D&D General Which Previous Edition (poll; read OP)

[doctorbadwolf]

4e pre-essentials. it was my first edition i played that i actually understood (technically i think i played 5e a couple times over discord and in high school before then but i had no idea what i was doing and they never got past session 1 so i don't think that counts) and i'd like to know how the game plays after level 5 since that's as far as we got.

Oh man 3-10 is like the best levels in 4e.

I voted Essentials, but what I mean is 4e as it existed as of its final supplements.

But I’d have to houserule it, I think. Mostly just the numbers, and give types to all the damage boosts. If you reduce the numbers scaling by about half, remove + bonuses from magic items, and take a hatchet to the number of stacking bonus of all kinds, you have a game that is easier to play without a character builder.

 

[MGibster]

I cut my teeth on AD&D 2nd edition, but even if you smeared my underwear with peanut butter and threatened to stuff dire weasels don't my trousers, there's no way I'd play it again. I went with 3.0. I'd be willing to play that one again.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I really well and truly do not understand this obsession with marking "4e pre-Essentials" and "4e Essentials" as though they are two different editions.

They are not. They are literally exactly the same game, just with more options. It would be like saying "5e pre-Tasha's" and "5e Tasha's." That's the level of difference we're talking about. There is no sense, literally none whatsoever, in which the Essentials books are any more or less 4e than any other books published for it.

I know this is a silly thing to get so annoyed about, but it just really gets my goat.

I could definitely see making a pre vs. Post Tasha's distinction.

 

[aia_2]

BECMI is my favourite one... This simply for sentimental reasons, this is the first edition I played.
Let me add an overall consideration: this poll could easily be read as "what is the edition you have first met and led you to the wonderful world of RPG?" ...it would nice to see the age of the votants tied to the votes... I am pretty sure that there is a strong correlation...

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I could definitely see making a pre vs. Post Tasha's distinction.

Would you call them different editions of D&D?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Would you call them different editions of D&D?

No, but I think the Tasha's change alter the experience sufficiently to warrant a distinction. More than the Essentials add-on, actually.

 

[Azzy]

Just about any, really.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No, but I think the Tasha's change alter the experience sufficiently to warrant a distinction. More than the Essentials add-on, actually.

Then....you have conceded what I was claiming, so I am confused as to why you seemed to be contesting the point. My point is, the above list of options (though the intent has been explained as "what others think" and not Reynard's personal thoughts) reflects this bizarre belief that 4e Essentials is exactly the same level of difference as that between 3.0 and 3.5e, yet for whatever ungodful reason PF1e is lumped in with 3.5e despite making vastly more changes than Essentials ever did (which, again, is  zero, because they are literally the exact same game, one just has more options in it.)

If you wouldn't call Tasha's a new edition, then I don't really care whether you feel it has noteworthy distinctions in it or not; a poll about "which edition do you enjoy playing" should not separate 5e that way because that's not an edition distinction. Much less the distinction between "original" 4e and Essentials.

Also like... Tasha's didn't suddenly rewrite 5e. Literally no content from the PHB has been lost or deprecated as a result of the publication of Tasha's. There are new options, and some of those options are strong, but they are things you must opt into and which do not radically affect the gameplay or experience. I know you have this bugaboo about racial ability bonuses and the like, but there is nothing about Tasha's which makes it a new ruleset. It is the same ruleset with more options than before, exactly the same as every other splatbook ever published.

 

[Argyle King]

I really well and truly do not understand this obsession with marking "4e pre-Essentials" and "4e Essentials" as though they are two different editions.

They are not. They are literally exactly the same game, just with more options. It would be like saying "5e pre-Tasha's" and "5e Tasha's." That's the level of difference we're talking about. There is no sense, literally none whatsoever, in which the Essentials books are any more or less 4e than any other books published for it.

I know this is a silly thing to get so annoyed about, but it just really gets my goat.

Personally, I disagree. While they're compatible, there are noticeable differences.

In a similar way, there are noticeable differences when contrasting 3.5e with 3.5e after the second set of Complete books and Book of 9 Swords.

It's less about the options and more about how the approach to and design of options changed the underlying philosophy of the game. It's still the same game and it can all still be used together, but in some ways it's also not still the same game.

It's a difficult thing to quantify though because there were also changes in 4E when comparing the first round of books to the second. Why some changes are seen as more-4E or less-4E is hard to easily say, but there is a point at which the game felt different. Whether that's good or bad depends on what you like as a player.

To answer the OP: My preference (if I could play whatever I wanted) would be D&D fluff and lore but using non-D&D rules. If required to choose D&D, I would likely choose pre-essentials 4E with a lot of house rules.

While 4E may be a game which I had harsh criticism for in the past, I can still recognize the strengths of it; it's just that changes meant to make the game better went what I believe was the wrong direction. I agreed with the designers on pointing out things which were flaws, but strongly disagreed with how those flaws were "fixed." Some of the best experiences I had with 4E were after I stopped listening to some of the official advice on how to run it.

 

[TwoSix]

4e essentials. Never got the chance to run a Neverwinter campaign, even though I love that book.