What is your Favorite Version of D&D?

gamerprinter · Oct 18, 2014

I voted 3x, because that's as close to a vote to name Pathfinder, my favorite version of D&D. I never conceived at actually writing/designing anything RPG until PF came along, which was at the same time as me wanting to publish a Japanese horror setting. It was timing of system arrival when I first considered publishing that drew me in, but now I don't feel compelled to support WotC, and neither 4e nor 5e are appealing to me. Note: I have been playing the game since AD&D 1e, and I liked each version while it was current up to 3x, and have switched to PF with no intentions of looking back (nor forward in the case of new WotC versions.)

Derren · Oct 19, 2014

Mercurius said:
Hmm. See, I disagree with this as I would say you are equating "options" with "defined rules." There are just as many options in, say, 5E - they're just less defined, and thus more open-ended. So what I hear you saying here is not that 3E had more options, but that you prefer defined rules for skill use to a more open-ended approach.

Technically every RPG has the same amount of "options" as in the player says what he wants to do and the DM adjusting the game according to that. Yet if the system does not give any guidelines and toold on how to adjust the game world you are freeforming and in that case why have the system at all?
4E did not cover many things which fell outside of its narrow Points of Light dungeon crawl focus so you have to freeform a lot of times, or, a problem 5E also has, only provides very basic rules which do not support versimilitude very much like every character being equally good because he is an "adventurer".
Here 3E simply offers the best system of all D&D editions by having a not too simple (I did not find it complicated at all) and also comprehensive skill system.

Mercurius · Oct 19, 2014

Derren said:
Technically every RPG has the same amount of "options" as in the player says what he wants to do and the DM adjusting the game according to that. Yet if the system does not give any guidelines and toold on how to adjust the game world you are freeforming and in that case why have the system at all?

You're making an either/or distinction when in reality it is more of a spectrum. Every DM--and every player, I suppose--has a preference on the "freeform-to-clearly/rigidly defined rules" spectrum. Also, when you say "if the system does not give any guidelines" I can't imagine many systems that actually fit this description. Again, it is usually a matter of degree--how much guidelines a system gives.

Derren said:
4E did not cover many things which fell outside of its narrow Points of Light dungeon crawl focus so you have to freeform a lot of times, or, a problem 5E also has, only provides very basic rules which do not support versimilitude very much like every character being equally good because he is an "adventurer".
Here 3E simply offers the best system of all D&D editions by having a not too simple (I did not find it complicated at all) and also comprehensive skill system.

My main issue with a comprehensive skill list is that it puts too much onto the character sheet and not enough on the player's role-play. The social skills are a good example.

That said, this seems to be where optional modules can easily be added to the core rules of 5E, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see a "granular skills" option in the DMG. For instance, I think you could vary 5E by having "skill specialities" within the umbrella of ability scores if a player wants to be good at something in particular. I haven't thought this through, but it could be something like 1-3 skill specialties depending upon class, and then the PC gets either proficiency or an extra +1 to an already existing proficiency in that specific specialty. For example, let's say you want your character to be good at Intimidate. If you have CHA proficiency then it is +3 in Intimidate, while if you are not you've got +2.

But again, back to the core rules, you can still do everything that could be done in 3E with 5E - it just requires a bit more imagination on the part of the players, and a bit more judgement from the DM. But what I hear you saying is that you prefer greater granularity, and I respect that, but it doesn't equate with more or less, superior or inferior. I'm not afraid of saying that some things are "better" than others, at least in a given context, but I think this is a case of different strokes for different folks - some prefer greater or lesser definition in the rules, but again, this doesn't equate with what a character can do or not do.

Mercurius · Oct 19, 2014

Now what I really want to know is if [MENTION=518]JeffB[/MENTION] really "hates" D&D, or if he's just fukcing with us.

Imperialus · Oct 20, 2014

Wasn't on the list but my pick would be a B/X, based game with AD&D 1st ed stuff added... basically Labyrinth Lord with the Advanced Edition Compendium.

Derren · Oct 20, 2014

Mercurius said:
That said, this seems to be where optional modules can easily be added to the core rules of 5E, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see a "granular skills" option in the DMG.

I am not a fan of such optional modules as either they will only be mentioned once and then forgotten or be de facto core (for 5E I think it will be the former)

But again, back to the core rules, you can still do everything that could be done in 3E with 5E - it just requires a bit more imagination on the part of the players, and a bit more judgement from the DM. But what I hear you saying is that you prefer greater granularity, and I respect that, but it doesn't equate with more or less, superior or inferior. I'm not afraid of saying that some things are "better" than others, at least in a given context, but I think this is a case of different strokes for different folks - some prefer greater or lesser definition in the rules, but again, this doesn't equate with what a character can do or not do.

As I said, technically you can always do everything, no matter the edition. How much support the rules give you for it is a other question. And in my opinion an answer like "You can do it because you are an adventurer" or "Just roll your attribute" are not satisfactory.
The first creates characters without weakness or distinction which are bland. The second creates characters with no history nor possible advancement as everything comes down to how they were born. And in both cases you have the problems of desert nomads being expert swimmers because of their adventurer level or strength score unless you start houseruling to cover this and all the other similar cases.