Favourite D&D edition that’s not 5E

Favourite D&D Edition

  • OD&D

    Votes: 18 6.1%
  • AD&D 1E

    Votes: 42 14.3%
  • AD&D 2E

    Votes: 72 24.6%
  • D&D 3E/3.5

    Votes: 79 27.0%
  • D&D 4E

    Votes: 73 24.9%
  • Other (not 5E)

    Votes: 9 3.1%

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
Even though the thread is closed, [MENTION=2]Piratecat[/MENTION] encouraged me to link it back whenever it's relevant. So whenever an edition war crops up, I like to add levity with this little gem I created long ago.

Come on fellas, don't take it so seriously. This is a game.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

cbwjm

Seb-wejem
2E representation on electronic tabletops might be somewhat lower due to the edition not being super-mini dependent: the same applies for "0E" and 1E, but those sold more at the time than 2 E ended up doing.

I voted for 1E, because I bought 1E books to use with 5E and have enjoyed them more than my experience with 2E, 3.x or 4E.
I think it will be interesting to see how much, if at all, that changes when fantasy grounds sets up the 2e rule set. Will there be a sudden boom of 2e games before settling down to similar numbers or will there be an increase which remains constant.
 




GreyLord

Legend
Okay, with 4e keeping such a HUGE lead, if it keeps this up, this summer I'll devote time to make OSR 4e ruleset.

No idea how I'd publish it, but if that many love 4e, I should be able to make something that is very similar to 4e using the OGL or PRD (pathfinder's system I think it's called, but the one that is OGL for Pathfinder).

The biggest hurdle I can see is what to use for the XP tables to be similar to 4e without copying 4e...obviously.
 

Aldarc

Legend
Lump PF in with 3e and its lead here becomes quite large. Lump some close-hewn OSR games (DCCRPG, Hackmaster, et al) in with 1e (and-or 0e?) and they'd about match 4e. I'm not aware of any systems that are as closely derived from 4e as these other examples are from their respective editions.
13th Age is probably one of the closest "kin systems" of 4E, being developed by the lead developers for both 3E and 4E.

For Everyone:
I also found a great Angry GM article where he reflects on 4E. He is critical in many places, but he is also incredibly open about the aspects he loved.

Here is one part where he talks about the lore cohesion of 4E, which is something that I mentioned before:
But, let’s talk about the story aspects of D&D 4E. Because that was another aspect I really loved. There was a very richly defined world in D&D 4E – in the CORE PRODUCTS – unlike any other default D&D world. Most editions of D&D take the “everything fantasy and the kitchen sink” approach and they treat all canon as equal.

That is to say, there are no REAL rules for undeath in the DEFAULT world of 3.5. World rules. There’s no explanation. Or rather, there’s hundreds of explanations. Every specific undead creature rises or gets created or whatever for its own reasons written into its lore entries. In D&D 4E, though, there’s some very specific rules and ideas that were decided pretty early on. If you look back in the preview book Worlds and Monsters, which was basically just a bunch of design essays about 4E, you’ll see that they had come up with this idea of “body, soul, and animus” that explained the different kinds of undead and why they existed. And, while it wasn’t really spelled out until the Open Grave supplement, all the core undead monsters (and necromantic) fit together consistently. You could piece together some of the rules if you really wanted to.

Demons and devils had specific origins that informed how they worked. Demons were elemental beings, corrupted by a seed of pure evil to become purely destructive. Devils were the servants of a dead god, mysteriously forgotten, who followed the rebellious angel Asmodeus. Of course, humanity lacks a creator god, but is very prone to corruption by Asmodeus, as we see in the origin of the tiefling race. So, which god got killed by Asmodeus? Was it maybe the patron of humanity? And are humans prone to corruption because that god was a god of ambition whose angels themselves got a little too ambitious?

There are hints of ancient wizarding orders and tactical schools sprinkled throughout the rules, details that implied a backstory that never fully got shared. And that was to its credit. Because a creative, world-building GM could take those hooks and fill in the backstory their own way. Those details were all consistent with SOMETHING, but we didn’t know what. But whatever we filled in the blanks with, it would create a consistently detailed world.

The idea of a world with a backstory and an origin story and very specific details is nothing new. But the idea of only sharing bits and pieces of the backstory to create blanks in the world so the GM can create a consistent backstory, I think that’s brilliant. I’m not sure if that’s what they intended. I think they only wanted to make sure the details of the game were consistent NOT JUST mechanically BUT ALSO thematically. But it became a sort of lore treasure hunt. It rewarded buying all the books because each offered more glimpses of the true story of the world.

In fact, I got SO ATTACHED to my own answer to all of those questions about the backstory of the world that, for the first time, I used the default D&D setting exclusively and built up my own lore around it. In fact, that’s the world I STILL run my games in. My current D&D game is set in the same world that I built out of the 4E lore.

Compared to that – and I hate to say this – 5E feels really soulless. In terms of world lore built into the core of the game, 5E is sparser than 3E. There’s no real sense of world in the books beyond what is required to describe characters. That is, we know what the races and classes are. And that’s it. There aren’t even gods in the book. Just a spreadsheet in the appendix. How sad.
A number of people who love 4E have talked about this as well. Though some people have complained that 4E was lore sparse when it comes to monsters and such, it was actually quite the opposite. The problem is that it wasn't necessarily a full info dump, but it was instead scattered throughout the various books and resources.

And he voices a similar sentiment that I have about 5E and its connection to 4E:
What I would have liked to see was for D&D 4E to start a new evolution of D&D. Yeah, it had problems, yes it didn’t work. But rather than sweeping it under the rug and pretending it didn’t exist, I would have loved for the core principles they used to become the foundation for the next edition. D&D 5E, as good as it is, is a disappointment to me. It represents a step backwards in terms of RPG evolution. It’s a whoopsie, it’s do-over, it’s a retcon, and it’s basically trading on nostalgia. And I think it’s too married to pleasing people like me, the aging community of gamers. It reminds me of the argument MatPat made in his Game Theory episode about Gamers Killing Video Games.
 
Last edited:

gyor

Legend
Voted 2e, settings and nostalgia as it was the edition I played the most, holding out a couple of years into 3e. I came to enjoy 3e but my younger self was enthralled with the 2e games played with my friends.

Yeah it didn't have the best mechanics, but it was when alot of Settings were created and were properly detailed.
 

Quartz

Hero
I've skipped 15 pages but I'm really surprised at the favour 4e has found.

Anyway, my favourite edition was 3E / 3.5E, but only as modified by me.
 

Mallus

Legend
“So we beat on, boats against the current, born back ceaselessly into the past.”

ie I voted AD&D because that’s where it began for me.

However, the best PC I ever created — who had some of the best moonbat companions — was in a 4e campaign.

And one of the best campaigns I ever ran used 3.0/3.5e.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top