How much was D&D damaged as a game by removing XP-from-loot as a default rule?

>5e is dumbed down for idiots
>But streamlining the game is a good thing
Where does "dumbing down" end and "streamlining" begin?

people levelling up in milestones os probably the best in personal experience
and that style of play is supported

lost mines gives a good indication of what to xp
monsters, of course
accomplishing objectives, you generally got more xp for getting what you came for
successfully talking to people

its a bit of everything
and season to taste when you are ready to DM without training wheels

I honestly liked it better when Virt was saying it. Now there was an autist that knew how to rant. Nearly everything he said was Pasta-worthy. You could feel the utter disdain for anyone who even remotely played non-TAR. Better yet, he had genuine autistic passion behind the post. It didn't feel half-assed, like this.
In conclusion, you're not even entertainingly bad, and this whole post makes it seem like you've never had an original thought in your life. Fuck you for not at least going full ragemode with this, and fuck anyone who says Veeky Forums wasn't better in the old days. Back in the old days it was just as shitty, but at least the trolls had enough integrity to take some damn pride in their work.

Everything. The progression mechanic of the game is one of the strongest ways to get players into the experience and acting how you want.

Why would I want to remove depth and uniqueness from D&D to have it ape World of Darkness or some storygame, and probably not that well?

Not. Despite its name, DnD is not actually a good system for dungeon crawling, treasure hunts are best executed in complex board game form.

not everyone wants experience to be from collecting treasure

the looser and more all encompassing the rules are, the better it is when dealing with different players of different tastes

you can assign xp based on how much loot they haul home anyways, you just have the option to do it by story progression or monsters killed
broader is better, especially when playing with people of different tastes
heck, mix it up if you want, level up differently every adventure

the key word of course, is if you want to, nobody should have a default way to level up, because nobody has the same ideas about what progress means
better to leave it to the dm, and just provide the tools needed

Well I've had to tell players more than fifteen times that literally nowhere in the rulebooks does it say you have to kill something for experience. Or that killing something gives experience to begin with.

4e needs damage multipliers at certain points to fix that.

When you remove options that weren't used, it's dumbing down. When you combine, smooth out, or otherwise change options to make them easier to handle, it's streamlining.

3e for instance paradoxially dumbed down the entire point of a ROLE PLAYING game by having rules for everything.

>found the retard

Weren't used because of overall complexity and thus were avoided by several people, I mean. The problem is that too many people don't know that complexity and depth are two completely different things, and are seldom proportionate.

That's why I like loot-for-XP. It's a non killing-stuff based objective, and it makes more strategic elements like encumbrance and timekeeping actually meaningful.

Except magic users have ALWAYS been broken in DnD. There was no "lifting of restrictions" that ever happened.

Otherwise you're 100% correct.

>a class that starts extremely weak and grows powerful extremely slowly has ALWAYS been broken
You are so fucking stupid

Martials did get the short end of the stick. They got feat-taxed for things that were once class features and the saving throw and concentration changes hurt them quite bit in the 2nd-3rd shift

Wait a minute, are you saying that Hasbro D&D was terrible? GEE PEOPLE OF COLOR ME SURPRISED

>hour long combat
Sure if you play with retards and don't use MM3 monster math

Removing Gold-As-XP wasn't the big gamechanger, removing the class based level breakpoints was.

100% correct.

>replying to yourself
Wow, really makes me think

>unique poster count went up

Lurk more newfag

There's a reason the OSR movement has been growing steadily.

>maybe if I get on my phone I'll look way smarter
It must be really liberating for you not to have to log into your other reddit account to support your "argument"

Because the current gaming market is populated by newfags who don't want complexity and high-prep systems, and Oldfags with marriages, jobs, kids, lives, college, and not a lot of time to be prepping for campaigns.
Combine that with 5e not being threatening to players and the pre-game prep being frontloaded when making both custom encounters and custom creatures, and the result is that GMs are looking for a simple system that has some bite to it, while players are looking for a system that challenges them, but doesn't require re-learning an entirely new set of unfamiliar rules.
Of course OSR is doing well. It's the simple, deadly D&D people want.

Not true. When high level monsters have percentage chance to ignore any spell used on them - flat percent no spell gets though, user - and has a listing for 'percent chance to find invisible creature', and casters take multiple time segemtns to cast high levels spells when a single attack doing one hit point of damage utterlyn ruins a spell while martials and rogues get multiple attacks before they even get that spell off, and everyone else has higher saves than the caster due to faster leveling, 'broken' doesn't mean as much as you wish it did.

