Differences & Directions in Dungeons & Dragons
After reading Stargazers recent post about 4th edition D&D, and the article suggested in the comments about Dissociated Mechanics it got me thinking again about the different versions of D&D I’ve played this year and some of the differences in approach I think the game systems take.
I think all the editions of D&D from the first white box in the mid 70s through to the latest updates posted online through D&D Insider are “good games”. They set out to do some different things though, and so it only makes sense that they’ll be better fits for certain styles of games, tastes in gamers, or just moods of players that particular evening.
Thinking of things as simply New vs Old doesn’t really tell you much about the games. If someone made a new game next year but modeled it on a 1970s era RPG would it be an “Old School” game? Probably only if they used suitably retro looking fonts and illustrations. 
Here then are some of the differences I’ve noticed between early 80s “Basic” D&D and the newest 4th Edition D&D:
Comprehensive Rules vs. Minimal Rules
One game provides comprehensive rules for as many commonly occuring situations in the game as possible, while the other provides very few rules and assumes that the Game Master will make rulings about the success of these situations instead.
High Power Fantasy vs. Low Power Fantasy
The term “High Fantasy” is a sub-genre of Fantasy separate from Sword & Sorcery and used to refer to things like The Lord of the Rings, Narnia, Dragonlance, and Harry Potter. Rather than think of the difference between editions as High and Low Fantasy, it’s actually “High Power” and “Low Power” refering to the skills, abilities and magic inherent in that game world.
Narrative Mechanics vs. Simulation Mechanics
This is something I didn’t think of until reading the Dissociated Mechanics article. One system places more importance on rules that generate the desired narrative situation in the game, while the other approaches things from trying to simulate the result of a particular action a player wants their character to take. A somewhat subtle sounding but none-the-less important distinction between games.
Strategic Chargen vs. Simple Chargen
Some players very much enjoy spending more time building their character before the game begins and being able to make strategic choices that will later impact things at the game table. Other players might be happier spending 5 minutes before the game starts rolling some dice a picking a name for their character.
Tactical Encounter vs. Strategic Adventure
There is a definite focus of the two editions on different aspects of the overall adventure. The older game seems to place more focus on the overall adventure and strategic decisions about resources and when and if to take part in encounters is important. The newer game places more emphasis on the encounter itself and places more focus on the wider range of tactical choices to be made during those encounters.
Combat Balance vs. Adventure Balance
Character in earlier editions were expected to balance out in their contribution to the party over the course of the adventure. Each character may have been more or less helpful during different types of situations. This is contrasted by the newer game where the focus is on the encounter (see above) and each character is balanced to be equally helpful during that encounter.
Balanced Encounter vs. Balanced Adventure
Each encounter in 4e attempts to be balanced for the players characters, so that the players have a reasonable chance for success in that encounter. This is contrasted with the older game where the overall adventure attempts to be balanced, eg. “For levels 1-3″ or “For levels 4-7″ etc. Individual encounters in the older edition could be of varying levels of challenge and the players were expected to choose when to engage with the enemy and when to try and avoid the encounter altogether.
Wargame Combat vs. Abstract Combat
While the earliest versions of D&D developed from miniature wargames, the Basic game that found mainstream popularity in the early 80s has a very abstracted system for combat. The new version by comparison has a very well constructed tactical combat system.
GM as player vs. GM as referee
In 4th edition D&D the GM is treated more like an adversarial player at times and expected to follow all the rules of the game – which allows them to play more aggressively against the players, but also keeps things fair. This is somewhat different from the earlier version of the game where the GM was seen more as a referee and was encouraged not to view things in an adversarial manner.
Fantastic Characters vs. Common Characters
The characters which players control in early D&D were more “common” people in uncommon situations. While some may have been apprentice wizards or “demi” human allies, the scope was generally that of the common medieval adventurer slowly rising to greatness. The new game lets players begin with more fantastic characters, either humans of greater skill and ability, or more exotic monsters and magical beings.
Established Setting vs. DIY Setting
Early D&D tended to assume GMs were going to make their own game worlds, and there was a fair degree of customizability over what sort of elements they would add to that world. The newer edition has more game world elements as part of the system itself, making it both easier to present a rich game world to players, but also not as encouraging of the DIY game world itself.
Resource Optimization vs. Creative Problem Solving
When presented with obstacles in the game such as traps or puzzles, early D&D relied more on the players coming up with creative solutions to those problems. 4th edition handles many of those situations through having the players make smart choices about resource management and optimization – both before the game begins and during the course of the encounter.
* * * * *
I’m sure there are more differences than these, and this is by no means meant to be an attempt at a comprehensive list. I also want to reiterate that I think both games are very good, and both approaches are perfectly valid for people to enjoy.
