Why do almost all editions of D&D fall apart around 10th level

[Tiktakkat]

A person who designed something claiming it's perfect and that any flaws people are having with it is just because they're using it incorrectly is if anything in less of a position to be taken seriously than someone who wasn't involved in its creation and just genuinely likes it.

So if you use a screwdriver to hammer in nails and it doesn't work very well, then the guy who designed the screwdriver should be considered to have a less relevant opinion than you because you really like the screwdriver.

That's one way to put it. Another would be that when someone routinely GMs excellent games with other systems and then sees a quality drop when DMing 1e, it's an indication that system flaws are dragging the game down.

And another would be that an ability to run a game in one system inherently includes an ability to run a game in every system: a football referee by default is just as capable of umpiring a baseball game or being a line judge for a tennis match because "referee".


Meanwhile:

I know that BECMI works all the way up. (Well, okay, 'cept for thieves; I plan to do a free fix for that.) There are quite a few great adventures for levels in the teens and twenties.

. . .

One problem has always been treating mid- or high-level play as low-level on steroids... the same ol' same ol' dungeon/wilderness jaunt, whack bigger monsters, get bigger treasures, go home. ::yawn:: Or sometimes the problem goes the other direction, world-saving every week, like superheroes. ::re-yawn::

Here's the key: These adventures should involve little or no Force. Quite a lot of D&D adventuring (whatever edition) is based on using force to get your way (often the kill-the-monsters meme). Yawn again.

Yeah, see . . .

I've got all the Companion and Master adventures TSR published back in the day.
And despite what Frank is suggesting here, they contain their fair share of location jaunting, bigger monster whacking, and bigger treasure getting. Indeed the rule books for those levels contain more than enough newer monsters and more powerful treasures specifically for such encounters.
They also have lots of wonderful army battles that are hardwired into the adventures, so that, you know, you absolutely have to use large scale Force to get your way.

Maybe Frank should have talked things over with the authors and made sure they knew how to write adventures the "right" way.
Or perhaps they should be the ones insulted by his statement.

I don't know when he wrote that, but that is the same kind of attitude that spewed forth WotC R&D over 4E.
All the same haughty declarations that people simply didn't know how to play the game the right way, but that they did, and that they were here to save the day for us, giving us a system that really worked, and blah, blah, blah.
How exactly did that work out for them? Oh right.

[Thrudd]

Not really accurate on either front.

In the case of ToH and KotBL, the adventures themselves don't provide you with any ideas as to how players can influence the story, and they don't even really acknowledge it as a possibility. It's possible, if you hack at KotBL long enough, and write an enourmous amount of your own material, to create an adventure in which the players can have a meaningful impact on the story, but the published adventure will be pushing back against you every step of the way. If you want a story-rich adventure with lots of player choice, you would have an easier time writing your own adventure from scratch that trying to modify KotBL or ToH, because those published adventures won't help you at all in developing a player-choice-driven game.

Of course, there are tabletop RPGs which are already well suited to having player choice impact the story. I usually recommend Word Mill's Mythic Roleplaying to roleplayers interested in learning about how to do collaborative story-telling in an RPG.


On the video-game side of things, I'll admit I'm not really familiar with World of Warcraft. However, there are many MMOs which do give players a significant amount of control over the story. I don't know if WoW is one of those games, at least without considerable modding/hacking. In the world of offline video games, there are games like Undertale in which the player's choices have an enormous impact on the plot.

As with tabletop games, it's possible to take a video game that isn't really designed to allow for a player-driven story and modify it until it is. The original Super Mario Bros, for example, has about as much plot as KotBL or ToH. And out of the box, it gives players the same amount of influence over the plot as KotBL and ToH do: none whatsoever. However, as with KotBL, you could modify it. You could create an elaborate fantasy world, and hack it onto the SMB code. And you could add a bunch of opportunities for players to impact your story. And you could perform all of these modification to Super Mario Bros with nothing but your imagination and the computer you are using to read this forum.
But just as with Keep on the Borderland, you'd find that starting with SMB as a base to modify won't actually help you. On the contrary, if you want to create a story-rich game driven by player choice, you'd have a much easier time starting from scratch than trying to modify SMB or KotBL into the sort of game you want. Or, if making a game from scratch is too much work for you, you could start from a game that is already suited to a player-driven story-rich experience, like The Witcher or Undertale, and mod from there.

I don't know what you're talking about with B2. It is nothing but player-driven, there isn't a plot that needs to be followed.
How the players choose to approach it will define everything. ToH is a different beast, it is a convention game that is about challenging players to survive a series of deadly puzzles. But again, how players approach it will define everything, it is all about player ingenuity. It is not really a good module to use as an example of typical D&D adventure design, it is a singularly unique case.
You can't compare either of these to Mario Bros. - In games like that, the player has no choice whatsoever, there is only one direction to move in, and one action with which to address every challenge (jump).

