PDA

View Full Version : Big Questions [Any Edition]



alchemyprime
2010-05-26, 10:41 AM
Okay folks. Here's the big idea.

My computer had it's hard drive wiped and I lost almost everything from Prime20 I didn't publish. :smallfrown: But I will use this as a chance to redo it, and to find out what it is people like about each edition!

So: Why do you like your favorite editions? Was it those healing surges that made you love 4e? Was it the customization in 3.5? The different exp tables of 2e? The bump in power level in Pathfinder? WHAT?

So that's my basic question. A small survey. What did you like in your favorite edition, or what made each edition fun. And what, if you could, would you transplant from one edition to another?

Axolotl
2010-05-26, 10:51 AM
I don't know why but 1e ADnD is my favorite edition. I think it's because it's the one that has the most character in it's rules. If it's rules were actually cleaned up and properly revised I don't think I'd play any other system.

mikej
2010-05-26, 10:51 AM
3.5

So much customization and with enough skill you can pull off almost anything. It's also the edition I was taught how to play d&d in and we've invested soo much cash into 3.5 books. Soo yeah, not very complex answer, but I just like the overall feel of 3.5.

Moose Fisher
2010-05-26, 11:22 AM
4e is a very modular system. Party slots aren't as restricted thanks to designing along archetypes and giving plenty of class options in each section. Classes are focused, but the powers provide some customization and again they're archetypes instead of careers.

4e also encourages party synergy. Lots of abilities buff up allies or set up advantageous situations. The healer doesn't need to sit back and heal, they can fight and heal at the same time! Healing surges also lessens the burden of needing a healer (but it certainly makes things harder without one!).

The rules are formatted in a way similar to M:tG, simple rules, many exceptions. It's the combination of abilities across the party where the customization of 4e shines.

Unfortunately the numbers need tweaking and some gamist ideas should be scrapped for more RP/Simulationist ones. As written 4e seems more for pick up groups than extended RP. The rules seem to be bloating up with all the books released and will eventually reach a level similar to 3e. The character paperwork is simpler, but the conditions and bonuses in combat can become a hassle to keep track of without helpful tools. Options are good, but there is no reason to flood a player with 9000 combination.


In short, 4e operating within a limited ruleset with some DM and player hand waving is an interesting system.

EDIT: Also, adding in magic items more in the vein of classic D&D sounds like a fun idea.

Swordgleam
2010-05-26, 11:53 AM
I've never liked games that try to be all things to all people. The thing all editions of D&D do well that I like is that they're at their heart a game about killing things and taking their stuff so you can get strong enough to kill bigger things and take better stuff, but you can also do other interesting things (eg roleplaying) in those games. If you're making a D&D-like game, do that.

I like a lot of other things in games, but I think each game really needs a heart. Something that the game says, "I will do this better than all other games." Wushu (in my opinion) encourages over-the-top cinematic action better than any other game. Midgard is awesome at letting you play magic-y vikings. Paranoia is the best for silly games where you yell "commie mutant traitor!" and zap each other. You could run a dungeon crawl in any of those systems, and you could do any of those things in any edition of D&D. But why would you?

Find a heart for your game and just be true to that. If your heart is simply, "a better d20 game that lets you have even more fun killing things and taking their stuff," that's fine. But don't try to be the "killing things and taking their stuff with over-the-top action and vikings and commie mutant traitors" game.

To more directly answer your question, my favourite part of 4e is that there's no one class you need. No "we need a cleric" because any leader role can fill that slot. And enough niche protection that as long as everyone is playing different classes, everyone is different enough not to get in each other's way.

Lady Tialait
2010-05-26, 12:32 PM
>.> I have been playing huge amounts of Rifts as of late. When I'm not doing that I am playing White Wolf's old World of Darkness.

And by playing I mean running. Before that I was enjoying 4e. My husband likes 3.5 best. I see 4e as putting the burden on the players to be creative. 3e is putting the burden on the DM. I end up running everything, so 4e is what I end up liking the best.

arguskos
2010-05-26, 01:10 PM
My favorite edition of D&D is N/A. I liked each of them for something specific, as they all did something unique and interesting.

OD&D: Open-ended, very little done for you. You got the basic "this is how to resolve conflicts" and everything else was up the DM. It was pretty much 5 seconds from freeform, and was glorious because of it.

