New D&D is officially released

[Nefaro]

With apologies to fans of AD&D, I will say I liked 3.0/3.5 more because it was more intuitive, at least for me.  The higher you roll, the better...and no silliness like THAC0 and negative armor class numbers. 

That's oversimplifying it, of course, but I really did struggle to grasp/follow the rules for AD&D -- even the basics often eluded me.  In contrast, I picked up the rules for 3.0/3.5 pretty quickly, and in general have had to puzzle over only the most obscure details/minutiae of the game.

Not only that but there was a lot more depth & options for everything built in.  I don't think they will ever be able to top the 3.0/3.5 ruleset.  The basics made sense, yet it has a lot of "stuff" and flexibility.

This is reportedly why so many D&D players migrated to the Pathfinder series (it uses a modified v3.5 ruleset IIRC) when D&D 4 came out.  And now I get the impression that the D&D system is just regressing.

[Double Deuce]

Prior to this new version my kids always asked for me to run 1e because those are the books I have that they think are the "coolest". A few weeks ago my daughter was trying to have a go as DM using 1e and was having all kinds of trouble with the THAC0. Finally she looked at me and said this thing is so stupid. Sometimes I think the only real flaw in the old school DnD stuff was the THAC0. Well, that and the layout of the DMG.

Even after digging through 5e, I think I still like the pre 2e AD&D system better, apart from the THAC0. This edition should let me play all my stacks of old stuff with little conversion and minimal rules and no damn THAC0.

[Toonces]

Alright, I could google it, but WTF is THAC0?

Seriously guys, who TF are you anyway, Smukatelli?  Spell out the acronyms for their first use already.   

[Double Deuce]

Alright, I could google it, but WTF is THAC0?

Seriously guys, who TF are you anyway, Smukatelli?  Spell out the acronyms for their first use already.   

THAC0 is "To Hit Armor Class Zero (0)". With THAC0 the needed To Hit roll was a sliding scale based on the chance to hit someone with an AC of 0 except that AC 0 did not mean someone with no armor. Under THAC0, AC 10 was no armor and Plate and Shield would be AC 2 (magic armor and Dex would lower your AC).  The scale went from -10 to +10 but with AC going backwards from AC 10. basically you started with a number to hit AC 0 and then had to figure the actual hit roll off of that THAC0 #. THAC0 numbers were based on both class and level.

[bayonetbrant]

THAC0 was handy b/c you only needed the one number to figure out the hit chance for anything. 

[bbmike]

I was curious as to just which version of D&D I played back in the early 80's. According to what I could find it was the basic box set copyright 1981. Later I bought the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Dungeon Master's Guide. I think I also had a monster book.



So I'm guessing I was playing with 1.0? I can't imagine what all has changed since then.

[bayonetbrant]

So there's a loooooooong version of this, but here's the short version:

Up until the PHB / DMG / MM were released with "AD&D" on the cover, there was only "D&D"
The last edition before the split was the monochrome "blue book" rulebook that was in the box in the image on the left above.

The AD&D split came b/c Dave Arneson had left TSR and Gygax and the gang didn't want to have to be paying royalties to Arneson for "D&D" so they created this "new" thing they called "AD&D" and put most of their efforts behind it, claiming that Arneson had nothing to do with AD&D and wasn't due any of the royalties.
They had to keep "D&D" (sometimes referred to as "OD&D" for "original") so they could legally point to a distinction.  OD&D morphed into the Basic / Expert / Companion / Masters / Immortals edition that culminated in the Rules Cyclopedia in the early 90s.  OD&D was also built around the world of Mystara, and some of the best modules / content TSR released in the late 80s / early 90s were for Mystara (Hollow Earth, Wrath of the Immortals, The Princess Ark, the GAZ series, the X-series modules whose maps all fit together to make a BIG world).

AD&D2e incorporated a lot of the content from the AD&D1e expansions, and integrated them in a way that actually made sense, instead of just nailing on random extensions here and there (like the non-weapon proficiencies from the WSG and DSG).  Along the way they realized it was a different enough game that they needed to give it a new name.  It also changed some of the licensing agreements from AD&D1e (Arneson, Judges Guild, Role-Aids, some others).  While 2e was on the market, they killed OD&D and unified the D&D lines.  With Arneson mollified along the way there was no longer any reason for 2 different "D&D" lines, and OD&D was dropped.  The Mystara content was all brought into the "big" AD&D tent - though it was horrendously executed, and Red Steel and Glantri: Kingdom of Magic and Karameikos: Kingdom of Adventure were all commercial bombs.

