Edition Wars!

[bobjester0e]

I'm having a hard time voting for just one. Maybe if we were allowed to rank them, but I know I'd still have problems with the ranking too.

Holmes was my first D&D rules set, and then BX and 1e, so those sets are crucial to my D&D game. I didn't discover 0e until years later and its availability on the internet, so when I did run it, it was at once liberating and confusing.
The original formatting wasn't helpful but playing Ilmale/Greyharp's Single Volume Edition made for a comfortable and fluid game.

I want to vote for 0e, 1e, Holmes and BX, but in the end, I voted for BX because it sits between them all, and is very modular, allowing us to add AD&D bits with ease.

I like 5e, but I'm getting local players who are sick of the power curve and not being challenged and are looking to older editions and OSR games (our kick is currently DCC and related products).

[Finarvyn]

Dec 10, 2022 17:19:12 GMT -6 Punkrabbitt said:

Aside from 4th, which is a huge pile of burning dung...

I'm not sure this is a fair statement. I didn't like 4E but I think a lot of the dislike came from the branding of "Dungeons & Dragons" with the product. Had this been a game marketed under a different title I think it would have done a lot better. Fundamentally, the game is more of a tactical resource manager than what I like, and it has the quirk that you really need to plan for a whole character growth or when you get to a certain level you may find you are lacking certain prerequisites to obtain the powers you want, but I'm not convinced that it's a bad design. It's just not D&D.

[Desparil]

Dec 15, 2022 5:15:01 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Dec 10, 2022 17:19:12 GMT -6 Punkrabbitt said:

Aside from 4th, which is a huge pile of burning dung...

it has the quirk that you really need to plan for a whole character growth or when you get to a certain level you may find you are lacking certain prerequisites to obtain the powers you want, but I'm not convinced that it's a bad design. It's just not D&D.

That sounds a lot more like 3.5 than 4, there are no powers other than the optional Skill Powers that have any prerequisite other than "you must belong to the appropriate class or paragon path."

As for paragon paths, the vast majority only have a single prereq, that you have to belong to a certain base class - this requirement can be satisfied by a single multi-class feat, by the way, and conveniently you receive feats both the level before choosing your paragon path and on the level concurrent with choosing it. You can also retrain one feat or power when you gain a level, so there's never really a situation where you'll be unable to pick the paragon path that you want. A small number have some secondary prereq, but again pretty much all of those can be satisfied by a single feat. Note that there are no feat "trees" like in 3.5 and by the time you're choosing your paragon path, you'll have had the chance to choose seven feats. Vanishingly few things in 4E that have more than two prereqs. The only things you'll ever be locked out of are the one or two race-specific paths for each race which your character isn't a member of, or paths that depend on a choice of class feature that you opted not to take. Like if a bard picks the Virtue of Valor instead of the Virtue of Cunning, she'll get access to the Valor paragon path and not the Cunning path, but presumably she picked the virtue that she preferred in the beginning so it's really just a "grass is always greener" situation if she's envious of the other virtue's paragon path later. In any case, there are plenty of other choices available which don't depend on her choice of Bardic Virtue.

It's much the same for epic destinies. Often it's even easier - quite a few of them have no prerequisite beyond being 21st level, or they'll cast a broader net like "any divine class."

There are a handful of feats with ability score requirements, but generally they won't make or break a character. The only ones with really draconian ability score requirements are the 21st level feats that allow you to score a critical hit on a 19 or 20 instead of on a 20 only - they're nice to have, but not really a necessity for any ordinary character. The vast majority only require a 13 or 15 in a single score; if you didn't account for it in your starting ability scores, you may not be able to take one of those feats at the earliest possible opportunity, but with ability score increases coming every few levels there's really no reason that you can't come back and pick up some feat at a later level. It's a similar story if you want a multi-class power from some other class, since the multi-class system is embedded in the feat system - the absolute worst case is that you invest multiple feats into multi-class power swaps in one class and then later decide you really want to multi-class a different class, but even that can be undone via retraining one feat at a time.

