Campaign Types: Which are covered by the various editions?

[Majoru Oakheart]

Which is cool. But some people took it personally, and it turned into an EditionWarz thread. Which is weird, because I *like* 4e. Most of us arguing that 4e had some restrictions liked 4e.

I think it might be inevitable. The thread topic is essentially "4e does things worse than 3e. Agree or disagree without saying bad things about the other edition". It's nearly impossible. It's heavily opinion based, as you'll see in my answers. Particularly when you are choosing areas to discuss that the designers(and therefore a lot of fans) feel they made an improvement.

What campaign styles/themes are covered by each edition? What does each edition do well? What can it cover if it is "tweaked" a bit? And what is really hard to do?

I think all styles/themes can be covered in all editions. Here's my basic take on the advantages and disadvantages of each:

1e/2e:
There isn't much difference in these editions in terms of what you can do with them, so I'll cover them together.

-There aren't a lot of rules so the effectiveness of the combat system is mostly based on the skill of the DM. Any style that involves tactical battles with a lot of different options was up to the DM to tweak into the system.

-There isn't much of a skill system, so anything skill based depend mostly on the DM. This means whether you succeed on something was mostly based on the ability of the players to convince their DM they could do something.

-Flavorful descriptions of spells and abilities mean lots of open ended possibilities for creativity and just as many opportunities for confusion, disagreements, and abuse.

-The combat system favored very few battles per day as it was deadly, with very few ways to regain hitpoints. Any style that involves prolonged fighting against many encounters doesn't work well.

3e:
-Very codified rules for everything, suggesting that without rules you were unable to do something. Styles that don't have feats and spells created to support them don't work very well.

-Not very good for skill based games as many classes didn't have enough skill points to even participate. Large skill list made it even harder with the skill points given. Skills became quickly useless at the higher levels when they were completely replaced by spells.

4e:
-Same problem in terms of very codified rules as 3e, only made worse by becoming even more codified and the number of options reduced.

-Sections of the game encouraged the breaking of the rules and freeform options, which somewhat fixes the codified rules problem while introducing back the "heavily dependent on the DM" problem from 1e/2e.

-Better at skill based games in that nearly everyone can contribute and there are no easy to use, free spells that can override skills. However, the limited number of skills and certain classes still not having enough to contribute in a heavily skill based campaign means its still only good for any campaign with at least a combat every 8 hours of play.

1) An Investigative, Non-combat game (Murder mysteries, CSI, X-Files, etc.)

Depends on preference and exactly HOW non-combat it was.
My preference: 1e/2e if I wanted to rely heavily on player skill, 4e if I wanted it to be a test of skill checks. 3e has too many rules and too many "I win" spells to make a game like this interesting.

If it was to involve less than 1 combat every 8 hours, I wouldn't use D&D.

2) Survival Horror (Zombies attack, Resident Evil)

My preference: 4e. Easy to figure out how many combats against zombies would drain them of healing surges; no teleport spells, long term invisibility, and the like ruining the effect of the "oppressive horde we can't escape from" feeling, and minions being perfect for this sort of game.

3) A heroic army-based game (The first twenty minutes of Gladiator, Saving Private Ryan)

I'm not sure I'd use D&D for this. It is based around party based fighting. The rules in all versions work poorly when the number of individuals fighting goes over 20.

It might be possible to tweak some rules on to any edition. If I had to pick an edition, however, I'd use 1e/2e. Mostly because it would be possible to run a combat against 50 people without it taking hours.

4) A "historical" fantasy (Mythic Greece, IMperial Rome, the Celts)

No edition does this that well. If I was forced to pick an edition, I'd use 4e, because I could form an entire party of Martial characters and not need to to houserule healing.

If I was making modifications to the system, probably I'd use 1e/2e with some tweaks on the way spellcasting worked in order to fit the campaign.

5) Slapstick comedy (Three Stooges, Piers Anthony)

Any edition really. This one doesn't have a preference for rules, it's all tone.

6) Cthuloid Horror ("Oh god, it's eating my face from the cyclopean ruins beyond time!")

D&D is bad for this because most players assume they are going to kick butt instead of feeling powerless to stop anything. I'm probably biased in that I'm not a big fan of running away from scary things for 5 hours and eventually dying as a fun time.