The story of B2 is whatever the DM makes it, the module gives you an environment and some possible plot threads. It doesn't have a set story, so the amount of influence the players have over it is 100%. Whatever they choose to do and whatever happens, that was the story. It is really easy for the DM to take any of the many elements presented in the module and invent background motivations and plots occurring, with the evil cult and the reason that the various monsters are gathering in the caves, what the mad hermit is about, whether the lizardmen have any agenda, etc.

Yes, for the module to work the players need to want to go into the caves of chaos. That is handled by the basic assumption of D&D - the PCs are adventurers in search of treasure. The caves are where treasure is, so of course they want to go get it. The scenario is open and allows players to approach the caves from different directions, start in different caves, interact with the occupants however they want. Do they get betrayed by the evil cleric? Do they befriend anyone in the Keep? What happens with the warring tribes of monsters? Do they make truce with any of them? Does one group dominate the others? Depends entirely on the players.

[Knaight]

So if you use a screwdriver to hammer in nails and it doesn't work very well, then the guy who designed the screwdriver should be considered to have a less relevant opinion than you because you really like the screwdriver.

No. But if a company makes a hammer and then there are a whole bunch of complaints about it not hammering in nails, a company representative coming in and saying that the hammer works fine and everyone is just using it wrong is a lot less convincing than a neutral party saying the hammer works fine for them.

[MeeposFire]

The big change, and literal game changer, was the drop of XP for gold. OD&D, Basic, and 1st edition all worked under the assumption that players are motivated to steal treasures without getting into fight for it. In 2nd edition this disappears but the rest of the rules remain mostly the same, which eventually lead to a very different experience.
I believe 2nd edition had various class-specific task based XP rewards, but at 3rd edition at the latest XP was almost only for combat. Instead of being motivated to avoid combat, you now get urged to seek it.

Actually there is a treasure for XP rules in 2e but it is "hidden" (it is not actually hidden but a lot of people miss it. It is technically optional just like most of the rules in 2e including the class specific XP rules you are referencing). I think the general rule is 1xp per 2 GP but I could be wrong on that account (also rogues get additional XP for treasure).

In fact if you don't use both those class rewards and treasure for XP then you had better give out a trove (as in a LOT) of quest XP and the like because only using combat XP makes 2e leveling extremely slow. That is why some people complain about 2e leveling speed since they often do not use (or know about) the treasure for XP rules and combat XP is not really up to the task (at least to some).

[MeeposFire]

Since it seems to be the most popular edition I still want to learn it, but the more I learn about 3.x the less it seems to be for me (from my brief glance at 4e on the other hand, it so different from the D&D that I knew I fear the learning curve would be too high, plus who would I play it with?).
I suspect that I will stick with 5e and the few rare'70's and '80's rules D&D games that I'm lucky enough to play.
From my point of view 5e becomes a great game with a little bit of rules subtraction (and some familiarity with classic style play).
Besides level limits what improves 3e?

4e is relatively rules heavy though fairly internally consistent. It is also does not dress most of the rules (especially at the start) in fluffy dressing. In many ways it gives you a game effect and wants you to fluff it how you want. Makes it very flexible but some people do not like seeing the bones of the games rules.

In terms of D&D the biggest reason to play 4e over any other edition is if you want D&D but you want combat to be focusing on things like positioning, forced movement, creating difficult terrain/damage zones, and all sorts of other small scale tactical gaming. If that sort of combat sounds like fun then 4e is the best system of D&D for it. If not then a different version of D&D could be better.


3e on the other hand is also a heavier rules set and its best attribute is the minutia. There are rules for all sorts of random things and relative to other editions it is fairly complicated. IMO it is the version that makes the DM (and players though that is not as big a deal for a veteran) work the most (it takes the most time to prepare and the most details to use).

Of the versions I have played (and I have played all of the big ones though 5e is the least so far) 3e is the hardest for me to hold together. A lot of the problems brought up in this thread are most prevalent in that edition and they can be the hardest to control. Magic is at its most powerful relative to everything with little to no practical limits. It is also the edition where making a character can have the lowest floor in ability and the highest ceiling. I did do a 1-20 campaign and at the end I was having to invest significant amounts of time to make encounters that were fun, interesting, and challenging (the monster/NPC rules in 3e DO NOT help in this regard). I was helped at the very end using concepts introduced in 4e that made creating encounters easier and faster (minion rules were a lifesaver).


As a player I still find it fun to play though the most fun is building a character (due to all the details you can mess with) though it can be difficult to play with new people (also due to all the details and odd rules interactions full attack actions are one of the worst things forced upon weapon users ever in D&D). It is not the edition that I would recommend showing to a person who has never played any D&D of any sort before (I think 5e or RC/basic are the best for that 2e can be ok too). For somebody that loves creating the most detailed and/or getting the most out of a concept and/or creating a very specific concept 3e can be excellent at that. In 3e you might be able to directly create your Naruto character (though it may be terrible in play) whereas in 4e you probably have to refluff a class or powers to get what you want (but it will probably work alright).

