Which edition would best fit my playing style?

[tenkar]

It is by default intended to be a flashy, high-magic game, this is true. However, and rather ironically, it is of all the editions the best suited for low-magic gameplay. (The fact that they hired the designer of Iron Heroes to play a major role in developing 4E might have something to do with that.) The Player's Handbook contains a full complement of martial classes, so you can strip out any or all of the caster classes without trouble, and it is likewise quite easy to do away with magic items. Just hand out a +1 bonus per 5 levels to attacks, damage rolls, and all defenses.

Furthermore, there is virtually none of the mind-bending, plot-wrecking magic that made high-level wizards a DM's nightmare in previous editions - and I'm including BECMI, 1E, and 2E in that. (Can't speak for OD&D since I never played it.) Turning invisible for more than a few seconds is a major job of work in 4E, whereas in previous editions you could do it by 3rd level. Free-range teleportation used to be available by level 9; now you don't get it until level 28. And while resurrection magic still shows up fairly early, it's much easier to remove it from 4E without having PC mortality go through the roof.

As regards racial abilities, the only one that seems overtly magical to me is the eladrin fey step. If you don't like that, ban eladrin, or give them some other racial power instead.

As far as interesting out-of-combat options... I'd say 4E provides fewer of those for the casters, but a whole lot more for everyone else. Have a look at rogue utility powers sometime.

Consider me curious... I'll need to adjust my focus next time I pull my 4e rules out. I tend to forget Mearls designed Iron Heroes.

 

[CleverNickName]

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

It sounds to me like you want 1991 Rules Cyclopedia D&D, using the optional skill system, weapon mastery rules, and demi-human advancement rules, and perhaps playing with miniatures.

I came here to say this. Ever since the advent of 4th Edition, I've been jonesing for a simpler game to play, myself.

 

[Gundark]

DISCLAIMER: Whiich edition of D&D do you think would best fit my preferences?

Well if your looking at an edition of D&D...then I'd suggest 4th edition....however if we're looking at non D&D games...then you might be happier with Savage Worlds

 

[MrFilthyIke]

I voted "Other" as I voted for the Rules Cyclopedia.

 

[pawsplay]

The Rules Cyclopedia would not be a bad choice, but there are some things about it that can be annoying. Right off the bad, the skills system is geared toward wilderness and dungeoneering or fairly challenging tasks; it is pretty weak as far as social skills or crafting, especially as it can be hard to raise skill levels high enough to perform routine tasks without a significant chance of failure. Likewise, thieves start out with pretty poor thieving skills.

The magic weapon spell does not exist in the Rules Cyclopedia. Alignment languages do. It can be a surprising game for a newcomer.

 

[Rolflyn]

3) Mazes and Minotaurs, though this would work best with a Greek, Roman (or a fantasy version of bronze/iron age Canaan) rather than with traditional fantasy. The downside of this means that I'll have to print it by myself (which isn't THAT expensive but IS time-consuming).

How in the world is this the first time I've heard of Mazes and Minotaurs! That game rocks. I just lost a Sunday reading both editions. Thanks.

On topic, I would go with the edition you are most comfortable with. I can wing 3.*e (core) quite easily and can run it rules light. With the right players of course. If your players are rules types that won't let you wing it, you will need to go with something with less rules like C&C or one of the old-school clones.

 

[JDJblatherings]

I'd give BFRPG a look over. I've used it to play B2, Temple of Elemental Evil and Rappan Athuak all in the same game with very minor math nudging here and there.

 

[JeffB]

How in the world is this the first time I've heard of Mazes and Minotaurs!

Tangent-

Does anyone believe the BS about the author of M&M publishing this in 1972 (stated on cover page of PDF) , that it was the first RPG and "took the gaming world by storm"?

EDIT- There are alot of claims being made by this person/company that sound like they are trying to re-write gamig history in their own favor- in addition the 1987 M&M companion cover art is a total lift of the Runequest 3rd edition (Avalon Hill) cover.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Tangent-

Does anyone believe the BS about the author of M&M publishing this in 1972 (stated on cover page of PDF) , that it was the first RPG and "took the gaming world by storm"?

EDIT- There are alot of claims being made by this person/company that sound like they are trying to re-write gamig history in their own favor-

It's a joke. The author is pretty clear on this and isn't pretending to have actual written the first RPG.

 

[Shades of Green]

Tangent-

Does anyone believe the BS about the author of M&M publishing this in 1972 (stated on cover page of PDF) , that it was the first RPG and "took the gaming world by storm"?

EDIT- There are alot of claims being made by this person/company that sound like they are trying to re-write gamig history in their own favor- in addition the 1987 M&M companion cover art is a total lift of the Runequest 3rd edition (Avalon Hill) cover.

It is an intentional "what-if" thought-experiment - look here for a full explanation. It does not intend in any way to rewrite the real history of gaming, but rather to explore how things could have been if D&D would have started as an Ancient World game rather than a Tolkienesque/medieval one.

It is also full of tongue-in-cheek humor concerning our hobby - up to and including fake fan-wars and a spoof of "Dark Dungeons"...

But regardless of this, it seems like a very good game all by itself.