D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Baron Opal II]

I think that Editions / Systems don't matter if you are willing to put in the work to define what your system of choice lacks or does poorly. Systems like RQ or Star Wars D6 can be very open and easy to design add-ons to handle mechanical variances. Making a Traveller-esque game with Shadowrun would be possible, but more difficult. A Wild West game with Phoenix Command would be ... interesting, but probably painful to implement.

But, if you want to run a tortured monster game, Vampire, Werewolf, Mummy, &c. are pre-made to deliver that experience. Much less effort involved. Effort that can be spent towards scenario and world design.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Even so, "system matters" is a phrase I think is more applicable to wholly different systems. D&D vs WoD vs RQ, &c. Excepting 4e, it is relatively easy to convert materials from one edition to another. 4e's engine is sufficiently different that I think conversion is quite a bit trickier, and system may matter more in that case.

I think it depends. You can get some games that are quite different, and yet the mechanics are really similar. I'm thinking of BRP based games. So you see that DNA in Runequest on to Call of Cthulhu and then in modern games like Mothership.

And sometimes, it's the small changes that will be the hardest to handle. My players don't bat an eye at shifting from 5E D&D to Blades in the Dark, for example, but while playing 5E they still sometimes say things like "I'll take a 5-foot step" or the like. Plus, they have multiple versions of the same spells that are slightly different by edition all rattling around inside their heads... so those subtle differences are sometimes a pain in the arse.

I cannot speak for "we". But for myself.... I will play virtually any game, D&D or otherwise, given a good GM and players at the table. There is no version of D&D that is a flat no, for me. However...

2e and earlier are all kinda clunky, imho, largely because they date from before the world knew much about RPG design. 3e got a handle on design, but there are too many fiddly bits. 4e is a decent enough design, but still has a lot of fiddly bits, and some assumptions (about map use, f'rex) that I'm not on board with, and find it a lot of work to remove.

5e is using design principles carefully, with fewer fiddly bits and assumptions I'm not happy with. It hits a pretty cool sweet spot that I enjoy.

I meant "we" as in the people who play/run 5E... I expected everyone to only answer for themselves!

My feelings on editions are very similar to yours, if not exact. I think B/X is solid, especially when cleaned up as Old School Essentials. But yeah, AD&D is clunky. The 3E games are over wrought, I'd say, which was a big desire for me to move away from that, as much as we loved 3E at first, it just got out of hand. We played 4E for a short while, and though I liked it from the GM perspective, my players were not crazy about how it played. So we then switched to Pathfinder. As I said, I was kind of frustrated by 3E bloat... at first, Pathfinder seemed a reasonable alternative, but that quickly got even worse than 3E had been, in my opinion.

So 5E was actually a relief for me. It was simpler to GM, had far fewer player options but enough customization to keep my players happy. I was really happy with it.

Over time, that luster wore off. I've also played more of it than any other edition in many years, and having a more complete view of the player experience hasn't helped.

But I still enjoy it! I think it helps that I play it with my longstanding play group, which is made of friends dating back to my childhood and my earliest days with RPGs. I think that's a really big factor for me... we know each other really well. They know how I GM and I know how they play, and so we can use 5E to get to where we want. But... if I was playing with new folks, I'd be a lot more hesitant about it. To the point I'm not even sure I'd want to run or play it unless it was the only option.

As long as my friends are interested in playing it, I'll continue to do so. I will say that I'm not really happy with what I've seen of the playtest material for the 1D&D change. Those seem more like a shift toward the 3E era stuff... so I don't know how willing I'd be to go back to that kind of game. We'll see.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Y'know, maybe I should approach this the way I did the "mages should always take over the world" argument. Asking and answering rhetorical questions.

What are the senses in which "system matters"? What does that even mean?

"System" can refer to at least four distinct things, all of which have been brought up in the thread relatively recently. It can mean:

1. The straightforward, obvious rules written on the page for a given game, aka the reason why we consider "2nd Edition AD&D" to be different from "1st Edition AD&D."
2. The process of play for a given game, which may or may not actually be written (the "invisible rulebooks" notion, amongst other things.) I would say this is a bigger factor for separating "WotC D&D" from "TSR D&D," though obviously that carries some of #1 also.
3. The design philosophy of a given game, e.g. what many PbtA games lay out in their Agendas and Principles. This one is easy to conflate with #2, because many games leave this stuff unstated, but the two aren't equivalent.
4. The "thematic" content, alternatively called "setting," "fluff," the "skin" part of "reskinning," etc. This is what differentiates a "cyberpunk" game from a "Lovecraftian horror" game.

