PDA

View Full Version : What parts do all editions of D&D have in common?



Lokiare
2014-03-17, 06:27 AM
What things, rules, mechanics, fluff, ideas, etc...etc... do all editions of D&D have in common.

The things I can think of are:

Hit Points, AC, Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma.

What else do they all have in common?

Mastikator
2014-03-17, 06:37 AM
The +1 - +5 magic item system
goblins

Khedrac
2014-03-17, 07:39 AM
Classes: Fighter, Cleric (I don't think any of the others are common to all versions, and I am not sure about both of these for the original rules either - "Fighting Man@Arms" anyone?)

Levels, Experience Points (for advancement).

Races: Elf, Halfling, Dwarf (Even though classes in Basic these were also races so can slip in).

Dragons: Gold, Red, White, Blue, Blue, Green.
Other iconic monsters.

A D20 is used to determine if an attack hits.
Other Dice (Varying by weapon type)* determine damage.

Armor making you harder to hit (not blocking damage).

Certain Spells: Fireball, Magic Missile, Shield, Feather Fall etc.

They are all designed for campaigns (note this was not universal, the original Traveller was designed for one-shots).

They all emphasize co-operative play.

The term "Dungeon Master".

*This is a partial, Basic D&D actually started with all weapons doing 1d6, the varying damage dice was an optional rule.

Devils_Advocate
2014-03-17, 07:57 AM
Winged fire-breathing giant reptiles. Subterranean complexes filled with monsters, traps and treasure. ;)

Magic. Fictional lifeforms. Fictional places. Character classes. Levels. Non-human player races. Non-human humanoids who can see better in conditions of low light than humans. Spell-casting. Magic items. Weapons. Armor. Combat. Killing things and taking their stuff.

Some broad types of things have always been present although their forms have greatly changed over time. For example, I think alignment has always been there, but it keeps mutating. 4E got rid of the Vancian magic system, but it certainly still includes PCs and NPCs with magical powers. And so on.

But of course there are many specific instances of categories as well: Fighter, Wizard, and Cleric (even if not by those exact names); dwarves, elves, and halflings as player races; etc.

hamishspence
2014-03-17, 08:05 AM
Thief/Rogue tends to crop up a lot.

Stoneback
2014-03-17, 08:08 AM
Classes? Levels? Friends who have not bathed recently?

Brookshw
2014-03-17, 08:45 AM
The ability to milk my wallet as far as they can.

neonchameleon
2014-03-17, 10:02 AM
1: Larger than life heroes who can be dropped from orbit without a parachute and walk away with little more than cosmetic damage.
2: Pseudo-mediaeval fantasy with little care for realism
3: Magic being controlled and reliable
4: A stratified, class-based take on the world
5: Levels
6: Non-human races
7: Cooperative campaign based play

Ravens_cry
2014-03-17, 10:11 AM
1: Larger than life heroes who can be dropped from orbit without a parachute and walk away with little more than cosmetic damage.
2: Pseudo-mediaeval fantasy with little care for realism
3: Magic being controlled and reliable
4: A stratified, class-based take on the world
5: Levels
6: Non-human races
7: Cooperative campaign based play
That's a setting detail, hardly common to all D&D settings.
Hmm, a d20. All editions use a d20 as one if their primary die.

Devils_Advocate
2014-03-17, 10:26 AM
Thief/Rogue tends to crop up a lot.
An early addition that's been around ever since, perhaps, but not a part of the original game, and thus not in all editions.

Similarly yet contrariwise, Vancian spellcasting was present in every edition but the most recently released. But that's enough to disqualify it.

"All" is an absolute word like that.


That's a setting detail, hardly common to all D&D settings.
But every edition assumes by default a setting of that nature, and has such a setting if it has official settings at all.

Ravens_cry
2014-03-17, 10:32 AM
But every edition assumes by default a setting of that nature, and has such a setting if it has official settings at all.
It has a default setting, yes, so you have something to play. There is plenty of official settings that are nothing like this, and that's not getting into third party and homebrew.

Tengu_temp
2014-03-17, 10:33 AM
The six ability scores.

Armor class and hit points.

A class- and level-based system.

The idea of daily resource expenditure.

No mechanics that encourage roleplaying.

Easily available ways to return back from the dead once you hit certain level.

Fanboys who claim that this one edition of DND is the best and the others suck.

Fanboys who don't realize there are other RPGs than just DND.

Kurald Galain
2014-03-17, 10:50 AM
2: Pseudo-mediaeval fantasy with little care for realism
That is incorrect. The design team of certain editions clearly cared for realism. Whether they were successful in making their mechanics realistic is debatable, but they were trying.



3: Magic being controlled and reliable



No mechanics that encourage roleplaying.
Neither of these are true for 2E.

Tengu_temp
2014-03-17, 10:59 AM
What kind of roleplaying-encouraging mechanics AD&D had, then?

Kurald Galain
2014-03-17, 11:01 AM
What kind of roleplaying-encouraging mechanics AD&D had, then?
It gives additional XP for good roleplaying.

(the notion that all party members must have the same level or the same XP total is not present in 2E)

Tengu_temp
2014-03-17, 11:11 AM
That's just a tiny thing you can do in every game with an experience system, and something not all DMs did. I wouldn't call that a game mechanic.

In comparison, look at games like Burning Wheel, or Fate, or Legend of the Wulin. They have whole systems that encourage people to RP, not just as a carrot to throw them when they impress the DM, but as integral parts of the whole game.

Kurald Galain
2014-03-17, 11:18 AM
That's just a tiny thing you can do in every game with an experience system, and something not all DMs did.
That would be a No True Scotsman fallacy. XP for roleplaying is an explicit and non-optional rule in 2E, and not in later editions. That some DMs might not use a rule doesn't make it any less of a rule.

Rhynn
2014-03-17, 11:29 AM
1: Larger than life heroes who can be dropped from orbit without a parachute and walk away with little more than cosmetic damage.

An OD&D fighting man of 10th level gets 10d6+1 hit points (11-61, average 36). A fall deals 1d6 damage per 1" (that's 10'), as per "Crashes" under Aerial Combat in Volume 3. A fall of 610 feet will certainly kill that 10th-level fighting man, and a fall of 360 feet will certainly kill an average 10th-level fighting man. On average, a fall of 110 feet will kill the average 10th-level Lord.

A BECM 10th-level fighter has (assuming a generous Con of 16) 9d8+20 hit points (29-92, average 60.5), and falling does 16 damage per 10', still with no upper limit. 920 feet is sure to prove lethal, but on average, 180 feet will do.

An AD&D 2E fighter of 10th level (a more impressive achievement, generally, because absent using a well-concealed optional rule, 2E PCs get pitiful XP) has (assuming a generous Con of 16) 9d10+23 hit points (32-113, average 72.5). Falling damage is still 1d6 per 10', but has been capped to 20d6. There's a very good chance that a random 10th-level fighter (a grand hero) will die from a fall of 200+ feet.

Now, granted, at the upper end those are enormous falls (although LEO is 524,934 feet), but 10th level fighters are generally your Rolands, Lancelots, etc.

Devils_Advocate
2014-03-17, 12:08 PM
In addition to Kurald Galain's point, I note that 3E's Circumstance Modifiers encourage players and DMs to look at and deal with situations in terms of description, as there are related bonuses and penalties to be had beyond the official listed ones. And the Bluff skill in particular is fluff-dependent. I think it's fair to say that requiring a player to detail a social interaction counts as "encouraging roleplaying".

There are probably other examples from various editions.


It has a default setting, yes, so you have something to play. There is plenty of official settings that are nothing like this, and that's not getting into third party and homebrew.
Of course, but I don't quite see the relevance. A homebrew setting could lack magic; that wouldn't make magic not a part of the edition of Dungeons & Dragons it was a setting for, would it?

