Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack Daniel" data-source="post: 6119576" data-attributes="member: 694">That's the $64,000 question, ain't it?I guess it boils down to, "what do you want this game to do for you?"  I mean, for my part, I figured out a long time ago that what I really want out of a role-playing game is something with simple rules that don't get in the way, with no mechanical fiddly-bits involved in character creation or advancement.  So right away, that throws 3e and 4e out the window.  When I first got out of the d20 System and more involved in old-school gaming again, I played 0e and 2e (never having used 1e as anything but a resource to steal stuff for 0e and 2e games), and I was struck by how markedly different things felt after having played 3e pretty much exclusively from 2000 to about 2006.  - Regarding 0e (which is a blanket term I use for everything from the White Box to the Rules Cyclopedia; honestly, it's all the same game), I was just astonished at how functional it was.  It looks like a cobbled-together mish-mash that defies all modern sense and game design, and you know what?  That's precisely why it works.  The dungeon-crawling mechanics were put there after it was decided that the game would be about crawling dungeons for treasure.  The wilderness exploring mechanics were put there after somebody got it into their heads to go out and explore the wilderness.  The mechanics are a hodge-podge, but that's a feature, not a bug: it means they're tailored to what they're supposed to do, rather than the game being tailored to some core mechanic or higher-order design aesthetic.  But, and this is a really big but, OD&D doesn't do much beyond the dungeon-crawl/hex-crawl very well at all.  When you're playing a standard sandbox-and-dungeon, it's wonderful, because it's like the system has done all this work for you.  Try to take it out of that box, and, well, you're free-falling at that point.  Which brings me to...- AD&D 2e, the game that I pretty much grew up playing, and the game which is still (in some back corner of my mind) the "default" for "what D&D is supposed to do, be, and feel like".  Revisiting this edition was in many ways an eerie experience, because I (like most of the bandwagon circa 1999) was very ready for streamlined mechanics and less-restrictive character rules as we all eagerly awaited the 3rd edition.  But going back to this game, I was mostly amazed at how much better balanced it is than the other editions I've played.  After all, it's basically the same game as 0e or 1e... only with the spells really reigned in, with damage caps and drawbacks and so forth.  This has the curious effect of making 2e the best "fantasy world simulator" out of all of TSR's editions.  2e and 3e both try to do this: 2e pulls it off much more elegantly, again with ad-hoc "mechanics where they're needed" rather than a "framework for everything".   So, here's the thing.  I don't think there will ever be a better dungeon crawling game than 0e.  I just don't think you can beat the original, and I'm not looking for a replacement in that department.  But for fantasy world simulators?  5e has a shot at besting 2e here.  Many have commented that backgrounds/specialties have kind of a proficiency/kit feel, and I'll add that spellcasters' drastically reduced per-day progression tables look very much like 2e as well.  If the multi-classing system works better than 2e's dual-classing rules (and that can't be difficult!), sign me up.  In the meanwhile, I'll be playing something* else and waiting and watching.  But, whether I invest in Next or not, it will just be really nice to see a new version of D&D on the shelves again.  It can't happen soon enough.______________________* No, I'm not going to say what it is.  Doesn't it tick anybody else off whenever somebody posts something to the effect of, "I don't play D&D now, I play Savage Worlds/FATE/whatever" all over a D&D board?  That seems... less than classy.  So I'm not going to do that.  I'm glad we had this talk.</blockquote>

Verification