Is WotC D&D Really D&D?

[JamesDixon]

I started with AD&D 1E and have fond memories of the work that Gary and company did. I loved AD&D 2E since it was a vast improvement over 1E and Basic. I never got the appeal of D&D Basic, so never played it. The mechanics though were consistent across editions.

When TSR closed I was saddened due to it meaning the death of AD&D 2E. After WotC bought it I had high hopes for the future of the games. That was dashed when D&D 3.x came out. No longer did the DM have freedom to adjudicate, but the entire mechanics didn't resemble the games that came before. So for me, WotC D&D is just in name only. It's a marketing tool as it shares none of what made D&D/AD&D D&D/AD&D. I see that the trend has continued with 4th and 5th editions.

 

[Morblot]

3.0 was the first D&D I ever played, and the 3.5 PHB was the first one I ever bought, so those editions will always have a special place in my heart. I'm just very burnt out of it after playing and running 3.X and Pathfinder 1e games for many many years. Nowadays it's basic D&D or a retroclone for me, especially if I'm to be the DM. 5e isn't to my taste, never tried 4e.

And, as I've written before in some other thread, as much as I admire Gary Gygax for all he's given the world, I don't really see myself ever playing or especially running AD&D 1e. The books are entertaining to read -- IF I'm in the right mood for it -- but my brain just can't decipher all the rules and nuances. I'm still glad to have them on my shelf.

 

[JamesDixon]

And, as I've written before in some other thread, as much as I admire Gary Gygax for all he's given the world, I don't really see myself ever playing or especially running AD&D 1e. The books are entertaining to read -- IF I'm in the right mood for it -- but my brain just can't decipher all the rules and nuances. I'm still glad to have them on my shelf.

I feel the same way when I look at the Basic D&D sets of Gygax, Holmes, Moldvey, and Metzer. I just have problems processing it since I'm going "Elves are a race not a class". Gary was not a very entertaining writer. His style was more of a dry technical slant. However, David "Zeb" Cook made it entertaining and had plenty of examples on how things worked in AD&D 2E. I guess that's why I enjoy 2E so much. It's still Gary infused and the mechanics are very much D&D Basic in how it plays out. I guess 2E was a fuck you to Lorraine Williams for running Gary out of his own company.

However, is WotC D&D really Gary's original vision for the game? Too me it's not. Monte Cook decided to basically invert everything that came before then handed down the If You Don't Have X You Can't Do Y. Prior it was You Can Try To Do It.

 

[Morblot]

Gary was not a very entertaining writer.

Really? I disagree, his style reminds me of Jack Vance for whatever reason. Maybe it's their taste for using obscure words? Both are entertaining but also kind of exhausting at the same time for me.

Never read any 2e book so can't comment on those, and re: Basic and Expert, I only have the Finnish translations of the Mentzer boxes, so dunno what has been lost in translation. Certainly at least the Basic book is a nightmare to use at the table due to horrible organization, but then again, it's Basic, you can just wing it and look it up later.

is WotC D&D really Gary's original vision for the game?

GameSpy: Have you had a chance to play or even look at some of the current Dungeons & Dragons games?

Gygax: I've looked at them, yes, but I'm not really a fan. The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good.

Now, should I tell you what I really think?

http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/538/538820p2.html

 

[JamesDixon]

Gary was not a very entertaining writer.

Really? I disagree, his style reminds me of Jack Vance for whatever reason. Maybe it's their taste for using obscure words? Both are entertaining but also kind of exhausting at the same time for me.

Never read any 2e book so can't comment on those, and re: Basic and Expert, I only have the Finnish translations of the Mentzer boxes, so dunno what has been lost in translation. Certainly at least the Basic book is a nightmare to use at the table due to horrible organization, but then again, it's Basic, you can just wing it and look it up later.

is WotC D&D really Gary's original vision for the game?

GameSpy: Have you had a chance to play or even look at some of the current Dungeons & Dragons games?

Gygax: I've looked at them, yes, but I'm not really a fan. The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good.

Now, should I tell you what I really think?

http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/538/538820p2.html

You can easily get all the past editions online if you look for them.

I never read Vance so I can't comment on his writing style. Gary reminds me of the absent minded tech guy trying to put what he wants into something easily understood.

Well Gary was right, so that means the WotC versions are not D&D proper.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

no
d&d died with TSR

 

[JamesDixon]

no
d&d died with TSR

Rusty you are truly a man of culture.

 

[Alphons]

The real D&D were friends we made along the way.