[Tiktakkat]

No. But if a company makes a hammer and then there are a whole bunch of complaints about it not hammering in nails, a company representative coming in and saying that the hammer works fine and everyone is just using it wrong is a lot less convincing than a neutral party saying the hammer works fine for them.

So . . . having some other player tell you that you are playing wrong is more convincing?
And that has worked how many times exactly?

Now I have seen instances where people who had complaints, about game play in general and a form for tournament play specifically, were in fact playing completely wrong. For whatever reason they just plain didn't understand how the rules interacted for play, or how they affected play in a competitive format.
And when the designer and event organizer solicited me I had to confirm that they were serious, as the proper mode of play and changes required for the tournament format were blatantly obvious to me, and I had absolutely no issues either understanding them, or accounting for them while playing.
I really don't see where that would make me saying so to the people with the complaints any more convincing, and particularly any more welcome, than the designer or event organizer telling them they just didn't get it.


But if you think it would help, I can tell you that breaking out my copy of the Companion Rule Book, it does indeed say to the effect that you are supposed to play the game differently from levels 1-6 (Basic and start of Expert), 7-14 (the rest of Expert), 15-25 (Companion), and 26-36 (Masters).

Again, I think the adventures published to support those rules don't reflect as "non-force" game as he is suggesting, but that doesn't change what he wrote in the rules themselves.
And, going by what I said back at the start of this thread, given the time between the Expert Rules and the Companion Rules, and the number of adventures he suggests for leveling in the Companion Rules, I find it difficult to believe he playtested it anywhere near sufficiently. (By his numbers, it should take at least a year of playing once per week to get through the Companion levels. The Companion rules appeared 3 years after the Expert Rules. How many different parties did he manage to get through those levels, and doing so, why didn't he "fix" the thief back then?)

He is however quite clear though that game play is supposed to change from each tier.
If yours didn't . . . well, just because you bought a hammer doesn't mean you need nails for the task at hand, and hammering them in anyway is just not going to work very well no matter how good the hammer is.

[Morty]

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the main feature of old D&D is the warm, fuzzy feeling of superiority towards people who play anything newer.

[Yora]

Besides level limits what improves 3e?

The main "innovation" of 3rd edition is that it finally ditched the idea of backward compatibility with previous edition and gets rid of a lot of slightly different tables for almost the same thing and replaces them with standardized charts that apply to all classes and ability scores.

In 3rd edition, an ability score of 15 means that you get a +2 bonus to every d20 roll that is based on that ability. And that applies to all six ability scores, for all applications, and for all classes. In, AD&D a score of 15 could get you different modifiers based on which ability score you use, what you use it for, and what class you have. And it's always a d20, never a d6 or a d100. (Except for turn undead, which still had a 2d6 roll.)
1981 Basic/Expert almost did that already two decades earlier, but with 3rd edition it became a fully universal standard that applies in all situations. It's really a very basic and obvious idea, and no remarkable innovation, but was a big step forward from the mess that had accumulated in the previous 25 years.
As part of that, all classes now get a new level at the same amount of XP, which made it possible to multiclass by simply starting a new class at 1st level any time you want.

Where I think they overshot the target was the introduction of skill points and feats (especially prerequisite feats that are needed to access other feats). And the biggest mistake in hindsight was prestige classes. Prestige classes that require the character to have certain skill ranks and feats before you can take levels in the class. The result was that if you start a character and know you want to pick a prestige class later, you had to plan your feats and skills (and the classes you advance at each level) for the first 7 to 10 levels before the campaign even starts. I believe this is where everything went wrong.
(The original 2000 3rd edition Player's Handbook by itself seems a much less problematic game to me in hindsight, even though I was a big fan of 3.5e when it came out.)

[RazorChain]

Having had some interesting conversations about various older editions of D&D over the last weeks and several people have said that even in the very early editions the fun levels were in the 3 to 10 range. 3rd edition is infamous for getting completely out of balance around 10th level to the point that there was a hugely popular variant that ended level advancement at 6th (or alternatively 8th or 10th) level. But even when B/X was expanded in 1983 to BECMI which raised the maximum level from 14 to 36 it doesn't seem to have been very popular in the long run. Almost all the Basic retroclones around to day stick to the original 14 levels or just 12 or 10. I've even seen the complaint made against OD&D. And now 5th edition was designed explicitly to avoid that flaw. I don't know how much success they had with that.

Why is this the case? The rules have a lot of big differences, but the problem seems to be always the same.
Is it really just the spells of 5th level and higher that wrack the dynamics of lower level gameplay? Or is there some flaw in the level system itself that causes that?

Because when you are playing post level 10 then you aren't playing the same game as when you started, not even remotely. You started with deadly dungeon romp that evolved into heroic fantasy and then suddenly it became four color supers. When I start a fantasy game I don't want to play four color supers.