7) Gritty, survival-based game (Dark Sun, post-apocalyptic, Survivorman)

I'm not sure this counts as a theme. Even in the Dark Sun games I played in, they were not about surviving for the most part. They were still about killing monsters and taking their stuff...with a desert.

I guess I'd need some clarification about what this theme entails. Is it just a game where you make a lot of survival checks and have to remember to write water on your character sheet?

I'd probably choose 4e off the top of my head. Healing surges are great for keeping track of things like starvation and dehydration if you use them as an all-purpose "How well am I feeling?" and restrict their recovery until you get food and water.

8) Epic, pot-based Fantasy (Lord of the Rings)

Well, pot-based fantasy requires a lot of munchies nearby and isn't really restricted to an edition. Besides, the rules get kind of forgotten after a while anyways.

As for plot-based fantasy, I'd go with 4e. Predictable math, no powers that let the players derail the plot, accurate monster and trap power levels, and healing surges all contribute to being able to predict the pace and the path of the PCs very accurately. This enables you to plan epic stories without being worried that all your plans will go to waste.

 

[ProfessorPain]

1) An Investigative, Non-combat game (Murder mysteries, CSI, X-Files, etc.)

I would go with 3E in this case. It has a solid sized skill list, and the ranks allow for plenty of variation between members of the party. Also because enemies are essentially created the same way as PCs, it is easy to come up with a super cool villain in this scenario. In a game of 4E with ranks, and more skills, I would be on board.

2) Survival Horror (Zombies attack, Resident Evil)

I am picturing 2E here. It was much more down to earth than either 3E or 4E (rogues and fighters don't get supernatural abilities or super powers), and this really is important in survival horror, since you want the party to be as mundane as possible. If I were running a survival D&D game, I would have the players only play non-spell casting classes and use 2E. 3E without some of the more wild prestige classes could work as well.

3) A heroic army-based game (The first twenty minutes of Gladiator, Saving Private Ryan)

I think 4E, because it has lots of cool powers that will make the martial classes shine, or 2E because of the down to earth thing I mentioned before.

4) A "historical" fantasy (Mythic Greece, IMperial Rome, the Celts)

Maybe all the green books are still in my brain, but 2E. I just associate it with historical campaigns.

5) Slapstick comedy (Three Stooges, Piers Anthony)

AD&D Ravenloft-Gothic Earth. I once ran a supremely funny Gothic Earth session that was a pure situation comedy. The characters were a bunch of wealthy heirs who had to conceal their rich uncles newly acquired supernatural affliction while entertaining members of high society at a ball on their manor grounds.

6) Cthuloid Horror ("Oh god, it's eating my face from the cyclopean ruins beyond time!")

There was a Cthulu book put out for 3E, and it was actually pretty good. I ran a campaign with it, and thought it worked nicely. So I will go with 3E.

7) Gritty, survival-based game (Dark Sun, post-apocalyptic, Survivorman)

Nothing does gritty like 2E.

8) Epic, pot-based Fantasy (Lord of the Rings)

Any edition will work fine here.

 

[Lanefan]

What campaign styles/themes are covered by each edition? What does each edition do well? What can it cover if it is "tweaked" a bit? And what is really hard to do?

Given enough tweaking and a DM who knows the ropes, any edition can do any theme or style. That said:

1) An Investigative, Non-combat game (Murder mysteries, CSI, X-Files, etc.)

By RAW: all...but only sort-of. 2e might be best as it's the most story-focused edition, but there's not much to choose here; 4e would be worth a long look as well.

With tweaks: all; though each edition would require different tweaks and they'd all need tweaking so the party could earn some non-combat ExP.

2) Survival Horror (Zombies attack, Resident Evil)

By RAW: take your pick of 1e, 2e, or 3e; each can do this perfectly well in its own way. 4e has too much available healing too frequently to be able to maintain the battle of attrition this genre promotes.

With tweaks: 1e or 2e, the biggest tweak being reduced healing.

3) A heroic army-based game (The first twenty minutes of Gladiator, Saving Private Ryan)

By RAW: 1e; wasn't there a rules system designed for just this, called battlesystem, or something similar? I forget the name of it. Or was that for 0e, in which case it wins instead.

