For grognards, when was the point of no turning back for DnD?

[laclongquan]

Honestly, the build point allocation is much better because the variety of builds is so much bigger than the usual 18s you get from "normal" roll.
When people can press roll to get better total points, it take all the variety out of it~

 

[Norfleet]

mysteriously rolling multiple 18s in chargen, etc.

Look, unless you can do that in front of the DM, that's just making shit up. Or playing DarkSun.

Certainly it was more of a barebones toolkit to play with though. But you could say that about every aspect of the game other than the weird one off tables for various mechanics.

There's an argument to be said for "less is more". I've noticed this over the years: After a certain point, the more unit customization choices you actually have, the fewer choices you REALLY have, as a vast number of those choices will be relegated to the realm of fake options. The game doesn't actually improve as a result of passing this point, it just becomes inaccessible as the sheer wall of fake option spam overwhelms the real decisions.

 

[Norfleet]

Honestly, the build point allocation is much better because the variety of builds is so much bigger than the usual 18s you get from "normal" roll.
When people can press roll to get better total points, it take all the variety out of it~

Point-buy makes sense in single player, but tends to produce very bland, repetitive characters. Characters become interchangeable units as every character is produced to a factory spec. If you have to roll them in front of an actual DM, you're probably not gonna get a shitpile of 18s. Unless you're really good at dice.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

You can instead rely on Gary Gygax's preferred method, introduced in Unearthed Arcana, in which the player first selects the character's role class and then is allocated a number of dice from 9d6 for the most important attribute for that class down to 3d6 for the least important attribute, with the highest three dice rolls determining the ability score.

 

[Great Deceiver]

Last time I played D&D it was still AD&D 2e, so I guess that's when.

 

[Alex]

You can instead rely on Gary Gygax's preferred method, introduced in Unearthed Arcana, in which the player first selects the character's role class and then is allocated a number of dice from 9d6 for the most important attribute for that class down to 3d6 for the least important attribute, with the highest three dice rolls determining the ability score.

It seems like munchkinism, sure. But you still have 10% chance of rolling a 13 or less on those 9d6; which in 2e at least will give you no important mechanical advantage with physical stats and only some minor ones for mental ones (1 bonus language compared to 10 int, 1 extra level 1 spell for a cleric's wisdom and a +1 to the reaction adjustment for wisdom).

Don't get me wrong, if you want a more "heroic" feel for your game, this sure beats rolling 3d6 in order. But there is still a bit of danger, which is cool. Also, you still have less than 18% of rolling an 18 with that best attribute.

 

[Rocket-Propelled Game]

For me, it all went south when the systems started to treat each character as a special snowflake who can't be killed lest we hurt the player's itty-bitty feelings for the minor inconvenience of having died in a dangerous line of work.

When I DM, I make it a point to let players know that back in the day our characters went through the meat grinder. If you die, I will let you die. I will not fudge things to protect your precious character; because death is the grim reality of fighting armies of monsters and plundering dangerous dungeons. Besides, death is only a temporary setback in D&D and not every death means something. Some deaths are random and meaningless, and that's just life. Get over yourself.

So, I don't know...maybe AD&D 2e is where the cracks started to show?

I think this is just a problem of TTRPGs in general. I love high lethality games like XCOM and Darkest Dungeon, but I also love endlessly tooling out a character like a custom hot rod car. I'm not sure if there's a mutual way to include both design philosophies.

Meat Grinder style sure makes sense for a game like Only War or Deathwatch, though.

 

[ind33d]

For me, it all went south when the systems started to treat each character as a special snowflake who can't be killed lest we hurt the player's itty-bitty feelings for the minor inconvenience of having died in a dangerous line of work.

I love high lethality games like XCOM and Darkest Dungeon, but I also love endlessly tooling out a character like a custom hot rod car. I'm not sure if there's a mutual way to include both design philosophies.

An emphasis on mass combat like Warcraft III or LOTR would work. That way you could have a busted character but still be unable to win an engagement because your hirelings are outnumbered or your forces fail a morale save, stuff like that. The lack of mass combat in newer editions of D&D is really weird considering it is a wargame, allegedly

 

[Tyranicon]

For me, it all went south when the systems started to treat each character as a special snowflake who can't be killed lest we hurt the player's itty-bitty feelings for the minor inconvenience of having died in a dangerous line of work.

I love high lethality games like XCOM and Darkest Dungeon, but I also love endlessly tooling out a character like a custom hot rod car. I'm not sure if there's a mutual way to include both design philosophies.

An emphasis on mass combat like Warcraft III or LOTR would work. That way you could have a busted character but still be unable to win an engagement because your hirelings are outnumbered or your forces fail a morale save, stuff like that. The lack of mass combat in newer editions of D&D is really weird considering it is a wargame, allegedly

Have you played with a pub group recently? Or taken a look at the direction Wizards is going? Seen the artwork or the lore changes?

They're not exactly focused on combat or dungeon crawling anymore.

 

[laclongquan]

Honestly, the build point allocation is much better because the variety of builds is so much bigger than the usual 18s you get from "normal" roll.
When people can press roll to get better total points, it take all the variety out of it~

Point-buy makes sense in single player, but tends to produce very bland, repetitive characters. Characters become interchangeable units as every character is produced to a factory spec. If you have to roll them in front of an actual DM, you're probably not gonna get a shitpile of 18s. Unless you're really good at dice.

Single player is the point~ Table and DM doesnt really matter that much.

