Why do people still play older editions of D&D? Are they superior to the current one?

[MechaPilot]

Alot more conversion work and Basic has that gritty feeling that 5E lacks. You can outright port the 2E psion rules to Basic, can't do that in 5E.

The 2e psionics rules are my favorite D&D psionics rules.

 

[MechaPilot]

Also, skills and feats: their mere existence in the rules enables "builds" and optimization. In editions where they don't exist, everybody can do (or at least attempt to do) everything.

There's no real reason why anyone can't try anything. However, the person who invested in gaining the feat (or power) should generally do it easier, faster, better or at less of a cost than those who haven't.

 

[wingsandsword]

Ultimately, people tend to stick with the editions they already play, and don't change to a later edition unless it offers something new that they see as being worth leaving the edition they already play, have books for, know the rules for ect.

People left 1e for 2e because 2e incorporated a lot of various optional rules that had become popular into the core rules, and included support for taking all character classes up to at least 20th level (in 1e, some classes such as Monks and Assassins reached max level before 20).

People left 2e for 3e because 3e provided a consistent, unified rule system and a LOT more flexibility than 1e or 2e in characters, monsters, ect.

Well, I can't say why people left 3e for 4e, because I didn't and none of the people I gamed with did, they all rejected 4e en masse. Presumably it provided something to someone though.

 

[GreyLord]

Ultimately, people tend to stick with the editions they already play, and don't change to a later edition unless it offers something new that they see as being worth leaving the edition they already play, have books for, know the rules for ect.

People left 1e for 2e because 2e incorporated a lot of various optional rules that had become popular into the core rules, and included support for taking all character classes up to at least 20th level (in 1e, some classes such as Monks and Assassins reached max level before 20).

People left 2e for 3e because 3e provided a consistent, unified rule system and a LOT more flexibility than 1e or 2e in characters, monsters, ect.

Well, I can't say why people left 3e for 4e, because I didn't and none of the people I gamed with did, they all rejected 4e en masse. Presumably it provided something to someone though.

At it's core 4e was much simpler than 3e. It was basically a simplified form of 3.X rules. However, each class then added it's powers which, for some, made it seem far more complex (and with all the powers it COULD be more complex).

There were some that enjoyed the more tactical nature of combat that 4e offered. In many ways it provided a more solidified form of grid play than 3.5 or even some boardgames like Descent, while offering the opportunity for roleplay.

Others preferred how it made skills far more simpler to handle (+5 if trained), and monsters were far easier to throw into the mix or create on the fly than they were for 3.5 for many people.

Others preferred how simple many of the skills worked and thus how roleplay in general was far more open and less restrictive than the skills and feat system of 3.5 and how it handled such things.

Some felt that 4e was far more balanced, and in many ways there was no spellcaster vs. martial imbalance (like many claim there was/is for 3.5 or Pathfinder).

Once again, there is no set answer, there were probably as many different reasons as there were groups (or even individuals) who played 4e.

In many ways, 4e was a direct precursor to 5e, if you take away the powers system and instead replace it with class based abilities that are more solidly applied. It had the first precursor of Bounded accuracy (though it went to +15 rather than +6 for combat and saves, skills were still at +5 across the board) there are a lot of similarities between the two. 5e has many elements taken from 4e, but less emphasis on grid and miniatures in combat.

Part of what made some people get a sour taste about 4e was the marketing of it, but in many ways, 5e is probably closer to the basic core idea of 4e than most of the other versions of D&D that came before it. This probably was another reason some jumped onto the 4e rules and later on were eager (those who did do this, as not all did this) to jump headfirst into 5e.

 

[Greenfield]

To answer the original question, the answer is yes, they are better. For some.

Each set of game mechanics has it's features and limitations, and it's a question of which appeals to you.

1st and 2nd edition AD&D were open ended and in many ways quite simple to play. No dice rolls for a skill, and skills were in the "you have it or you don't" form. They existed for role playing purposes and not much more. Building a character took ten minutes. Advancement was paced so you left the "squishy and easily killed" levels pretty quickly, then spent more time on the higher levels. Time enough at each level, in fact, that you had a chance to explore who or what the character was.