 

[JarlFrank]

My first pen and paper D&D was 3.5 but I played 2E PC games before that, and I like the setting books of 2E the most. So much creative stuff there, like Planescape and Spelljammer and Ravenloft and Al Qadim.

Then 4e became something completely different from either 3e or 2e, and 5e went halfway back to 3e but changed enough of the core rules to require re-learning as a 3e veteran.

It's like WotC is making new games all the time and just slaps the D&D label on them because that sells better.

 

[mediocrepoet]

These newer editions of D&D can be fun Nd have various merits, but they aren't at all the same game as 1E & 2E where you can actually see the similarities between the editions.
3E and its derivatives can make some interesting build porn stuff, but it focuses on mechanics straitjackets generally due to the skill system, whereas even with all of its tables the TSR editions were far more free form which prompted more experimentation and weird solutions due to your skills generally being undefined even if you used the optional proficiency systems (non-weapon profs specifically).

 

[JamesDixon]

These newer editions of D&D can be fun Nd have various merits, but they aren't at all the same game as 1E & 2E where you can actually see the similarities between the editions.
3E and its derivatives can make some interesting build porn stuff, but it focuses on mechanics straitjackets generally due to the skill system, whereas even with all of its tables the TSR editions were far more free form which prompted more experimentation and weird solutions due to your skills generally being undefined even if you used the optional proficiency systems (non-weapon profs specifically).

In all of the games I've played of D&D 3.x I have no memorable moments. However, I have plenty from AD&D 1E/2E due to the experimentation and the solutions we came up with. The DM was more than happy to roll with the punches and adjudicate our crazy plans. I learned a lot on how to be crafty due to AD&D 2E that I still use it in many games I play in today that lets me. In a FFG Star Wars game I broke the GM and JarlFrank was there playing my character's twin. My character was pure spec ops and did things so unconventional that the GM had a hard time keeping up. The game broke up due JarlFrank and I amassing a huge warfleet with thousands of troops under our command.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Editions of Dungeons & Dragons:

1st: Original D&D, by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, consisting of the three "little brown booklets" sold together starting in 1974. There were three optional rules supplements --- Greyhawk, Blackmoor, and Eldritch Wizardry --- plus Supplement IV: Deities, Demigods, and Heroes, which was a precursor to Deities & Demigods / Legends & Lore but didn't really contain new rules.

2nd: Eric Holmes' "blue book" D&D in 1977 consisting of a single, relatively short booklet with rules only up to 3rd level.

3rd: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons by Gary Gygax with three core rulebooks: the Monster Manual released in 1977, the Players Handbook in 1978, and the Dungeon Masters Guide in 1979. TSR published adventure modules beginning in 1978, two World of Greyhawk setting books (the brief Folio in 1980 and the lengthier box set in 1983), and moved heavily into campaign setting material in 1987 starting with the Forgotten Realms box set and Dragonlance hardcover book. A few optional rulebooks were published starting with Unearthed Arcana in 1985 (not counting the earlier Fiend Folio and Monster Manual II with additional monsters).

4th: Moldvay/Cook B/X D&D in 1981 consisting of the Basic Rules and Expert Rules, with covers by Erol Otus. The Basic Rules were a somewhat more expansive revision of Holmes D&D, while the Expert Rules took players up to level 14. Supposedly intended to conclude with a third rules set that was never published.

5th: Mentzer BECMI D&D, published starting in 1983, consisting of five box sets with covers by Larry Elmore. The 'Red Box' Basic Set was similar to Holmes and Moldvay Basic but much lengthier with a drastically revised presentation, and the 'Blue Box' Expert Set was similar to the Cook Expert Rules. The third 'Green Box' Companion Set took characters to level 25 and included rules for dominion rulership and mass warfare, among other things, while the fourth 'Black Box' Master Set took characters to the maximum 36th level with rules for questing for immortality. The final 'Gold Box' Immortals Set provided a new set of rules for playing as immortals that was almost divorced from normal D&D rules. Beginning in 1987, a series of Gazetteers were published detailing the various countries of the Known World, followed by a few campaign setting box sets and other material. A 1991 Rules Cyclopedia compiled the rules from the first four box sets, while a 1992 Wrath of the Immortals box set replaced the Gold Box rules for immortals with new ones.

