Which edition would best fit my playing style?

Shades of Green · Nov 29, 2008

DISCLAIMER: I think that different editions fit different playing styles and different people's tastes. What I'm looking for is advice concerning my tastes and playing style. Please do not start edition wars here - if an edition doesn't fit my playing style it doesn't mean that it doesn't fit other people's playing styles.

While I'm currently playing 3.0E, I'm having more and more problems with this system, and I'm looking into the possibility of switching to another edition. The thing is that I'm not sure about which edition will be best for me and my players.

What I'm looking for is:

1) I like to play fast, rules-light, with as little book referencing during gameplay as possible, and with some level of improvisation. I like simple game mechanics that I could easily learn by heart and thus avoid excessive page-thumbing during the game.

2) I like to best utilize my prep time, which is becoming more and more limited as I grow up.

3) I usually DM for a relatively small group of 1-3 players.

4) I usually play Core-centric games with minimal use of additional books.

5) My settings usually have a low-to-moderate magic level.

6) I like to use magic, character powers, and monster powers both in and out of combat. Me and my players also like cool "non-combat" spells/powers that could be used in creative ways both outside and in combat.

7) I don't mind some boardgame elements in my games, as well as moderately complex combat (up to and including some use counters/minis), but I don't think I'll go to an extreme in this part of the game (that is, I don't think I'll like using extremely detailed tactical gameplay).

8) I'm not very concerned with game balance, as long as I could create (or even eyeball) more or less fair encounters. I (and my players) also prefer to let the characters grow organically rather than be planned ahead. There is also an element of "casual gaming" (read: bothersome RL constrains) that means that we'll be unlikely to reach truly high levels of rule mastery.

9) I like varied, weird and interesting classes, races and monsters. I don't mind really weird ones. I also like to have some freedom in race/class combinations.

10) I like a certain degree of world-building, but in D&D it doesn't have to be a very accurate simulation of reality.

11) I'm slowly moving from using die rolls for various dungeon activities (i.e. searching for traps/secrets, dealing with puzzles etc) towards a more narrative style of DMing.

12) I like both dungeons, wilderness exploration, and social/political role-playing.

So, which edition of D&D do you think would best fit my preferences?

S'mon · Nov 29, 2008

I think Castles & Crusades fits your requirements - easy to memorise, rules light, and a wide variety of classes (especially if you download Simon Washbourne's excellent free Netbook of Classes). The magic level is lower than 3e because Rangers, Paladins, Bards are non-spellcasting classes.

Aus_Snow · Nov 29, 2008

Sounds like: old-school 'feel' (or overall style of play) but with 3e-era flexibility, or thereabouts.

So, my vote went to Microlite20. Damn rules light - as in, more so than most old school systems - oodles of flexibility, much of the 'other' stuff in sessions simply down to narration, player decision making and problem solving, etc.

Otherwise, you might also want to have a look at E6, or possibly the E8 variant. That's if you like 3e at low levels, and want to keep that feel and all the flexibility and the options extravaganza that comes with that system. But it honestly sounds like 3e is not quite your thing. And, on the other hand, old school systems lack a lot of what you apparently value, as well.

Again, from that list anyway, Microlite20 ftw. Though. . . any chance something non-D&D and non-d20 might work OK for you?

Thanee · Nov 29, 2008

Let's see...

Shades of Green said:
1) I like to play fast, rules-light, with as little book referencing during gameplay as possible, and with some level of improvisation. I like simple game mechanics that I could easily learn by heart and thus avoid excessive page-thumbing during the game.

I would say that 4th Edition fits this best.

2) I like to best utilize my prep time, which is becoming more and more limited as I grow up.

Definitely 4th Edition here.

3) I usually DM for a relatively small group of 1-3 players.

The older editions are better then, with 3rd Edition being the best (IMHO) for a small group, but mostly this point seems irrelevant for the question.

4) I usually play Core-centric games with minimal use of additional books.

All editions have a good Core, I believe. 4th Edition is probably the most well-rounded with Core only, though.

5) My settings usually have a low-to-moderate magic level.

That's generally not the assumption in D&D, but should be doable with all editions.

6) I like to use magic, character powers, and monster powers both in and out of combat. Me and my players also like cool "non-combat" spells/powers that could be used in creative ways both outside and in combat.

Now this is something where 4th Edition definitely takes the last rank. All the other editions have more and more fun out-of-combat options.

7) I don't mind some boardgame elements in my games, as well as moderately complex combat (up to and including some use counters/minis), but I don't think I'll go to an extreme in this part of the game (that is, I don't think I'll like using extremely detailed tactical gameplay).

While the old editions do not require a map at all, in 3rd Edition it's obviously helpful, while in 4th Edition it's pretty much a must. Simple maps are more than enough, though.

8) I'm not very concerned with game balance, as long as I could create (or even eyeball) more or less fair encounters. I (and my players) also prefer to let the characters grow organically rather than be planned ahead. There is also an element of "casual gaming" (read: bothersome RL constrains) that means that we'll be unlikely to reach truly high levels of rule mastery.

The planning part is mostly an issue in 3rd Edition, where it is required, if you want to use Prestige Classes. In 4th Edition the character development is a bit limited, due to it being predetermined due to your initial choices pretty much, despite having choice.

At least there is some choice, though, in the older editions you are pretty much set once you have chosen your class as well. Only 3rd Edition really offers flexibility here.

9) I like varied, weird and interesting classes, races and monsters. I don't mind really weird ones. I also like to have some freedom in race/class combinations.

I think that all editions cover this one.