When you say DM will police the system, you just ignore the situation (lots) that DM relax the rules for newbies, or girls, or whenever he feel like it~

The trouble with DM is that we cant smash the rule books onto that smug pretentitious face like we can with a computer~

 

[King Crispy]

This is what D&D used to look like:

This is what it looks like now:

Spoiler

 

[ind33d]

Moral relativism makes fantasy impossible. It's actually impressive how disgusting western culture is

 

[Old One]

Moral relativism makes fantasy impossible. It's actually impressive how disgusting western culture is

It's not just moral relativism, it's a belief that all reality is subjective. These people literally believe their fantasies are or can be reality.

If you identify as a dragon, you're a dragon.

So yeah, it obliterates fantasy entirely.

 

[EccentricLecher]

If you identify as a dragon, you're a dragon.

So I can be an immortal Dracolich if I just believe hard enough? Sign me up!

 

[Arrowgrab]

It was not so much a point, rather a slide of no return. The slide began during 2nd ed. AD&D. Not all of 2nd ed. was crap - in fact, there were some really good things in it -, but the rot set in gradually. The TSR Code of Ethics, the Dragonlance adventure modules (and other railroads-by-failed-wannabe-novelists), the poorly conceived character kit grind, the ridiculously overly verbose setting descriptions with little utility in actual play... they were all stages of the decline. Then 3E was the sudden stop at the end of the slide. Crap in a different way than 2nd ed., but crap nevertheless, catering to the sort of players who were kicked out of every gaming group so they went to gripe about it online. Obsession with "balance," the Tyranny of Fun, and the endless supplement grind. Having this many prestige classes means that the designers have no idea how class-based RPGs work.

 

[King Crispy]

this many

I had no idea there were that many prestige classes. Wow.

 

[ind33d]

this many

I had no idea there were that many prestige classes. Wow.

there is nothing wrong with PrCs. if anything, feats existing at all is what's wrong with 3.5. can't even suck a gnome's cock in that game without taking prerequisites

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

It was not so much a point, rather a slide of no return. The slide began during 2nd ed. AD&D. Not all of 2nd ed. was crap - in fact, there were some really good things in it -, but the rot set in gradually. The TSR Code of Ethics, the Dragonlance adventure modules (and other railroads-by-failed-wannabe-novelists), the poorly conceived character kit grind, the ridiculously overly verbose setting descriptions with little utility in actual play... they were all stages of the decline.

The TSR Code of Ethics was first established no later than 1982 (though later versions did expand upon it), Dragonlance began in 1984 as a series of adventure modules with a linked novel trilogy, and the shift towards campaign settings began in 1987. AD&D 2nd edition can be blamed chiefly for shifting experience points from acquiring treasure to accomplishing goals set by the Dungeon Master, as well as the continuation of certain trends already existing in AD&D 1st edition.

 

[Nortar]

1E started it all, legendary.

2E was a bit of a shock, removing key components, but contained some improvements.

3E was even more of a shock and started to bring doubts with it. Munchkinism made its arrival.

3.5E was an improvement over 3.0 and was bolstered by solid implementation into several decent CRPGs, but the damage had already been done.

4E was like a shotgun blast to the temple of anyone still interested in AD&D. Flatline.

5E was offered to the offspring of the now-dead "grognards", lying stone-cold in their graves.

The hell is this, Crispy? Munchkinism was a thing since 1E. I mean, it got turbocharged with 3E, but it's always been a thing.

Munchkinism is an attitude, a personal trait, not a function of game mechanics.
As an analogy - if someone is a lyer, it does not matter what language he's speaking.
Some systems make it is easier, maybe even encourage it, but it's up to the player to give in to the dark side or not.

As for the question, there's nothing worse then 4E. It did kill D&D for me.
I started playing late in AD&D 2E with Player's Options and all the bells and whistles already out, but my personal favourive is still 3.5E though.
5E was an alright, if pretty bare bones, system - 3E got too bloated and trey tried to make it easier and faster to play.
But that was before it got popular with the twitter crowd, now it's all rotten with the modern day agenda.

 

[anvi]

It was too basic and slow to progress. Even games based on D&D were forced to invent new things, and then D&D took those ideas and worked them into later D&D. That's really pathetic and sad.

 

[shaanghai]

I played DnD for the first time a few months ago. Had a few sessions, fifth edition and it seemed fun enough. Whats the quick rundown on why 5th is so disliked?

 

[Tyranicon]

I played DnD for the first time a few months ago. Had a few sessions, fifth edition and it seemed fun enough. Whats the quick rundown on why 5th is so disliked?

5e dumbed down a lot of elements and stripped away the huge array of choices from 3.5 (although I haven't played that in years, so someone better versed can chime in). This however makes it easier to learn and play.

Mechanically, it's very poorly balanced, has a huge amount of weird design choices, lacks flavor and generally does not fix issues from previous editions.

Although, you'll find the reason that most grognards hate it is because of WoTC pandering to a crowd that is not historically fans of RPGs, and twisting everything from mechanics, lore and artwork to suit their new Critical Role audience.

 

[WhiteShark]

To add to the above, it also opened up new design gaps, such as a lack of procedures, that making GMing for it a total mystery if you're new.

 

[VengerSatanis]

3.5's elaborate feat-chains. I probably didn't sense it at the time, but the D&D loving kid in me died a little bit that day. But the OSR and 5e brought be back... though, now I wouldn't bother with 5e. Too many OSR rulesets do D&D so much better than anything WotC has to offer.

VS

 

[Akratus II]

I haven't played anything but 5e so I can't say anything about mechanics, especially in terms of the historical trends. It seems to me however that the only thing that makes or breaks a game/campaign is the group you play with. Even a shitty system, though there surely is a limit, can be fun with the right people.