[Mordar]

Ah, but the interaction and impact on the plot...that's a horse of a different color! The paper-thin plot of Keep or Tomb can (and is) impacted by the players...the rich tapestry of WoW isn't. Not even a little bit. While there are certainly lots of D&D players who ignore the plot of their own game, virtually every group has at least one or two players who are invested in and impacting the plot of that home game. I'd wager there are lots more WoW players (percentage basis, to forestall any semantic argument) completely ignoring or ignorant of the intricate and detailed (and frankly pretty cool) plots of WoW...

Not really accurate on either front.

In the case of ToH and KotBL, the adventures themselves don't provide you with any ideas as to how players can influence the story, and they don't even really acknowledge it as a possibility. It's possible, if you hack at KotBL long enough, and write an enourmous amount of your own material, to create an adventure in which the players can have a meaningful impact on the story, but the published adventure will be pushing back against you every step of the way. If you want a story-rich adventure with lots of player choice, you would have an easier time writing your own adventure from scratch that trying to modify KotBL or ToH, because those published adventures won't help you at all in developing a player-choice-driven game.

Of course, there are tabletop RPGs which are already well suited to having player choice impact the story. I usually recommend Word Mill's Mythic Roleplaying to roleplayers interested in learning about how to do collaborative story-telling in an RPG.


On the video-game side of things, I'll admit I'm not really familiar with World of Warcraft. However, there are many MMOs which do give players a significant amount of control over the story. I don't know if WoW is one of those games, at least without considerable modding/hacking. In the world of offline video games, there are games like Undertale in which the player's choices have an enormous impact on the plot.

As with tabletop games, it's possible to take a video game that isn't really designed to allow for a player-driven story and modify it until it is. The original Super Mario Bros, for example, has about as much plot as KotBL or ToH. And out of the box, it gives players the same amount of influence over the plot as KotBL and ToH do: none whatsoever. However, as with KotBL, you could modify it. You could create an elaborate fantasy world, and hack it onto the SMB code. And you could add a bunch of opportunities for players to impact your story. And you could perform all of these modification to Super Mario Bros with nothing but your imagination and the computer you are using to read this forum.
But just as with Keep on the Borderland, you'd find that starting with SMB as a base to modify won't actually help you. On the contrary, if you want to create a story-rich game driven by player choice, you'd have a much easier time starting from scratch than trying to modify SMB or KotBL into the sort of game you want. Or, if making a game from scratch is too much work for you, you could start from a game that is already suited to a player-driven story-rich experience, like The Witcher or Undertale, and mod from there.

I'm not sure where to start here...so I wonder if maybe our use of plot is dissimilar. In ToH or KotB, the actions of the players will have dramatic effect on the environment within that world. If group A clears ToH and puts down the Big Bad Evil Guy, no subsequent group will ever be able to do so. The legend of the Group A will grow and the world of Group A will be changed because of the successes and failures at ToH. The module writers don't know the whole of Group A's story, so it isn't on them to provide the DM with direction on how they Group A's world will be changed (or ToH will be changed by Group A having completed Expedition to the Barrier Peaks before entering ToH)...it is just on them to provide this module to be plugged into Group A's campaign.

In WoW (or EQ or whatever), if Group A completes Karazhan and clears it all...not only can Groups B - Z come in and do the EXACT SAME THING later, Group A can come back and do it again themselves. The same NPCs will be in the same positions providing the same challenges every single time. You can then use the loot you got from killing Boss 2 to make killing Boss 2 easier. Sure, you can't go back and get credit for repeating the same quests...but you can still complete every step of every quest and wonder exactly how many times must Timmy have fallen down the well, or how many times Hogger has been slaughtered out in the forest.

Sure, that's the nature of an MMO...but it is also my point. It can't change based on my actions because that will change the world and the experience for the next player to come along. In ToH Group A's world, that change is possible. Even if all of Group A dies in ToH, Group B in that same world can see repercussions...and the quests/experiences/modules completed by Group A prior to their death will still have happened and still have impacted that world.

On the other side of things (the players ignoring the "fluff") - of course there will be exceptions based on group, game, whatever...but if you don't think there are tons of WoW players who blitz past all of the quest text just to see the objective, I think you are mistaken. And as I said, there will be plenty of pen-and-paper types who ignore all but a few key words...but the nature of the two games is such that I believe a higher density of players in the PnP games will hear and recall details and follow the "story" than players - even the exact same players - in a standard MMO.

- M

[thirdkingdom]

Because when you are playing post level 10 then you aren't playing the same game as when you started, not even remotely. You started with deadly dungeon romp that evolved into heroic fantasy and then suddenly it became four color supers. When I start a fantasy game I don't want to play four color supers.

Again, it depends of which editions you're talking about. 0e and 1e, and B/X, are certainly not four-color supers. I can't speak to 2e or 3e -- BECMI certainly turns into that in the higher levels/Immortal level set, or, at least, it can.

I don't have any experience with 4e (I've at least *played* 2e and 3.x before), but from what I hear it is perhaps the most internally consistent version across the levels.

[Jay R]

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the main feature of old D&D is the warm, fuzzy feeling of superiority towards people who play anything newer.

