|
|
Post by tdenmark on Dec 5, 2022 7:59:45 GMT -6
Normally we avoid edition wars, but this is the thread where you can really sing the praises of your favorite and dog on the worst aspects of the edition you despise the most.
While you're at it which edition do you think is fading into obscurity and will be the least remembered of them all?
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Dec 5, 2022 8:41:14 GMT -6
I voted other.
My games are a mix of old and new.
|
|
tedopon
Newly-Registered User 
Posts: 86
|
Post by tedopon on Dec 5, 2022 8:49:01 GMT -6
I'll happily play any of them but 4, only like running 0 or 1. 0 is my favorite, Holmes is probably the one outside of diehards that has the smallest footprint these days.
In the last five years I have played five or six sessions of D&D that wasn't 5e, 13A or DCC, and I ran four of them. Seems like most people want to play 5e anymore, even people who prefer another version, if for no reason other than it is the most popular.
5e has even surpassed 3.x/d20 these days as the catchall system it seems like. Seems like most non D&D games people pitch are some rework of 5e, which is why I tend to only run non D&D using homebrew systems because it ironically feels "more like D&D" to me.
Right now I'm running a game that takes place in the 30s and 40s using a homebrew system and to me it feels more like Dungeons and Dragons than any of the 5e I've played. Go figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Dec 5, 2022 9:03:00 GMT -6
I think that, overall, original D&D is the best. In no small part that's because OD&D is what you make of it. You can run it with just the original three books and it works fine. You can run it with Greyhawk and it works fine. You can run it with any mash-up of the supplements you like and it's a more flexible base than AD&D, without 2/3rds of the layers of cruft that got added on because people wanted rules for things. You can add in any other material you like.
Holmes is a good basis for an OD&D game; I think if you ran it with that expanded by the OD&D booklets and Greyhawk you'd have a great campaign. I don't really consider it separate, though Holmes fans are free to disagree.
B/X I know is popular in OSR circles but I don't like it as much. It's OD&D but rationalized in a way that turns its light mechanics into their own kind of game. Old School Essentials boiled it down to a very pure form, but in such a way that it's sort of a Procrustean bed. You can have any idea but it has to be fit into the B/X way of doing things. OD&D has the opposite philosophy, you're encouraged to bring your own stuff to it and make the game work with it.
AD&D is its own ecosystem. You have to want to do "high Gygaxian" AD&D. I am not in love with it like I was in high school when I found it like unearthing an old secret (I was in high school in the '90s and found that I liked older AD&D better than the modern version). I understand why people want to do AD&D but that's separate from what I want from D&D.
2e AD&D I got tired of in its own era. There was good material for it but a lot of bad and it's hard to sort the wheat from the chaff. I couldn't justify running it today.
3e and 3.5e ... I just don't get into it. People have gone on to Pathfinder because Paizo has found the niche who really liked this and they make a good game for that niche. I'm not in the niche and I'm okay with that.
4e I think failed in crucial ways both commercially and culturally. I think it had neat ideas - it really loved creating neat stuff for PC and monster abilities, but it got bogged down in all the stuff it piled onto combat. Some of its better concepts got moved into 13th Age which has its own community and that's cool.
I've run a significant amount of 5e and I think it's okay. I would rather run OD&D but it's fine. It's a mostly happy medium between people who just want a simple game and people who want to do character building. I think 5e will be almost completely replaced by whatever One D&D winds up being. I have a lot of neat material for 5e. At the same time I've run enough of it that I just want something different for a while.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2022 11:02:18 GMT -6
3e and 3.5e ... I just don't get into it. People have gone on to Pathfinder because Paizo has found the niche who really liked this and they make a good game for that niche. I'm not in the niche and I'm okay with that. - they are the knights who say niche, and they play for shrubberies!  |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Dec 5, 2022 11:57:31 GMT -6
3e and 3.5e ... I just don't get into it. People have gone on to Pathfinder because Paizo has found the niche who really liked this and they make a good game for that niche. I'm not in the niche and I'm okay with that. - they are the knights who say niche, and they play for shrubberies! Yeah, it's a thing that happens when I write. If I'm putting together a blog post or something I have to look out for the dreaded repeat words, I usually fix on one that expresses whatever idea I'm thinking of. It's probably the same reason Gygax was so heavy on thesaurus usage. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesmishler on Dec 5, 2022 12:56:51 GMT -6
I think BX is the best. To me, it cleans up and clarifies issues in OD&D and Holmes but does not have the rules bloat of AD&D and subsequent editions.