You only really need to meticulously plan a character if you want to do a hybrid character that has powers which depend on two different primary ability scores, or if you're looking to create a character based around some niche strategy like using rerolls and multi-roll powers to "fish" for crits.

[Red Baron]

One of the biggest mistakes in editions after od&d was adding weapon proficiencies and weapon specialization. Instead of expanding what the fighting-man could do, they limited the class by taking away one of his main advantages from od&d - using all weapons.

If you find a cool magic axe, but don't have the proficiency for it, you're SOL. If you have the proficiency, but are specialized in something else, you'll still be better with the other weapon, so why bother with the magic axe? The od&d fighter can find a new magic weapon and immediately start kicking ass with it.

[rredmond]

Dec 15, 2022 6:55:48 GMT -6 Red Baron said:

One of the biggest mistakes in editions after od&d was adding weapon proficiencies and weapon specialization. Instead of expanding what the fighting-man could do, they limited the class by taking away one of his main advantages from od&d - using all weapons.

If you find a cool magic axe, but don't have the proficiency for it, you're SOL. If you have the proficiency, but are specialized in something else, you'll still be better with the other weapon, so why bother with the magic axe? The od&d fighter can find a new magic weapon and immediately start kicking ass with it.

Hmm, I really like this actually. I play 1e, but no UA or specialization (except in some one-offs) but while I use weapon proficiencies, I do find them clunky - especially for the fighter types. Highlighting this makes me think this is yet another rule from 1e I can (and may in the future) ignore

[Vile Traveller]

Dec 15, 2022 7:51:42 GMT -6 rredmond said:

Dec 15, 2022 6:55:48 GMT -6 Red Baron said:

One of the biggest mistakes in editions after od&d was adding weapon proficiencies and weapon specialization. Instead of expanding what the fighting-man could do, they limited the class by taking away one of his main advantages from od&d - using all weapons.

Highlighting this makes me think this is yet another rule from 1e I can (and may in the future) ignore

I never came across weapons specialisation in play, as my D&D experience was:

B/X -> 3E -> Holmes -> OD&D -> Pathfinder -> 5E (in that order)

However, it sounds like they did the opposite of what I would expect if you want to make the fighter more interesting/ powerful/ cool/ whatever. I had always assumed fighters could still do everything as before, with weapons specialisation giving them a bonus and/or extra special abilities with particular weapons on top of their usual skill. Is that not what happened? Because that, you know, sounds illogical, captain.

[tdenmark]

Dec 15, 2022 6:55:48 GMT -6 Red Baron said:

One of the biggest mistakes in editions after od&d was adding weapon proficiencies and weapon specialization. Instead of expanding what the fighting-man could do, they limited the class by taking away one of his main advantages from od&d - using all weapons.

If you find a cool magic axe, but don't have the proficiency for it, you're SOL. If you have the proficiency, but are specialized in something else, you'll still be better with the other weapon, so why bother with the magic axe? The od&d fighter can find a new magic weapon and immediately start kicking ass with it.

I find the root problem to be descending AC.

With ascending AC everything becomes bonuses to add up. So, for example, you can have fighters able to apply their bonus to-hit across a wider range of weapons. While other classes have more limited choice of weapons to apply their bonus, but they could still use those weapons, they just don't get the bonus to-hit. And this also allows for fighters to have specialization they can get an additional bonus with. And this also works on the defense side, adding up bonuses to AC. Simple elegant solution. I mean you could do this with descending AC but it devolves into chart consultation.

I can deal with all the fiddliness of pre 3.0 D&D, and all the independent rules that aren't unified under one system that work together as some sort of Rube Goldberg Machine, but I've come to think descending AC was the biggest design flaw in the game.

[tdenmark]

Dec 15, 2022 5:15:01 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Dec 10, 2022 17:19:12 GMT -6 Punkrabbitt said:

Aside from 4th, which is a huge pile of burning dung...

I'm not sure this is a fair statement. I didn't like 4E but I think a lot of the dislike came from the branding of "Dungeons & Dragons" with the product. Had this been a game marketed under a different title I think it would have done a lot better. Fundamentally, the game is more of a tactical resource manager than what I like, and it has the quirk that you really need to plan for a whole character growth or when you get to a certain level you may find you are lacking certain prerequisites to obtain the powers you want, but I'm not convinced that it's a bad design. It's just not D&D.

