16:42 GMT -6
A lot of the "great innovations" big name rpgs in general roll out are repackaged ideas yanked from smaller or lesser known rule sets, it seems. Which game was it in before 5e? Off the top of my head for a "D&D" type game-13th Age and Dungeon World both use best of /worst of 2 mechanics in various places. E.g. The 13th Age Barbarians Rage ability is based on "advantage" (and has an even more clever rules twist if both rolls are high enough) The Hero Wars (Glorantha) game by Robin Laws was doing this 20+ years ago.* * this game also had montages and "Skill challenges" long before games like 4E and 13th Age. Robin Laws came up with most anything clever 20+ years ago
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 19, 2021 4:14:35 GMT -6
* this game also had montages and "Skill challenges" long before games like 4E and 13th Age. Robin Laws came up with most anything clever 20+ years ago Robin Laws deserves more credit and recognition than he gets.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 19, 2021 5:35:38 GMT -6
* this game also had montages and "Skill challenges" long before games like 4E and 13th Age. Robin Laws came up with most anything clever 20+ years ago Robin Laws deserves more credit and recognition than he gets. Absolutely. The original HeroWars game was pretty d**ned revolutionary for 2000. Just nobody saw it, or those who did could not understand some key things because it was so poorly edited/butchered by Issaries. Pelgrane's Dying Earth game- way out there in the design space too. And he wrote a healthy chunk of the 3E/4E DMG II volumes. Tweet & Heinsoo are big fans of Robin's works, so it was no wonder they were adding similar elements to 4E and 13th Age.
|
|