AD&D and 2ed were the last points at which a fighter of high level could take out casters of equal experience, because the casters leveled up much, much slower. Levels in AD&D weren't equivalent between classes, they were goalposts for individual achievement.

One of the many changes that demostrates that wotchasbro has no idea what the fuck they are doing when it comes to game design

>Combine that with 5e not being threatening to players
Found the guy who uses weak monsters poorly and complains the game is too easy.

>Anyone who played the old editions with spell speed, no stupid feats for insta cast shit, andlegit material and somatic components things you dont know what your talking about and showing your lack of long term experience.

AKA user here is fucking right.

No, the issue is that the game is naturally skewed towards the players, always, and gives them every opportunity to survive in any deadly situation.
Not only that, the solution to making the game more difficult, according to the game itself, is by throwing more encounters at players in order to tax resources. I don't run more than one combat per session, maybe two for something big. I doubt anyone runs as many as six combats in between a long rest, which is what the system is implying.

Anyone got a pdf of original D&D?

All of my groups complained about getting non-lethally clapped despite not getting TPKed. They're level one, shit happens and I am ignoring death mechanics for now.

>Had one ragequit when they got knocked out doing something very dumb.
>getting called a mediocre DM by the rules lawyer munchkin that team fought, feelsokman.
>other guy can't believe I let the fight happen even though he was planning to do the same thing that started the fight.
>Main bro has inspiration
>ded shitstarter, other pc backs off wisely since he's low.
>complaining stating that we ended combat because only PCs were left
>having to explain still fighting = still combat
>someone keeps trying to app a monstrous character that doesn't fit in
>people keep apping OP garbage class homebrews in my low magic campaign
>flakes

OSR general has all that and more. Personally, I recommend ACKS, it's a Retroclone of Basic D&D, but with a fuckton of (optional) detail to it and a well-developed system for creating new classes (you essentially use point buy to say what percentage Thief, Fighter, Cleric, and Mage, and Race you want to make up the class)

>assblasted retard projecting
yep

This.

If you want to be a good troll, the first step is learning to obfuscate your tracks so we can't immediately recognize you as a troll from a previous thread.

I honestly never thought I would miss the days of virtualautism, but here we are in 2018 and the trolls are so lame that Virt shines by comparison.

Too much. The game overwhelmingly focusing on combat was a result of that.

>No, the issue is that the game is naturally skewed towards the players, always, and gives them every opportunity to survive in any deadly situation.
not everybody wants to make a character template for 20 dudes, who all get killed one after the other because you only 1d4hp

sometimes, people want a character who appears every session, only really dying once in a while

Once they removed this it stopped being DnD and became generic heroic fantasy. Then you add in all the numberwhores who never knew an RPG could be anything but an analog videogame and here we are

Seconding this guy. ACKS is fun, and the optional hexploration and world building guidelines are just too arousing for me as a GM. And as mentioned you can have full on point buy character creation with it if you don't like classes for some reason.

I don't know who you are, but why are you traveling to every thread and absolutely savaging this poor moron.

Rent free

Well, it's more like you have in place a system that does more than let you create a barbarian that's also a lizardman. You're able to personalize the class to the extent that you're creating a "Balthazar the Lizardman Barbarian" class, so it's catered almost exactly to your needs.
Don't fall into the EXP trap though. It's all fine and well to make a Hyper-wizard, until you realize you need 8000 EXP to go from level 1 to level 2, and necessary EXP doubles in amount for each level you go up, so you need 32,000 to get to level 4.

Don't forget actually having to find scrolls and shit to learn spells, not all of which will be the ones you want.

Actually:
>Original booklets: Ok-tier
>Holmes: Meh-tier
>Moldvay: Ok-tier
>AD&D 1e: God-tier
>AD&D 2e: Meh-tier
>AD&D 3e: Good-tier
>AD&D 4e: Trash-tier
>AD&D 5e: Good tier

>lol you should always use the CR differntly from how the book says and change the adventure to make every combat a high-octane death battle because the PCs auto-heal when they long rest so any battle that doesn't kill them or win the adventure is just meaningless

Not him but don't you get bored every once in a while a go idiot hunting?

Iirc didn't Mearls or Crawford admit they don't even follow the CR guidelines?

>3
>good
Confirmed for 04er

Not really, I hide a ton of posts instead of feeding. I'm not a worm factory.

