Short and quick characterizations: What is the difference between editions?

[Mercurius]

I don't want specifics, more general and quick impressions. How would you characterize the differences between editions--primarily, but not only, 3.x and 4e?

Is it safe to say that 4e is more stream-lined and "video gamish"? And 3e is more complicated and crunchy? And 2e is more bad 80s hair? And 1e is New Wave style, but little substance? And OD&D is the pamphlet-your-weird-brother-produced-in-his-basement-with-his-70s-prototype-computer?

 

[Mercurius]

No takers?

 

[Doug McCrae]

OD&D - The simple and beautiful core D&D concepts, badly presented. Don't get the splats, they break the game.
1e - Gary's crappy houserules added to OD&D. Badly presented and explained.
2e - Gary's crappy houserules improved but sit uneasily with the storytelling advice for DMs. Well presented and explained, as are all subsequent editions.
3e - Simpler, more coherent version of the D&D core rules coupled with a tactically interesting combat system. Let down by the many special cases and the copy and paste job of the broken OD&D splat classes and spell system.
4e - Retains the coherent core and tactically interesting combat system of 3e. Removes many of the special cases and broken class and spell system. Best version of D&D to date.

 

[Remathilis]

To a dark place, this can lead. Nevertheless, I'll try your gamble.

OD&D: Basic. Lots of DM rule-calls. Barely a skeleton the DM filled in. Unbalanced, but who cares?

Basic/BECMI: Simple. Intuitive. Limited mechanical choices. Solid but not all-encompassing. Sometimes too simplistic.

AD&D 1e: Complex. Free-wheeling. Deeper. More choices. An attempt at balance, but not really success. Easy to mod/houserule. Known for great adventures. The "heyday" of TSR D&D.

AD&D 2e: Structured. An attempt to balance the mess 1e had become. Emphasis on uniformity. Better organized. Wonderful campaign settings. Mechanically similar to 1e, but with a higher emphasis on RP and storyline in fluff material. Still not well balanced.

D&D 3e/3.5: Balanced. Uniform. An attempt to reign in the chaos of 1e/2e. Highly organized. Complete. Streamlined in theory, but often small rules hindered gameplay. Open. Lots of great supplements. Emphasis on builds and numbers in the rules.

D&D 4e: Casual. Easy to learn, but still deep. Rules relatively unobtrusive. Lots of slaughtered sacred cows. Balanced. Easier to rule on the fly. However sometimes too much emphasis on PC power/mechanics makes it feel artificial.

Thats the game in a nutshell. Find an edition you like and start playing.

 

[Engilbrand]

Family had a post in one of the threads that covered them all using Terminators. I hope someone can find that. It was hilarious and ridiculously accurate.

 

[Mercurius]

Great stuff Doug McCrae and Remathilis. One thing that came to me from reading both of your posts is that 3e was a real break from Gygaxian D&D. It was as if OD&D was Gary's initial madness and 1e was a full-blown (but deliciously fun) mess, and then 2e was an attempt to tidy things up a bit, but lost a lot of the flavor. So 3e came in with an overhaul of the system, but an attempt to harken back to some of the flavorfulness of 1e. 4e? Seems like another overhaul, but less drastic--a stream-lining and simplification because 3e, once again, got out of hand with complexity.

 

[Doug McCrae]

2e is kind of an outlier (not in terms of rules but in terms of tone) because of all the emphasis on plot, world and story. Dragonlance, a 1e product, feels very 2e weirdly, totally at odds with Gygax's classic dungeons.

3e and 4e are a return to gamism - players are supposed to be trying to win (at least some of the time). Except that the way you win in 3e/4e is completely different than 1e. In 3e/4e, victory is achieved on the battlemat and, particularly in 3e, by system mastery. In 1e victory is achieved by doing stuff the DM likes. Planning, being careful, checking for traps, general paranoia of the sort we're all so familiar with as rpgers. But not so much you bore the DM. Seriously, in the DMG 1e page 97, Gary says you should f--k up PCs who bore the DM by being too cautious. Make up your mind, mang!

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Basic: 1st level wizards had 1 spell a day, 1-6 HP.
1ed: 1st level wizards had 1 spell a day, 1-6 HP.
2ed: 1st level wizards had 1 spell a day (unless they specialized, then 2), 1-6 HP.
3ed: 1st level wizards have 4-5 spells a day (depending on stats), 1-9 HP.
4ed: 1st level wizards have unlimited spells a day, 11-30HP.

My extremely zoomed in comparison.
DS

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Basic: 1st level fighter could punch, wrestle, or attack.
1ed: 1st level fighter could punch, wrestle, or attack.
2ed: 1st level fighter could wrestle, or attack.
3ed: 1st level fighter could wrestle, attack, trip, disarm, bullrush, aid another, and sunder.
4ed: 1st level fighter can wrestle, bullrush, aid another, and 4-5 other "special" abilities at varying amounts of times a round.

DS

 

[Lanefan]

OD&D: Basic. Lots of DM rule-calls. Barely a skeleton the DM filled in. Unbalanced, but who cares?

Basic/BECMI: Simple. Intuitive. Limited mechanical choices. Solid but not all-encompassing. Sometimes too simplistic.

AD&D 1e: Complex. Free-wheeling. Deeper. More choices. An attempt at balance, but not really success. Easy to mod/houserule. Known for great adventures. The "heyday" of TSR D&D.

AD&D 2e: Structured. An attempt to balance the mess 1e had become. Emphasis on uniformity. Better organized. Wonderful campaign settings. Mechanically similar to 1e, but with a higher emphasis on RP and storyline in fluff material. Still not well balanced.

D&D 3e/3.5: Balanced. Uniform. An attempt to reign in the chaos of 1e/2e. Highly organized. Complete. Streamlined in theory, but often small rules hindered gameplay. Open. Lots of great supplements. Emphasis on builds and numbers in the rules.

D&D 4e: Casual. Easy to learn, but still deep. Rules relatively unobtrusive. Lots of slaughtered sacred cows. Balanced. Easier to rule on the fly. However sometimes too much emphasis on PC power/mechanics makes it feel artificial.

Thats the game in a nutshell. Find an edition you like and start playing.

Remathilis pretty much nails it here.

The only thing I'd add is that particularly for 2e and 3e there are two ways of looking at the game: as it was on initial release, or as it was after years of add-ons and splatbooks under which each edition nearly drowned. 1e had some add-ons as well, but nowhere near as many.

Each edition has had at least one seriously strong point:

0e: simplicity.
1e: adventures.
2e: settings.
3e: rules tightness.
4e: jury's out, though I already suspect hindsight will tell us "balance".

The *real* trick is to combine all five. Failing that, pick the one that suits you and your players and have at 'er...

Lanefan