10) I like a certain degree of world-building, but in D&D it doesn't have to be a very accurate simulation of reality.

This is unrelated to the rules.

11) I'm slowly moving from using die rolls for various dungeon activities (i.e. searching for traps/secrets, dealing with puzzles etc) towards a more narrative style of DMing.

That definitely fits the older editions better, but I'm sure that all editions can be played in a narrative style.

12) I like both dungeons, wilderness exploration, and social/political role-playing.

All editions.

So, which edition of D&D do you think would best fit my preferences?

Dunno. Savage Worlds?

Bye
Thanee

delericho · Nov 29, 2008

Shades of Green said:
1) I like to play fast, rules-light, with as little book referencing during gameplay as possible, and with some level of improvisation. I like simple game mechanics that I could easily learn by heart and thus avoid excessive page-thumbing during the game.

Suggests anything but 3e.

2) I like to best utilize my prep time, which is becoming more and more limited as I grow up.

Again, suggests anything but 3e. 4e seems particularly strong in this area.

3) I usually DM for a relatively small group of 1-3 players.

Ah. This is a strong mark against 4e, where the party seems to suffer a great deal if they can't cover the four key roles. This does seem to be worse now than in previous editions, although no edition does this terribly well.

Perhaps 2e, and encouraging the use of multi-class casters is the way to go? Alternately, perhaps some other game entirely might suit a small party better?

4) I usually play Core-centric games with minimal use of additional books.

If you can get your hands on the old "Rules Compendium" (for BECM D&D), that has an extremely strong Core. Otherwise, I think 3e (or 3.5e) has the strongest core, while 4e has the weakest.

5) My settings usually have a low-to-moderate magic level.

A strong point against 3e and 4e.

6) I like to use magic, character powers, and monster powers both in and out of combat. Me and my players also like cool "non-combat" spells/powers that could be used in creative ways both outside and in combat.

This probably favours 3e somewhat. The Skill Challenges rules for 4e are also particularly strong, but have the emphasis squarely on skills, and not on magic and powers.

7) I don't mind some boardgame elements in my games, as well as moderately complex combat (up to and including some use counters/minis), but I don't think I'll go to an extreme in this part of the game (that is, I don't think I'll like using extremely detailed tactical gameplay).

Boardgame elements were minimal pre-3e, became more important with 3e, much more important with 3.5e, and almost essential with 4e. Make of that what you will.

8) I'm not very concerned with game balance, as long as I could create (or even eyeball) more or less fair encounters. I (and my players) also prefer to let the characters grow organically rather than be planned ahead. There is also an element of "casual gaming" (read: bothersome RL constrains) that means that we'll be unlikely to reach truly high levels of rule mastery.

Another mark in favour of RC D&D or 2nd Edition. 3e strongly favours system mastery. 4e also appears quite good, although I'm sure the major imbalances are yet to be found (or added to the system via supplements).

9) I like varied, weird and interesting classes, races and monsters. I don't mind really weird ones. I also like to have some freedom in race/class combinations.

Ah. This favours 3e for the sheer breadth of options. 4e has some strong options, with more on the way. Previous editions are more limited, although 2nd Edition could work if you're willing to house rule the race/class limits away. Especially if you allow the use of "The Complete Book of Humanoids".

10) I like a certain degree of world-building, but in D&D it doesn't have to be a very accurate simulation of reality.

Any edition would work for this, although 4e tends much more towards the cinematic than the others, while other editions feel more real to me.

11) I'm slowly moving from using die rolls for various dungeon activities (i.e. searching for traps/secrets, dealing with puzzles etc) towards a more narrative style of DMing.

Favours any edition other than 3e. Depending on how far you wish to take this, it may also be a slight mark against 4e, where the mechanics do interact with such things - in 2nd Edition, searching behind the painting is achieved by stating "I look behind the painting", in 4e it is also a function of a character's Perception (both passive and active).

12) I like both dungeons, wilderness exploration, and social/political role-playing.

Any edition will work for this, although for now 4e is very much focussed on the dungeon/combat.

You'll note I haven't said anything about 1st Edition, OD&D or Castles & Crusades. The reason is that I haven't played any of these, so am not in a position to comment.

Based on 3, 4, 5 and 8, I'm going to recommend 2nd Edition. However, I will note that to make it work you'll need to house rule a couple of things (race/class limits, level limits...), and you'll also need to accept some wonkiness in the rules (THAC0, exceptional strength...). If you're okay with this, then this looks like the best fit out of the ones I've played.

Serendipity · Nov 29, 2008

As I read this, I'm thinking OD&D (Rules Compendium), with 2e and 4e as strong runners up. 2e is probably the more flexible of the latter two. OD&D seems to hit almost all of your points save for the race/class flexibility, which really just isn't there.

Angel Tarragon · Nov 29, 2008

E6 or E8?

Odysseus · Nov 29, 2008

As your all ready familar with 3rd ed rules, I'd say E6 is the best fit.
4E would probably be an improvement on 3rd ed for you. However it isn't a perfect fit.

Jasperak · Nov 29, 2008

I know it is not in your poll; I would recommend BECMI or Labyrinth Lords.

scruffygrognard · Nov 29, 2008

S'mon said:
I think Castles & Crusades fits your requirements - easy to memorise, rules light, and a wide variety of classes (especially if you download Simon Washbourne's excellent free Netbook of Classes). The magic level is lower than 3e because Rangers, Paladins, Bards are non-spellcasting classes.

Agreed. Castles & Crusades sounds like the best (but not a perfect) fit.