With tweaks: all. I've done it in 1e, seen it done in 3e, and have no reason to expect 2e and 4e not to be able to handle it given the right tweaking. (and by "tweaking", I mean designing your own homebrew battle-system)

4) A "historical" fantasy (Mythic Greece, IMperial Rome, the Celts)

By RAW: 1e or 2e. They even gave you the pantheons!

With tweaks: still 1e; the major tweak would be making the magic fit the setting, and that's easier in 1e than anywhere else. That said, it remains to be seen how well 4e does at this; has anybody really tried yet?

5) Slapstick comedy (Three Stooges, Piers Anthony)

By RAW: 1e, mostly due to how people can dream up bizarre and hilarious uses for the most mundane of spells...and that the rules allow it. (I'm running this game right now, in fact; two nights a week)

With tweaks: 1e, 2e, or 4e. 3e takes itself too seriously.

6) Cthuloid Horror ("Oh god, it's eating my face from the cyclopean ruins beyond time!")

By RAW: 1e - I say this mainly because the 1e game I play in these days is pretty much exactly this. 3e could also do this well, I think; just throw the CR-EL guidelines out the window.

With tweaks: probably 3e, again because the monsters can so easily get amped to 11 and *make* the party quiver in fear. 4e wants people to have far too much fun to allow for this sort of game.

7) Gritty, survival-based game (Dark Sun, post-apocalyptic, Survivorman)

By RAW: 2e. The slow advancement helps; all the DM has to do is harshly rein in the amount of magic items.

With tweaks: all; though 3e's reliance on magic would make it the hardest to suitably modify.

8) Epic, pot-based Fantasy (Lord of the Rings)

By RAW: all. This is what the game was designed to do right from square 1, and though many things have changed over time; at the core, this hasn't.

With tweaks: all.

Lanefan

 

[LostSoul]

Can we answer with another system, not D&D? No? Okay then.

The campaign types:

1) An Investigative, Non-combat game (Murder mysteries, CSI, X-Files, etc.)
2) Survival Horror (Zombies attack, Resident Evil)
3) A heroic army-based game (The first twenty minutes of Gladiator, Saving Private Ryan)
4) A "historical" fantasy (Mythic Greece, IMperial Rome, the Celts)
5) Slapstick comedy (Three Stooges, Piers Anthony)
6) Cthuloid Horror ("Oh god, it's eating my face from the cyclopean ruins beyond time!")
7) Gritty, survival-based game (Dark Sun, post-apocalyptic, Survivorman)
8) Epic, pot-based Fantasy (Lord of the Rings)

1. 4E. I like skill challenges, I think they work really well to make non-combat conflicts interesting. A key feature is that no one at the table knows what the end result is going to be when the challenge is initiated. (At least how I run them!)

1E would be my 2nd choice thanks to all the random tables.

2. 1E, because you don't gain much XP for killing monsters.

3. 4E, because I like the combat system in 4E the best. Skill Challenges and Quests would also help propel the game on ("Win 3 battles before losing 3", "Go find Pvt. Ryan").

4. Hard to say... without house ruling, probably 4E. It seems easier to keep D&D's high-magic under control in 4E.

5. 2E. The rules are simple so you can focus on the jokes.

6. 4E. It's fun to make up monsters in 4E, and I'd come up with a bunch that don't kill you, they make you go insane.

7. I'm not sure. It depends how accessible magical survival is. Probably 4E because I could skill challenge out survival tests. Maybe 1E because of its more challenging resource management model.

8. 4E.

 

[Wik]

I'm gonna pick up some random pieces to respond to, as I go. So, bear with me.

Edit: A more serious part. I dunno how "legit" this is for a campaign style. I get what your saying, but I think the two parts divided can fit into others as well. Plot based is based on well does this follow some method of a plot-line. To use the style I picked a investigation while more of a loose plot still has one (there is afterall something to be uncovered and this leads into a plot).

I guess what I mean by "Epic, Plot-based" is that D&D often does epic anyways, but it's sort of a loose style by default (in a sword & sorcery or Short-story fantasy way). In that, you run a module, and then you run a different, unrelated module with the same characters. Or, you string them together loosely. "Plot-based" is more like "Novel Fantasy" - you give the PCs a goal, and they work towards it. It's a side question all it's own, that I'm sure I'll ask one day when I'm REALLY wanting to see an edition war: Do different editions/game systems affect the level of plot in a game?