As a general rule, it seems to me that most people agree #4 doesn't matter all that much. Reskinning a game typically used for fantasy in order to play a sci-fi or sci-fantasy game is pretty common, and things like "d20 Modern" crop up frequently for a reason. Just about the only game I can think of that makes me hesitate to just say "system simply doesn't matter in this context" is stuff like Shadowrun...specifically with its Matrix/hacking mechanics. These are not always well-received because they have a bad tendency to become "wait for the decker to finish decking," but their presence is kinda key for that futuristic cyberpunk feel and it would feel rather wasteful to just...ditch them if one wanted to run a "medieval" Shadowrun. But then you have things like White Wolf's Storyteller system, which uses essentially one framework for almost their entire catalogue, and it works quite well despite the different themes involved.

#1 was addressed earlier with the "I can convert on the fly between different editions of D&D, so edition doesn't really matter." I'm not sure I entirely buy that--as noted, I think that says more about the individual person's skill at on-the-fly adaptation than anything else--but I can see where the response is coming from. Within a specific game (e.g. D&D, SR, WW, etc.), there are a lot of commonalities, even across "updates"/"editions"/etc. 1e D&D probably has more in common with 4e than either one of them has in common with Werewolf: the Apocalypse, even though 1e and 4e are agreed (even in this thread) to warrant some amount of attention if converting between them. However, that at the very least seems to show that truly different game lines are different, so in terms of #1 we cannot say "system doesn't matter." This is separate from other arguments about whether edition per se matters.

#2 and #3 are a lot trickier, in part because (as noted) they tend to rely on invisible things. Hard to compare things you can't directly see! But I genuinely think a lot of stuff in those invisible rulebooks, both in terms of play-process and design philosophy, actually do make different editions matter.

 

[Mistwell]

So, just to be clear here.

Me giving my personal opinion, which is what was requested...

Me explicitly saying that these were "abstract" and "analogic"...

All of that's irrelevant.

Yes it's very irrelevant when you claim "If you want numbers (in whatever abstract, analogic sense these numbers apply), I'm talking solid plurality to slim majority. 45% to 55%, with no other individual factor being as impactful." and then when I asked the source on that you didn't say, "That's just my opinion" you instead said, "There isn't one you would ever accept, because this is the Internet and data standards are never equitable." As in you had a data standard in mind but didn't want to tell me what it was.

So yeah, totally irrelevant in the remaining context you provided.

I'm somehow inventing percentages about...what, exactly? I never said this was "the amount of people who care." I never said this was "a measure of public opinion on the matter." It's literally just my perception.

No, you ABSOLUTELY said it was those things. Your words were, "I'm talking solid plurality to slim majority." That's very clearly not just "your perception" but "the amount of people."

This is the point where you just admit you misspoke and we can move on to the rest of the conversation, or I walk away because this is not a conversation you're having in good faith. What's it going to be?

Funny how people make such strident claims about what is and isn't appropriate, what absolutely positively definitely doesn't matter in the slightest degree, but hold everyone else (well, everyone who disagrees with them) to a standard of peer-reviewed-scientific-journal rigor.

So, y'know what? No. I don't have peer-reviewed studies for the number I invented on the spot as an explanation of my feelings. I can't give you inarguable scientific data somehow proving that my statement, "in whatever abstract, analogic sense these numbers apply," has such validity. Because there isn't any and I never made any pretense otherwise.

Why would you invent a majority support for your view of things on the spot and state it as if there were "data" out there which I "wouldn't accept" because data standards are "not equitable" on the internet?

Again, that's not something a person says in good faith. That's something a person says to claim they have objective data on their side in a debate to try and end dissent and then they get caught when called out on what that data might be.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, you ABSOLUTELY said it was those things. Your words were, "I'm talking solid plurality to slim majority." That's very clearly not just "your perception" but "the amount of people."

One can also have a perception about the percent of people.

Why would you invent a majority support for your view of things on the spot and state it as if there were "data" out there which I "wouldn't accept" because data standards are "not equitable" on the internet?

Or he was just answering the question about how much he thought much was.