I'd say D&D was more damaged by the shift from ragtag misfits collecting treasure for loot and profit to a more character drive narrative that treated PC's as irreplaceable cogs in the narrative machine that have enough HP, AC, spell slots, and meta-currencies thrown at them to make it so they never face any real danger as they travel through the DM's setting.

I also think D&D was damaged once people started treating combat as less of a cinematic thing where all kinds of awesome shit was going on because Fighters were peak combatents and more as an excuse for DM's to flaunt how "learned" they are by stacking penalties to everything you do unless you happen to have the "cool guy" feat or the "I win" spell prepared.

>Veeky Forums has also deluded itself into thinking this influx of players is a good thing.

New players are a good thing. Just like all groups of people, most of them are garbage. The few who aren't will rise above and move onto bigger and better things. That sort of inflow and growth is vital to having the sort of players you'd want to play with.

Of course, you can help do your part and change the direction these newfags go in. I've personally introduced almost a dozen people into ttrpgs over the past few years, and none of them have ever touched a dnd game.

WHY DO YOU HATE WOMEN AND PEOPLE OF COLOR YOU NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI GATEKEEER

your wrong as shit.
Basic > 2e > 5e > 3.5 > 1e > ... > 4e

Did you just assume my political affiliation shitlord?

You look like you need more concentration, better finish your diary.

>New players are a good thing. Just like all groups of people, most of them are garbage. The few who aren't will rise above and move onto bigger and better things. That sort of inflow and growth is vital to having the sort of players you'd want to play with.
This.
I have introduced a lot of people over the years to pnp games, and all needed to be molded a bit, prodded some, have etiquette taught to them, and not all worked out.

I disagree with that user and also voted for Trump

Well, I wagered you got what you paid for.

I agree with that user, and didn't vote for trump

...

You mostly agree, although your opinion on 2e is rather abnormal.

Look everyone, the new school faggot emerges.

Not at all compared to the advent of 4e and 5e, the idea that all classes must be homogenous and equilateral contributing, the invention of dm and player tropes, the internet allowing you to easily and readily find players and dms etc.

This, although there are still groups of oldchool in house players but good luck getting into any of them.

Niger I've build rogues in Pathfinder that can round one a Caster. The problem people have with it is that without any real specialization or proficiency with the system spellcasters de facto smash non casters. Thus is in and of itself a restarted argument however so I don't see any point arguing it as it all boils down to people not knowing the game enough and not being bothered to learn it.

Same kind of people that think Clarota is a cool and unique character and not just another alhoon.

>equilateral contributing
Nigga, that idea came from Basic, where every class had something to offer the others didn't, it was just done poorly.
> I've build rogues in Pathfinder that can round one a Caster
PvP is not the basis of the game, gutter trash, and has little to do with the actual issue.

2eAD&D had a few flaws built into the base rules, and some sucky shit added later in supplements, but it is more robust and less fucked than 3.x while retaining a bit more of the choice and 'build variety' of later editions.
Basic Fantasy by Chris Gonnerman & co. is a perfect distillation of everything best about the older editions.

Well, it's TSR D&D, so there really isn't a core mechanic. And that's what lets you replace stuff that doesn't work at your table so easily, because the subsystems mostly don't really need each other to work.

>d&d is created and get famous
>its the first rpg so (since its famous) you have all those extreme amount of rpg players with different point of view of how a rpg should be, playing the exact same rpg
>after some amount of time playing some players discover some stuff they think are flaws, while discover some rules they think are really awesome
>because they have very different views on what a rpg should be (despise playing the exact same rpg), what some guy think is a good idea wont be considered a good idea by the other player, what some consider a shitty idea will be considered a good idea by other rpg player
>new system is made based at this enviroment, and create a mess of a rpg system.
>many of those players quickly jump into the new system, expecting fixed to what they think are flaws
>because the players have very different opinions on what rpg should be (despise playing the same exact system), what is a flaw to some is a fix to another, and what is a fix to another is a flaw to someone. So the system CAN'T be fixed.
>all those extreme amount of players quickly jumping to this new system, bring new (to rpg) players to the new d&d system
>this make the game have an extreme amount of rpg players with different point of view of how a rpg should be, playing the exact same rpg
>because they have very different views on what a rpg should be (despise playing the exact same rpg), what some guy think is a good idea wont be considered a good idea by the other player, what some consider a shitty idea will be considered a good idea by other rpg
>new system is made based at this enviroment, and create a mess of a rpg system. No one knows what the system/d&d is suposed to be, because it was created based on a mess.
>the story continue ad infinitum

Yea I tried to play with the restrictions of cast speed, Preptime, and materials and lets just say it made me way more in line with what the fighter was doing at mid level but at higher level I was useless.

