Edition Wars – Does the edition you play really have an impact on the game?

[Libramarian]

I think the emotional context of ruining your Dad's game is causing you to overgeneralize a bit. I remember having a temper tantrum and going to my room to pout instead of playing action figures with my mom and regretting it horribly. I think I was 5 or 6 years old. It's very affecting to feel like you've foresworn attention from your parents.

It's true that the players don't need to know the rules to play D&D. DM's imaginary playtime D&D is OK. It's a little bland. I prefer to at least have some traction with the reward system so that I have some control over my character's advancement. The other thing I don't like so much about it is it's a lot of weight on the DM's shoulders to make sure the show runs well. Good rules provide some fallback fun so the game is still enjoyable even when the DM is off their game or low on energy.

That said, I definitely think it is true that modern editions of D&D encourage the CharOp/rules-lawyer playstyle to a greater degree than most groups really would like. The reason for this is simple: this is how WotC knows how to make money. They don't know how to monetize the basic D&D experience of exploring a shared imaginary world, so they focus on tapping the peripheral CharOp aspect. Think about how much money you spent on the game when you didn't know the rules vs. how much you spent when you were being an annoying rules lawyer. That's the economic reality of the situation.

 

[BriarMonkey]

If it works for you, then great.

However, when I and my friends want to play a game that allows us to be whatever we want in a fantasy setting, then we need to have a common frame of reference - a game system. For that to work in a collaborative game, the game system, or edition, makes all the difference in the world. Warhammer feels different than D & D; D & D 1E, 3E, and 4E all feel different from one another; D & D feels different than Stormbringer; Stormbringer feels different than RuneQuest. But they are all fantasy. If you can't agree on the system and version, then you aren't going to be playing much of anything.

While rule 0 exists pretty much at any table, that does not mean a GM has to always use it. In what you suggest, it means that it's the only rule that is constant. And for many GMs, they don't have the time to be able to do all the upfront work for planning an edition agnostic adventure - not to mention keeping the scads of notes in-game to make sure their decisions are consistant throughout the lifetime of a campaign. No, it's the game system that provides the framework to do most of that so the GM can focus on running a good game. Thus, the edition matters.

As has been mentioned, there are many freeform games already out there. You may want to investigate some of them.

 

[Obryn]

Perhaps this is a better way of portraying my point. I feel system is irrelevant because im confident i can taylor any set of rules for the kind of game I want to play. Maybe a better statement which I think you'd agree with is that its pointless to compare systems because their all designed to taylor to different needs and tastes.

That makes it the opposite of pointless, though. They are indeed all designed for different needs and tastes, and that's why it's awesome to have a bunch of them.

-O

 

[Evenglare]

The only thing I have to add to this, is that I did an experiment a couple years ago and ran both 3.5 and 4th edition versions of the first Dragonlance module (Dragons of Autumn) with 2 different groups simultaneously. To my surprise, very -very- little actually changed apart from some story choices, but this had nothing to do with the system I ran it with.

 

[Quickleaf]

When I was younger (childhood and early teenage years), I never had a great grasp of the rules even when I started DMing. Some of the best fun I've had role-playing was virtually free form, rolling dice whenever we felt there was a dramatic conflict to be resolved, pretty much. What made that work was a very intimate group: just me and one or two of my best buddies.

The larger the group, or the less intimate that group, the more important rules are.

And which rules set you choose has an impact on the game. For example, in 3e it was common practice to buff the frontline before a major fight, including casting enlarge; personally that created a dissonance for me (none of the fantasy literature I read had enlarged knights, and it felt...gamey and gimmicky), but we all laughed about it. Buffing didn't look the same in 4e, and was significantly less than 3e because classes were more balanced, but there was a lot more condition/effect tracking round to round. For us that meant using condition markers, having an initiative caller, and a whole host of other adaptations that felt quite artificial and structured at first.

Another example: compared to 1st level characters in AD&D, 4e 1st level characters are already accomplished adventurers. What game system you choose changes the kind of stories you tell.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

System matters. It can inhibit or accentuate certain playstyles, character build preferences, and whether certain concepts are even playable.

Fellow players & GM matter. Even if a game is mechanically poor, a good group can have fun. And some groups ruin perfectly good games.

How much each matters depends on the way the particular elements interact. One group might be a blast to play with in one game, and an utter drag in another.

 

[SLOTHmaster]

My friends and I started playing D&D using pretty much that exact same flexible rules approach and loved it. With the right group it's definitely a viable approach.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Your article sparked a bunch of disparate thoughts for me.

The first is that perhaps system matters less than I thought it did. I'm a strong believer that system matters. However after some reflections I must concede that the games I DM'd in Holmes Basic, AD&D, 2E, and 3E were all very, very similar. I have a mental image of "this is a D&D adventure" and I was able to meet that mental image with each of these versions of the rules. Some of this took a bit of changes in emphasis, tweaking, and house ruling. I think this was possible because all of these rule sets had similar enough goals, methodology, and philosophy that I could make it work. I don't think I could create a D&D experience with LBB Traveller or TMNT, to name a couple of my other favorite rule sets. I do think that choice of rules can make my particular playstyle easier or harder to achieve. Frex, 2E was probably the best fit for me.

Playing without knowing the rules is my absolute favorite way to play. You need some way to form expectations about what will or won't work, but there are other ways to do this than reading the rules. Trial and error works. Reading fiction based on the rules (even the really bad fiction included in many games) also works very well. I wish more games were written to accommodate this style.

OP, don't be too hard on yourself about your behavior with your dad. Many, many people do something along these lines simply because they're young and haven't yet learned better. (I'm hoping this doesn't sound condescending, sorry if it does) Making mistakes like this, recognizing them, and learning not to do them again is just a normal part of growing up. My own kids, while still very young, have done some things that could easily offend me, except that I remember exactly how and why I did such things myself, so they don't.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I understand this will not be for everyone but would urge any player when they notice the DM got their damage wrong by 1 to just let it slide and dont let petty rule keeping overshadow the narrative and flow of a session. Im not suggesting everyone needs to go to our extreme I'm just hoping people can learn from my story and it might encourage people to try out my logic.

Well, yes. Letting things ride is just common courtesy.

Perhaps this is a better way of portraying my point. I feel system is irrelevant because im confident i can taylor any set of rules for the kind of game I want to play. Maybe a better statement which I think you'd agree with is that its pointless to compare systems because their all designed to taylor to different needs and tastes.

And I'm going to step outside the recommending a system part (which you seem to have been entirely ignoring) and point blank ask you which systems you've tried. Whether it has just been D&D 3.5 and D&D 4e or whether you've tried a wide range of other games, definitely including the narrativist games like Dogs in the Vineyard. Because what games lend themselves to easily varies and the experience of playing Dread is not the same as playing high lethality D&D.

 

[terrya]

And I'm going to step outside the recommending a system part (which you seem to have been entirely ignoring) and point blank ask you which systems you've tried.

Apologies if you felt I was ignoring your point, it was far from deliberate. I have played Basic Ad&D 3.0, 3.5, 4ED, Traveler, Castle and Crusaders and 1 game of some kind of super hero game? Mutants something? As well as a huge variety of home brews of the above systems.

I have stuck with 3.5 just due to access of materials and it was my first proper look at rules. I think it would be fair to say anyone who plays my game would recognise it as 3.5 but after about an hour, I would hope, they would start to see the subtle differences.

I honestly would say however that from session to session I could change what rulebook I looked to for guidance without any real issue as the core rules of the edition really do not have that large of an impact on my game.