Which edition would best fit my playing style?

[JeffB]

As much as I like 4E, no question my vote goes to "OD&D", and by this I mean one of the following:

1) Swords & Wizardry-because the LBBS are hard to find and expensive, and S&W is laid out far better. However I use it with the PDFs of the LBBS for the extra bits I want

2) Moldvay/Cook/Marsh Basic Expert Sets circa 1981 (Erol Otus covers)

3) Labyrinth Lord (which is the retro-clone of #2)

I think the only isue with these is the race/class combos, of course you can work out some kind of balancing if you open that up.

You might look at C&C as it is basically a stripped down 3E ruleset with some old school mentality. I'm not a huge fan of the Siege Engine mechanic (prime/non prime) for the PCS, but it works OK, and is super simple for monsters, which is a boon.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

1e, 2e, 3e and 4e all fail out of the box on those criteria.

It looks a lot like the BD&D/Labyrinth Lord/RC paradigm, except for the "variation in race/class combinations" bit that stumps that as well.

I'm going to plump for Chris Gonnerman's Basic Fantasy RPG which you can get for free here. It's a hybrid of Basic's simplicity and ease of use with some 3e flexibility thrown in, and it shouldn't be too hard to exapt some of the 3e classes for it.

 

[Clavis]

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. It's been said before, but IMHO the RC is probably the all-around best (as in highest fun-to-work ratio) version of D&D ever put out. Barring that, I'd say Castles & Crusades would work pretty well as well. I can personally attest that Castles & Crusades combined with bits from the Rules Cyclopedia also makes for an excellent game.

 

[JeffB]

I'm going to plump for Chris Gonnerman's Basic Fantasy RPG which you can get for free here. It's a hybrid of Basic's simplicity and ease of use with some 3e flexibility thrown in, and it shouldn't be too hard to exapt some of the 3e classes for it.

I often forget about BFRPG, but yep, I think that would be about optimal. And the printed versions via Lulu are inexpensive.

 

[SpiderMonkey]

It sounds like we're in similar places. I voted 2e on your poll, but I wish I could have voted for more than one. I'll echo the sentiments that the Rules Compendium sounds like it fits the bill pretty well (much love for it), but that Basic Fantasy RPG Rules gives you some of the flexibility of later editions (i.e. not conflating race and class, and scaling ACs and BABs). It's available for pdf download (but I'm too lazy to find a link), as well as on lulu for cheap (I think).

I was really excited for 4e when it was announced (as I was burnt out on 3e), but it turned out not to fit my play style. I'm still running a game of it, but some of my players and I tried BECMI and 2e out and rediscovered how much we love the older stuff.

Good luck, and let us know how it turns out!

 

[the Jester]

Well, I voted 2e. The only reason I didn't vote for 1e- which is far superior imho- is that you want to avoid page flipping and be able to memorize the rules, and for that, THAC0 beats attack matrices hands down.

 

[InVinoVeritas]

If you want to stick to strictly D&D, BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia would fit the easiest. 2e runs a very close second.

However, I'd also recommend branching off into other systems entirely. If you can find it, Castle Falkenstein would be great. The system is designed for maximum narrative.

 

[howandwhy99]

I voted OD&D But you might want to look at Rules Cyclopedia too. It doesn't have the other boardgames OD&D does, but it includes a number of mini-game systems to cover a lot of what you want in a game. And all in one package, which is a little difficult to find these days because it is generally not economically sound to publish a one book game.

 

[Dragonhelm]

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.

Let me mirror the votes for Castles & Crusades. Excellent D&D-ish system that is rules-lite and easy to learn. Also good for that low level of magic you talk about and it has a good blend of combat and non-combat spells.

Plus, you can adapt materials from most editions of D&D to C&C with minimal fuss.

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

Again, C&C. You will find that D&D 4th edition will falter here as there is this idea of the ever-expanding core.

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, if you like powers, I would go for D&D 4th edition. Very much a powers-based system.

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.

Here's where C&C falters. It's pretty much a basics kind of game. You won't find your genasi swordmages here! However, they can be adapted.

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.

C&C fits narrative style as well.

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

Well, I would say C&C is your best fit, though 4th edition can offer much as well. Definitely stay away from 3rd edition.

It's amazing, as your style is very similar to my own. I've had to ask many of these questions myself. However, I'm leaning towards 4th edition these days. I love C&C and would use it in a heartbeat for using AD&D materials. However, the cool races, classes, powers, and easier play combined with paragon paths is a lot of what draws me to 4th edition.

 

[Agamon]

Rules Compendium, Castles & Crusades, or 4e are the best matches, I think.