Responding to your earlier post about game systems, I do disagree with your idea of 4e in an investigative game being the "best" choice, but were to run one, I'd fully jump aboard. I lean more towards 3e (as I've said elsewhere), because there's more room for character differentation. But this is an old horse, and I'll stop beating it for a while.

D&D is good at D&D, everything else requires tweaking.

It's an interesting statement. Are you saying "D&D is good at exploration, combat, and taking treasure", or what? I mean, not everyone assumes "Core" D&D is the same. Look at 4th edition - some GMs love using minions and low-level monsters... others tend to throw more elites and solos at the party. Two different preferences that will seriously affect the flavour of the game.

I'm honestly a bit confused by this statement. Obviously, you mostly prefer 4e for any campaign type (and that's cool; I wouldn't, necessarily, but it's nice to love a game). But, would you ever try using that game system to run something it wasn't perfectly suited for?

(On a heroic side of play) Again 4e. The first session of my campaign was the first 20 minutes of Gladiator, plus an army of devils. It was a blast, minions let the PCs do a load of killin at 1st level, the flattened power scale allows you to have strong foes that don't instantly overwhelm the PCs (they survived a couple rounds with a bone devil).

I fully agree with you here. Our first "real" 4e session involved a town being overrun by goblins, and it was quite a bit of fun. Maybe not a huge number of foes, but it was similar. I think one day, once I've worked out some of my 4e issues, I'll run a game sort of like this.

I like how your first post reads like a high school English essay prompt. I'm not kidding here; threads could seriously learn a thing or two from high school English classes.

Thanks. I just wanted to control the conversation a bit more, and really get the sort of replies I was looking for. (this is a thought experiment for me, but I know it could have interesting applications later on down the road)

I'm also going to repeat myself that Dungeon #133 had "Chimes at Midnight", which is one of the best short modules I've ever had the fortune to play, and is an Eberron-specific investigative story arc. I actually played it in a 3rd edition investigative game, and I can only partially attribute the incredible success of that campaign to the DM and players.

I think we were getting close to playing Chimes, but we never did get to run it. Which is too bad... it looked like it'd be a fun adventure. And, I think you're dead right about 3.5E Eberron being the way to go for a D&D Investigative game. Eberron was made for it, so why not use it, right?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say Call of Cthulhu. I think you could probably do a good job of it with d20 Modern, but it might not be wise to pay too much attention to the d20 Call of Cthulhu book.

Yeah, Cthulu is the way to go. What's your problem with d20 CoC, though? I think it's probably one of my top three favourite wotc books (along with d20 Apocalypse and Unearthed Arcana).

I think it might be inevitable. The thread topic is essentially "4e does things worse than 3e. Agree or disagree without saying bad things about the other edition". It's nearly impossible. It's heavily opinion based, as you'll see in my answers. Particularly when you are choosing areas to discuss that the designers(and therefore a lot of fans) feel they made an improvement.

Yeah, but one can hope. Personally, I like most of the editions, and would play in any of them. I'm just hoping that some of the more rabid edition fans can keep that to themselves... and remember that this isn't about "Which is better", but more along the lines of "Which are the strengths and weaknesses of each?"

Honestly, unless you designed or did work on one of the editions, I feel like you shouldn't be taking what someone says about your favourite edition personally.

4e:
-Same problem in terms of very codified rules as 3e, only made worse by becoming even more codified and the number of options reduced.

Yeah, that's a problem I'm having. Not everyone will have it, but I've been suffering from it. Luckily, it's getting better as I learn to ignore the rules. In earlier editions, it was easier for me, because those rules weren't there for me to ignore in the first place.

(on survival horror): My preference: 4e. Easy to figure out how many combats against zombies would drain them of healing surges; no teleport spells, long term invisibility, and the like ruining the effect of the "oppressive horde we can't escape from" feeling, and minions being perfect for this sort of game.

You know, I think you're right. Combats can and would work. Even in a resident evil game (where there are often many "boss" fights). Your point about teleports and long-term invisibility has won me over.

Maybe all the green books are still in my brain, but 2E. I just associate it with historical campaigns.