Jay R
2014-03-17, 12:14 PM
The +1 - +5 magic item system

Almost. In original D&D, it was +1 to +3, but mithril got an additional +1, and adamantite got an additional +2, so +5 armor was adamantite with a +3 magic mod.


Classes: Fighter, Cleric (I don't think any of the others are common to all versions, and I am not sure about both of these for the original rules either - "Fighting Man@Arms" anyone?)

If you are making the distinction between Magic-User and Wizard, then you should probably also leave out Fighter, which was Fighting Man in original D&D.


Races: Elf, Halfling, Dwarf (Even though classes in Basic these were also races so can slip in).

Again, how precise do you want to be? Original D&D has hobbits, not halflings.


Certain Spells: Fireball, Magic Missile, Shield, Feather Fall etc.

Feather Fall was not in original D&D.


Thief/Rogue tends to crop up a lot.

But they didn't exist in original D&D. Thieves and Paladins were introduced in the first expansion, Greyhawk.


No mechanics that encourage roleplaying.

First, I agree with your intended meaning almost 100%.

However, the mechanic that a Paladin can fall, and later atone, is a clear rule mechanic that encourages a (very low) level of roleplaying.

Also, I will point out that all versions up through 2E had mechanics that encouraged roleplaying the role of murderous treasure hunter.

Ravens_cry
2014-03-17, 12:21 PM
Of course, but I don't quite see the relevance. A homebrew setting could lack magic; that wouldn't make magic not a part of the edition of Dungeons & Dragons it was a setting for, would it?
Magic is part of the rules, though, yes, it can be removed at a homebrewers pleasure. Setting details like you describe are not. Eberron, Planescape, Spelljammer, and Hollow World are four official settings off the top of my head that deviate sharply from your narrow description, and there is regions of some of the bigger settings like Forgotten Realms that don't fit either.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-03-17, 12:24 PM
In every edition of D&D, though less so in 4e, casters get to play in Scion while Non-Casters are stuck playing LotR.

4e don't really change this, most non-caster builds are nowhere near Beowulf... But it was a step in the right direction.

This is also the core problem of Casters vs. Non-Casters. Casters get "A wizard did it" while Non-Casters don't get "She/he is just that damn good".

The core systems seem to be ok with magic being high fantasy but non-casters have to simulate real life.

Rhynn
2014-03-17, 01:05 PM
Also, I will point out that all versions up through 2E had mechanics that encouraged roleplaying the role of murderous treasure hunter.

Actually, I've found that there's more encouragement to be non-violent treasure hunters... killing a creature with a save-or-die attack can be worth as little as 10-25 XP, and most old modules have something like 4-5 times the amount of combat XP available as treasure XP. The less you fight, the more likely you are to live to reap the benefits of your adventuring.

Unless you're referring to the fact that the mechanics technically incentivize murdering everyone else in your party before you make it back to town, so that you split all the XP and treasure between you and yourself. :smallamused:

Lorsa
2014-03-17, 01:21 PM
Something every edition of D&D has in common that there is someone out there that feels it is the best (and someone who feels it is the worst) edition.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-03-17, 01:27 PM
Not just the d20. As I recall, every edition of D&D has used a number of polyhedral dice. (I want to say that using the d4 through the d20 is present in all editions, but I'm not positive and may very well be wrong there.)

Devils_Advocate
2014-03-17, 01:55 PM
NOBODY expects the rules of Dungeons & Dragons to encourage roleplaying! Our chief example is roleplaying XP. Roleplaying XP and Bluff checks... our two examples are roleplaying XP and Bluff checks. And the Paladin's code of conduct. Our three examples are roleplaying XP, Bluff checks, and the Paladin's code of conduct. Oh, wait, Clerics get codes of conduct, too. Our four... No, amongst our examples are such diverse rules as... let me start over.

AHEM. NOBODY expects the rules of Dungeons & Dragons to encourage roleplaying! Amongst our examples are such diverse rules as roleplaying XP, Bluff checks, the Paladin's code of conduct, and Clerics' codes of conduct. Also alignment - Oh damn!


The core systems seem to be ok with magic being high fantasy but non-casters have to simulate real life.
In 3E at least, non-casters shoot right past real life if they level up enough. The imbalance lies in their doing so linearly while spellcasters do so geometrically.


Magic is part of the rules, though, yes, it can be removed at a homebrewers pleasure. Setting details like you describe are not.
You mean


2: Pseudo-mediaeval fantasy with little care for realism
? That was actually neonchameleon's description, not mine.


Eberron, Planescape, Spelljammer, and Hollow World are four official settings off the top of my head that deviate sharply from your narrow description, and there is regions of some of the bigger settings like Forgotten Realms that don't fit either.
Don't those all still use the same basic equipment, though? Weapons and armor and the like from roughly the medieval period? That stuff is part of the rules too. Ahistorical in many of the particulars, perhaps, but... well, that's what makes it an unrealistic pseudo-medieval setting instead of just a realistic medieval setting!

It seems like a pretty broad description to me is what I'm saying.

Ravens_cry
2014-03-17, 02:05 PM
Don't those all still use the same basic equipment, though? Weapons and armor and the like from roughly the medieval period? That stuff is part of the rules too. Ahistorical in many of the particulars, perhaps, but... well, that's what makes it an unrealistic pseudo-medieval setting instead of just a realistic medieval setting!


You could use D&D to make a world that was uber-magic tech to space opera sci-fi levels with republican modes of government are the norm, but where guns, explosives and rockets don't exist for some reason, whether cultural or practical based on the local laws of physics, and people still use the same weapons listed in the books. Would you call such a world 'pseudo-medieval' just because people still use those kinds of weapons and armour?

Kurald Galain
2014-03-17, 02:10 PM
NOBODY expects the rules of Dungeons & Dragons to encourage roleplaying! Our chief example is roleplaying XP. Roleplaying XP and Bluff checks... our two examples are roleplaying XP and Bluff checks. And the Paladin's code of conduct. Our three examples are roleplaying XP, Bluff checks, and the Paladin's code of conduct. Oh, wait, Clerics get codes of conduct, too. Our four... No, amongst our examples are such diverse rules as... let me start over.

Win! :smallcool:

Tengu_temp
2014-03-17, 02:13 PM
No, seriously. Rules like XP for roleplaying or tiny circumstantial bonuses are such small parts of the overall DND ruleset, no matter what the edition, that they don't make it a game that encourages RP. They make it an RP-neutral game. You wanna see a game that encourages RP, check one of those I mentioned. Hell, even Exalted or Mutants and Masterminds can do, to a lesser extent.

Also:
>alignment system and paladin's code
>encouraging roleplaying and not thinking inside the box and arguments
http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/m/image/1385/37/1385374133974.png

hamishspence
2014-03-17, 02:16 PM
But they didn't exist in original D&D. Thieves and Paladins were introduced in the first expansion, Greyhawk

Did the OP say "core books only"?

If Greyhawk was an expansion to OD&D, but still part of OD&D, and not BECM or 1st ed - then a case could be made that Thieves and Paladins existed in OD&D - just not in the core books.



Similarly yet contrariwise, Vancian spellcasting was present in every edition but the most recently released. But that's enough to disqualify it.

I thought 4E had an element of "Vancian Spellcasting" (but called "daily spell slots").

Rhynn
2014-03-17, 02:36 PM
If Greyhawk was an expansion to OD&D, but still part of OD&D, and not BECM or 1st ed - then a case could be made that Thieves and Paladins existed in OD&D - just not in the core books.

The difference between Original D&D with and without supplements is more akin to AD&D 1E and 2E, or maybe 2E with or without Player's Option - it is, effectively, a whole different game. Most retroclones don't reproduce most things from the supplements, usually just the Thief, and B/X and BECMI D&D pretty much just took the original three volumes and put in thieves, then made the other changes.