And vice versa. Yes, everybody believes in their own opinions and experiences.

[2D8HP]

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the main feature of old D&D is the warm, fuzzy feeling of superiority towards people who play anything newer.

But of course!

(Actually there's a lot I like about 5e more than old D&D, but there's also a lot about old D&D that I like more than 5e, but the best D&D is always a game that you can play with actual other people whatever the edition. Unless the game was Cyberpunk or Vampire which were lame )

[LibraryOgre]

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the main feature of old D&D is the warm, fuzzy feeling of superiority towards people who play anything newer.

I disagree, though it can certainly seem like it.

One of my complaints about 3.x and 4e (though it's somewhat lesser in 4e) is "Character creation as an ongoing, winnable mini-game."

In AD&D, I made a character. I might draw on a huge array of options, making a grey elf bladesinger and using Skills and Powers, Spells and Magic, and the Complete Book of Elves in coordination. But once I made the character, he was more or less mechanically "finished"... he would grow and develop, he would learn new spells and get access to new spell levels, but he'd still primarily be describable as a "grey elf bladesinger". Aside from story events, my character at 1st level would look like my character at 20th level.

In 3.x, however, character creation is an ongoing, mechanical process. My character at 1st level and my character at 20th level won't necessarily look anything alike... because I started as a rogue to get more skill points, but then when Wizard so I could have access to this spell, so I'd qualify for this prestige class that gave me entirely different powers. How I am described at 1st level and 20th level might be very different.

And then we get to traps. It was possible to make a bad character in AD&D, but you had to work at it a little bit. If your thief had Dexterity as one of his best stats, chances are he'd be a decent thief. If your wizard had a decent intelligence, chances are he'd be a decent wizard. Unless you actively tried to screw everything up (clumsy thief who likes to jump into combat is a good example), you would have trouble making a mechanically bad character. 3.x, however, is rife with traps... feat choices that won't help you much in the long run, insufficient planning so you can't get a useful prestige class, even core races that don't set out to be what they want to be. It is easier in 3.x to make a mechanically unsatisfying character, and poor choices early on can effectively doom you into a spiral of ineffectiveness. And you have to do it again at every level.

Now, this isn't to say AD&D is without flaws; 1st edition initiative is famously incomprehensible, and Players Option and the Complete Books were never designed to go together, among other things. But, your 1st level character was who you wanted to play, not a step in making the character you eventually wanted to play, with a sweet spot where you were exactly that, after you'd labored through levels of building and before you grew either crazy powerful or ineffective for your level.

[thirdkingdom]

I disagree, though it can certainly seem like it.

One of my complaints about 3.x and 4e (though it's somewhat lesser in 4e) is "Character creation as an ongoing, winnable mini-game."

In AD&D, I made a character. I might draw on a huge array of options, making a grey elf bladesinger and using Skills and Powers, Spells and Magic, and the Complete Book of Elves in coordination. But once I made the character, he was more or less mechanically "finished"... he would grow and develop, he would learn new spells and get access to new spell levels, but he'd still primarily be describable as a "grey elf bladesinger". Aside from story events, my character at 1st level would look like my character at 20th level.

In 3.x, however, character creation is an ongoing, mechanical process. My character at 1st level and my character at 20th level won't necessarily look anything alike... because I started as a rogue to get more skill points, but then when Wizard so I could have access to this spell, so I'd qualify for this prestige class that gave me entirely different powers. How I am described at 1st level and 20th level might be very different.

And then we get to traps. It was possible to make a bad character in AD&D, but you had to work at it a little bit. If your thief had Dexterity as one of his best stats, chances are he'd be a decent thief. If your wizard had a decent intelligence, chances are he'd be a decent wizard. Unless you actively tried to screw everything up (clumsy thief who likes to jump into combat is a good example), you would have trouble making a mechanically bad character. 3.x, however, is rife with traps... feat choices that won't help you much in the long run, insufficient planning so you can't get a useful prestige class, even core races that don't set out to be what they want to be. It is easier in 3.x to make a mechanically unsatisfying character, and poor choices early on can effectively doom you into a spiral of ineffectiveness. And you have to do it again at every level.

Now, this isn't to say AD&D is without flaws; 1st edition initiative is famously incomprehensible, and Players Option and the Complete Books were never designed to go together, among other things. But, your 1st level character was who you wanted to play, not a step in making the character you eventually wanted to play, with a sweet spot where you were exactly that, after you'd labored through levels of building and before you grew either crazy powerful or ineffective for your level.

For me, this is one of the main reasons I've decided to stick with the older versions of the game the older I get; I simply don't have the time to devote to the mini-game. I can roll up and create a B/X character in less than 5 minutes, by hand, with all her gear and everything.

[MeeposFire]

I disagree, though it can certainly seem like it.

One of my complaints about 3.x and 4e (though it's somewhat lesser in 4e) is "Character creation as an ongoing, winnable mini-game."