That being said I was playing 3.5 with homebrew and the martials are already scaled up with that system to attempt to keep up with the casters. Cleric did fine tho

>WHY IS THIS GAME NOT BALANCED NOT WORLD OF WARCRAFT 0/10 WWWAAAHHH!!!

Lets examine a fight between a 6th level Fighting Man (avg. 21 hp) and a 6th level Magic-User (avg. 11.5 hp) in OD&D.
The Magic-User declares spells before anyone acts, resolves spells after everyone acts, and loses the spell if he takes any damage.

Per encounter rules, they start 20 to 80 feet and the first round (rounds represent 60 seconds) is missile weapons only.
The Fighting Man can shoot from 60 feet out (7-in-12 chance to hit at this range, avg. 3.5 damage).
The Magic-User has a variety spells with range 30 feet, but his only option against a 6 HD opponent beyond 30 feet is Fire Ball (avg. damage 17.85).

The Fighting Man fires his bow and _if_ he misses, the MU successfully throws a Fire Ball.
In the next round, the Fighting Man drops is bow, moves 30 feet, moves 30 feet again (because he is unarmed), and gets 6 attacks melee attacks (13-in-18 chance to hit each, avg. 3.5 damage (MUs can't wear armor)) against the MU.

And that's the whole fight.

Sorry,

>and loses the spell if he takes any damage.
and loses the spell if he takes any damage or moves.

...

OSR is nicher than it's ever been and one of the more prevalent developers is actively trying to split the player base right now.

>and loses the spell if he takes any damage.
What, pray tell, is your goal?

The folder for Traveller in remuz has nice scans of he 1st printing of OD&D.

>Of course OSR is doing well. It's the simple, deadly D&D people want.

The best part of the umbrella that is OSR is that there is really a system for every sort of player.

I'm aware of the origins but as someone that plays mostly 3e and having been forced to play 5e, the classes in the later feel a lot more as though they've been reworked to be on a level playing field thereby thinning the dividing lines between them and a making them all feel same, less unique and less impact full.

Nigga you where the one that said 2e was the last time a fighter of equal level could beat a mage. I'm saying that is not the case.

Is Zak being a cunt again?

Well yes, if you take HP out of the equation for long-term shit then you get SaGa, and those games are pretty bastard hard.

Thanks.

It isn't exclusively Zak, I actually don't think he particularly cares or at least he isn't actively trying to sabotage the community, unlike several authors published by "Lost Pages" who are openly hostile agitators.

Who?

I have no answer to OP's question, but reading all the horrible opinions in any particular direction here on Veeky Forums makes me happy that I play with real people, in the real world, where they might hold very strong beliefs but don't immediately jump to the most extreme thing they can imagine to say or do, which allows a normal, functioning discourse to happen when we inevitably discuss our strong opinions.

You guys realize if you didn't rely primarily on invective, sensationalism, and extremism to appear authentic, you'd get a lot more communication done, right? Like, you might even convince someone of your opinion, instead of convincing them you're a hot-headed jackass.

>D&D3: unplayable garbage

Which must be why so many people have and continue to play it...

The virtue signaller in action

You're really naive if this is shocking to you. You can dig through even angrier and more bitter arguments on this topic on EN World and RPGnet.

Fighters in 1st and 2nd edition dnd were really really good even if you didn't abuse darts and shit. Spells triggering after all other actions and being interrupted by a single point of damage meant that casters weren't gods and they had dumpster tier hit points forever.

If you've only ever played 3.X just say so there's no need to like. The wargaming roots were still very present in early DND and melee combat was actually viable

Greatly. It was deformed into a goofy ass parody of itself.

Most people play 3rd edition for the same reason most people eat McDonalds or watch Movie remake #476; It's what they know, what they're most comfortable with, and they have no inclination to explore past their comfort zone even when vastly superior options exist.

That and hardcore 3aboos are some of the most cultlike sons of bitches you could ever hope to meet, who only play 3.PF and will violently defend it, even when it's being compared against itself (see Pathfinder vs. Starfinder).

Of course, having said that, some butthurt 3aboo is probably going to post some rant about how I'm wrong because it's popular and I'm just a contrarian and blah blah blah until we reach bump limit.

Zak Sabbath

The spell list was why they weren't gods.