I hear ya, brotha!

(On best for slapstick): AD&D Ravenloft-Gothic Earth. I once ran a supremely funny Gothic Earth session that was a pure situation comedy. The characters were a bunch of wealthy heirs who had to conceal their rich uncles newly acquired supernatural affliction while entertaining members of high society at a ball on their manor grounds.

"ravenloft" and "comedy" don't usually click in my mind. I can't see RL being well SUITED for a slapstick game, but I can see it being made into one. Especially if you went over the top with cliches and the villains, and put in some jokes from Young Frankenstein.

(on Heroic games): By RAW: 1e; wasn't there a rules system designed for just this, called battlesystem, or something similar? I forget the name of it. Or was that for 0e, in which case it wins instead.

Yeah, Battlesystem. 1e and a 2e version. Great game, and I wish it had worked out for TSR more than it did. Good point, too... I had forgotten all about it.

(on Cthuloid Horror): 6. 4E. It's fun to make up monsters in 4E, and I'd come up with a bunch that don't kill you, they make you go insane.

Good point. I never really thought about the making of monsters... 4e really makes that easier (one of the great features of the game), and making monsters fits nicely in with 4e's design philosophy.

 

[Wik]

Quick question: I'd love it if some people could answer one of "genres" at length, instead of giving short answers on all. I think there's a lot of interesting perspectives that coul be gathered that way.

 

[Jack7]

Quick question: I'd love it if some people could answer one of "genres" at length, instead of giving short answers on all. I think there's a lot of interesting perspectives that coul be gathered that way.

1) An Investigative, Non-combat game (Murder mysteries, CSI, X-Files, etc.)

Wik, when I was a kid, in my late teens, a long, long time ago, I ran some incredibly good games as murder mysteries, and as criminal missions/adventures. Even back then I was already interested in criminal work, or I should say, work against criminality. And at that time I was playing AD&D.

I didn't feel that lack of skills, etc. interfered at all with character abilities because although no "skills" were describe or laid out, per se, this didn't matter. The rules were so flexible and fluid that you could make up stuff as you went along. If somebody wanted to do something that involved basically an investigative technique and it wasn't covered by the rules then we played it like we thought it would be played in real life, given the technology and capabilities of the milieu, and given the intelligence and cleverness of both the character and the player. So in effect the rules didn't prevent anything, and opened up pretty much everything. Without skills defining what was and was not possible you could be incredibly innovative and original. the strength of the rules as written were that there were no real and restrictive rules covering such matters. And that's a very simple and yet brilliant concept that a lot of game designers could learn a lot from, that you don't want a rule for blowing your nose or wiping your tail or for how to describe innovation. You just want to encourage innovation and creativity as a natural function with a rule-set, not strangle it to death with over-description.

You see when a thing hasn't been described or codified then you can make it up as you go along or adapt from the real world and that is very effective and fun for both the DM and the player. You don't have to unlearn what you already know. One real weakness of later editions I think is the attempt to over-rule and micro-manage every aspect of the game to the point where role-play becomes in effect, rules-play. That was especially bad in 3E which I played about twice and then thereafter intentionally forgot about as an edition. (I did like 3Es attempt to address the idea of skills, just didn't like the idea of making it complex and of basically deeply micro-cataloguing and segregating skills, when in fact many real human skills naturally and intentionally overlap in both function and training.)

Now as far as later editions go I think FS is right. If I were playing a later edition and it were a murder mystery, I like 4E to best handle it. Because the skills system is more fluid, flexible, and less restrictive and micro-managerial in construction. It leaves more room open for adjustment and ad hoc play and restructuring. If you're gonna have to have a defined skill system then I much prefer 4E flexibility and simplicity to 3E micromanagerial tendencies. Though I could do without either when it comes to game and character and player "skills."

So, in another thread, I started off with a simple question: Does 4e impose a limit on the scope of a non-"core" campaign that is larger that it has been? And, what are those limits? I argued it did, and some others agreed with me. Others did not.

Which is cool. But some people took it personally, and it turned into an EditionWarz thread. Which is weird, because I *like* 4e. Most of us arguing that 4e had some restrictions liked 4e.