Plus, as we played it and as Labyrinth Lord shows today, it can use all the cool stuff from AD&D, like classes, spells, monsters, and magic items without all the extraneous tournament-based rules chaff.
Finally, unlike BECMI and AD&D, it presents a solid advancement line from 1st to 14th level, with lots of room for character development complete with rules for an end game.
I think 4E is destined for the dustbin of history. No one's even bothered trying to emulate it in any significant way, and I do not personally know anyone still playing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Dec 5, 2022 13:07:05 GMT -6
I voted 3E. Cook/Tweet/Williams killed a lot of the Gygaxian "sacred cows" that were holding the game back, IMHO. For example, how 3E handled classes and levels was a revelation to me at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Dec 5, 2022 13:53:16 GMT -6
I love all the versions of the game given the Gary Stamp of Approval:
OD&D
Holmes
AD&D
B/X
BECMI
C&C
I'd happily play or DM any or all of the above.
My two favorites are OD&D and AD&D. I prefer OD&D for its lack of some of the crud that crept into AD&D, and I prefer AD&D for the depth and richness of its Gygaxian flavor. In either case, I play OD&D in AD&D style, and I play AD&D in OD&D style.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2022 14:03:42 GMT -6
Niche niche ni - they are the knights who say niche, and they play for shrubberies! Yeah, it's a thing that happens when I write. If I'm putting together a blog post or something I have to look out for the dreaded repeat words, I usually fix on one that expresses whatever idea I'm thinking of. It's probably the same reason Gygax was so heavy on thesaurus usage. Nah, I didn't notice the repetition. I was just making fun of Paizo Publishing during the Christmas season! |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Dec 5, 2022 14:41:07 GMT -6
The biggest surprise the OSR gave me was an appreciation for B/X. While it was the first D&D I was exposed to back in '81, I quickly moved on to AD&D and kind of looked down on B/X as being too simple. Now 40 years later and I think B/X is the best.
I've recently been dissecting 5th edition and am continually surprised at how much of B/X is in the beating heart of 5th.
|
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Dec 5, 2022 18:15:53 GMT -6
I think 4E is destined for the dustbin of history. No one's even bothered trying to emulate it in any significant way, and I do not personally know anyone still playing it. I think that has more to do with your social circles than the game. Pelgrane Press continues to publish 13th Age, the mechanical and spiritual successor of 4E, to this day. The most recent book came out just a few months ago. Fans of vanilla 4E have also archived the online tools that WotC used to provide for DMs and players. I know of two good web implementations of the Online Compendium and there are probably a few other, less prominent or popular ones out there somewhere as well. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesmishler on Dec 5, 2022 19:44:01 GMT -6
I think 4E is destined for the dustbin of history. No one's even bothered trying to emulate it in any significant way, and I do not personally know anyone still playing it. I think that has more to do with your social circles than the game. Pelgrane Press continues to publish 13th Age, the mechanical and spiritual successor of 4E, to this day. The most recent book came out just a few months ago. Fans of vanilla 4E have also archived the online tools that WotC used to provide for DMs and players. I know of two good web implementations of the Online Compendium and there are probably a few other, less prominent or popular ones out there somewhere as well. Interesting, I stand corrected, thank you. I had no idea that 13th Age was a 4E clone. |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Dec 6, 2022 2:54:50 GMT -6
Guess which one I chose.  I also think Holmes is the most likely to fade into obscurity, if it hasn't already. I can see arguments for Holmes being included in OD&D as the starter set for that edition, but I lean into the differences introduced by Holmes (and some by TSR editing, going by Zenopus's study of the manuscript. That's a conscious decision, on my part, and I can totally see other groups playing it as straight-up OD&D. So my Holmes magic-users are significantly different in play due to the number of scrolls they accumulate, making them more 'magical' than the usual dagger-throwing beasts-of-burden. I also allow PCs of any creature type, adjusting their power level to match the party (that also produces juvenile PCs, which can be fun or annoying depending on the player). Holmes initiative-by-DEX makes combat faster but also more predictable. Some might think the latter is boring, but in my experience it makes it more tactical, allowing parties to plan a sequence of attacks for maximum effect. I also emphasise the list of creatures in Holmes, which IMHO is the best core spread of any edition. These become the most commonly-known and encountered beings in the world, with others appearing as exotic one-offs, or to be discovered as PCs explore foreign parts. Of the 'big'editions I think AD&D 2E is more likely to fade into obscurity than 4E, although that could also be due to my social circles online and IRL. I personally know 4 people who independently still play and/or run 4E, and none that continued with 2E once 3E came out. I suspect the backlash at the time was more to do with how different it was from 3.5E than because it was a 'bad game' as such. I haven't experienced it myself but the fans I know have made compelling arguments that it was actually very well designed and stands up as its own thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 6, 2022 5:11:02 GMT -6
[Admin voice]
My mod team alerted me to this thread. Just a friendly reminder that there is a REASON that we avoid "edition wars" in that they hardly ever end well. Hopefully folks here can continue to respect the ideas of others. This thread is fine so far, but does make me nervous.