Anyway, it seems like a no-brainer to me that if you're talking about things common to all editions of D&D, you should go by the narrow definitions, which pretty much means going with the original 3 volumes.

Legato Endless
2014-03-17, 02:39 PM
In every edition of D&D, though less so in 4e, casters get to play in Scion while Non-Casters are stuck playing LotR.

4e don't really change this, most non-caster builds are nowhere near Beowulf... But it was a step in the right direction.

This is also the core problem of Casters vs. Non-Casters. Casters get "A wizard did it" while Non-Casters don't get "She/he is just that damn good".

The core systems seem to be ok with magic being high fantasy but non-casters have to simulate real life.

I question this, though with the hedge that I haven't played this decade and perhaps things have changed. Martial classes thanks to increased support typically range from solid to excellent. Rangers, fighters and warlords are among the best options within their roles. Wizard is fantastic control, but not all arcane options approach its godliness.

It might be more accurate to say all editions have class imbalance, traps ( seeker, samurai, races with limited lvl advancement), and complexity.

Stoneback
2014-03-17, 03:13 PM
The d10 came later. It's not a Platonic solid and was therefore not produced as an educational toy; and therefore was not available for inclusion originally.

And CHAINMAIL used only the d6. I am not sure whether the three little brown booklets used other dice, but it was originally just a d6.

Fighting Men and Magic Users were original; I think the Cleric was too. Other classes came later as someone said upthread. People played D for two years or more before the advent of the Thief.

Dwarves and Elves were original. Hobbits, I'm not sure.

(BTW in my labyrinth lord game, "halflings" encompass hobbits and river folk. Of course everyone wants to hobbit!)

Devils_Advocate
2014-03-17, 03:31 PM
You could use D&D to make a world that was uber-magic tech to space opera sci-fi levels with republican modes of government are the norm, but where guns, explosives and rockets don't exist for some reason, whether cultural or practical based on the local laws of physics, and people still use the same weapons listed in the books. Would you call such a world 'pseudo-medieval' just because people still use those kinds of weapons and armour?
Aren't there are also prices for horses and stays at inns, given in precious metal coins, and lots of stuff about dungeon exploration and...?

Well, there's a bunch of setting stuff, is what I'm getting at The classes and races, for starters. Of course, a bunch of it really has nothing to do with the Middle Ages at all. But there is a general type of setting supported in the core rules, that the DMG will tell the DM how to run, and pseudo-medievalism is a part of it.


No, seriously. Rules like XP for roleplaying or tiny circumstantial bonuses are such small parts of the overall DND ruleset, no matter what the edition, that they don't make it a game that encourages RP. They make it an RP-neutral game. You wanna see a game that encourages RP, check one of those I mentioned. Hell, even Exalted or Mutants and Masterminds can do, to a lesser extent.
If only you'd gone with the considerably more defensible "Few mechanics that encourage roleplaying". That's subjective enough to be basically impossible to disprove. But no, instead you went with an absolute statement, with all the falsifiability that that entails.


Also:
>alignment system and paladin's code
>encouraging roleplaying and not thinking inside the box and arguments
Doesn't roleplaying mean choosing your character's actions based on how he or she would plausibly behave? It seems to be inherently about thinking inside a particular box.

Not that this makes limiting characters to 9 predefined boxes a good idea, but it seems like you're presenting a false dichotomy.


If Greyhawk was an expansion to OD&D, but still part of OD&D, and not BECM or 1st ed - then a case could be made that Thieves and Paladins existed in OD&D - just not in the core books.
Ah, yes, that's a point. They could indeed be considered part of "0th Edition" on that basis.

Interesting that those classes were introduced at the same time, yet Thief is considered a far more "basic" class. Probably because it serves as the prototype for its own niche, while Paladin doesn't represent the same sort of introduction of a new role in the game.


I thought 4E had an element of "Vancian Spellcasting" (but called "daily spell slots").
Well, every class has daily powers, I think, so it's not particular to spells. There's ritual casting, put I don't think that that uses slots.

hamishspence
2014-03-17, 03:37 PM
What makes 4E wizards different from the other classes- is that they know multiple dailies of the same level (thanks to their spellbook) - but can only prepare one at a time.

So, you could have a wizard who has 2 29th level Dailies written in their spellbook - but can only prepare and cast one of those, in a day.

Rhynn
2014-03-17, 03:43 PM
The d10 came later. It's not a Platonic solid and was therefore not produced as an educational toy; and therefore was not available for inclusion originally.

And CHAINMAIL used only the d6. I am not sure whether the three little brown booklets used other dice, but it was originally just a d6.

Original D&D mostly uses d6s, but also d20 for saves/attacks, and d8 is used at least for sleep spells (2-16 1st level targets can be affected). Can't think of/find a use of d4 off-hand, but it's probably there.


Fighting Men and Magic Users were original; I think the Cleric was too. Other classes came later as someone said upthread. People played D for two years or more before the advent of the Thief.

Dwarves and Elves were original. Hobbits, I'm not sure.

Fighting-Men (Fighters), Magic-Users (Wizards/Mages), and Clerics are all in Volume 1, as are elves, dwarves, and hobbits.

veti
2014-03-17, 05:31 PM
NOBODY expects the rules of Dungeons & Dragons to encourage roleplaying! Our chief example is roleplaying XP. Roleplaying XP and Bluff checks... our two examples are roleplaying XP and Bluff checks. And the Paladin's code of conduct. Our three examples are roleplaying XP, Bluff checks, and the Paladin's code of conduct. Oh, wait, Clerics get codes of conduct, too. Our four... No, amongst our examples are such diverse rules as... let me start over.

I haven't played every edition, but I'm pretty sure Monty Python references have always been required.

Jay R
2014-03-17, 10:17 PM
Did the OP say "core books only"?

If Greyhawk was an expansion to OD&D, but still part of OD&D, and not BECM or 1st ed - then a case could be made that Thieves and Paladins existed in OD&D - just not in the core books.

The version of D&D that everybody played when I started did not have Thieves. They did not exist. There was no idea of supplements or expansions, either. There was just D&D.

Then Greyhawk came out, and introduced Thieves, as well as the idea of supplements.

Ravens_cry
2014-03-17, 10:27 PM
Aren't there are also prices for horses and stays at inns, given in precious metal coins, and lots of stuff about dungeon exploration and...?

Well, there's a bunch of setting stuff, is what I'm getting at The classes and races, for starters. Of course, a bunch of it really has nothing to do with the Middle Ages at all. But there is a general type of setting supported in the core rules, that the DMG will tell the DM how to run, and pseudo-medievalism is a part of it.

Even those rules don't preclude what I described in any way. Heck, what I described would fit pretty well within Spelljammer, a beloved, if not terribly well supported, setting.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-03-17, 10:38 PM
I question this, though with the hedge that I haven't played this decade and perhaps things have changed. Martial classes thanks to increased support typically range from solid to excellent. Rangers, fighters and warlords are among the best options within their roles. Wizard is fantastic control, but not all arcane options approach its godliness.

It might be more accurate to say all editions have class imbalance, traps ( seeker, samurai, races with limited lvl advancement), and complexity.

Being the best within a role has nothing to do with being high or low fantasy.

Non-Casters are still chained by rules simulating real life while casters get to break away from that simulating at level 1.

You can have a low-mid fantasy class that is the best tank, look at the Crusader from 3.5. They are barely (and really not even) mid fantasy and yet they are the only real option in 3.5 to have a tank (cause they are the other reliably sticky class). However they are still bound by rules that govern real life.Anything they do that a real person could never do gets called magic.

Mean while the level 1 wizard casts a spell. He has just broken through that simulation of real life.

