Do certain settings come out better in certain editions?

[vagabundo]

<snip>

Nice conversion. I think 4e Dark Sun is doable right now and for some reason Dark Sun keep drawing me in, I really want to run some games there.

I think I will wait and see what setting WotC announces for next year. If it is Dark Sun I am hyped...

 

[Ravellion]

Eh? Both those things are strongly at odds with the Realms. The Knights of Myth Drannor, the model of PC advancement, are low teens in level after 30 years of play, while most high-level non-player characters are in their thirties at the very least. 3E's easy magic item creation and selling also directly contradict Realmslore, which emphasizes the antiquity and history of magic items.

3E's bells-&-whistles rules-curlicuery is also a very different way of thinking from the Realms', and its rendition of Faerûnian magic never approached what was managed with 2E. On the other hand, its relaxation of class/level limits, treatment of multiclassing and perhaps of skills do mirror Faerûn more accurately.

I ran it in 2e, and in 3e, and in 3e it just seemed to mesh better. My players perhaps had different expectations from the lore. I have some edition-war-like ideas, but 2e to 3e edition wars are about a decade too late

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Forgive the "stereotyping"

Forgive the "stereotyping" of the different settings, but to make my point, I'm going to go to "typifying" the settings and rulessets as I see them.


First I'll describe the differences between second, third, and fourth:

Second: good, smooth, non mini based play. Relied on description and adjudication heavily...not great balance on rules, but not easily min/maxed to death either. High focus on story, lower focus on rules and options (until that atrocious "player's option" series came out...ugh).

Third: the most simulationist. The real advent of using minis pretty solidly. not really required, like 4e, but still important and helpful. Very complex rules that could do just about anything, including making monster characters, breaking the game, or changing every single class or monster if need be.

Fourth: the most gamist. Very smooth play...smoother than second. More limited versatility overall, (both in terms of options right now as it is new and in terms of a character's options per day...well, at least the spellcasters).


Now on to the settings:

Ravenloft: benefitted from a simulationist perspective, IMO. Best edition for it would be third. The Sword and Sorcery stuff was GREAT! That includes Masque of the red death which was sort of 3.5, but also sort of its own edition in a way...the magic rules were not PHB rules.

Eberron: I'd be 4e is best. Eberron had action points, some bizarre new creatures, and a number of other fantastic things. The lack of utility spells in 4e is not an issue (I know there are rituals, but they are not as diverse as the utility in 3e). Artificers and the "techno-magic" easily allow for needed plot points...need to fly? No problem. Plus the "feel" I think will be better in 4e in the sense of HEROISM (intentionally all capitals). Eberron has, to me, always been about pulp heroism more than gritty heroism. If I wanted to play indiana jones in a WotC setting, this would be it.

Dark Sun: Don't hate me, but I think second edition was best for this. Third allows too much power creep/options, and the grit of the world encourages players to go for whatever they can. Conversely, a lot of the basics of a good dark sun campaign were mere survival...4e seems to skip over the nitty gritty basics of this sort of material (again, the "utility spells" and abilities).

Planescape: I think third would have been best if it had been better supported. The later "affiliations" that were developed (DMG2?) that gave bonuses for achieving a number of things within an organization were perfect for factions. Planescape was all about tons of crazy options...and blending of worlds Even if the rule system wasn't ideal in 3e for planescape, the pure glut of material was. I could planehop from the Arcanis Setting to Golarion to Dragonlance to the hells to a homebrew and so on.

Others:
Alqadim: I'd say 4e would be best...high fantasy swashbuckling 40 thieves/aladin stuff.

Maztica: 2nd edition. not a lot of rules needed, but 4e is too heroic for the setting IMO

Dragonlance: not sure. I suppose I'd choose 4th based only on the dragons finally coming into their own, IMO.

Arcanis and Iron Kingdoms: both 3e. The publishers think so. I think so for my own reasons.



And with all of that said, I'm sure that most of those settings would do just fine in any other edition, including the unknown and nonexistent 5th edition. But my thoughts are on where I believe them to be best.

 

[Remathilis]

Well Ravenloft imho thrived in 3E.

Huh. I despised 3.5 and Ravenloft, and only partly because of Arhaus's handling. To me, 2e is the best system for Ravenloft.

My problem with 3e RL is that at its heart, RL is low-magic and the PCs are constantly at a disadvantage. These two things are anathema to 3.5s "PCs first" system. 3.5 encourages the big-six, magic that's reliable, and just enough kewl powerz that the game fails to feel truly scary. Add on the power escalation of 3e and you're looking at a Ravenloft that is feels less "run from the mists" and much more "screw it, what's Strahd's AC?"

Second edition was the golden age for RL. 2e's under-emphasis on balance made the game feel like the PCs were always the under-dogs without feeling too artificial. The best format of RL was Domains of Dread hardback, which carried the feel of later 3e Ravenloft but had the 2e mechanics to truly feel terrifying because no PC, even with uber-magic, feel invincible.

YMMV

 

[Nymrohd]

Tbh I think Ravenloft could be done well in 4E as long as you cap level. Just play at heroic levels. Most Darklords are at best on the high end of paragon levels after all.