[/Admin voice]For me, the "best" is OD&D but I will admit that this is mostly nostalgia and that's the one I voted for. Most of the other editions are easier to understand, as they were written with the goal of teaching the game. That's one of the flaws with OD&D. I mostly play 5E now because my family likes it best, and from a design standpoint it's better than previous editions, IMO. 5E is the first edition where my wife really enjoys magic, and she has only played wizards in the 35+ years that we have known each other. The "worst" was 4E because I don't feel like it fits with the rest and it always seemed strange that it's D&D. If it was sold under a different name it would have been a lot better. A lot of the design concepts were solid, but you needed to plan an entire character creation sequence in advance of play or you might discover later that you couldn't quite follow your character concept. Very odd. I think that the one to fade away is the "black book" classic D&D, as it wasn't even included in the poll. 
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Dec 6, 2022 5:56:06 GMT -6
I think that the one to fade away is the "black book" classic D&D, as it wasn't even included in the poll. I avoided including ones where the differences were so nuanced it was hard to distinguish them from these editions. I'll admit I do not have the black book, it is one of the few sets I don't have. And looking at photos of it (never seen one in person) it doesn't interest me, even as a sort of 'completist' collector. What makes the black book different? |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Dec 6, 2022 9:14:46 GMT -6
I'll admit I do not have the black book, it is one of the few sets I don't have. And looking at photos of it (never seen one in person) it doesn't interest me, even as a sort of 'completist' collector. What makes the black book different? I started with the "Black Book." It's sort of unique among basic sets, in that it goes up to level 5. But it's just a cut-down basic version of BECMI, basically what's in the Rules Cyclopedia but with a limited subset of levels, spells, monsters, and magic items. (The art is the same as Terry Dykstra's art found in the RC.) The early printings of the Black Box came with a set of "Dragon Cards" that are basically a solo game to teach a DM how to run the game at a basic level, and a sample dungeon, along with a 64 page (I think) rulebook. In later editions the "Dragon Cards" and the sample dungeon were integrated into the main book, bringing it up to 128 pages. It was a pretty good tutorial, in my opinion - it taught me the game whereas the 2e PHB left me nonplussed. I liked the way that the products of that era used stand-up counters and poster maps, and supported solo play, including some modules that could be played solo. There's really no reason to use this version of the game, although I admit I am nostalgic for it. I don't really consider it separate from BECMI / RC. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Dec 6, 2022 22:35:24 GMT -6
[Admin voice]
My mod team alerted me to this thread. Just a friendly reminder that there is a REASON that we avoid "edition wars" in that they hardly ever end well. Hopefully folks here can continue to respect the ideas of others. This thread is fine so far, but does make me nervous.