A first level wizard in most edition of D&D could curb stomp anyone from LotR while the noncasters are on the same level as the LotR charaters.

Thus casters play scion whereas noncasters play LotR.

Legato Endless
2014-03-17, 11:16 PM
Being the best within a role has nothing to do with being high or low fantasy.

Non-Casters are still chained by rules simulating real life while casters get to break away from that simulating at level 1.

You can have a low-mid fantasy class that is the best tank, look at the Crusader from 3.5. They are barely (and really not even) mid fantasy and yet they are the only real option in 3.5 to have a tank (cause they are the other reliably sticky class). However they are still bound by rules that govern real life.Anything they do that a real person could never do gets called magic.

Mean while the level 1 wizard casts a spell. He has just broken through that simulation of real life.

A first level wizard in most edition of D&D could curb stomp anyone from LotR while the noncasters are on the same level as the LotR charaters.

Thus casters play scion whereas noncasters play LotR.

Oh, I thought you were quoting linear warriors quadratic wizards. Well, a first level wizard is…fairly meh, honestly, but I see where you're pointing. All the howling about the martial classes being "unrealistic" when 4e came out still leaves me a bit dubious on this issue, but given the subjectivity that's probably inevitable. I can certainly see where this is pointing though, and there is a definite lack of that archetype in DnD.

Anlashok
2014-03-17, 11:21 PM
4e don't really change this, most non-caster builds are nowhere near Beowulf... But it was a step in the right direction..

If the fighter variant being the best class in the game at every role (except the one role where there is no fighter variant) is only a "step in the right direction" I don't know what the hell the whole fix would look like.

Kurald Galain
2014-03-18, 02:22 AM
You can have a low-mid fantasy class that is the best tank, look at the Crusader from 3.5.
The notion that you must have a "tank" in the party is from 3E/4E only, though. Also, first-level casters are nowhere near overpowered in any edition of the game.

Rhynn
2014-03-18, 05:27 AM
The notion that you must have a "tank" in the party is from 3E/4E only, though.

Well, technically it's from 90s MUDs that originally took their cues, however indirectly, from D&D. It certainly was an idea present in AD&D groups, and is absolutely a tactical necessity in old D&D, starting at first level, where you need fighters or henchmen to keep the enemies away from the magic-user (in the case that he does not win initiative) so he can cast sleep and win the fight.

Lokiare
2014-03-18, 06:06 AM
That is incorrect. The design team of certain editions clearly cared for realism. Whether they were successful in making their mechanics realistic is debatable, but they were trying.


3: Magic being controlled and reliable

Neither of these are true for 2E.

Actually magic in 2E was very controlled in that a caster memorized a certain number of spells per day and it was reliable in that you knew that there was a pretty good chance that doing anything even remotely risky with it meant almost certain death for the caster and/or the party.

Also 4E had vancian casting in it, if you define vancian casting as preparing daily spells from a list and then casting them and not having them available again until re-prepared.

4E Wizards got to choose 2 daily and utility spells every time they gained a daily or utility spell. They would then choose which to have available during an extended rest. Later 4E Wizard classes actually went full vancian by allowing the caster to memorize a number of encounter spells in daily use slots from a larger list.

neonchameleon
2014-03-18, 07:03 AM
That's a setting detail, hardly common to all D&D settings

Pretty common to most, and all the defaults. It also infects all the ones that supposedly aren't.


That is incorrect. The design team of certain editions clearly cared for realism. Whether they were successful in making their mechanics realistic is debatable, but they were trying.

Versimilitude isn't the same thing as realism. And Monte Cook (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20111220) seems to agree with me.


An OD&D fighting man of 10th level gets 10d6+1 hit points (11-61, average 36).

Point accepted.


NOBODY expects the rules of Dungeons & Dragons to encourage roleplaying! Our chief example is roleplaying XP. Roleplaying XP and Bluff checks... our two examples are roleplaying XP and Bluff checks. And the Paladin's code of conduct. Our three examples are roleplaying XP, Bluff checks, and the Paladin's code of conduct. Oh, wait, Clerics get codes of conduct, too. Our four... No, amongst our examples are such diverse rules as... let me start over.

Bluff is an anti-roleplaying rule. It doesn't even relate to the chance of doing what you want or persuading the enemy to do what you want. It's your chance of lying successfully, creating a hard and fast division between lying and telling the truth that just doesn't exist. And the alignment rules and Paladins' Code Of Conduct make much more boardgame sense than emotional sense.


The notion that you must have a "tank" in the party is from 3E/4E only, though. Also, first-level casters are nowhere near overpowered in any edition of the game.

The notion in oD&D/1e was that you took a platoon of hirelings with you, and opportunity attacks were scary enough that you didn't provoke them. In 2e you tried to Squash The Squishy.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-03-18, 07:09 AM
The notion that you must have a "tank" in the party is from 3E/4E only, though. Also, first-level casters are nowhere near overpowered in any edition of the game.

I was using this as an example. You don't need a tank in 3e or 4e since other types of characters can do things that makes tanks obsolete.


Well, technically it's from 90s MUDs that originally took their cues, however indirectly, from D&D. It certainly was an idea present in AD&D groups, and is absolutely a tactical necessity in old D&D, starting at first level, where you need fighters or henchmen to keep the enemies away from the magic-user (in the case that he does not win initiative) so he can cast sleep and win the fight.

Yeah this though video games have helped push the term tank into our hearts too.


Actually magic in 2E was very controlled in that a caster memorized a certain number of spells per day and it was reliable in that you knew that there was a pretty good chance that doing anything even remotely risky with it meant almost certain death for the caster and/or the party.

Also 4E had vancian casting in it, if you define vancian casting as preparing daily spells from a list and then casting them and not having them available again until re-prepared.

4E Wizards got to choose 2 daily and utility spells every time they gained a daily or utility spell. They would then choose which to have available during an extended rest. Later 4E Wizard classes actually went full vancian by allowing the caster to memorize a number of encounter spells in daily use slots from a larger list.

2e (the game I started with) had the most controlled magic of any D&D game since then. Not only did the things you put hold true but at any time the DM could make a player lose a spell. If the DM described the weather as windy for example would make you lose your spell.

The last 3.P group I played in a guy said he would never touch 4e cause the wizard wasn't a wizard cause of the casting. He whined and said vancian casting is the only way to have a wizard... I laughed right out of my chair when he said he never actually played 4e.

Jay R
2014-03-18, 10:38 AM
The notion that you must have a "tank" in the party is from 3E/4E only, though.

Not true. Back in 1975, we formulated the rule that a 4-person party needed one fighter, and a 6-person party needed two fighters, whose purpose was to keep the melee off the casters so they could keep casting.

Ravens_cry
2014-03-18, 11:02 AM
Pretty common to most, and all the defaults. It also infects all the ones that supposedly aren't.

The defaults are not D&D; Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms are settings in their own right.

Aedilred
2014-03-18, 01:45 PM
The defaults are not D&D; Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms are settings in their own right.
When large portions of a setting come portioned in the rulebook (as Greyhawk did with 3/3.5), and you have to purchase entirely new supplements to get anything else, it's difficult not to take it as the default.

Ravens_cry
2014-03-18, 02:12 PM
When large portions of a setting come portioned in the rulebook (as Greyhawk did with 3/3.5), and you have to purchase entirely new supplements to get anything else, it's difficult not to take it as the default.
I never said it's not the 'default', I am saying it's not D&D. You can play D&D using the SRD, for example, with no setting specific material whatsoever, and still be playing D&D. You can play D&D in other settings, both homebrew and official, that deviate from this formula, and still play D&D.
Western Quasi-Medieval Fantasy is not D&D; it is merely one way, just one way, to play D&D.

