Players vs. DMs: Edition Pendulum

In over 30 years of played D&D in one form or another I have noticed that the game has slowly gone from being pro-Dungeon-Master to pro-Player in a steady swing from original D&D to D&D 4.0. However, with the failure of 4.0 to keep the populace entertained the designers have decided that D&D Next (or 5.0) will be more of a compromise in sharing the power. The pendulum begins it's slow and inexorable return towards power in the DM's hands.

The lack of formal rules to explain all actions and consequences of said actions in the original boxed set of D&D led many to create house rules to fill in the gaps. This eventually made D&D a personal experience that could not be shared easily at conventions or gatherings since the rules were being interpreted in various ways. Hence, everyone was playing a game that was called D&D but had no relation to any other game being played.

The Holmes Basic set was an attempt to consolidate and better explain the rules for beginners, but even this fell flat by introducing previously unseen rules that further complicated things. The Moldvay/Cook version was the best form of D&D ever published (in my opinion) but still had issues of its own (namely demi-human "classes" and oversimplified rules).

1st edition AD&D was an attempt by Gygax to firmly lay down the rules in a manner that would allow convention gaming to proceed regardless of location and DM style. In essence, it was to be the end-all be-all of the rules, the ultimate authority. In that regard it was very strict, gave DMs the power to restrict everything about their games, and was heavy-handed in how it meted out punishments for wrong actions or inattentiveness in the dungeon. In essence, it gave DMs the power in the game. All character classes were severely restricted, choices were kept to a minimum, and everything could be run right out of the book with little prep time. The onus was on the players to keep track of their character's abilities and items even if they had no idea what they did or how many charges they had, etc.

In 2nd edition (and the end of 1st edition) these original strictures were relaxed and more customization was added to give the players more control over their characters. The style of play went from being gamist (where the player is assuming a role but is still the mental force) to being novelist (where the player takes on the role completely, to the point of assuming what the character does and does not know as the rule). Dice rolling became the method of solving problems through the use of non-weapon proficiencies and spells became more user-friendly. Also many of the more divisive roles (evil characters, half-orcs, and assassins) were removed from the game along with some of the eastern flavor (namely monks, which I've always believed were more inspired by 1970's kung-fu movies anyway). Soon the options became so overwhelming that it was clear that none of the options were play-tested to see how they affected the game.

In the D&D 3.0 edition the entire game paradigm shifted. The game became more skill-oriented and all results were based on the dice roll. Whereas ability scores used to have little impact on the game, now they were the main focus (affecting everything from character abilities, to saves, to combat rolls, to skill checks). Suddenly, the "average" character meant very little as a choice for non-power gamers. The inherent power creep became even more obvious when magic items were REQUIRED to be possessed by a character in order to make them a match for the monsters. Numbers increased at an alarming rate to the point that modifiers were increasing to the point that by 10th level a character was a minor godling that could eliminate most threats. No longer did the DM have the option of running a quick game out of the book. Hours of preparation went into each encounter trying to balance and modify existing creatures. Groups were reduced in size from requiring 8-10 characters down to 4 characters, thus increasing character power even more.

In D&D 3.5 the rules were tweaked to try and bring balance back to the game. All spells and abilities were "standardized" and increased in power in a logical yet flawed manner. Spells no longer bent the rules but became part of the structure. In fact, the pigeon-holing of abilities and classes led them to add in even more customization to offset this. Of course, the bloat killed the game as it had with 2nd edition. What they didn't realize was that all you really needed to run the game were three core books. Everything else was fluff. You can't run a company on fluff. And so Wizards was bought out by Hasbro and the game took a turn for the worse.

D&D 4.0 was my exit point, the last straw so to speak. Up until that point I was a D&D zombie, buying up any and all product related to the game religiously whether I would use it or not. The game changed so drastically in form and function that the only recognizable feature was the name. I can't tell much about this version other than the fact that I saw very little of it on surviving book store shelves. The presence on the internet was also reduced, so far as I can tell.  This version gave all the power into the hands of the players, even going so far as to reducing the threat posed by monster minions by only giving them 1 hp (thus one-shot kills), allowing spell casters an ungodly amount of spells and abilities to use each day, and granting healing abilities to all classes. Play balance was normalized and thrown out the window.

Loyal D&D 3.5 players jumped ship to Pathfinder (a D&D 3.5 clone) and I tried this as well. However, taking the essence of D&D away does little to remedy the situation. I wanted true Gygaxian D&D back. And so I returned to my roots in AD&D 1st edition. But even now I find myself tweaking and house-ruling the game. D&D 3.0 did much for explaining the really ambiguous rules and making sense out of some of the more broken spells in the original version and I find myself quoting these rules on occasion to my old players. Each edition has aspects I liked, rules that seemed to work, and insights that really showed how clever D&D was. Will it ever be perfect? probably not. But at least the power in 5.0 seems to be shifting back towards the DM (where it should be). However, anyone that tries to get rich off the game by NOT publishing adventures instead of splatbooks is just fooling themselves. DMs need adventures to entertain their players; players don't need more powers to befuddle and foil the DMs carefully laid plans.