AD&D 1 and 2: Had the old pulp fantasy feel that I grew up on and was glorious because of it. That feel has never been equaled in my eyes, and it is enough to make me smile just from picking up an old AD&D book and flipping through it. Everything was dangerous, it was all swingy, nothing was really balanced, it felt just like you were in an old pulp fantasy novel, and I loved it.

D&D 3.5: Customization, flat-out. The mechanics were streamlined, things made a lot more mathematical sense, and everything can be reverse engineered. Is this good? Well... yes and no. It leads to more breaking of the system, since nothing's foolproof, but it also leads to a lot more transparency and ease of customization, which is awesome.

D&D 4: Balance. Where OD&D was unrestrained, AD&D was pulpy, and 3.5 was about mechanical transparency and creativity, 4e seems to be about sacrificing just enough mechanical transparency to achieve superior mechanical balance, which all the other editions have lacked totally. While not what I personally find enjoyable, I have to say, they had an aim and performed it well.

My personal dream D&D: The feel of AD&D (that pulpy feel) with the mechanics of 3.5 to support it, with all their imbalance and wild ludicrousness included, because I loved it for what it was.

alchemyprime
2010-05-26, 07:21 PM
Hrm... well, I will admit, I'm going for the sort of system where heroic (1-10 or so) games would feel like the first season of Rurouni Kenshin or a Fritz Leiber novel, then games above that you start doing some world saving stuff, much like a DC Crisis, or perhaps the original Dragonball (not Z or GT, but classic) or some Shaman King, then when you hit epic and you go to take down the BBEG, it's a god or a demon lord and you feel like "OH MAN I'M AWESOME" and it's like the ending of Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann: Gurren-Hen on crack.

I think I explain the power scale as "At first level, a warrior is worth about two commoners. A fighter is about 3 warriors." Commoner and Expert classes will top out at 5, and Warrior, Adept, Magewright, Gleaner, and Aristocrat (and other NPC classes) will top out at 20, most stopping around 10, and even more stopping at 6.

Heroes just keep on going. If they get bored with their class, they can always jump to another or grab a Prestige class or an Advanced class to continue in powah.

I want a game where even at 1st level you feel EPIC.

Yep, that seems about right. Probably why I loved 3.5, Pathfinder and 4e so much. 3.5 for all it's quirks, PF for it bumping some classes up a smidge, and 4e for the fact that everyone feels important. I do wish that it wasn't all about optimization though. That burns a fella out. I think flair should be a bit more important.

mobdrazhar
2010-05-26, 07:44 PM
For me it woudl have to be 4e due to the (mostly) balance between the classes. The fighter no long being stuck with just Basic Melee is always a good thing.

Draz74
2010-05-27, 02:01 AM
2e is the earliest I'm familiar with, so ...

:smile: PROS

2e:

Magic actually feels "difficult," and sometimes has real drawbacks.
Low-level characters feel like "a regular Joe who hopes to become a hero, but getting there is a dangerous road."
Magic item acquisition is less structured; it's easier for the DM to make magic items more or less common, and to avoid the "Christmas Tree Effect."
More support (at least in the "fluff" parts of the rules) for turning the game into a more intrigue/politics/leadership based challenge, as the characters become powerful and prominent, rather than continuing dungeon crawls until doomsday.


3e:

More unified mechanics, like the Fort/Ref/Will save system, and the way monsters are built using many of the same rules as PCs
Customization of characters beyond race/class, via Feats and Skills
Streamlined mechanics for things like searching for traps (Search check) or lying (Bluff check). While these can be taken too far and remove the need for detailed roleplaying, it's nice to at least have them as a good backup.
Psionics actually became a pretty balanced system :smalleek:
At least the attempt of making tactical movement matter (e.g. by introducing AoOs into the game).
Great spin-offs: E6, Generic Classes
The way 3e eventually became a huge, complex machine, full of crazy sub-systems and optimization challenges, is fun, but is not necessarily desirable in the "ideal" version of D&D. I think this should remain 3e's particular "specialty."


4e:

Better action economy rules, especially regarding movement (no full attacks system!).
Rituals. RITUALS. Separating combat and non-combat magic is an AMAZING idea.
No particular classes (i.e. Cleric) required.
More per-encounter special ability design. (3e started to do this at the end, too, with the Factotum and Tome of Battle.) While I do like if characters can eventually run out of steam and need rest, I don't like constantly being confronted with the option of "win this battle easily by going Nova, then have to rest after a 15-minute workday." The healing surge system isn't perfect, but it helps.
Some semblance of balance.
Reducing mechanical impact of alignment. Divorcing the default setting cosmology from Planescape.