I've never really understood this impulse either, how individuals can tie themselves and their own sense of personal reputation or honor to something like the edition of a game, of all things. To me everything is worthy of criticism, and certainly things far more important than a game, because nothing improves without a real and critical examination of both strengths and assets, and faults and liabilities. And if you can't criticize and properly examine and analyze something as relatively unimportant as a game, then what can you realistically criticize and examine?

But, c'est la vie.
This is the internet after all.

 

[Thasmodious]

It's an interesting statement. Are you saying "D&D is good at exploration, combat, and taking treasure", or what? I mean, not everyone assumes "Core" D&D is the same. Look at 4th edition - some GMs love using minions and low-level monsters... others tend to throw more elites and solos at the party. Two different preferences that will seriously affect the flavour of the game.

I'm honestly a bit confused by this statement. Obviously, you mostly prefer 4e for any campaign type (and that's cool; I wouldn't, necessarily, but it's nice to love a game). But, would you ever try using that game system to run something it wasn't perfectly suited for?

I don't think that the definition of "core" D&D gameplay is arguable. Every edition states it quite clearly in their introductions and it's never really changed. Core gameplay has always been a party of adventurers taking up sword and spell to explore and delve in search of action and treasure. There is a lot of room to put things on top of this basic model, but that has always been, and hopefully always will be, core D&D gameplay.

A strong plot, deep characters, wrestling with moral issues, internation intrigue, all the things we add on to this is great but the game has always been designed primarily around the core gameplay of fighting, acquiring treasure, and exploring dungeons of various kinds. So that is what I meant, D&D has always been designed to do well at what is considered core D&D gameplay. There have been rules supplements, sections, subsystems and so forth for a great many playstyles and approaches, but the game assumes that things always come down to killing things and taking their stuff. That is why combat, character power (level advancement, class abilities, skills and feats, etc), exploration rules and magic items form the root and bulk of the rules systems for every game.

You can tweak D&D to run about anything fantasy related, but the further you get away from core D&D gameplay, the worse off you are in rules support, as you are moving away from what the design centers around. Too far removed (like a game with no combat) and you need to shop for a different system.

 

[The Ghost]

What campaign styles/themes are covered by each edition? What does each edition do well? What can it cover if it is "tweaked" a bit? And what is really hard to do?

If you "tweak" the game enough you can really do anything with any edition. That being said, I do feel that some editions enable me to run certain kinds of adventures better than other editions. I cannot say for certain whether this is because the rules themselves are attuned to one particular genre or another or whether I am more "inspired" by the flavor of a particular edition toward a particular genre.

Pick one of the following campaign types, and explain which edition would be best suited to run it Rules-As-Written, and explain why. Then, explain which edition you would enjoy using the most if you could tweak the system, and why.

My preferred campaign type is what you described as epic, plot-based fantasy. What that means to me is a campaign long journey where the characters start from humble beginnings to rise up above others of their kind to perform a heroic task. Very much like Lord of the Rings. What I want from a set of game rules to facilitate me in telling this story are:

1. Characters who begin the same as everyone else but grow into something more.
2. Magic is dangerous and not to be taken lightly.
3. Magic items are unique and have histories and stories to them.
3a. No magic shops.
4. Western-based fantasy tropes.
5. Humans, Dwarfs, Elves, and Halflings only.
5a. Orcs, Goblins, Dragons are the main enemies.
5b. Varied Race/Class combinations.
6. Generic combat rules not necessarily class specific.
7. Larry Elmore art.
8. Other things I may be forgetting.

Now, no edition of D&D has fully fit the criteria I have laid out above, however, some fit better than others. If I am planning on running a game like this I find that BECMI or 3e levels 1-7 fit best. Both have some obvious downsides, but I find that they fit what I want.

And quick answers to all others.

1) An Investigative, Non-combat game (Murder mysteries, CSI, X-Files, etc.)

3e or 4e. More likely a combination of the 3e skill set and skill points, and the 4e skill challenge rules.

2) Survival Horror (Zombies attack, Resident Evil)

4e. The first thing I thought of when reading 4e's minion rules is how awesome would a Night of the Living Dead game be.

3) A heroic army-based game (The first twenty minutes of Gladiator, Saving Private Ryan)

BECMI. The characters are easy to run and very fragile. Players can run a couple of characters each to give that squadron kind of feel.