I find that thinking about these things helps me be more clear about how the games differ, so that when I’m in the mood for a certain style of RPG I can make a good decision about what sort of game I’d like to play. 
You might also like
|
|
|
|
|
I like this list. I think I’ll need to put one of these up — adding my personal preference! — for current (and future) players to read.
Nicely set up pairs for comparison.
Though I think there is a place for the high/low fantasy split as well as the high/low power. Many early (A)D&D settings seemed built around the idea of while there was magic it was not common (or welcome) while in 3.x and (especially) 4e, magic is pretty much assumed to be an everyday thing.
Thanks!
@Sean: I used to call it high/low fantasy until I learned that anything with elves and dwarves or taking place in an “other world” was “high fantasy” (eg. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Mystara) whether it had high/low power or high/low magic. Low Fantasy was actually stuff like Pippi Longstocking.
Great post, well thought out.
Thought provoking post! It made me wonder what would happen in 4e if you only granted characters a limited set of their powers at the beginning of the level (e.g., at-wills useable only as encounter powers) and then granted the others at the end, when they leveled up?
[...] Apparently a lot of people on the network have been talking about their gaming preferences using this handy article at Robertson Games. I like following trends, so here I [...]
Robertson’s wrong about fantastic characters in D&D, and it’s a weird thing to claim for anyone familiar with the original game.
OD&D, Holmes Basic, and First Fantasy Campaign all clearly presented non-human, even monstrous, characters as perfectly acceptable. You didn’t have any special rules for each kind, they were just 1st level characters with whatever powers & limits the GM thought appropriate, but plenty of my games had dryads, centaurs, and satyrs, and in “monster campaigns” ogres, balrogs, trolls, and young dragons.
Dave Arneson created the Cleric to put a brake on Sir Fang the Vampire, run by another player.
Obviously Tunnels & Trolls, Arduin, and Palladium Fantasy made that more explicit, with no clear delineation between “PC race” and “monster race”, but it was present in OD&D.
In the old days (until ‘82, ‘83?), monster characters were not unusual in D&D games I played in. After AD&D really took over, they almost completely vanished, even from D&D.
AD&D is the dividing line where it became a racist Humans and Demi-Humans Only club, with that diatribe by Gary Gygax in the DMG. 4E is in this way, unusually, a throwback to the original game.
@Mark: I think you must have missed this part:
“Here then are some of the differences I’ve noticed between early 80s “Basic” D&D and the newest 4th Edition D&D”
Thanks all the same.
You talked about ’70s “Old-School” in the prior 2 paragraphs, so I’d presumed you were aware of how that differed from the game you actually played.
OD&D/Holmes/AD&D 1E were aimed at a teen-adult audience; Moldvay and Mentzer very explicitly tried to adapt the game to a child-teen audience. Evaluating the simplified children’s version of the game isn’t terribly useful, you won’t learn anything about the intent of the original game. It’s like reading Encyclopedia Brown, deciding that mysteries were about child detectives solving logic puzzles, instead of reading Dashiell Hammett.
@Mark: Uh… I guess you must have skipped this part as well:
While the earliest versions of D&D developed from miniature wargames, the Basic game that found mainstream popularity in the early 80s has a very abstracted system for combat.
I get the feeling you’re trying to debate some point I wasn’t making in this article. Please stay on topic, and perhaps a future post will be the topic you’re looking for.
I don’t want to harp on this, because it’s in general a good article, but you’ve gotten the combat balance vs. adventure balance wrong. See also page 104 of the 4e DMG:
“If every encounter gives the players a perfectly balanced challenge, the game can get stale. Once in a while, characters need an encounter that doesn’t significantly tax their resources, or an encounter that makes them seriously scared for their characters’ survival — or even makes them flee.”
I think that’s the advice for exceptions that proves the rule.
I don’t see them as being opposite ends on a spectrum, rather noticeable differences between the two games. I think that in general most 4e encounters are more balanced than B/X D&D. That doesn’t mean you couldn’t disregard the point system and make an easier or harder than average encounter in 4e.
There you go, hating on Pippi Longstocking.
Resource Optimization vs. Creative Problem Solving. I’m wondering if I am off base here in thinking that the early D&D versions rely upon player skills and abilities in coming up with solutions to puzzles or problems where the later versions (and here I may be thinking more 3.5 than 4e) rely upon character skills and abilities. Obviously the players still have to use their characters’ skills and abilities.
Leave your response!
Members
Planet Stories
Board Games
Recent Comments
Blogs I'm Reading
Recent Posts
Most Commented
RPG Bloggers Network