Again, that's not something a person says in good faith. That's something a person says to claim they have objective data on their side in a debate to try and end dissent and then they get caught when called out on what that data might be.

IMO. Accusations of bad faith are not cool. Not every mention of a percentage is not trying to slide in some non objective data into the discussion to end dissent. In this case it appears it was an honest attempt at expressing his opinion more clearly.

 

[Baron Opal II]

"System" can refer to at least four distinct things, all of which have been brought up in the thread relatively recently. It can mean:

1. The straightforward, obvious rules written on the page for a given game, aka the reason why we consider "2nd Edition AD&D" to be different from "1st Edition AD&D."
2. The process of play for a given game, which may or may not actually be written (the "invisible rulebooks" notion, amongst other things.) I would say this is a bigger factor for separating "WotC D&D" from "TSR D&D," though obviously that carries some of #1 also.
3. The design philosophy of a given game, e.g. what many PbtA games lay out in their Agendas and Principles. This one is easy to conflate with #2, because many games leave this stuff unstated, but the two aren't equivalent.
4. The "thematic" content, alternatively called "setting," "fluff," the "skin" part of "reskinning," etc. This is what differentiates a "cyberpunk" game from a "Lovecraftian horror" game.

I agree, although I also quibble. The rules should support the themes, and the more strongly they do then the more system matters. (Cyberpunk, Horror, &c.)

Design philosophy - What do you mean by this? I see your example, but I don't have that book to reference. Is it something like "this is the kind of game we want, that's why these rules are here and these other ones from the other game aren't"? Having a collection of rules that point towards a certain theme can certainly reinforce a feel or playstyle. "This is your Quantum score, the more you have the more super you are but the more mutated you may become", from Aberrant could be an example of this. There isn't anything in D&D really that has a kind of "push your luck" attribute.

 

[Manbearcat]

There are a million and one ways to demonstrate just who much system does indeed matter. I think one of the more powerful ones is with respect to Stonetop vs Dungeon World.

Stonetop is basically a Dungeon World hack with a deep emphasis on Steading mechanics, fictional, and personnel/NPCs (Stonetop is your home). While Stonetop is effectively a DW hack and while it is an improvement on a lot of various component parts of DW, there are 3 distinct areas where I feel its deviation from Dungeon World is for the worse. One is loadout/inventory.

Scarcity vs abundance is a significant theme in this game. Journeys/Expeditions are a significant aspect of this game and not just in terms of table time but also in terms of development of kinship and the necessity of it to interact with Stonetop's neighbors, put down Threats to Stonetop, and take advantage of Opportunities to improve Stonetop's Fortunes, Population, Defenses, Surplus, Prosperity, and various & sundry assets.

What the Stonetop developers decided to do (and I have great respect and admiration for them as designers) is to eschew Dungeon World's classic handling of Coin and Inventory/loadout and basically crib Blades in the Dark's loadout architecture. Blade's loadout works fantastic for that game because it creates a dynamic where genre-relevant scoundrel-ey (lets call it) emerges every Score as players have extreme latitude to pull out tools/gear/weapons/implements so that it infuses play with that "just the right tool for the job" quality. However, it makes "gear as complications" a much less visceral and punishing component of play. Its just difficult to do and make it sufficiently hurt intra-Score and the reality is that a gear consequence is also relatively muted in impact in terms of the extra-Score throughline of play (not totally...you might have to spend a DTA to recover your own playbook loadout). Consequently, it is the very rare occasion where I consider attacking a Blades' scoundrel's loadout. Unfortunately, this same phenomenon happens in Stonetop. Its just very difficult to make gear complications sufficiently hurt intra-Expedition/Adventure and recovering your stuff during Homefront is pretty much as punishing as it is in Blades (if not less). And Coin is just not as beefy an aspect of play in Stonetop. Yes, its nice to have extra coin if you're in Marshedge for trade of some rare exotic items or at a crossroads...but its just not that pervasive of an occurrence and just not nearly as consequential (as it is in DW0.

Contrast this with the persistent management of Inventory/Load in Dungeon World. I'm constantly considering attacking Gear/Coin and because having your armor damaged in the field, losing a longknife/hatchet, or Adventuring Gear, or Bag of Books, or Rations, or Bandages, or Coin/your Purse is a huge deal. All of these things are integral to successful, skillful DW play, such that the scarcity vs abundance theme is a constant in play and the decision to go get your coinpurse that fall off your belt into the deep dark of the crevasse is an agonizing one in Dungeon World.