6th: 2nd edition AD&D by David Zeb Cook, a revision of Gygax's AD&D, released in 1989 again as a set of three core rulebooks but with the Monster Manual hardcover book replaced by a Monstrous Compendium contained in a binder. Most of the AD&D campaign setting material was published for 2nd edition AD&D, including the new Spelljammer, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Al Qadim, Planescape, and Birthright settings. There were also a voluminous amount of optional rules --- 15 Complete ____ Handbook's, 8 Dungeon Master's Guides, 7 Historical Reference Books, and many more --- plus a considerable number of adventure modules and other material until TSR went bankrupt in 1997.

That is all.

 

[JamesDixon]

Zed Duke of Banville We think quite alike and have similar tastes.

Thank you for letting me learn things I didn't know. You're a good guy.

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

Gary Gygax being more about combat and seeing all Drow as evil will forever make him and any editions closely associated with him unfathomably based.

 

[Fluent]

I'm just a computer gamer, so I don't know all the technicalities, but I enjoy Goldbox games a LOT, and I can also enjoy NWN, TOEE or newer D&D games as well. I dunno, as much as I love AD&D/2nd ed. (and I do love it), 3rd ed. is also great for me and from what I've seen of 5th, it seems okay. It will never be the same due to its history but we can still enjoy it for what it is, a pretty deep ruleset and thus spawns gameworlds that we can play RPGs in.

All I know is, I wish modern devs would also make RPGs based on those original rules more. More Goldbox clones, please!

Cheers guys. Hope u still can find joy from D&D as we ever age and things change. Hopefully our childhood spirit can remain. <3

 

[deuxhero]

3E has some flaws (many of which have been mitigated by various expansions and options) but I think 3E being too determinalistic and having rules for everything being bad is a lame argument. The DM still has plenty of room to give bonuses/penalties, and a system that just throws its hands up and says "I don't know, figure it out yourselves" is an incomplete system (you're paying for rules so you don't have to make them).

 

[JamesDixon]

3E has some flaws (many of which have been mitigated by various expansions and options) but I think 3E being too determinalistic and having rules for everything being bad is a lame argument. The DM still has plenty of room to give bonuses/penalties, and a system that just throws its hands up and says "I don't know, figure it out yourselves" is an incomplete system (you're paying for rules so you don't have to make them).

How is it a bad argument when the prior editions did the exact opposite? How is this relevant to this thread?

The rules were complete and the DM was expected to be a judge on top of being the storyteller. It's easier to write the rules as general guidelines then to have a complete set of thou shalts and thou shalt nots.

 

[deuxhero]

Here's a secret

Spoiler

All rules are guidelines

 

[JamesDixon]

Here's a secret

Spoiler

All rules are guidelines

That's so shallow and doesn't address the questions I asked you. Typical of a moron.

 

[Scruffy]

Well what does "really" D&D means I guess is the question.

To me, D&D meant a group of ragtag unoptimized fools coming up with creative solutions to have that rock fall on that waaaay more powerful enemy, or have them fall in some ambush or some hole with spikes in it, because taking them head on would mean certain death. Current DND does not seem to care much about that, instead having everyone be a superhero with superpowers, but I guess it depends on what "really" means in this instance.

 

[Jason Liang]

check my sig

 

[nikolokolus]

The only real trouble I have with WotC D&D is that all of the bells and whistles they keep trying to tack on to TSR D&D don't actually hang together all that well. 3.x skills and critical hits system are pretty clearly trying to borrow from Rolemaster, but the crits are just boring "Do 2X damage" and never result in interesting injuries or complications and the skills in 3.x created a kind of weird arms race between escalating DCs and skill point expenditures - unless you specialized in whatever, you're better off spending nothing in tertiary skills. The other part that sucked as a GM is the implication in the rules that you should be trying to carefully balance encounters commensurate with player characters' relative power level and it squarely shifts the focus from exploration and in-game problem solving as the source acquiring wealth and gaining power. Success or failure was now more reliant on a player's "out of game" build strategy (which shouldn't be a shock to anyone, since this is the company that gave us Magic the Gathering) and all about combat. Lastly, the inclusion of worthless feats as sort of "trap builds" show that the designers really didn't allow for as much diversity of character building and development as you would think; you ended up with carbon copies of the same optimized characters over and over again (unless someone in the group sucked at system mastery) and punished jack-of-all-trades and unconventional characters.

