Why I Changed Editions

[Hussar]

I was thinking about this, obviously in the light of the new edition coming down the pipe. Exactly why did I change editions. And, for me anyway, the answer is fairly simple - practical issues. I never changed edition because I didn't like flavour, or didn't like this cosmology or that bit of system trivia. It was never that.

It was always, does the new system allow me to play the way I want to play, but make it easier?

I played 1e back in 1980 (or so) although, that's a bit untrue. I might have had AD&D books on the table, but, the game we played only bore a passing resemblance to the actual game as written. We were 13 years old and the books were written in a pretty byzantine fashion (high Gygaxian isn't the easiest thing in the world to parse), so, we muddled our way through.

When 2e came along, I took one look at it and was sold. Not because it embraced a new playstyle or whatnot (heck, I still ran a lot of my old 1e and basic D&D modules in 2e) but because it resolved a lot of the headaches we had with 1e. You had much clearer writing, a number of the more arcane rules were simplified and it meant that my game was much easier to run and play.

Then 3e came along. It took all the house rules I'd built up over the years, polished them up to a beautiful shine and made them better. Instead of every session (virtually) resulting in at least one argument over DM fiat, I got a game that practically ran itself. Rules were clean and (for the most part) worked very, very well and covered nearly everything that came up in game.

But, this came at a cost. That comprehensiveness meant that prepping became, for me again, a very big chore. Stat blocks were no longer one line long and as far as adding levels to monsters? Forget about it. It took me way too long and I just didn't have that kind of time to devote. And, after two or three semi-aborted campaigns, I finally broke down and said enough. I only ran modules in 3e from 2005 onwards. Great modules and lots of fun, but, I pretty much completely stopped creating any of my own material because I just didn't have the time to do it.

Then 4e came along. Suddenly, I could start making my own adventures again. The scut work of stat blocks and whatnot was reduced by a very large margin. Add in some online tools and I can bang out the mechanical parts of an adventure in under an hour. Which leaves me lots of time to actually develop the stuff that I want to develop, like setting, plot, character, and all the, for me again, good stuff.

So, for me, the switch to 4e has very little to do with things like AEDU powers or changed cosmology and whatnot. It's almost purely pragmatic. How much time does it take me to create what I want to create using a given system? That, for me, is the first and foremost concern.

What about you? What is your primary concern when looking at a new edition? What is the biggest decision point?

 

[enrious]

As someone who went from Mutants and Masterminds 1e to Mutants and Masterminds 2e, and then swearing to never again run M&M, I feel for you.

I picked up ICONS and would run that all day long.

I hope 5e allows for the same speed and simplicity that I desire.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Being a GM I have had pretty much the same XP as you too

I was ecstatic about the release of all new additions, and would pore avery every scrap of pre-release info (like I am doing now ).

In addition to your thoughts. I simply love a new system - I like to see where they take things and how things are adjusted.

I will add, that many of my first impression 'cool' things about a new addition often turn out to be the things I grow to dislike, such as the NPC/Monster stat blocks for 3E. I am OK with creatures having reasons for their stats (as opposed to just beng determined by level in 4E), but I won't run stat blocks where I have to look for info anymore. I would rewrite a monster with ALL info there. (I do this with Savage Worlds NPCs with Edges too). With 4E it was the lack of penalties and being able to do anything ALL the time.

But back to OP. Totally agree. In fact I took up Savage Worlds BECAUSE of this pragmatic idea. Furthermore though, the flavour of the material does grab me too - a reason I kept buying Savage Worlds settings and I did actually love the Pre-4E books that detailed the world and monster origins. I do like 4E cosmology etc and have adapted it to other games, but I am with you as a GM. I will take it on if the core mechanics are easy to handle (esp creatures), adventures of any edition remain easy to convert (b/c I have the stats for those critters), allowing prep time to go towards all the fun stuff - setting.

 

[Ahnehnois]

When I switched from 2e to 3e, I recall my wonder at the skill system. I had points! My ability to do certain useful tasks would no longer be a function of starting ability scores, what class I had chosen, or the simple presence or absence of a non-weapon proficiency. My first 3e character has a halfling sorcerer with maxed Hide and Move Silently. No longer did I have to fit my character into the box some designer made, I could make the character I wanted.

That observation has been qualified with experience of course, but that was what fundamentally got me into 3e (and D&D as a whole). The idea that I could do what I wanted. Creative freedom.

The same was my motivation to stick with 3e after 4e was released. If I played a wizard in 4e, I was stuck as one for my entire career. I had to pick from a tightly controlled list of powers, and I could use them a tightly controlled number of times. Even worse, if I wanted to play a fighter, I had to use the same system, pick powers (often similar ones) and be stuck as a fighter forever. I could find every PC from all of my campaigns, and few if any of them could be recreated in 4e. My freedom, and that of my players was not respected. Truthfully, any system that has fighters with spells was a non-starter, and if I had seen the page 42 business or the rust monster or a bunch of other things those would have been as well.

I do, however, think that freedom is the most fundamental issue. Rules are tools. Can I use them to create whatever game I want? Since this is supposedly the mentality of 5e once again I'm at least listening.

 

[Nagol]

Srarting with Holmes basic, moving to AD&D felt natural although I had to wait for the books to be published.

While playing AD&D, we started with other games: Traveler, Aftermath, CHAMPIONS 2nd ed, Star Trek, Gamma World, Marvel Superheroes, are the memorable games.