3rd edition, and by extension, Pahfinder, standardized the game mechanics, bringing essentially everything down to a single D20 roll. Numerous tables and charts, necessary for D&D, Basic and AD&D were rendered obsolete. The additions of detailed skills and feats made character creation and advancement far more flexible. By contrast, characters now took more than 10 minutes to create. While many had found AD&D advancement too slow at higher levels (double current EXP to advance a level), advancement in 3rd was quick and regular. Perhaps too quick for some, which lead to Pathfinder's option to choose advancement rate. Prestige classes added to the flexibility and capacity to fine tune character development.

4E was not my favorite, so bear with me if my critique seems unflattering. It seemed like an attempt to move the computer game World of Warcraft to the tabletop. Many concepts from WOW were codified in 4e: The Tank, DPS, etc. In that sense the succeeded brilliantly, except that without the computer to do the bookkeeping, tracking which effects ended when became a headache. The first books returned a level of simplicity to character design: You chose a class and a role, and that pretty much dictated every advancement choice from there in. In that sense it was very reminiscent of AD&D. They introduced, through the Powers concept, the idea that everyone had some type of near-supernatural ability: Most combat powers did more than one thing, with many of the secondaries often hard to rationalize. But the scale of most powers was such that it returned the game to a tighter frame, where you seldom had to deal with anything that would be "off the battle mat". In 3rd edition, a longbow's range could allow a character to shoot over three hundred feet, which if plotted out at five feet per one inch square, was five feet on the board, which was well beyond the size of the board. Spells like Fireball started at 900 feet (400 + 100 per caster level), which would require a table top over 15 feet long.

5th edition tried to be all things, taking parts of all the previous editions, If they happened to take aspects that you liked then it was just about perfect. If they saved the "wrong" parts (in your opinion) and left the good stuff behind, then it was far from perfect, and to some it seemed to fall short of anything enjoyable. But to those who like what it offers, well, they'll like what it offers.

So yes, we play earlier editions because they are superior, at least for us.

 

[Zardnaar]

At it's core 4e was much simpler than 3e. It was basically a simplified form of 3.X rules. However, each class then added it's powers which, for some, made it seem far more complex (and with all the powers it COULD be more complex).

There were some that enjoyed the more tactical nature of combat that 4e offered. In many ways it provided a more solidified form of grid play than 3.5 or even some boardgames like Descent, while offering the opportunity for roleplay.

Others preferred how it made skills far more simpler to handle (+5 if trained), and monsters were far easier to throw into the mix or create on the fly than they were for 3.5 for many people.

Others preferred how simple many of the skills worked and thus how roleplay in general was far more open and less restrictive than the skills and feat system of 3.5 and how it handled such things.

Some felt that 4e was far more balanced, and in many ways there was no spellcaster vs. martial imbalance (like many claim there was/is for 3.5 or Pathfinder).

Once again, there is no set answer, there were probably as many different reasons as there were groups (or even individuals) who played 4e.

In many ways, 4e was a direct precursor to 5e, if you take away the powers system and instead replace it with class based abilities that are more solidly applied. It had the first precursor of Bounded accuracy (though it went to +15 rather than +6 for combat and saves, skills were still at +5 across the board) there are a lot of similarities between the two. 5e has many elements taken from 4e, but less emphasis on grid and miniatures in combat.

Part of what made some people get a sour taste about 4e was the marketing of it, but in many ways, 5e is probably closer to the basic core idea of 4e than most of the other versions of D&D that came before it. This probably was another reason some jumped onto the 4e rules and later on were eager (those who did do this, as not all did this) to jump headfirst into 5e.

Bounded Accuracy is more from B/X or BECMI. ACs top out around 30 for the most part, level 20 fighter +13 to hit, only goes up to +3 weapons etc. The numbers are not that far off 5E.

If you play B/X the numbers are even smaller a +1 sword is comparatively great.

Some of us figured this out in the great migrations of 2008-2014 when going back to pre 3E made D&D fun again especially when you tinkered with it to import the good parts of 3.5 (ascending ACs).

 

[wingsandsword]

At it's core 4e was much simpler than 3e. It was basically a simplified form of 3.X rules. However, each class then added it's powers which, for some, made it seem far more complex (and with all the powers it COULD be more complex).