Yep. This is exactly my take. If this had been published as FANTASY RPG X instead of D&D it would be very good. Whatever merits or weaknesses of the design of 4.0 it's biggest problem was it wasn't D&D!

[tetramorph]

Well, I'm sure I will go back and vote original, but this is hard for me, as I have a weird opinion about it.

When people ask me what edition I play and I am feeling snarky, I tell them that I don't play an "edition." I just play Dungeons & Dragons.

By this I mean that I play what is actually named in the subtitle of the original publication. Subtitles are always the actual title. Super titles are the catchy phrase to get an audience's attention. I play fantastical medieval war-games campaigns with paper and pencil and their virtual electronic counterparts in my computer. Gygax and Arneson slapped the catchy supertitle "Dungeons & Dragons" over this actual name to get our attention - and it worked.

Notice that no "edition" kept this subtitle. And thus "editions" began. What I mean is, the first publication was a set of suggestions to folks already familiar with, at least the concept of, a war-games campaign. These were suggestions for how to run one in a medieval fantasy world of one's choosing and creation.

That is what I play and prefer and run.

Once we get "editions," we get self-referential games with closed rule-sets and usually closed or at least strongly implicit settings. Not interested in that.

[Starbeard]

I can't really decide. Out of principle I usually say the original set, but over time I've swung back around and started to re-embrace the joy of slapping it all together. I had my period of diving into each version as a defined microcosm that borrowed from other sets and games as little as possible, and it was fun. But now I see a big blur between them, especially OD&D, Holmes, and AD&D. In many ways I don't even think of them as editions at all. Really the Moldvay/Cook Basic-Expert set is the first new "edition" of D&D. What I mean is that Holmes was not really written as a replacement to the D&D game, but as a supplementary text to introduce and further clarify D&D.

AD&D is conceptually a separate edition, but even then it often has a blurry relationship with OD&D in practice. In many sections it really feel like Gygax was writing based on an assumption that you already sort of knew how D&D goes, and all his new AD&D stuff is simply building on that framework. So in that sense AD&D replaces OD&D only after you have already digested OD&D, even though it wasn't intended that way.

The Basic-Expert set is the first time since the original boxed set that a D&D game was conceived and written from the ground up to be its own autonomous starting and ending point, without need or expectation of outside knowledge from other D&D products. BECMI is of course a true new edition of Moldvay, being a revised presentation of that set and meant entirely to replace it. Same with 2nd edition and each one after that.

So intellectually I still deeply appreciate the taxonomical history of all those early editions, but in practice I think I am teetering dangerously close to treating everything up to about 1980 as one tangled mess of additional commentary broadly applicable to this thing released in 1974 called D&D. Anything after that is still broadly applicable of course, but is also presented in a much different way, and therefore requiring a stronger sense of heuristics to bring into the commentary.

[tdenmark]

Dec 15, 2022 15:06:44 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

Dec 15, 2022 6:55:48 GMT -6 Red Baron said:

One of the biggest mistakes in editions after od&d was adding weapon proficiencies and weapon specialization. Instead of expanding what the fighting-man could do, they limited the class by taking away one of his main advantages from od&d - using all weapons.

If you find a cool magic axe, but don't have the proficiency for it, you're SOL. If you have the proficiency, but are specialized in something else, you'll still be better with the other weapon, so why bother with the magic axe? The od&d fighter can find a new magic weapon and immediately start kicking ass with it.

I find the root problem to be descending AC.

With ascending AC everything becomes bonuses to add up. So, for example, you can have fighters able to apply their bonus to-hit across a wider range of weapons. While other classes have more limited choice of weapons to apply their bonus, but they could still use those weapons, they just don't get the bonus to-hit. And this also allows for fighters to have specialization they can get an additional bonus with. And this also works on the defense side, adding up bonuses to AC. Simple elegant solution. I mean you could do this with descending AC but it devolves into chart consultation.