CHAMPIONS is what I fell in love with and ran several groups for 9 years or so upgrading to 3rd ed once it became available and starting a new cmapign with 4th ed.

In the middle of that, AD&D 2nd ed came out. I bought it and ran an introductory "mini-series". People had fun, but we went back to CHAMPIONS and other systems: Chill, Paranoia, Top Secret, GURPS, Espionage, Danger International, Justice Inc., Fantasy Hero, Morrow Project, Chivalry and Sorcery, Bushido, DC Heroes, Villains and Vigilantes, Psi World, Twilight 2000, and some others that were less memorable.

Fell for Ars Magica next. Was running 2 campaigns on alternate weekends in different cities: Ars Magica and 2nd ed D&D. Ars Magica lasted longer -- about 6? years versus 3 for 2nd ed when that group fell apart. Ars Magica upgraded from 2nd ed to 3rd ed in the middle of the campaign and the campaign followed suit. Ran or played in a bunch of other systems: some new some old: MERP, Mystic Masters, Teenagers from Outer Space, CHAMPIONS 4th edition, Call of Cthulu, Aftermath, Chivalry and Sorcery, Pendragon, Harn.

3ed edition came out. Started playing a campaign of that while running a multi-year Aftermath campaign with a different group. Ran an All Flesh Must be Eaten mini-series. Started running a D&D campaign after 3.5 was released. Played in d20 Modern, Call of Cthulu, The Fantasy Trip.

4th edition was released. Continued running 3.5 campaign, the group I was playing with fell apart. Played in CHAMPIONS 5th edition, Chivalry and Sorcery.

Just wrapped up the 3.5 D&D campaign I was running and started playing in a Strands of Fate campaign.

I'm prepping ideas for a couple of new campaigns: Conspiracy-X and 1e. May get to play in a Morrow Project campaign as well.

 

[Spinachcat]

I love 0e and 4e for their ease of DMing. My eventual interest in 5e will depend almost entirely on my experience as a DM.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Hussar, my experience has a lot of that same practical streak running through it. However, in my case that led to skipping 2E for a bunch of other systems (RuneQuest, Fantasy Hero, GURPS, etc.) If we'd had 3E in 1987-2000, we might have gone that route instead. In fact, the big appeal for our gaming group with 3E initially was that it wasn't a more detailed, involved version of AD&D, but a a much simpler version of Fantasy Hero. (It was higher level play that reversed this view.)

On top of that, I like to tinker, and I like reading, discussing, and thinking about game design, and have as long as I can remember. So any new version of any game that is pushing some envelope will often appeal to me (genre and other preferences permitting--I'm picky there). And that's why incremental versions don't really attract my attention, as much as they might otherwise.

 

[Raith5]

My feelings concur with the OP. Each successive edition since 1982 has been more fun for me and have enabled me play new different adventures with friends over the years.

I also like things that are shiny and new!

 

[Hussar]

I just want to point out that I don't think that every edition is all better than what came before. It's not. There are things from each edition that I like and wish I had in one box - I love the idea of Morale from AD&D plus the simplicity of many elements, priest spheres from 2e, the skill system of 3e and the clarity and the transparency in 4e just to name a few things.

But, at the end of the day, the thing that will move me from one game or edition to the other is almost universally pragmatism. Can I get to where I want to be faster and easier with this system or that system? That's my deciding factor.

 

[delericho]

I started with Basic D&D, which was great. The game was quickly expanded to Expert and Companion sets, though we never did reach the Master set.

Instead, we moved to 2nd Ed just after it was published, which was pretty much the same game, just bigger and, we thought, better. (Although, in hindsight, many of the so-called improvements in Advanced are actually nothing of the sort. But that's a topic for another day.)

Anyway, I played 2nd Ed for many years, before moving on from that group at about the time I went to university. There, the group I joined played Vampire primarily. I didn't play D&D again for some years.

Eventually, we came back to D&D, again with 2nd Ed, but it was not long before 3e hit. And it was a revelation - here was the game I hadn't known I'd always wanted! This was, of course, the way things should always have worked! For me, at least.

A few years later, 3.5e hit and we adopted it immediately. It was, on balance, a distinct improvement. (Although, again in hindsight, many of the so-called improvements are nothing of the sort.)

However, as the years passed, the weaknesses of 3e became increasingly apparent. The amount of prep was painful, especially at higher levels, and indeed the math itself started to break down quite badly at those higher levels. So, when 4e was announced, I was ready for it. And I applauded WotC's decision to break the game down, fix the underlying problems, and rebuild. I thought (and hoped) we'd get fundamentally the same game, just better.

Unfortunately, while they used what I still maintain was the right approach, the game that resulted was not to my taste. More than anything else, I felt hugely disappointed with the missed opportunity. I have run exactly 2 sessions of 4e, neither of which went well. After that, I decided that I'd play it, but I wouldn't ever run it again. And, since I'm primarily a DM at heart, that was basically the end of it.

When Pathfinder came about, my initial reaction was rather cold. Because they weren't going through the process of breaking down and rebuilding the game, their ability to fix the fundamental flaws I see is very limited. When Pathfinder was released I read it, and it was an improvement. But it just wasn't 'better enough' to compel me to switch and abandon my years of accumulated system mastery.

So, I've been ready for a new edition for some time. I'm happy for them to take one more crack at building a new version of the game. But what I want is a game that is fundamentally D&D, but that is also an obvious and significant improvement over 3e - enough to compel me to switch. Whether or not they'll actually achieve that... we'll see. I'm hopeful, rather than confident.