---

If system didn't matter, then this inventory change wouldn't create such significantly different quality to play when the overwhelming amount of the rest of the two games share deep kinship. But the reality is, this singular change (inventory) creates for a huge difference in the constellation of complications I'm managing in my head as GM and it creates a huge difference on the players-side as well.

 

[Baron Opal II]

There are a million and one ways to demonstrate just [how] much system does indeed matter. I think one of the more powerful ones is with respect to Stonetop vs Dungeon World.

I think we are in accord.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
Okay, folks, it is time to let the percentages thing go.

 

[Aldarc]

There are a million and one ways to demonstrate just who much system does indeed matter. I think one of the more powerful ones is with respect to Stonetop vs Dungeon World.

Stonetop is basically a Dungeon World hack with a deep emphasis on Steading mechanics, fictional, and personnel/NPCs (Stonetop is your home). While Stonetop is effectively a DW hack and while it is an improvement on a lot of various component parts of DW, there are 3 distinct areas where I feel its deviation from Dungeon World is for the worse. One is loadout/inventory.

Scarcity vs abundance is a significant theme in this game. Journeys/Expeditions are a significant aspect of this game and not just in terms of table time but also in terms of development of kinship and the necessity of it to interact with Stonetop's neighbors, put down Threats to Stonetop, and take advantage of Opportunities to improve Stonetop's Fortunes, Population, Defenses, Surplus, Prosperity, and various & sundry assets.

What the Stonetop developers decided to do (and I have great respect and admiration for them as designers) is to eschew Dungeon World's classic handling of Coin and Inventory/loadout and basically crib Blades in the Dark's loadout architecture. Blade's loadout works fantastic for that game because it creates a dynamic where genre-relevant scoundrel-ey (lets call it) emerges every Score as players have extreme latitude to pull out tools/gear/weapons/implements so that it infuses play with that "just the right tool for the job" quality. However, it makes "gear as complications" a much less visceral and punishing component of play. Its just difficult to do and make it sufficiently hurt intra-Score and the reality is that a gear consequence is also relatively muted in impact in terms of the extra-Score throughline of play (not totally...you might have to spend a DTA to recover your own playbook loadout). Consequently, it is the very rare occasion where I consider attacking a Blades' scoundrel's loadout. Unfortunately, this same phenomenon happens in Stonetop. Its just very difficult to make gear complications sufficiently hurt intra-Expedition/Adventure and recovering your stuff during Homefront is pretty much as punishing as it is in Blades (if not less). And Coin is just not as beefy an aspect of play in Stonetop. Yes, its nice to have extra coin if you're in Marshedge for trade of some rare exotic items or at a crossroads...but its just not that pervasive of an occurrence and just not nearly as consequential (as it is in DW0.

Contrast this with the persistent management of Inventory/Load in Dungeon World. I'm constantly considering attacking Gear/Coin and because having your armor damaged in the field, losing a longknife/hatchet, or Adventuring Gear, or Bag of Books, or Rations, or Bandages, or Coin/your Purse is a huge deal. All of these things are integral to successful, skillful DW play, such that the scarcity vs abundance theme is a constant in play and the decision to go get your coinpurse that fall off your belt into the deep dark of the crevasse is an agonizing one in Dungeon World.

---

If system didn't matter, then this inventory change wouldn't create such significantly different quality to play when the overwhelming amount of the rest of the two games share deep kinship. But the reality is, this singular change (inventory) creates for a huge difference in the constellation of complications I'm managing in my head as GM and it creates a huge difference on the players-side as well.

Yeah, we won't see eye to eye on this with respect to Stonetop's "flaws," because I think that you're reading of Stonetop's themes guide what you believe to be its flaws, and I don't see that as one of its major themes*, though it may be what you hoped to get out of the game.

* If it is, the theme is with respect to the Steading's community rather than the character loadout.

Edit: Sorry, but after re-reading a lot of pertinent areas of the playtest materials, I think that you are eisegeting the theme you wanted out of Stonetop into the texts rather than exegeting one of the major themes out of the texts. And I think that this colors your analysis and views of the game's flaws pretty significantly here.

This is not to say that there are not significant system differences between the two games.