I can deal with all the fiddliness of pre 3.0 D&D, and all the independent rules that aren't unified under one system that work together as some sort of Rube Goldberg Machine, but I've come to think descending AC was the biggest design flaw in the game.

I should be clear this is my proposal for how it could have worked, I understand this is my own distillation, it is not actually what the rules are.

[waysoftheearth]

Dec 15, 2022 15:06:44 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

I find the root problem to be descending AC.

Probably a whole separate discussion, but I don't see the connection.

[ThrorII]

So we play B/X, but I bring in a lot of OD&D (or what I interpret from OD&D), such as multiple fighter attacks at level 4 and 8, Magic-user spells known influenced by their Intelligence adjustment, Thieves getting higher backstab multipliers at higher level tiers, and Supplement classes (Paladin, Ranger, Druid, Illusionist).

I guess we play B/X with an OD&D twist?

What I've been dying to do is run B/X, but use OD&D races and classes (keeping the B/X rules on abilities, spells, adventures, and encounters.

[geoffrey]

Dec 12, 2022 1:31:47 GMT -6 Falconer said:

The Gygax trilogy of Original (1974), Basic (1977), and Advanced (1977) are immortal classics. My Christmas wish for every RPG player is to own their own a Gygax PHB and to be run through the original version of The Keep on the Borderlands. My Christmas wish for every RPG gamemaster is to read OD&D and Greyhawk and the DMG, and to run the original version of The Keep on the Borderlands.

I love it.

For me, B2: The Keep on the Borderlands defines the center of the target that is D&D.

[tdenmark]

Dec 15, 2022 20:08:58 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Dec 15, 2022 15:06:44 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

I find the root problem to be descending AC.

Probably a whole separate discussion, but I don't see the connection.

Yeah, there probably are threads already dedicated to ascending vs descending AC. I tried to explain my point, but I guess I didn't do a very clear job. If I was to list the top 3 things about 3.0 OGL would be #1. SRD would be #2 and ascending AC would probably be #3, that or removing all race/class/level restrictions.

[tdenmark]

Dec 15, 2022 22:14:53 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Dec 12, 2022 1:31:47 GMT -6 Falconer said:

The Gygax trilogy of Original (1974), Basic (1977), and Advanced (1977) are immortal classics. My Christmas wish for every RPG player is to own their own a Gygax PHB and to be run through the original version of The Keep on the Borderlands. My Christmas wish for every RPG gamemaster is to read OD&D and Greyhawk and the DMG, and to run the original version of The Keep on the Borderlands.

I love it.

For me, B2: The Keep on the Borderlands defines the center of the target that is D&D.

B2 is the MOST D&D of all the D&D adventures for D&D. Will always be my favorite.

[hamurai]

Dec 15, 2022 22:49:32 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

If I was to list the top 3 things about 3.0 OGL would be #1. SRD would be #2 and ascending AC would probably be #3, that or removing all race/class/level restrictions.

My #3 would be Saving Throws Fortitude, Reflex, Will.

I totally agree about Ascending AC. Descending AC is the one thing that confuses most folks when they try an older edition.

[waysoftheearth]

What resonated for me about redbaron's post, upthread, was that the original game was big on qualities. Whereas later editions turned more and more toward quantities.

Example. The 0e fighter has the (enviable) quality of use of all weapons. We don't need to quantify how many or by how much, he just can. Other awesome qualities include: normal, heroic, superheroic, magical, ethereal, undead, invulnerability to normal missiles, elf, invisibility. etc. I don't need to calculate "how much", it just is.

This powerful and useful game device is thrown out when the rules instead want to quantify everything in terms of die increments. Rather than figures just "having" qualities, we have to fiddle with a bunch of modifiers to figure out "how much" of a quality a figure has. If overdone (think 3e skills... attack vs armor adds...) this obscures the actual game behind a distracting meta game of min/max modifier management.

Armor class is a quality; "pips of protection" is a quantity.