4E was even worse. It decided that what everyone really wanted was to be a caster, by giving every class per encounter and daily powers, paired with a very gamey grid-based combat system that couldn't be hand-waved or ignored, which made "theater of the mind" encounters an impossibility. This also had the side-effect of making it incredibly difficult to introduce the game to new players who didn't have any system mastery. No longer could you just tell a newbie (or someone that didn't really want to play a complicated class) to roll up a fighter and get on with it. If it had been marketed to wargamers as "D&D tactics" and made it a miniatures skirmish game, meant to be played on terrain, I probably would have had fewer objections to it, but as a TRPG it actively punished you if you tried to employ out of the box, asymmetric problem solving. No longer could you use spells outside of combat in unconventional ways to bypass a threat. You were meant to solve problems in very narrow ways: skill challenges or on the combat grid.

5E is probably the least offensive of the various WotC rulesets, but it's still all about medieval-fantasy superheroes where character death is rare and shocking . . . which is fine, if that's what you want out of a game, but it makes it very difficult to emulate other kinds of genres besides D&D (which is practically a genre unto itself).

Was TSR D&D perfect? Not at all; there's plenty of problems with its systems that I still don't like: For instance, the way it models falling damage, or how an unarmored character with a bunch of Hit Points held at point blank range by a half-dozen crossbowmen has nothing to fear from plunging over a cliff, or letting the aformentioned crossbowmen take their shot, but it's easy to run, it's simple to teach, and it's easy to make characters and allows for the casual newbie to sit down and get just as much out of a session as the system master.

 

[JamesDixon]

nikolokolus Thank you for the wonderful summation of WotC's fake D&D games.

Falling damage really depends upon the edition. In AD&D 2E it's 1d6 per 10 feet fallen to a max of 20d6. Thieves can mitigate some of it depending upon the height of the fall. As for the letting crossbowmen take their shot at an unarmored character would be a coup de grace or instant death since it's out of combat.

 

[nikolokolus]

nikolokolus Thank you for the wonderful summation of WotC's fake D&D games.

Falling damage really depends upon the edition. In AD&D 2E it's 1d6 per 10 feet fallen to a max of 20d6. Thieves can mitigate some of it depending upon the height of the fall. As for the letting crossbowmen take their shot at an unarmored character would be a coup de grace or instant death since it's out of combat.

Sure, but the rules themselves don't account for either in a way that's satisfying (or consistent). There was no such thing as a coup de grace in the older games and I can only imagine the howls of protest from a player if his 10th level fighter was held at point blank range and got "gunned down" if he tried to lunge at a guard (thereby proclaiming that combat had "started"). It's just an area where games like GURPS or BRP handle this kind of thing with a lot more grace.

 

[JamesDixon]

nikolokolus Thank you for the wonderful summation of WotC's fake D&D games.

Falling damage really depends upon the edition. In AD&D 2E it's 1d6 per 10 feet fallen to a max of 20d6. Thieves can mitigate some of it depending upon the height of the fall. As for the letting crossbowmen take their shot at an unarmored character would be a coup de grace or instant death since it's out of combat.

Sure, but the rules themselves don't account for either in a way that's satisfying (or consistent). There was no such thing as a coup de grace in the older games and I can only imagine the howls of protest from a player if his 10th level fighter was held at point blank range and got "gunned down" if he tried to lunge at a guard (thereby proclaiming that combat had "started"). It's just an area where games like GURPS or BRP handle this kind of thing with a lot more grace.

Sure there were. It was a house rule in many tables I played at. When you sat down to play you knew the risks of the game. That's why encounters were never balanced and you didn't have your hand held. You knew from reading the PHB at how lethal things can get. It was expected of you to think outside the box like recon etc... The reason I state this is that the DM had the final authority on how things were done. He adjudicated the situation as needed since the rules were designed around the thinking of You can try to do it. There wasn't any straight jackets on how he handled the rules because it was expected to use common sense.

In real life can a hostage endure 50 hit points worth of damage? Nope and neither should your 9th level fighter. There's also one key thing you're missing about hit points. It's not an absolute representation of a character's health during combat. It is an abstraction over the injuries that a character can suffer. A higher level character has learned to mitigate the effects of damage which is represented by their hit points. AD&D 2E DMG page 99 says this under Injury and Death.

Sometimes, no degree of luck, skill, ability, resistance to various attacks can prevent harm from coming to a character. The adventuring life carries with it unavoidable risks. Sooner or later a character is going to be hurt.

To allow characters to be heroic, and for ease of play, damage is handled abstractly in the AD&D game. All characters and monsters have a number of hit points. The more hit points a creature has the harder it is to defeat.

Since the scenario you presented is classified as a regular encounter that the protagonist is not in combat. Thus, the rules for injury under combat do not apply. That's where the coup de grace comes in. The protagonist is out of combat and not prepared to fight a horde of archers with his bare hands. He'd be cut down in an instant.