Legato Endless
2014-03-18, 02:29 PM
On a more cynical note: Incitation of pedantic arguments among the player base due to hazy rules, and nebulous interaction of said rules by a development team with an occasionally lacking grasp of how their system actually works in practice.

True in 1st, 3rd, and 4th. I don't know about advanced or 2nd, though I have all faith Wizards won't disappoint with 5th.

Ravens_cry
2014-03-18, 02:35 PM
On a more cynical note: Incitation of pedantic arguments among the player base due to hazy rules, and nebulous interaction of said rules by a development team with an occasionally lacking grasp of how their system actually works in practice.

True in 1st, 3rd, and 4th. I don't know about advanced or 2nd, though I have all faith Wizards won't disappoint with 5th.
I have have been gifted a lot of AD&D 1st edition rule books, and there is a metric butt load of hazy rules.

veti
2014-03-18, 03:44 PM
I have have been gifted a lot of AD&D 1st edition rule books, and there is a metric butt load of hazy rules.

Back then, I was pretty sure that was intentional.

As I saw it, Gary Gygax wasn't trying to lay down "rules" that everyone should follow. He was offering a framework, around which others (individual DMs) would build their own worlds with their own rules. Homebrewing wasn't just encouraged, it was positively required for any game that was going to last longer than about one dungeon crawl.

So those "rules" aren't meant to be read and interpreted legalistically, they're more like "well, this is how we do it".

Well, that's how I read it anyway.

Ravens_cry
2014-03-18, 04:06 PM
Actually, from what I heard, Gygax wanted a 'rules for everything and every situation' Tome of Back Breaking for AD&D, but the other designers overruled him.

neonchameleon
2014-03-18, 04:51 PM
Actually, from what I heard, Gygax wanted a 'rules for everything and every situation' Tome of Back Breaking for AD&D, but the other designers overruled him.

I heard it slightly differently. Gygax and co were confused that people wanted rules for more things in D&D. But people kept offering him money to do what he considered the fun part (hence Cyborg Commando and Mythus).

AD&D on the other hand the rules were meant to cover everything so you could take the characters from group to group. Which made it different from D&D - so he didn't have to pay Arneson royalties.

Dimers
2014-03-18, 04:54 PM
What kind of roleplaying-encouraging mechanics AD&D had, then?

The associations given as class features at (relatively) high levels -- a keep for a fighter, a guild for a thief, a couple apprentices for a wizard, et cetera. To interact with the class feature at all is a roleplaying function.


No, seriously. Rules like XP for roleplaying or tiny circumstantial bonuses are such small parts of the overall DND ruleset, no matter what the edition, that they don't make it a game that encourages RP.

Ahhh, but what you said was


No mechanics that encourage roleplaying.

Jay R
2014-03-18, 05:06 PM
Instead of arguing, let's re-phrase so what Tengu Temp meant will be acceptable to all:

"A preponderance of rules that do not encouraging roleplaying"

Everybody agree with that?

Dimers
2014-03-18, 05:24 PM
This is the INTERNET, man! Sense and calm have no place here.

No, I completely agree that the preponderance of rules in every edition I've played have been unrelated to roleplaying.

I'd like to add, though, that another thing common to all editions I've played is "Instructions to DMs that they should encourage roleplaying and make the world come alive in ways that have nothing to do with mechanics".

Thrudd
2014-03-18, 05:54 PM
Instead of arguing, let's re-phrase so what Tengu Temp meant will be acceptable to all:

"A preponderance of rules that do not encouraging roleplaying"

Everybody agree with that?

I disagree with the statement, mainly based on the implied definition of "roleplaying". Roleplaying in the context of tabletop roleplaying games is not limited to adopting a fictional personality and using improvised dramatic acting to play out a cooperative story.
In fact, D&D was the first roleplaying game, and its creators or someone else around that same time might have been the first to use the term, referring to D&D and games like it. The rules of the earliest games did not do much to mechanically reward or penalize improvised acting or connecting with a detailed fictional background, this is true.
However, the entire game was focused on "roleplaying", the game itself is the definition of a roleplaying game. The "role" you play is that of an individual character in a fantasy world, defined by the characters' class, who's goal is defined by the player (but is generally surviving the game and gaining wealth/power). It refers to taking on an individual role in the game, as opposed to controlling an entire army as was the assumption in the fantasy and historical war games which came before.
It was not until some later 1e modules and 2e AD&D that the play style began shifting to assume taking part in a dramatic story plotted out by the game master, with more fully realized fictional personalities and backgrounds for the characters. Other games that developed around the same time took this style and built their games around it. This was when you started hearing things like the above: "D&D isn't REAL roleplaying, it is 'hack and slash'. Our new game is for REAL role players."
The role in a roleplaying game could be a three dimensional personality with a detailed background and "realistic" motives. Or it could be the role of a fighter who's job it is to fight monsters and protect the party, with the motive of surviving as long as possible and getting more powerful, who's personality might just be that of the player. Both are roles which count as "role playing" in a game.

edit: also, 1e AD&D's attempt at mechanically encouraging personality/background roleplaying was via alignment. There is an XP penalty of 15% iirc, for players who deviate from their chosen alignment mid-adventure. Of course, what actions constitute behaving outside of any given alignment is a very subjective call, and no small source of disagreement between players and DM's.

Kurald Galain
2014-03-18, 06:37 PM
"A preponderance of rules that do not encouraging roleplaying"
Yes, but this is the case in every rules-heavy RPG.


I'd like to add, though, that another thing common to all editions I've played is "Instructions to DMs that they should encourage roleplaying and make the world come alive in ways that have nothing to do with mechanics".
Sure. But aside from that, 1E and 2E contain specific mechanics that actually encourage roleplaying (even if they're not a "preponderance"), which have been removed from later editions.

Ravens_cry
2014-03-18, 09:41 PM
Sure. But aside from that, 1E and 2E contain specific mechanics that actually encourage roleplaying (even if they're not a "preponderance"), which have been removed from later editions.
Oh, such as? Since gold and treasure gave you XP back then, options besides combat and/or theft were heavily discouraged.

Kurald Galain
2014-03-19, 03:47 AM
Oh, such as? Since gold and treasure gave you XP back then, options besides combat and/or theft were heavily discouraged.

Look earlier in the thread for examples, we've just discussed this.

Rhynn
2014-03-19, 06:33 AM
As I saw it, Gary Gygax wasn't trying to lay down "rules" that everyone should follow. He was offering a framework, around which others (individual DMs) would build their own worlds with their own rules. Homebrewing wasn't just encouraged, it was positively required for any game that was going to last longer than about one dungeon crawl.

Actually, in the case of AD&D 1E, he explicitly did want everyone to play the game the same way; it was kind of a Jekyll/Hyde thing where he was publicly sort of obnoxious about how you are only playing (A)D&D if you play it exactly as written, etc. The game was sort of a big thing for a while back then, and it sort of makes sense to want people to use the same rules for the sake of conventions, etc. (It was still stupid.)

Original D&D was a completely different deal; it wasn't a complete game, it was more like a kit to help you build and run a game (for people with a lot of specific pre-knowledge, at that).


Oh, such as? Since gold and treasure gave you XP back then, options besides combat and/or theft were heavily discouraged.

Hahaha, what?

Because treasure gives you the vast majority of XP in 1E (not so in 2E; most people apparently ignored the fairly well-hidden optional rule) - something like 80% - combat is generally the worst option. Negotiation and other interaction (roleplay, you know) are far preferrable for dealing with monsters, especially pitting them against each other (a very classic thing to do in The Keep on the Borderlands, which is practically built for this); infiltration and other clever tactics are also a good option. Risking combat with the fairly brutal monsters is frequently not worth it - for instance, snakes, spiders, and other poisonous critters have save-or-die attacks and are worth insignificant chump change XP.