Give me qualities in spades, and quantities only in careful moderation

[Punkrabbitt]

Finarvyn
Desparil
tdenmark
I respect your opinions of 4th edition. I ran it for two separate groups and was a player in a third group. None of it was particularly satisfying for me. It was the thing at the time, so I went with it, but man oh man did I begin to hate it. That's what led me to the OSR movement, and eventually to this very forum. So I guess one good thing came from it

[Vile Traveller]

Dec 15, 2022 20:16:42 GMT -6 ThrorII said:

What I've been dying to do is run B/X, but use OD&D races and classes (keeping the B/X rules on abilities, spells, adventures, and encounters.

You remind me of the forgotten stepchild of Labyrinth Lord, Original Edition Characters.

www.drivethrurpg.com/m/product/58558

[tdenmark]

Dec 15, 2022 23:05:43 GMT -6 Punkrabbitt said:

Finarvyn
Desparil
tdenmark
I respect your opinions of 4th edition. I ran it for two separate groups and was a player in a third group. None of it was particularly satisfying for me. It was the thing at the time, so I went with it, but man oh man did I begin to hate it. That's what led me to the OSR movement, and eventually to this very forum. So I guess one good thing came from it

I have no love for 4e, in fact I despise it. But I wouldn't hate it quite so much if it wasn't officially called D&D by the publisher of D&D.

If it was a skirmish game that came in a box of miniatures called FANTASY MINIATURES SKIRMISH GAME X it would be more acceptable. Or even more accurately: the World of Warcraft tabletop miniatures game.

[Finarvyn]

Dec 16, 2022 2:05:45 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

Dec 15, 2022 23:05:43 GMT -6 Punkrabbitt said:

Finarvyn
Desparil
tdenmark
I respect your opinions of 4th edition. I ran it for two separate groups and was a player in a third group. None of it was particularly satisfying for me. It was the thing at the time, so I went with it, but man oh man did I begin to hate it. That's what led me to the OSR movement, and eventually to this very forum. So I guess one good thing came from it

I have no love for 4e, in fact I despise it. But I wouldn't hate it quite so much if it wasn't officially called D&D by the publisher of D&D.

If it was a skirmish game that came in a box of miniatures called FANTASY MINIATURES SKIRMISH GAME X it would be more acceptable. Or even more accurately: the World of Warcraft tabletop miniatures game.

I dislike the use of the word "despise" because it seems so extreme, but otherwise this is pretty much me. I didn't enjoy 4E at all, and moreso since it was being pushed at us as D&D, but it's one of those games that a lot of folks likes. Well, some folks at least.

Also, I want to point out that I'm proud of our posters. I was concerned that this thread might turn into a flame war, yet here we are on page #3 and we're still getting great discussion. I love this place!

[tetramorph]

Dec 15, 2022 22:14:53 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Dec 12, 2022 1:31:47 GMT -6 Falconer said:

The Gygax trilogy of Original (1974), Basic (1977), and Advanced (1977) are immortal classics. My Christmas wish for every RPG player is to own their own a Gygax PHB and to be run through the original version of The Keep on the Borderlands. My Christmas wish for every RPG gamemaster is to read OD&D and Greyhawk and the DMG, and to run the original version of The Keep on the Borderlands.

I love it. 8-)

For me, B2: The Keep on the Borderlands defines the center of the target that is D&D.

I love this too.

But I differ. JG material is my center. I do not prefer Gygaxian naturalism. The Caves of Chaos are a bore to me compared to the dungeons of fortress Badabaskor (especially when the alternative rooms are used). That naturalism feels AD&D to me and I start feeling like I am in Greyhawk- Gary’s world - instead if mine or some other ref’s world.

So I would wish everyone a run through and to run Thieves of the Fortress Badabaskor.

[rredmond]

Hmm, talk of ascending AC... [flips ban button cover back up, hovers finger]

Dec 16, 2022 6:27:22 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

So I would wish everyone a run through and to run Thieves of the Fortress Badabaskor.

Must look at this one again! I've never played or DMed in that module! Thanks!

PS: I understand the logic of AAC, but it doesn't feel right to me. It's like my prefered game, the nostalgic kid in me enjoys playing with descending AC. But no real hate here, because there's no wrong way to D&D!

