D&D General Which Previous Edition (poll; read OP)

Which previous edition

  • OD&D

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • B/X

    Votes: 15 8.0%
  • BECMI

    Votes: 20 10.7%
  • AD&D1E

    Votes: 14 7.5%
  • AD&D2E

    Votes: 24 12.8%
  • 3.0 D&D

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • 3.5 D&D (inc. PF1E)

    Votes: 36 19.3%
  • 4E pre Essentials

    Votes: 38 20.3%
  • 4E Essentials

    Votes: 19 10.2%
  • None: I wouldn't play a previous edition campaign

    Votes: 11 5.9%
  • Other: I'm a special snowflake

    Votes: 8 4.3%

On the other hand, being perfectly frank, I don't think Mike Mearls ever actually liked 4e. In fact, I think he was opposed to several of its design conceits, and that his (undoubtedly well-meaning) efforts to defy them dealt significant damage to it.
I never got this impression... but that is an interesting thing to read into.
So I think, both externally and internally, the next decade is going to be kinder to 4e. I had, personally, expected it to be the Forgotten Edition, and we saw plenty of signs of that years ago. People celebrating 5e developing something brand-new that were developed or refined in 4e instead was...a really common occurrence for several years. Now, though? I dunno. We may see 4e rehabilitated.
I hope so
I don't think 4e will have too much influence on "5.50" or whatever we come to call 2024 D&D, unless they make the shocking decision to include an actual Warlord class
GOD I WISH...

I could actually see a future where 6e (or 7e, or whatever the thing that comes after 2024 D&D gets called) is more of a synthesis of 4e and 5e, something with similarities to 13th Age.
in general I like even numbers editions more then odd so far so maybe 6e will be my 4e revisited
 

log in or register to remove this ad



I wouldn’t be interested in playing an older edition, not for a year long campaign. Maybe a one shot or single adventure. I would miss playing 5E too much, there’s also a lot of interesting stuff on the horizon for the current edition which for me is getting better all the time.
 

Eyes of Nine

Everything's Fine
Wow, surprised how much votes for 4e. Although I said I'd want to play in a 4e game, not run it. If it was to run, I'd be in the special snowflake category running Troika or Trophy Gold or Freebooters on the Frontier or some such...
 

I never got this impression... but that is an interesting thing to read into.
This is, of course, sort of a matter of reading the tea leaves, aka we may see what we wish to see and not what is real.

However, there are some signs of it. Mearls had a prominent role with the early official adventures for 4e, that was AIUI the part of 4e where his work was more prominent than other authors, whereas for other books his role was more minor. And those adventures...are not very good by 4e rules! They're slow and grindy with a ton of unnecessary combats that only exist to cause slow attrition (something 4e is...different about vs other editions), the mechanics of the fights are largely dull, and the skill challenges are some of the worst examples in the whole game. In general, the Pyramid of Shadows and the Keep on the Shadowfell are both regarded as really, really bad--and dealt a terrible blow to early adopters who figured that must be what 4e would always be like. So that's strike one.

Two, we already knew there was a problem inside WotC, of designers constantly (but not strictly intentionally) making Wizards more powerful than other classes. Heinsoo didn't name names about this, saying it was a team issue that he had to repeatedly correct for. But it's not hard to think Mearls just subconsciously thinks (or thought) that Wizards are better than other classes in D&D. And then, when he was put in charge...we got Essentials, which very specifically produced some of the weakest, most poorly-designed classes in the game, like the Binder. Yet the Wizard was almost untouched by this, getting several perfectly solid options. (I say "almost" because the Bladesinger was bad. Getting Wizard encounter powers as daily powers? Uh...no.) That's strike two.

And then, as noted, Mearls made openly anti-4e edition war jokes during a podcast. Very specifically, he used the "shouting hands back on" joke to make fun of the idea of a Warlord that heals people, as part of talking about why they weren't going to make a Warlord class. He followed this up by saying "I'm being ridiculous," but it was a really noticeable example of the hostility toward 4e ideas, not just mechanics but the very concepts 4e used, coming straight from the top. It's notable that he never used any other edition-warring rhetoric, and was in fact very respectful toward old-school editions. For me, that was strike three.

Mearls just...either he never grokked 4e and the reasons people liked it, or he outright disliked it, or he thought he was making things better when he was not doing so. Regardless of the reason, he was clearly unenthusiastic at best regarding 4e and frequently opposed to its concepts and structures. Crawford seems to have a much more open mind, and seems to value rules consistency and clarity much more than Mearls did (probably from many years of doing Sage Advice.) So I look forward to seeing how this change of leadership affects 4e's legacy.
 