In AD&D, I made a character. I might draw on a huge array of options, making a grey elf bladesinger and using Skills and Powers, Spells and Magic, and the Complete Book of Elves in coordination. But once I made the character, he was more or less mechanically "finished"... he would grow and develop, he would learn new spells and get access to new spell levels, but he'd still primarily be describable as a "grey elf bladesinger". Aside from story events, my character at 1st level would look like my character at 20th level.

In 3.x, however, character creation is an ongoing, mechanical process. My character at 1st level and my character at 20th level won't necessarily look anything alike... because I started as a rogue to get more skill points, but then when Wizard so I could have access to this spell, so I'd qualify for this prestige class that gave me entirely different powers. How I am described at 1st level and 20th level might be very different.

And then we get to traps. It was possible to make a bad character in AD&D, but you had to work at it a little bit. If your thief had Dexterity as one of his best stats, chances are he'd be a decent thief. If your wizard had a decent intelligence, chances are he'd be a decent wizard. Unless you actively tried to screw everything up (clumsy thief who likes to jump into combat is a good example), you would have trouble making a mechanically bad character. 3.x, however, is rife with traps... feat choices that won't help you much in the long run, insufficient planning so you can't get a useful prestige class, even core races that don't set out to be what they want to be. It is easier in 3.x to make a mechanically unsatisfying character, and poor choices early on can effectively doom you into a spiral of ineffectiveness. And you have to do it again at every level.

Now, this isn't to say AD&D is without flaws; 1st edition initiative is famously incomprehensible, and Players Option and the Complete Books were never designed to go together, among other things. But, your 1st level character was who you wanted to play, not a step in making the character you eventually wanted to play, with a sweet spot where you were exactly that, after you'd labored through levels of building and before you grew either crazy powerful or ineffective for your level.

Yes it is part of the problem and the fun of both 3e and 4e that it your access to choice can really make creating a character pretty fun but it leaves you with the ability to really screw yourself over. 3e is particularly bad about this because of how the whole system is designed (multiclassing prestige or not for instance can be a source for a lot of cool and awesome abilities but can also make your character really poor). 4e gets around this to an extent in that its floor is a bit higher (much more so if you use the later classes like from the essentials line) and its ceiling is lower too (once again slightly even more true with the later classes like the essentials line). 5e is also more friendly about this than either of those two.


In the earlier editions there is that to an extent though only if allowed (which is true in all editions to an extent but is REALLY true in the oldest editions). In RulesCyclopedia type games you can do it via things like weapon mastery (I have seen opinions all over on this one though I cannot say I have played with that rule yet). In AD&D, especially 2e, you get this through weapon and non-weapon proficiencies. If you dig around enough there are a bunch of really powerful and useful proficiencies for your character to take. I actually recommend that you allow them too since they really help classes like the fighter in the later game (heck it is why for the most part I think intelligence is actually the best stat to have high for a fighter in many occasions due to how nice getting bonus prof are). 2e only has the options line though that is all over the place in quality in terms of balance. I would say some of it is a good idea but a lot of it needs an additional look and some changes before being used.

[CharonsHelper]

And then we get to traps. ...

I think that's pretty much an inherent drawback of having significant customization. As you create more & more options, you will inevitably create some option combinations which are at the very least sub-par and may be picked by those with minimal system mastery.

It's just something that you have to deal with. If you want a game which is really heavy on customization, you're going to have to be a bit more careful when using that customization so that you don't trip on any trap options. If you want to avoid the risk, stick to a system with limited customization. Neither are the "right" way to go - just a matter of taste.

[LibraryOgre]

I think that's pretty much an inherent drawback of having significant customization. As you create more & more options, you will inevitably create some option combinations which are at the very least sub-par and may be picked by those with minimal system mastery.

Perhaps, but not necessarily. Consider, for example, Spells and Magic's create-a-class options for mages and clerics (and, to a lesser extent, Skills and Powers for all classes). While you could create suboptimal characters in several ways, they'd still mostly do what you set out to have them do. In 3.x, it's very easy to pick choices that may seem useful, but really fail at their intent (like Great Cleave, or Skill Focus).

[CharonsHelper]

Perhaps, but not necessarily. Consider, for example, Spells and Magic's create-a-class options for mages and clerics (and, to a lesser extent, Skills and Powers for all classes). While you could create suboptimal characters in several ways, they'd still mostly do what you set out to have them do. In 3.x, it's very easy to pick choices that may seem useful, but really fail at their intent (like Great Cleave, or Skill Focus).

Oh - 3.x could definitely trim down some of the options such as those two to lessen the trap options (Though arguably those are both viable in niche builds; I know that in Pathfinder my bard took Skill Focus to combine with his primary Perform skill & Versatile Performance, and Great Cleave could be very useful on a reach build if their DM likes to use mooks). I'm certainly not going to argue that 3.x is the perfect system.

But there are some which could only be done away with by limiting customization. A caster who decides that he wants to fight melee by going Eldrich Knight or Dragon Disciple is choosing a trap option if they don't already have solid physical stats. A rogue attempting combat maneuvers will inherently be sub-par, but that doesn't mean that Improved Trip should be trimmed from the system. Etc.