Now, obviously, playing a character who doesn't adventure looking for treasure or gain treasure while adventuring for some other cause isn't going to work out too great, but that's a matter of the game's premise. (Although the heroes in A Gateway to the Savage Frontier, Treasures of the Savage Frontier, Champions of Krynn, Death Knights of Krynn, Dark Queen of Krynn, etc., certainly find their share while going around doing heroic things rather than just looking for loot.)

Socksy
2014-03-19, 06:59 AM
Two things that all editions have?
RAW Munchkins and Anti-Sues/People who would rather their character was interesting rather than actually playable.

Rhynn
2014-03-19, 07:50 AM
Two things that all editions have?
RAW Munchkins and Anti-Sues/People who would rather their character was interesting rather than actually playable.

That's got nothing to do with the game, and I can't even begin to parse "RAW munchkin."

How can you even make an unplayable PC in Original D&D? It's literally impossible. (Bonus: there's no oD&D "RAW," there's only Zuul "here's how the game works at this table.")

Yora
2014-03-19, 08:01 AM
AHEM. NOBODY expects the rules of Dungeons & Dragons to encourage roleplaying! Amongst our examples are such diverse rules as roleplaying XP, Bluff checks, the Paladin's code of conduct, and Clerics' codes of conduct. Also alignment - Oh damn!

"It's not D&D until someone quotes Monty Python"

Ravens_cry
2014-03-19, 10:33 AM
Combat and/or Theft still the best options, as it means you get ALL the treasure and ALL the XP for both defeating/bypassing them and for the treasure.
Since social rules were minimal, your ability to negotiate depending on YOUR ability to negotiate and your DM's preference for that sort of thing.

Aedilred
2014-03-19, 10:38 AM
It's literally impossible. (Bonus: there's no oD&D "RAW," there's only Zuul "here's how the game works at this table.")
Point of order: does claiming that there can't be such a thing as RAW because the RAW don't allow for it count as RAW-munchkinning?

Kurald Galain
2014-03-19, 11:16 AM
Combat and/or Theft still the best options, as it means you get ALL the treasure and ALL the XP for both defeating/bypassing them and for the treasure.
You need to take risk into account. Combat has a slightly larger benefit for a much greater risk; hence theft or negotiation is the better option.


Since social rules were minimal, your ability to negotiate depending on YOUR ability to negotiate and your DM's preference for that sort of thing.
In other words, it encourages roleplaying (which is good because it's, you know, a roleplaying game). Exactly what we're talking about.

Rhynn
2014-03-19, 11:50 AM
Combat and/or Theft still the best options, as it means you get ALL the treasure and ALL the XP for both defeating/bypassing them and for the treasure.

No, seriously, entering into combat with undead and poisonous things is actively bad, because statistically, it's a loss: you're risking e.g. level loss or death for something like 1% of the XP you need to level up.


Since social rules were minimal, your ability to negotiate depending on YOUR ability to negotiate and your DM's preference for that sort of thing.

Your ability to do basically anything depends on your ability to do anything, in old D&D; most of the play is making tactical decisions about how to approach an environment (dungeon or wilderness; possibly politics at higher levels).


In other words, it encourages roleplaying (which is good because it's, you know, a roleplaying game). Exactly what we're talking about.

Yeah, I also have this weird idea that the meat of roleplaying is making decisions for your character and engaging with their imaginary environment with your thoughts, words, and decisions, not using rules and mechanics to do X, Y, or Z.


Point of order: does claiming that there can't be such a thing as RAW because the RAW don't allow for it count as RAW-munchkinning?

You're either trying to be funny or don't understand what the Original D&D is like.

Can you explain what the unambiguous and clear rules are for elven fighting-men/magic-users in oD&D? Or how hit dice/points work, for that matter?

Ravens_cry
2014-03-19, 12:29 PM
No, seriously, entering into combat with undead and poisonous things is actively bad, because statistically, it's a loss: you're risking e.g. level loss or death for something like 1% of the XP you need to level up.

Not all undead drained levels. Much poison was a save or die,yes, but, again, these two are only a subset of the foes you encounter, and many of them are not exactly the kind you can negotiate with.

Rhynn
2014-03-19, 01:22 PM
Not all undead drained levels. Much poison was a save or die,yes, but, again, these two are only a subset of the foes you encounter, and many of them are not exactly the kind you can negotiate with.

Irrelevant; all poison was save or die instantly in oD&D; and plenty of other foes are similarly lethal, or just straightforwardly able to kill you. And are you now pretending that I said negotiation was the only other option?

Look, it's simple fact: fighting things is the unoptimal, statistically disadvantageous option. It can be very satisfying for the players, though, and is very straightforward and simple. But in my experience, and the experience of many others, clever players will avoid fighting monsters in the usual way because it's mechanically not a great idea. (I have a hard time believing any group has ever tried to just charge in and fight the giant bees in The Lost City, for instance...)

XP-for-GP rewards avoiding combat and focusing on gettign treasure, especially with treasure-to-monsters ratios like you see in The Village of Hommlet (something like 20,000 vs. 5,000). Even (especially!) at first level, a 10 XP orc is not worth the risk of fighting, nevermind a group of 6-8 of them. (Unless you've got sleep, of course.)

Legato Endless
2014-03-19, 02:14 PM
On that note, sleep is usually one of the best low level spells.

Jay R
2014-03-19, 05:38 PM
Can you explain what the unambiguous and clear rules are for elven fighting-men/magic-users in oD&D? Or how hit dice/points work, for that matter?


Elves: Elves can begin as either Fighting-Men or Magic-Users and freely switch class whenever they choose, from adventure to adventure, but not during the course of a single game. Thus, they gain the benefits of both classes and may use both weaponry and spells. They may use magic armor and still act as Magic-Users. However, they may not progress beyond 4th level Fighting-Man (Hero) nor 8th level Magic-User (Warlock). Elves are more able to note secret and hidden doors. They also gain the advantages noted in the CHAINMAIL rules when fighting certain fantastic creatures. Finally, Elves are able to speak the languages of Orcs, Hobgoblins, and Gnolls in addition to their own (Elvish) and the other usual tongues.

What's ambiguous?

TheOOB
2014-03-20, 03:19 AM
People who say D&D doesn't encourage role play don't know what they're talking about. Everything your character does is role play, from the equipment you buy, to the abilities you select, to the actions you take in combat, and yes to what you say to NPC's. When combat starts RP'ing doesn't go out the window, and having "crunchy" rules heavy ways to resolve situations doesn't make there be less role playing. There is nothing that makes, say World of Darkness more role play focus than D&D, it's more narrative focused yes, but not more role play focused.

Anyways, D&D at it's core has always been an extremely combat heavy system, specifically tactical combat. The majority of your characters abilities resolve around how they are in a fight, and the majority of the rules are designed to give you options and rules for combat. D&D is a role playing war game, which makes sense as it started as a mod for Chainmail.

It's also a very "crunchy" or player empowering system, that is the rules tend to give the players abilities that give them tremendous influence over the outcome of events. The many numerous abilities players have are expected to work as written, and generally not supposed to be overwritten by the GM. If I'm immune from fear, the GM can't say I'm too afraid to act in a situation, if I can turn gaseous with a spell, the GM can't put me in a cage(at least not without suppressing that ability). If I have a +20 to diplomacy and bluff, the DM pretty much has to let me talk my way out of getting arrested by low level guards for a minor crime.

neonchameleon
2014-03-20, 06:00 AM
People who say D&D doesn't encourage role play don't know what they're talking about.

Or have seen games that actively encourage rather than allow and constrain roleplay.


It's also a very "crunchy" or player empowering system, that is the rules tend to give the players abilities that give them tremendous influence over the outcome of events.

If and only if you are a spellcaster who gets to pick at least something about the contents of your spellbook (i.e. 2E onwards). If you aren't, you're SOL. The crunch serves to tell you what you can't do.