[/Admin voice] We'll be good. Pinky promise. |
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 6, 2022 23:39:20 GMT -6
I voted B/X because after all those years, there are still the most parts which feel right in this edition. Presentation is way better/understandable than in OD&D, it's more than just the first few levels, yet ignores the levels above what I feel is the fun part in D&D. I also still like AD&D 2E a lot, once you figure out which rules are fun and which are garbage, it's very enjoyable. 3.X wasn't my cup of tea and was the final end of our D&D group back then, as some wanted to play 3E and others didn't - we argued the game to death and played World of Darkness/Vampire Dark Ages then. 4E happened without me even noticing and having read a bit about it, I think it doesn't really feel like D&D. Today, 5E is the edition you find most players for and it's what I usually play, when playing D&D. Everyone seems to know the basics, so it's a great starting point for a con game. Some house rules, and it feels more old school. Or I just use Into The Unknown for that B/X touch, or the 5E Basic Rules to avoid players overthinking their character options. Just roll/assign those stats and go, please!  And yet, 5E has developed in a direction I think feels less like D&D: No more sharp contrasts between alignments and good/evil, no more "player races" and "monster races", hardly any "genetics" (free-assign attribute bonuses)... Maybe I have to adjust to these changes, but a world where all creatures (even demons) are considered more or less equal and are all more or less accepted in society, that doesn't feel like the fantasy game I know anymore, it feels like a manga JRPG where it's mostly ignored how anyone looks - animal heads, demon, robot, uplifted animal, half-human/half-whatever... Sure, 2E had the Humanoid Handbook with its dinosaur people and I won't start with Spelljammer (because I mostly ignored it, same as 5E Spelljammer), but for me a part of the beauty of the older editions was a "sharper edge" to the implied setting. The real world is confusing and "grey" enough and the simplicity (at least on the outer layers) of a "classic" fantasy world is something my group and I enjoy. No need to talk stuff over with the orc horde to see if they had a bad upbringing and will turn around if someone tells them how they can handle their violence problems in a more social way. They're the attacking orc horde, so let's give 'em steel! But for the record, I can clearly see why 5E's new inclusiveness and anything-is-possible approach appeals to today's youth. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Dec 7, 2022 8:52:12 GMT -6
I voted B/X because after all those years, there are still the most parts which feel right in this edition. Presentation is way better/understandable than in OD&D, it's more than just the first few levels, yet ignores the levels above what I feel is the fun part in D&D. I also still like AD&D 2E a lot, once you figure out which rules are fun and which are garbage, There is no reason to play beyond 14th level, it just gets ridiculous. B+X is all you really need for rules. The rest is just content: adventures, monster books, The Book of Marvelous Magic, etc. While I've come to admire OD&D, I agree the layout and organization in B/X is probably the best of any edition. This is only possible because of the work Holmes did on the blue book basic. When 2e came out I despised it, maybe expectations were just too high. But I have since come to appreciate how good it is. The only issue I have with it is the same thing that fans of 2e love about it: too many optional rules. I've come to think that it is the designer's job to put together the best collection of rules, not leave that work up to the players. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Dec 7, 2022 9:24:03 GMT -6
I started with the "Black Book." It's sort of unique among basic sets, in that it goes up to level 5. But it's just a cut-down basic version of BECMI, basically what's in the Rules Cyclopedia but with a limited subset of levels, spells, monsters, and magic items. (The art is the same as Terry Dykstra's art found in the RC.) The early printings of the Black Box came with a set of "Dragon Cards" that are basically a solo game to teach a DM how to run the game at a basic level, and a sample dungeon, along with a 64 page (I think) rulebook. In later editions the "Dragon Cards" and the sample dungeon were integrated into the main book, bringing it up to 128 pages. It was a pretty good tutorial, in my opinion - it taught me the game whereas the 2e PHB left me nonplussed. I liked the way that the products of that era used stand-up counters and poster maps, and supported solo play, including some modules that could be played solo. There's really no reason to use this version of the game, although I admit I am nostalgic for it. I don't really consider it separate from BECMI / RC. Galadrin over on dragonsfoot makes an eloquent case for "Black Box" D&D being the best of the bunch: www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=86514 |
|
|
|
Post by dukeofchutney on Dec 7, 2022 12:23:22 GMT -6
Clearly BX and it's illegitimate spawn are games for drivelling fools who deserve to be impaled on spikes in the first level of the dungeon.
Holmes is a time machine for crusty old dudes who like fiddling with dex for initiative
AD&D is for people with no job and lots of time to fiddle with superfluous rules and stats
2E is for those whose taste in fantasy was vomited out the 99p bin of fanfiction books
3E and 4E are not D&D.
5E ....
OD&D is the superior game. Deeply imaginative, correct in its rules density and lax in its application.
The true spirit of whatever the OSR was could be summarised "Gary and Dave got it right first time".