4) A "historical" fantasy (Mythic Greece, Imperial Rome, the Celts)

2e. The "Green Books" pretty much mean, for me, that 2e is the only edition I will use for historical battle.

5) Slapstick comedy (Three Stooges, Piers Anthony)

4e. To me, this is where Page 42 shines.

6) Cthuloid Horror ("Oh god, it's eating my face from the cyclopean ruins beyond time!")

1e, 2e, 3e, 4e? I never liked the genre and have never felt inspired by any edition to run a game in this genre.

7) Gritty, survival-based game (Dark Sun, post-apocalyptic, Survivorman)

2e or 3e level 1-3. Just the right amounts of flavor and fragility versus power ratio.

8) Epic, plot-based Fantasy (Lord of the Rings)

BECMI or 3e levels 1-7. This is my preferred genre and the 3e rules work just fine for me at these levels.

 

[Clavis]

1) An Investigative, Non-combat game (Murder mysteries, CSI, X-Files, etc.)

Classic D&D (BX, RC, or BECMI). Classic PCs, especially low-level ones, are fragile, which encourages roleplaying and non-combat resolution of problems. Use a flat per-session award of XP (example: 600 xp per session, no matter what the PCs do), and the focus can be completely turned away from fighting and treasure.

2) Survival Horror (Zombies attack, Resident Evil)

4th Edition or Classic D&D. 4th Edition is the most combat-focused edition, and the minion rules would allow Resident-Evil style gameplay. For a more Night of The Living Dead style game, where the players are actually afraid for their characters because its clear they're probably all going to end up zombies eventually, I'd prefer the more fragile PCs of Classic D&D. Plus, the simple combat rules of Classic allow combat against large amounts of opponents without bogging down gameplay.

3) A heroic army-based game (The first twenty minutes of Gladiator, Saving Private Ryan)

Rules Cyclopedia (or BECMI). This is the only edition that includes a mass-combat system (The War Machine and the Siege Machine)) as a regular, integrated part of the rules. Once again, Classic's fast combat resolution means that you can handle relatively large combats even without the War Machine.

4) A "historical" fantasy (Mythic Greece, IMperial Rome, the Celts)

3rd Edition D&D. The skills and feats system allows for for the maximum degree of simulationism. Just remove all spellcasting classes. A strong case could also be made for 2nd Edition Ad&D utilizing the various historical sourcebooks that were put out.

5) Slapstick comedy (Three Stooges, Piers Anthony)

1st Edition AD&D. It's the only edition where jokes are actually built into the system (read the spell description closely, especially the material components for the various spells). The original Greyhawk setting is filled with puns and dry humor. Cursed items, including ones that change genders, are common. The various humorous cartoons spread throughout the rulebooks should inform anyone that 1st edition was meant to be played with a certain amount of humor. And, its got a random harlot encounter sub-table!

6) Cthuloid Horror ("Oh god, it's eating my face from the cyclopean ruins beyond time!")

1st Edition AD&D. The immense influence of H.P Lovecraft (with Howard and Clark Ashton Smith) on Gygax's vision of D&D is often forgotten. Remember, Gary created Mind Flayers! Also often forgotten is that Lovecraft wrote a lot of fantasy, and his stories DO NOT always end with everybody dead or insane. The Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath, as a perfect example, reads like an AD&D adventure. Randolph Carter (the protagonist) does indeed face squiggly horrors in antique ruins. He also encounters space-faring housecats (I'm not making that up), and allies with an army of ghouls!

7) Gritty, survival-based game (Dark Sun, post-apocalyptic, Survivorman)

1st Edition AD&D. Resource management was a major part of 1st edition gameplay. Players were expected to keep track of every arrow, every ration, and every gold piece. Healing was limited. There was a random chance for characters to contract diseases. Hit points were low compared to later editions, and wandering monsters in the wilderness were NOT supposed to be scaled to the PC's levels.

8) Epic, pot-based Fantasy (Lord of the Rings)

2nd Edition AD&D. Epic fantasy was the assumed playstyle of 2nd Edition. No Edition had as many detailed campaign wolds as 2nd Edition. The re-write of the rules encourages good-aligned PCs, and discouraged evil/or questionable characters (the assassin and Half-Orc were removed, etc.).