To take my favourite example, tightrope walking. Tightrope walking to people who know what they are doing is easy enough that people do tightrope yoga. In 3.X D&D land it's a balance check at DC20 to just walk slowly at half speed across the floor. Slackropes? Sloped or angled so it's DC30. The Cirque Du Soleil in D&D land is absurdly high level even if you want to play a thief-acrobat.

Crunch is not player empowering per se. Often it's the reverse. As it is for the 3.5 Fighter.


The many numerous abilities players have are expected to work as written,

If and only if you are playing WotC D&D. AD&D not so much.


If I'm immune from fear, the GM can't say I'm too afraid to act in a situation,

If the GM is saying you're too afraid to act in a situation, the GM sucks. You do not disempower the players like that. (Now you can say they are terrified and take penalties or additional rolls - but "Too afraid to act" is simply poor GMing.)


if I can turn gaseous with a spell, the GM can't put me in a cage(at least not without suppressing that ability).

This much is true.


If I have a +20 to diplomacy and bluff, the DM pretty much has to let me talk my way out of getting arrested by low level guards for a minor crime.

If I am high enough level to get +20 to diplomacy and bluff low level guards aren't going to do anything to me without my consent anyway. And they probably know it.

TuggyNE
2014-03-20, 07:59 AM
To take my favourite example, tightrope walking. Tightrope walking to people who know what they are doing is easy enough that people do tightrope yoga. In 3.X D&D land it's a balance check at DC20 to just walk slowly at half speed across the floor. Slackropes? Sloped or angled so it's DC30. The Cirque Du Soleil in D&D land is absurdly high level even if you want to play a thief-acrobat.

Point of order: this seems to be based on a misreading of the tables, since "sloped or angled" is only +2; it's "sloped or angled floor" that's a flat DC 10.

DC 22 is achievable at level 1: 16 Dex, 4 ranks, Skill Focus and Acrobatic feats, MW tool, taking 10 for up to DC 24.

There are problems with the 3.x skill system, but this does not seem to be one of them.

Jay R
2014-03-20, 11:30 AM
People who say D&D doesn't encourage role play don't know what they're talking about.

Don't be silly. They know what they're talking about; they just disagree with you.

It is possible to play D&D using a "character" with no name, no idea of background, and making all choices based on rules mechanics alone, and never thinking about anything but rules mechanics. This player can choose a longsword based on its hit probability and damage, never thinking of it as a thin piece of sharp metal held in one hand, just as a way to deliver so many hit points of damage. This kind of player says he has AC 2 (in 2E), not full plate, and never thinks about what wearing armor is like. And the rules do not in any way discourage playing in that fashion, even if they make you say the words "longsword" and "full plate" once during character creation.

That is what they are talking about.


Everything your character does is role play, from the equipment you buy, to the abilities you select, to the actions you take in combat, and yes to what you say to NPC's. When combat starts RP'ing doesn't go out the window, and having "crunchy" rules heavy ways to resolve situations doesn't make there be less role playing.

That's not what they are talking about. The rules do not require the player to think about the role, the equipment, the abilities, or the actions as anything other than number sequences.

"I attack. I roll a 16; does that hit? OK, then I do (rolls again) six points of damage."

Reading the above, is that a medieval warrior attacking an ogre with a longsword, or a superhero using his eye-blast on an armored foe, or a musketeer stabbing a Cardinal's guard with his rapier, or a cartoon mouse hitting a cat's foot with a hammer? If you can't tell, then there was no role-playing.


There is nothing that makes, say World of Darkness more role play focus than D&D, it's more narrative focused yes, but not more role play focused.

Anyways, D&D at it's core has always been an extremely combat heavy system, specifically tactical combat. The majority of your characters abilities resolve around how they are in a fight, and the majority of the rules are designed to give you options and rules for combat. D&D is a role playing war game, which makes sense as it started as a mod for Chainmail.

Agreed. But as they said, there is no mechanic that requires you to look at the role beyond the numbers involved in the action.


It's also a very "crunchy" or player empowering system, that is the rules tend to give the players abilities that give them tremendous influence over the outcome of events. The many numerous abilities players have are expected to work as written, and generally not supposed to be overwritten by the GM.

A. Some versions are crunchy. Original D&D is not.

B. I found original D&D, which did not have all the numerous abilities, to be far more player empowering, because any character could try to walk the tightrope, convince the nobleman, or come up with some new action not listed on the character sheet.


If I'm immune from fear, the GM can't say I'm too afraid to act in a situation, if I can turn gaseous with a spell, the GM can't put me in a cage(at least not without suppressing that ability). If I have a +20 to diplomacy and bluff, the DM pretty much has to let me talk my way out of getting arrested by low level guards for a minor crime.

Right. And saying "I have +20 to diplomacy; I roll to convince the guards to let me go" is substituting rolling a die for roleplaying. Trying to come up with a reason for the guard to let me go is role-playing.

Lokiare
2014-03-20, 04:31 PM
Its seems like some people are confusing what the words role playing means.

Wikipedia says:

Role-playing refers to the changing of one's behaviour to assume a role, either unconsciously to fill a social role, or consciously to act out an adopted role. While the Oxford English Dictionary offers a definition of role-playing as "the changing of one's behaviour to fulfill a social role",[1] in the field of psychology, the term is used more loosely in four senses:

To refer to the playing of roles generally such as in a theatre, or educational setting;
To refer to taking a role of an existing character or person and acting it out with a partner taking someone else's role, often involving different genres of practice;
To refer to a wide range of games including role-playing video game, play-by-mail games and more;
To refer specifically to role-playing games.[2]

Now that's quite a wide category of things.

We should really clarify what we are talking about when we mention role playing. Do you mean character acting? Do you mean limiting yourself to the actions and knowledge available in a game? Do you mean playing a game?

TL;DR: Everyone's right, quite fighting over it.

Endarire
2014-04-05, 12:10 AM
Arguments/debates/disagreements.

VoxRationis
2014-04-07, 08:12 PM
You could use D&D to make a world that was uber-magic tech to space opera sci-fi levels with republican modes of government are the norm, but where guns, explosives and rockets don't exist for some reason, whether cultural or practical based on the local laws of physics, and people still use the same weapons listed in the books. Would you call such a world 'pseudo-medieval' just because people still use those kinds of weapons and armour?

You can do that, but it's not the default assumption. Even 3rd edition, which assumes much higher magic than AD&D, for example, says that most people live in small little villages, makes frequent references to things like "local lords," "castles," etc., and considers republics to be AN option for governments world-building DMs can use out of many. AD&D goes into great lengths to explain things like:
Relative seaworthiness and speeds of different medieval ships;
Armaments of various kinds of historical military units;
The uses and origins of polearms;
Limitations on actions imparted primarily by the setting.
The default assumption of D&D is clearly a pseudo-medieval setting; some editions and campaign settings vary from this in all kinds of ways, which shows that the system can be reasonably versatile, but the default is pseudo-medieval.

Arbane
2014-04-07, 10:06 PM
Shopping. Loooong lists of items to buy and sell.
A strong emphasis on accumulating loot.
Gear-centric character design: What your character owns and uses is a very important part of their abilities.

Jay R
2014-04-08, 04:06 PM
You could use D&D to make a world that was uber-magic tech to space opera sci-fi levels with republican modes of government are the norm, but where guns, explosives and rockets don't exist for some reason, whether cultural or practical based on the local laws of physics, and people still use the same weapons listed in the books. Would you call such a world 'pseudo-medieval' just because people still use those kinds of weapons and armour?

I wouldn't have a reason to call it anything at all. I wouldn't be there. I'd be somewhere else, playing real D&D - in a pseudo-medieval setting.