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Dec 7, 2022 12:56:35 GMT -6
Clearly BX and it's illegitimate spawn are games for drivelling fools who deserve to be impaled on spikes in the first level of the dungeon. Holmes is a time machine for crusty old dudes who like fiddling with dex for initiative AD&D is for people with no job and lots of time to fiddle with superfluous rules and stats 2E is for those whose taste in fantasy was vomited out the 99p bin of fanfiction books 3E and 4E are not D&D. 5E .... OD&D is the superior game. Deeply imaginative, correct in its rules density and lax in its application. The true spirit of whatever the OSR was could be summarised "Gary and Dave got it right first time".  I love them all. Except 4th edition. But I will agree that Gary & Dave nailed it with original D&D. |
|
ThrorII
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 117 
|
Post by ThrorII on Dec 7, 2022 13:42:39 GMT -6
I voted B/X because after all those years, there are still the most parts which feel right in this edition. Presentation is way better/understandable than in OD&D, it's more than just the first few levels, yet ignores the levels above what I feel is the fun part in D&D. I also still like AD&D 2E a lot, once you figure out which rules are fun and which are garbage, There is no reason to play beyond 14th level, it just gets ridiculous. B+X is all you really need for rules. The rest is just content: adventures, monster books, The Book of Marvelous Magic, etc. While I've come to admire OD&D, I agree the layout and organization in B/X is probably the best of any edition. This is only possible because of the work Holmes did on the blue book basic. This.
I was going to chime in, but hamurai said it better than I could.
|
|
yesmar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Fool, my spell book is written in Erlang!
Posts: 217
|
Post by yesmar on Dec 7, 2022 15:30:55 GMT -6
I learned in ‘77 with Holmes. I will always have a spot in my heart for it, but I’m not interested in using it anymore. Back in the day we began migrating to AD&D from ‘78-‘79. I also have fond memories of First Edition. It was great, but it’s got more bells and whistles than I need or want these days. I like the flexibility of ‘74 D&D, but chose to eschew the Supplements. I find that they give me everything I need to create the style of sword & sorcery game I want to run. I could do the same with AD&D, but I’d be removing so many things. It’s just easier to start from the original D&D base. I could care less about B/X and 2E and subsequent things. YMMV, of course!
|
|
|
|
Post by rredmond on Dec 7, 2022 16:22:51 GMT -6
AD&D is for people with no job and lots of time to fiddle with superfluous rules and stats I would take umbrage, if I didn't eventually come to realize my DMing of 1e, ignoring rules over rulings emulates more of an OD&D feel. And   I'd give you a Mod warning, if that just wasn't so darn funny. In all seriousness I love 1e because it's what I sorta started with, and what I enjoy the most - though nostalgia plays a big part. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Dec 7, 2022 16:25:34 GMT -6
OD&D: A+ Holmes: B+ B/X: A AD&D (1e) B-* AD&D (2e) B 3/3.5: B+ 4: F- 5: A  *as a game. A++ as gaming literature. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Dec 7, 2022 16:30:14 GMT -6
I would take umbrage, if I didn't eventually come to realize my DMing of 1e, ignoring rules over rulings emulates more of an OD&D feel. Same here. I didn't know I was playing AD&D in an OSR style until the OSR came along. I never loved the fiddly bits of AD&D, but (as I keep saying) I LOVE reading those books. Even OA and the Survival Guides! |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Dec 7, 2022 16:34:02 GMT -6
I learned in ‘77 with Holmes. I will always have a spot in my heart for it, but I’m not interested in using it anymore. Back in the day we began migrating to AD&D from ‘78-‘79. I also have fond memories of First Edition. It was great, but it’s got more bells and whistles than I need or want these days. I like the flexibility of ‘74 D&D, but chose to eschew the Supplements. I find that they give me everything I need to create the style of sword & sorcery game I want to run. I could do the same with AD&D, but I’d be removing so many things. It’s just easier to start from the original D&D base. I could care less about B/X and 2E and subsequent things. YMMV, of course! To me OD&D 74 + Supplement 1: Greyhawk really hits the sweet spot. Lightning in a bottle. |
|
|
|
Post by rredmond on Dec 7, 2022 16:37:42 GMT -6
I LOVE reading those books. Oh heck yeah! Some folks point to the disorganization of the 1e DMG as a flaw, that's absolutely a feature. I love finding awesome tidbits surrounded by High Gygaxian. Wonderful books! And now you lost me I probably read UA once or twice, but not really after that second time when the binding fell completely apart. I didn't really read, use, (or to be honest bother to understand) any of the books except the MM, PHB, DMG, FF, MM2 and the DDG for flavor. If I want newer fangled books, I'll read OSRIC and Monsters of Myth |
|