[tdenmark]

Dec 16, 2022 5:15:07 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Dec 16, 2022 2:05:45 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

I have no love for 4e, in fact I despise it. But I wouldn't hate it quite so much if it wasn't officially called D&D by the publisher of D&D.

If it was a skirmish game that came in a box of miniatures called FANTASY MINIATURES SKIRMISH GAME X it would be more acceptable. Or even more accurately: the World of Warcraft tabletop miniatures game.

I dislike the use of the word "despise" because it seems so extreme, but otherwise this is pretty much me. I didn't enjoy 4E at all, and moreso since it was being pushed at us as D&D, but it's one of those games that a lot of folks likes. Well, some folks at least.

Also, I want to point out that I'm proud of our posters. I was concerned that this thread might turn into a flame war, yet here we are on page #3 and we're still getting great discussion. I love this place!

Sure, yes, despise is strong. I have some history here. All my life from my youth I dreamed of being an illustrator on Dungeons & Dragons. I worked hard, went to art school, learned how to draw and paint, and kept showing my portfolio to WotC art directors. Then, one day, I got a commission. Then more commissions after that. All on 4th edition. An edition I just could not get into no matter how hard I tried. I didn't even like the fiction they wrote for it. So doing illustrations on D&D was bittersweet for me, and I think it shows in the work I did then. Then at the end of 4th edition the commissions dried up and I haven't done anything for 5th edition, an edition I actually like!

[waysoftheearth]

Dec 16, 2022 17:06:29 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

Then, one day, I got a commission. Then more commissions after that. All on 4th edition.

Well now you simply must post us links to your D&D art!

[tombowings]

Personally, I have found something to love about every major edition of D&D:

OD&D: A flexible base that anything can be built from. Funky rules that cry out to be tinkered with. As a foundation, Gary got it right the first time. Also, 6 levels of spells is enough.

AD&D: A grand vision of what OD&D can become when enough layers - born from a referee's imagination - are laid upon it. The DMG is the greatest a referee could ever dream of.

BX: A simple set of rules, perfect for introducing new players into the game. Perfect for playing with me 6-year old daughter and my wife.

BECMI: An alternative grand vision built by a different author. I love the idea of moving from being a fight to become a paladin by swearing allegiance to a holy order. Brilliant!

AD&D, 2nd Edition: Specialty priests were a step in the right direction, even if the implementation was lacking. The cleaned up versions of many spells are superior to their 1st edition versions. Finally, a playable bard class.

3rd Edition + 3.5: The character customization is fun. I can finally have a fighter that grows into a war wizard. Unfortunately, the concept of "builds" was adopted by gaming culture. The precision of the rules is fantastic, as long as the referee is allowed to throw those rules out at a whim (otherwise the game buckles under their weight). My criticisms of this edition are more closely linked to the culture the game accrued than the game itself.

4th Edition: Wonderful ideas, but too focused on combat. Defenistrated verisimilitude at too many points. I really enjoyed the world building ideas. They weren't always my cup of tea, but I could tell the designers wee having fun. And that inspired me to have fun, too. Best skill system of any edition.

5th Edition: I haven't played it enough to comment.

[yesmar]

The numbers don't really surprise me, but I am a bit sad that Holmes and B/X aren't flip flopped. °ᴖ°

[tdenmark]

Dec 16, 2022 17:15:14 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Dec 16, 2022 17:06:29 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

Then, one day, I got a commission. Then more commissions after that. All on 4th edition.

Well now you simply must post us links to your D&D art!

I have some posted on my art blog. thomasdenmark.blogspot.com/

[tdenmark]

Dec 17, 2022 12:05:07 GMT -6 yesmar said:

The numbers don't really surprise me, but I am a bit sad that Holmes and B/X aren't flip flopped. °ᴖ°

Holmes Basic doesn't get nearly the love it deserves. I mean it was written by a professor of neurology who untangled the disorganized mess that was original D&D. I don't think B/X or BECMI would have been as well written as they were without the hard work he did!