Devils_Advocate
2014-05-06, 03:51 PM
there is no mechanic that requires you to look at the role beyond the numbers involved in the action.
Except, of course, for those mechanics that require precisely that. ;) But we've already been over this and are now beating a dead horse. Suffice to say that frequently, "fluff" doesn't need to be dealt with as anything other than a signifier of "crunch". That seems like a fairly necessary consequence of having crunch do the heavy lifting when it comes to action resolution.

Would it be fair to say that every edition of D&D allows for a wide variety of playstyles, some of which are profoundly at odds with each other?


That's got nothing to do with the game
Players have nothing to do with the game? What?


I can't even begin to parse "RAW munchkin."
Is "powergaming rules lawyer" more clear? I think it's supposed to mean the sort of player who tries to exploit the rules to make an overpowered character. Compare and contrast to pedantic rules lawyering, nitpicking for the sake of "correctness". Of course, one may be a pedantic powergaming rules lawyer. Pedantic powergaming rules lawyers are often known as "optimizers", or at least that's my understanding.

Socksy seems to be saying that every edition has had players who powergame too much for her taste and also players that don't powergame enough for her taste.

I would hazard a guess that every edition has also had players who desire a surprisingly specific level of powergaming, roleplaying, adherence to the written rules, DM fiat, player agency, combat, treasure, pseudo-medievalism, magic, and/or etc.; and that every edition has had players who disdain some to all playstyles other than their preferred playstyles as badwrongfun.


The design team of certain editions clearly cared for realism.
Well, "little care" isn't the same as "no care", and is a bit subjective. Nevertheless, what do you think makes that clear?


Neither of these are true for 2E.
I think you may be misinterpreting "controlled and reliable" to mean "having no potential for failure or backfire" rather than "something a human being can know how to invoke on a regular basis". Spellcasting clearly makes magic the latter. Contrast this to spontaneous supernatural phenomena that occur independent of any direction from the characters in a story.


What makes 4E wizards different from the other classes- is that they know multiple dailies of the same level (thanks to their spellbook) - but can only prepare one at a time.

So, you could have a wizard who has 2 29th level Dailies written in their spellbook - but can only prepare and cast one of those, in a day.
Ah, interesting; I didn't know enough of 4E to be aware of that. Tsk, my ignorance of editions past and present is really coming out in this thread, it seems.

Well, in that case, I guess that every edition has included the concept of spell preparation in some form! And specifically wizards using spellbooks to prepare their spells, too. (Unless I have made yet another mistake here...)


I haven't played every edition, but I'm pretty sure Monty Python references have always been required.
"All right, but apart from providing an introduction to the concept, the overall framework, explanations, guidelines, advice, settings, adventure modules, NPCs, and game mechanics, what has Dungeons & Dragons ever done for roleplaying?"
"... Brought enthusiasts of the activity together?"
"Oh, SHUT UP!"


The version of D&D that everybody played when I started did not have Thieves. They did not exist. There was no idea of supplements or expansions, either. There was just D&D.

Then Greyhawk came out, and introduced Thieves, as well as the idea of supplements.
The relevant question seems to be "What is an edition?" If an edition consists of both core rules and the supplements for those rules, then it seems to me that the original boxed set plus supplements could be considered an edition, though I would hesitate to call anything but the boxed set itself "OD&D". Hence my use of "0th Edition".

Alternately, one could make the case that nothing prior to the Basic and Advanced lines was an edition per se.


Anyway, it seems like a no-brainer to me that if you're talking about things common to all editions of D&D, you should go by the narrow definitions, which pretty much means going with the original 3 volumes.
I think that it provides more comprehensive information to just give a separate answer for each definition where applicable.


Even those rules don't preclude what I described in any way.
Indeed, the numerous medieval and/or medievalish elements of D&D don't prevent the inclusion of other elements not of that nature. I'm pretty sure no one was suggesting that they do.


I never said it's not the 'default', I am saying it's not D&D.
Of course, the part is not the whole. But various setting elements are parts of D&D, like e.g. alignment is part of D&D.


You can play D&D using the SRD, for example, with no setting specific material whatsoever, and still be playing D&D.
OK, let's use the SRD as an example. It includes

- various melee weapons
- bows and crossbows
- leather and metal armors
- writing materials
- flint and steel
- oil-burning lamps
- a water clock that keeps roughly accurate time for a cost of 1,000 gold pieces(!)
- mounts and related gear
- a skill for riding animals
- prices in cp, sp, and gp
- rules for damaging paper, cloth, rope, glass, ice, leather, wood, stone, and steel
- catapults and ballistas
- city walls
- outfits explicitly designed to impress nobles
- no firearms
- no cameras
- no electronics
- no skill for using computers
- no automobiles or airplanes
- no skill for driving cars
- no paper money
- no rules for damaging aluminum or plastic
- spellcasting
- explicitly magic-requiring "alchemy" rather than chemistry
- magic items and substances
- special otherworldly materials
- many otherworldly, often magical creatures
- the Material, Transitive, and Inner Planes
- fairly detailed descriptions of the sorts of dungeons, wilderness environments, and cities that the player characters might encounter
- the sorts of things found within such locales
- I could try to be even more thorough but I don't want to spend all day on this.

Obviously the sorts of things that the rules detail are the sorts of things expected to be included in a game of D&D, or there'd be no sense in detailing those particular things. And as one reads through the material, a general sense of the sort of setting these rules are for begins to emerge (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?308000-D-amp-D-5th-Edition-XIV-Hippy-Druid-Love-baby!/page16&p=16238582#post16238582). For one thing, it's a realm unknown to us, strange and unfamiliar in many ways, and yet familiar in others. In particular, it's a fusion of

- stuff from myth and ancient philosophy
- just totally wild 'n' crazy made-up innovations
- real stuff from, as a rule, roughly the medieval era.

The level of real-world technology actually seems fairly specific. There's notably a minimum involved, as well as a maximum. You can't even have the Wizard class in world where literacy doesn't exist. There's metal working, obviously. On the other hand, the lack of later forms of technology is implied by their exclusion. It would be silly to have cell phones in a game of Dungeons & Dragons. Literal magic cell phones might be passable, and magic items that served the same function as cell phones would be reasonable.

After all, why specify "magic tech" if not for an understanding that simply copy-pasting post-Renaissance items into D&D is disallowed, however unofficially and implicitly? And if the material in the SRD isn't part of any particular setting, then doesn't that mean that that material is part of D&D? Of course, that's just one edition, but every edition has had plenty of medieval and fantastic stuff, I'm pretty sure.

I don't see why you'd even think "Pseudo-mediaeval fantasy with little care for realism" is a "narrow description". I'm not seeing how it excludes Eberron, for example. It's got feuding kingdoms, it's got plenty of magic, it's got levels and hit points. (And now introducing: action points!) It seems like a pretty broad description to me, is what I'm saying.


You can play D&D in other settings, both homebrew and official, that deviate from this formula, and still play D&D.
Western Quasi-Medieval Fantasy is not D&D; it is merely one way, just one way, to play D&D.
Well, in order for a name to have any meaning, it does have to... well, mean something. Using the title "Dungeons & Dragons" is advertising that certain essentials will be included (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/01/13); hopefully you can agree on that.

You know, I contrasted the SRD with the d20 Modern SRD while making that list above. Would you consider d20 Modern to be "D&D"? What about Urban Arcana in particular? I mean, that uses a modified version of D&D rules and D&D monsters and magic, and deviates from the standard formula mainly in that it's not a traditional quasi-medieval non-Earth setting. Yet it wasn't released as "Dungeons & Dragons", was it? Possibly because if you rip out half of the type of setting that a ruleset is for, then it's not a ruleset for the same RPG anymore, even if the ruleset iteself hasn't been changed all that much? Like, it seem like WotC might kind of disagree with you here.