Last edited:

el-remmen

Moderator Emeritus
1st choice: BECMI or B/X (I never even knew there was a difference even back in the early 80s except for the covers - I had B/X and then supplemented with Companion - by the time Masters came out I had moved on to AD&D - but I did make sure to get a Rules Cyclopedia later)

2nd choice: 2E
 


Gotta say, really surprised that 4e remains in the lead even if you don't combine the two options (which, as stated, you should.) If you do, it's nearly a third of all responses, and far and away the most common response. Very surprising.
 


Not really, nearly every conversation here on ENworld ends up a 4E discussion somehow.
Sure. But those discussions have a lot of negativity toward 4e. Large amounts of it in fact. The whole "Warlord quarantine" in ages past was at least in part because of the hostile slap-fights people would get into.
 

payn

Legend
Sure. But those discussions have a lot of negativity toward 4e. Large amounts of it in fact. The whole "Warlord quarantine" in ages past was at least in part because of the hostile slap-fights people would get into.
I hear this, but its usually always referenced in the past. I think we have arrived at a point 4E can be mentioned in a positive or negative light without things being inflamed. YMMV.
 

BigZebra

Adventurer
Yeah very surprised by how the votes are cast.
I’m currently GM’ing at PF2 campaign but before that I DM’ed a minor 4e campaign and the players are stills talking about it and how awesome it was. Our Swordmage and Blackguard players loved their classes so much and way more than what 5e and especially PF2 supplies. Hence I choose 4e because that’s currently that plan.

4e is just plain fun. It’s D&D that doesn’t take itself too seriously. I still remember the first time the Swordmage player used his Dimensional Vortex power. I was like “you do WHAT to my Harkenworld reaver?” That’s 4e in a nutshell: “No way you are doing that! That’s so awesome”.
 

Retreater

Legend
I voted 4e pre-Essentials, but you could also include Essentials options in the theoretical game.
For me, every other game up there is pretty easy to put together. I could put together a campaign, find players, and run it (maybe with a retro clone).
4e, on the other hand, is a real challenge. It's like saying "would you rather get together with your friends and go to the neighborhood Applebee's" or "would you want to go with your old classmates to a 1984 Pizza Hut."
 

Reynard

Legend
Sure. But those discussions have a lot of negativity toward 4e. Large amounts of it in fact. The whole "Warlord quarantine" in ages past was at least in part because of the hostile slap-fights people would get into.
It's funny how different people in the same environment can see totally different things.
 

It's funny how different people in the same environment can see totally different things.
All I can say is if you even mention 4e, it is guaranteed someone will come along and say something equivalent to "oh, you mean the edition that FAILED because it was BAD?"

This is still true today. It's lessened, to be sure, but it happens pretty much without fail.

Is it any wonder why 4e fans are defensive?
 

Reynard

Legend
All I can say is if you even mention 4e, it is guaranteed someone will come along and say something equivalent to "oh, you mean the edition that FAILED because it was BAD?"

This is still true today. It's lessened, to be sure, but it happens pretty much without fail.

Is it any wonder why 4e fans are defensive?
It must be getting better though because people bring up 4E a lot more than they used to even a year ago.
 


TerraDave

5ever, or until 2024
I really well and truly do not understand this obsession with marking "4e pre-Essentials" and "4e Essentials" as though they are two different editions.

They are not. They are literally exactly the same game, just with more options. It would be like saying "5e pre-Tasha's" and "5e Tasha's." That's the level of difference we're talking about. There is no sense, literally none whatsoever, in which the Essentials books are any more or less 4e than any other books published for it.

I know this is a silly thing to get so annoyed about, but it just really gets my goat.

Because they were sold that way?

4E had lots of supplements that required you to still own the PHB. Tashas is like one of those.

Essentials replaced the PHB, and the other books. They had major differences with the books they replaced, and actually removed options, the biggest being the removal of rituals.

Essentials was meant to be compatible with the earlier books. Thats the magic word, right? As long as 100+ pages of errata was also incorporated.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
All I can say is if you even mention 4e, it is guaranteed someone will come along and say something equivalent to "oh, you mean the edition that FAILED because it was BAD?"

This is still true today. It's lessened, to be sure, but it happens pretty much without fail.

Is it any wonder why 4e fans are defensive?
The real question is, how many people who voted 4e would rather play it than 5e?
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top