[Jay R]

In a stereotypical, over-simplifed way, here's the difference.

In original D&D through 2e, you built a basic character, and he would be pretty close to the basic character anybody else built. Oh, spell choices would be different, you could pick up different proficiencies, etc., but your 5th level wizard was throwing the same fireball as somebody else's. Character design was basic, and you try to optimize with clever play.

Much of that clever play, of course, was the player's cleverness, not the character's, so there was a move to get rid of it, and substitute die-rolling. You roll for diplomacy, instead of trying to fast-talk your way through. You solve the puzzle yourself rather than rolling against its rating. Similarly, Challenge Rating means that you should be able to simply attack any encounter (or rather, more than in early D&D) straight up, and many players play that way.

The result is that in 3.5e, you try to optimize in character design, and play is more basic.

Again, this is an over-simplistic description of both. Some 2e builds are better than others (but not as much as in 3.5e), and clever play does affect the game in 3.5e (though not as much as the meta-gaming in earlier versions).

So, in a stereotypical, over-simplistic, unfair-to-both-approaches way: in early D&D, character design is more basic and play is where you optimize, and in 3.5e, character design is where you optimize and play is more basic.

[CharonsHelper]

Stuff I pretty much agree with.

I'll add that part of the clever play in 2nd edition is totally subjective and up to your DM's judgement. 3.x is more defined and therefore less subjective. (Not inherently good or bad either way - just different.)

[Quickblade]

I think some of the problem is with the thread title. It states as a fact that almost all early editions of D&D fell apart at high levels, then asks why this happens?
I disagree with this premise (played BECMI and retired with a 10th lv Elf Attack Rank K) so it becomes more of a defense against someone's opinion rather than a debate.
Now if you asked " Do you think early editions of D&D fall apart at high level" it might be better able to be discussed.
I'm not trying to criticise at all.

[Jay R]

I'll add that part of the clever play in 2nd edition is totally subjective and up to your DM's judgement. 3.x is more defined and therefore less subjective. (Not inherently good or bad either way - just different.)

Oh, agreed. And that always meant that part of intelligent tactics was (and still is, in modern games) learning how the DM runs the game.

There's a legal maxim: Any lawyer knows the law. A good lawyer knows the exceptions. A great lawyer knows the judge.

Similarly, any player knows the core rules. A good player knows the supplements. A great player knows the DM.

[Morty]

I disagree, though it can certainly seem like it.

One of my complaints about 3.x and 4e (though it's somewhat lesser in 4e) is "Character creation as an ongoing, winnable mini-game."

In AD&D, I made a character. I might draw on a huge array of options, making a grey elf bladesinger and using Skills and Powers, Spells and Magic, and the Complete Book of Elves in coordination. But once I made the character, he was more or less mechanically "finished"... he would grow and develop, he would learn new spells and get access to new spell levels, but he'd still primarily be describable as a "grey elf bladesinger". Aside from story events, my character at 1st level would look like my character at 20th level.

In 3.x, however, character creation is an ongoing, mechanical process. My character at 1st level and my character at 20th level won't necessarily look anything alike... because I started as a rogue to get more skill points, but then when Wizard so I could have access to this spell, so I'd qualify for this prestige class that gave me entirely different powers. How I am described at 1st level and 20th level might be very different.

And then we get to traps. It was possible to make a bad character in AD&D, but you had to work at it a little bit. If your thief had Dexterity as one of his best stats, chances are he'd be a decent thief. If your wizard had a decent intelligence, chances are he'd be a decent wizard. Unless you actively tried to screw everything up (clumsy thief who likes to jump into combat is a good example), you would have trouble making a mechanically bad character. 3.x, however, is rife with traps... feat choices that won't help you much in the long run, insufficient planning so you can't get a useful prestige class, even core races that don't set out to be what they want to be. It is easier in 3.x to make a mechanically unsatisfying character, and poor choices early on can effectively doom you into a spiral of ineffectiveness. And you have to do it again at every level.

Now, this isn't to say AD&D is without flaws; 1st edition initiative is famously incomprehensible, and Players Option and the Complete Books were never designed to go together, among other things. But, your 1st level character was who you wanted to play, not a step in making the character you eventually wanted to play, with a sweet spot where you were exactly that, after you'd labored through levels of building and before you grew either crazy powerful or ineffective for your level.

This is true, which is why I play neither 3.x nor 4e.

[Jay R]

One of my complaints about 3.x and 4e (though it's somewhat lesser in 4e) is "Character creation as an ongoing, winnable mini-game."

I mostly agree. Let me start by bringing up the slight disagreement.

It's not winnable. They game is never over because of character creation. It is, however, an ongoing losable mini-game.

But that's just semantics. I agree with your real point.

In fact, I'll go further. This is both the biggest problem with, and the biggest strength of, 3.x.