There were some that enjoyed the more tactical nature of combat that 4e offered. In many ways it provided a more solidified form of grid play than 3.5 or even some boardgames like Descent, while offering the opportunity for roleplay.

Others preferred how it made skills far more simpler to handle (+5 if trained), and monsters were far easier to throw into the mix or create on the fly than they were for 3.5 for many people.

Others preferred how simple many of the skills worked and thus how roleplay in general was far more open and less restrictive than the skills and feat system of 3.5 and how it handled such things.

Some felt that 4e was far more balanced, and in many ways there was no spellcaster vs. martial imbalance (like many claim there was/is for 3.5 or Pathfinder).

Once again, there is no set answer, there were probably as many different reasons as there were groups (or even individuals) who played 4e.

In many ways, 4e was a direct precursor to 5e, if you take away the powers system and instead replace it with class based abilities that are more solidly applied. It had the first precursor of Bounded accuracy (though it went to +15 rather than +6 for combat and saves, skills were still at +5 across the board) there are a lot of similarities between the two. 5e has many elements taken from 4e, but less emphasis on grid and miniatures in combat.

Part of what made some people get a sour taste about 4e was the marketing of it, but in many ways, 5e is probably closer to the basic core idea of 4e than most of the other versions of D&D that came before it. This probably was another reason some jumped onto the 4e rules and later on were eager (those who did do this, as not all did this) to jump headfirst into 5e.

Well, I don't want to re-ignite the Edition Wars (which was the main reason I stopped posting at ENWorld regularly). . .but suffice it to say that there are a LOT of players who strongly disagree with the idea that 4th edition is in any way even vaguely related to 3rd edition or any predecessor edition.

One reason it was so controversial, besides as you mentioned its marketing that actively alienated many players and told many players that they were playing D&D "wrong" and 4e would show them how to play it "right", was that it seemed custom designed to divorce D&D from its entire history both in terms of setting/lore "fluff" and game rules "crunch".

Also, many players stick with 3.5 because they didn't just see 4e as being utterly alien to D&D (to the point that if the same game had been released by another company, under another name, nobody would have thought of it as being anything but an odd d20 fantasy variant). . .and they didn't go to 5e because they see it as stripped down, dumbed down, and gutted of options and flexibility.

I can appreciate that 5e at least looks and feels more like D&D than 4e ever did. . .but I don't play it because it removes so many options and so much functionality from the game.

When I played 2e, I'd describe my character concept to the DM. . .and we'd work together to come up with something that worked to describe it. . .even it it was often a hideous chimera of kits, optional rules, Skills & Powers variants ect. . .but it could be done. In 3e and 3.5e, I could come up with a character concept and with multiclassing and prestige classes, feats, skills, various races and templates I could create the character. In 4e, we quickly learned that such intricate customization was verboten and that characters were much less flexible. . .and while 5e isn't as much of a straitjacket to creativity as 4e was, it's nowhere near as versatile as 3.x or even 2e (it's got better mechanics than 1e or 2e, but not the intricate customization that 2e had by the late '90's).

I play 3.5e because to me, and the people I play with, it's the peak of D&D evolution and is far more versatile, flexible than any edition before or after and we can play whatever setting, whatever world we want and have such a vast library of classes, races, feats, spells ect. to work with. . .and a system that is designed to make the game highly customizable in ways no other edition ever could.

I've heard it argued that people stick with the edition they started with. I started with "Black Box" basic D&D, then moved on to 2e in college. . .and we dropped it quickly when 3e came out, and moved to 3.5 not long after it came out, because in each one I saw continuous progress and improvement from the game, things that worked better and allowed me and my friends to play better games.

We never saw that from 4e or 5e, we saw a U-turn in game development at 4e, and while 5e was an improvement from 4e, it wasn't as good as 3.x (but better than 1e or 2e).

 

[Celebrim]

But the scale of most powers was such that it returned the game to a tighter frame, where you seldom had to deal with anything that would be "off the battle mat". In 3rd edition, a longbow's range could allow a character to shoot over three hundred feet, which if plotted out at five feet per one inch square, was five feet on the board, which was well beyond the size of the board. Spells like Fireball started at 900 feet (400 + 100 per caster level), which would require a table top over 15 feet long.