AD&D3e dropped the "A" from the moniker, and from then on, it's just been "D&D".  The rules for 3e got a little too powerful, and things got nerfed back in 3.5, which is the core of what's now Pathfinder.  A huge difference with DD3e was the open-source licensing agreement that let anyone create setting-specific content, so long as they didn't try to recreate the cure rulebooks.  Great theory, limited execution b/c the market got too saturated too fast.  White Wolf, Avalanche Press, Guardians of Order, and plenty of others jumped into the d20 system licensing

DD4e was reasonably quick on the heels of 3/3.5 in part to rein in the licensing run amok.  If they didn't rush out another version of the game, then WotC was stuck with a ton of perfectly-legal licensed expansions sucking money out of their product lines.  DD4e was hated by a lot of people who thought it was trying to be a videogame on the tabletop.  In truth, most of those complainers lacked the historical understanding of D&D evolving out of Chainmail, and that  4e was largely a return to the wargaming roots of D&D (though I doubt the designers had that on top-of-mind when they created it). 

Anyway, the backlash against 4e was so strong that they had to do something else.  4e was bleeding sales to Pathfinder, which was kicking WotC's ass in the FRPG market.  Hence DD5e.

2e tried to streamline all the 1e expansions.
3e was Ryan Dancey's love-letter to RPGs that tied to make a big tent as huge and inclusive as possible, and became a commercial disaster for WotC that cut into their sales
4e was rushed out to change 3e's licensing arrangements
5e was rushed out to try to recapture the 4e backlash sales that all ran to Pathfinder.

[bayonetbrant]

and that's the "short" version

[Martok]

Nice summation, Brant.  I won't ask how you know all that (especially the more recent stuff) -- I understand you gotta protect your sources ;) -- so I'll just say "thank you".  :) 


Incidentally, I personally didn't care for 4e because it felt too dumbed-down.  I realize that term has been thrown around the gaming industry way too often the last 10-15 years, but in this case that's honestly how I feel about it.  If it did, indeed, mirror a return to D&D's original wargaming roots (as you put it), then I'll admit I have to wonder how much I'd have enjoyed playing the game's initial iteration.  Interesting food for thought... 

[Toonces]

If you really want the "long" version there's an excellent book called Playing at the World that goes into painstaking detail about the evolution of D&D.

http://www.amazon.com/Playing-at-World-Jon-Peterson-ebook/dp/B008PN6K9Y/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405284849&sr=1-1&keywords=playing+at+the+world

[Double Deuce]

So, I'm on a bunch of D&D Facebook groups and there are people posting pictures of their 4e book burning parties. WTF!

[bayonetbrant]

So, I'm on a bunch of D&D Facebook groups and there are people posting pictures of their 4e book burning parties. WTF!

it's not really a newsflash that there are stupid people in the world, is it?

[Double Deuce]

So, I'm on a bunch of D&D Facebook groups and there are people posting pictures of their 4e book burning parties. WTF!

it's not really a newsflash that there are stupid people in the world, is it?

No, just been a while since I've seen that level of stupid.

[Arctic Blast]

I actually liked D&D 4e because it stripped away a lot of the BS skills and feats and everything else that NOBODY ever used. Diplomacy, anything to do with negotiation, and everything else that looks great on a page but really just takes up space because nobody ever designs or runs a campaign that uses any of it. It was a waste of time. It wasn't depth, it was a waste of ink. Most of that nonsense exists in Pathfinder, but I guarantee you that 99% of the people extolling the virtues of all of that 'depth' never even touch any of it because they're also playing campaign after campaign that's about nothing more than testing their sword arm. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Just stop pretending that all of the fluff is in any way useful to the vast majority of players.

I've come around to simpler designed systems like Savage Worlds. Everything is quick and clean. There are rules in place to simulate through almost anything very quickly. Massive combats with thousands of participants? Yep, you can play that in minutes. No needless skills. Everything fits. Want something good? You need to pick something bad to counter-balance it. And it all generally just makes sense.

[bbmike]

Thanks for the history lesson, bayonetbrant! I feel like I crawled out of a D&D bomb shelter 50 years later into a new world.  :D