In 3.x, it's possible to come to the table with a character who is completely out-classed, and many people have done it. I suspect that this is one of the reasons that old gamers are less concerned with balance. In older games, I could never wind up with a Fighter was was completely out-classed by another Fighter of the same level, or a wizard who was useless because of another same-level wizard in the party.

Having said that, I find that I enjoy the ongoing losable mini-game of character creation. It's as challenging as the original ongoing losable mini-game of meeting some threats you needed to run from, or the ongoing losable mini-game of trying to come up with a convincing argument yourself, rather than rolling to see how convincing your character is.

It can never replace older D&D for those of us who love it. But I also recognize that older D&D can never replace the intriguing ongoing losable game of character creation brought in with the "third" edition.

[LibraryOgre]

It's not winnable. They game is never over because of character creation. It is, however, an ongoing losable mini-game.

...

Having said that, I find that I enjoy the ongoing losable mini-game of character creation. It's as challenging as the original ongoing losable mini-game of meeting some threats you needed to run from, or the ongoing losable mini-game of trying to come up with a convincing argument yourself, rather than rolling to see how convincing your character is.

Much better way to say it, indeed; a losable mini-game, not a winnable one.

For myself, I don't enjoy it. I find it frustrating, balancing character concept and mechanical effectiveness, and the narrow period of the game... which I may never reach... where I'm the character I wanted to play in the first place, just makes 3.x annoying to play.

[2D8HP]

Since this thread has taken a turn towards comparing editions I thought I'd through my two coppers in.
Take what I say with a mountain of salt since most hours that I've spent playing D&D were from 1979 to 1983, with most of the rest of the time after 2014 with other less-fun-for-me RPG's in between, and my memory of the old days is pretty dim (strangely though I remember early D&D rules much better than the rules of games I've played more recently. Odd that).

In new D&D more time is spent building your PC's skills, powers etc.

In old D&D that time was instead spent budgeting and deciding on equipment.

The ten foot poles, iron spikes, flasks of oil etc. and how we used them seemed to have much bigger influence on whether our PC's survived than did our PC's abilities.

Then as now time was spent looking at our character sheets for ways out of a jam, but back then it was mostly our inventory that we looked at.

I was terrible at it, and my "kick in the door" style of play ment that I seldom had a PC that survived more than two sessions.

But I loved it anyway.

I'm actually playing and loving a game of 5e D&D that with just a few house rules feels a lot like old D&D.

The game is still there trapped underneath, and you don't have to remove many layers at all to uncover it.

[MeeposFire]

Much better way to say it, indeed; a losable mini-game, not a winnable one.

For myself, I don't enjoy it. I find it frustrating, balancing character concept and mechanical effectiveness, and the narrow period of the game... which I may never reach... where I'm the character I wanted to play in the first place, just makes 3.x annoying to play.

For me what makes it frustrating is when you have to really know the system to get into very basic level of competence. For example to make a weapon user that is reasonably effective when forced to move 10 feet or more requires way too much work and system knowledge for something that really should be the default (thankfully in every other edition of D&D that is not a problem).

[kyoryu]

For me what makes it frustrating is when you have to really know the system to get into very basic level of competence. For example to make a weapon user that is reasonably effective when forced to move 10 feet or more requires way too much work and system knowledge for something that really should be the default (thankfully in every other edition of D&D that is not a problem).

The thing that frustrates me with 3.x, specifically, is that making a reasonably effective character requires you in many cases to make seemingly illogical choices.

In 4e or GURPS or most systems, if you just make reasonably logical choices, you'll end up with a reasonably effective character. Yeah, optimization works from there, but just generally doing reasonable choices will result in at least a moderately effective character, and it's rarely necessary to do illogical things to increase effectiveness. Not necessarily so in 3.x.

[MeeposFire]

The thing that frustrates me with 3.x, specifically, is that making a reasonably effective character requires you in many cases to make seemingly illogical choices.

In 4e or GURPS or most systems, if you just make reasonably logical choices, you'll end up with a reasonably effective character. Yeah, optimization works from there, but just generally doing reasonable choices will result in at least a moderately effective character, and it's rarely necessary to do illogical things to increase effectiveness. Not necessarily so in 3.x.

What I see as a more common problem is that things are just not as effective as you think they should be even if logical. For instance considering how much investment and how it sounds grabbing all the two weapon fighting feats should be great but in the end it isn't due to things that are not going to be obvious. In two weapon fightings case it gets really screwed over by the full attack rules which is not something that is obvious to a player (especially new ones). If a two weapon fighter could get all his attacks almost every single round he would actually be alright as far as fighters go but in reality he will not get close to that and two weapon fighters get punished even more than others from that. Also take the rogue in general where sneak attack starts of being a tactical risk to get a decent reward (which works alright) but at the end of the game becomes a risk for often no reward because there are so many ways to make yourself immune to sneak attack and that is not written in the description of the class. I think 4e and 5e have it better where getting SA is made easy enough that you should get it almost every turn and they based its effectiveness on that idea.