As a practical matter, few players of 3.Xe edition had regularly fired fireballs or longbows at things 100's of yards away. Large distances like that existed solely because in real life, we know longbows were used in combat over great distances, and rarely did anyone try to game them (if they did, they probably ended up changing the rules). One thing that 4e did is that it dropped any attempt to simulate anything - the part of D&D at low levels that one writer had called 'casual realism'. Now, for most players this probably didn't matter much - they'd never used D&D for anything of the sort. But what 4e did was it took away the option for those that had previously cared about such things. An entire aesthetic of play disappeared, which for some players was I suppose welcome. But it was far from the only aesthetic of play that disappeared.

This is why 5e reversed itself and went back to trying to be all things to all people, rather than trying to be the perfect game for some. I wouldn't be surprised if 5e is, even for people who aren't playing it, almost everyone's second favorite edition. For example, if I wasn't happy with my homebrewed 3.X (which among other things greatly reduces the range of fireball and greatly changes the spot rules so that they work better at long ranges), 5e would probably be the edition I'd play.

So yes, we play earlier editions because they are superior, at least for us.

I certainly can understand the problems people have with 1e and 3e. If I didn't think those editions had problems, I would have never written as extensive of house rules for them as I have. But every edition and every rules set of every game has tradeoffs. There is no such thing as the one best set of rules. There are only rules that work for what you want to do. Even my house rules, while I think they reduce the pain points of 3e (or 1e) are only reducing what I consider the pain points, and different people might experience frustration over different things. Indeed, I can even see how some of my changes - say banning all PrCs - might, especially on first hearing them without seeing what I've done, strike many players as killing the best part of 3e, since there are indeed players who most enjoy 3e for its CharOp minigame of mixing and matching powers to do something creative. It's just for me, planning and creating novel characters shouldn't be one of the best parts of the game. And to the extent that you want to create a novel character, IMO the path to doing so should be more straight forward, involve fewer steps, and result in something of more predictable power given the level of the character. But that is a subjective preference.

 

[wingsandsword]

This is why 5e reversed itself and went back to trying to be all things to all people, rather than trying to be the perfect game for some. I wouldn't be surprised if 5e is, even for people who aren't playing it, almost everyone's second favorite edition.

I think that's a fair appraisal.

I'm a 3.5 devotee. . .but I'd say 5e is my 2nd favorite (albeit a distant 2nd). . .with 2e, then 1e. . .then 4e in that order.

5e at least is an honest effort to appeal to a wide variety of players and styles. It doesn't really fit any one style perfectly, but it does fit many styles at least passably well.

Also, as you were noting, one of the reasons that 4e alienated so many players was that it made zero attempt at anything approaching simulation. While D&D was never a game of hardcore realism in simulation, there was always a certain level of expected verisimilitude by many players, that the game should at least have enough simulation and realism that it doesn't break the illusion. . .but 4e, in its quest for game balance and mechanical perfection, placed that over any semblance of realism. . .and the focus on perfectly balanced mechanics (that often ignored even a vague semblance of realism) is one of the things that drove complaints of it being like a "video game". . .that things players might accept in a video game RPG as just aspects of the medium wouldn't be accepted in a tabletop game because many players came to expect at least a little more nod towards simulation and realism in a tabletop RPG.

 

[MwaO]

Bounded Accuracy is more from B/X or BECMI. ACs top out around 30 for the most part, level 20 fighter +13 to hit, only goes up to +3 weapons etc. The numbers are not that far off 5E.

5e math is literally 4e/2 math. You should expect a level 20 fighter to get a +3 magic weapon if you play in a 'typical campaign' ala page 133 of DMG, which makes the increase from levels 1-20 usually +9 additional(+2 stat, +4 proficiency, +3 weapon), where in 4e, you'd expect it likely to be +18 additional(+2.5 stat, +10 level, +4 weapon, +2 expertise).

Ditto for important skills, which are +2+4 vs +2.5+10 or +6 vs +12.

The big difference is 4e is super-transparent about expectations and 5e is trying to thread the needle of OSR people believing Bounded Accuracy wasn't abandoned and everyone else doing numbers as expected by running a 'typical campaign'. Which creates some problems when not everyone at WotC is aware of what Jeremy Crawford did, such as Adventurers League which hands out too many magic items, which then breaks numbers.