:annoyed: CONS

2e:

Looking things up on tables.
Rules that were poorly explained or hard to remember.
Lots of silly little limitations, like level caps for nonhumans, or the way ability scores didn't help you unless they were super-high
The way super-high ability scores were too powerful, like giving you a 10% XP bonus or letting you access overpowered classes. (And two words: Exceptional. Strength.)
The way Kits and other customization options beyond the basic rules were so poorly balanced
The infamous micro-roleplaying that was involved in detecting illusions (:smallmad:) or searching for traps.


3e:

The Christmas Tree Effect, to an unparalleled extent.
Character growth that's way too exponentially fast.
In the early books, "melee can't have nice things."


4e:

The cartoony, non-simulationist feel. Like the way characters can't take wounds that take longer than one night to heal.
Dissociated, gamist mechanics. Like the way skill check DCs of inanimate objects automatically get harder as your character goes up in level, or how the Frost Giant's AC doesn't actually get any better when he puts on armor.
The "nerf mode" feel, like the way dump stats have hardly any impact.

alchemyprime
2010-05-27, 10:40 AM
2e is the earliest I'm familiar with, so ...

:smile: PROS

2e:

Magic actually feels "difficult," and sometimes has real drawbacks.
Low-level characters feel like "a regular Joe who hopes to become a hero, but getting there is a dangerous road."
Magic item acquisition is less structured; it's easier for the DM to make magic items more or less common, and to avoid the "Christmas Tree Effect."
More support (at least in the "fluff" parts of the rules) for turning the game into a more intrigue/politics/leadership based challenge, as the characters become powerful and prominent, rather than continuing dungeon crawls until doomsday.


3e:

More unified mechanics, like the Fort/Ref/Will save system, and the way monsters are built using many of the same rules as PCs
Customization of characters beyond race/class, via Feats and Skills
Streamlined mechanics for things like searching for traps (Search check) or lying (Bluff check). While these can be taken too far and remove the need for detailed roleplaying, it's nice to at least have them as a good backup.
Psionics actually became a pretty balanced system :smalleek:
At least the attempt of making tactical movement matter (e.g. by introducing AoOs into the game).
Great spin-offs: E6, Generic Classes
The way 3e eventually became a huge, complex machine, full of crazy sub-systems and optimization challenges, is fun, but is not necessarily desirable in the "ideal" version of D&D. I think this should remain 3e's particular "specialty."


4e:

Better action economy rules, especially regarding movement (no full attacks system!).
Rituals. RITUALS. Separating combat and non-combat magic is an AMAZING idea.
No particular classes (i.e. Cleric) required.
More per-encounter special ability design. (3e started to do this at the end, too, with the Factotum and Tome of Battle.) While I do like if characters can eventually run out of steam and need rest, I don't like constantly being confronted with the option of "win this battle easily by going Nova, then have to rest after a 15-minute workday." The healing surge system isn't perfect, but it helps.
Some semblance of balance.
Reducing mechanical impact of alignment. Divorcing the default setting cosmology from Planescape.


:annoyed: CONS

2e:

Looking things up on tables.
Rules that were poorly explained or hard to remember.
Lots of silly little limitations, like level caps for nonhumans, or the way ability scores didn't help you unless they were super-high
The way super-high ability scores were too powerful, like giving you a 10% XP bonus or letting you access overpowered classes. (And two words: Exceptional. Strength.)
The way Kits and other customization options beyond the basic rules were so poorly balanced
The infamous micro-roleplaying that was involved in detecting illusions (:smallmad:) or searching for traps.


3e:

The Christmas Tree Effect, to an unparalleled extent.
Character growth that's way too exponentially fast.
In the early books, "melee can't have nice things."


4e:

The cartoony, non-simulationist feel. Like the way characters can't take wounds that take longer than one night to heal.
Dissociated, gamist mechanics. Like the way skill check DCs of inanimate objects automatically get harder as your character goes up in level, or how the Frost Giant's AC doesn't actually get any better when he puts on armor.
The "nerf mode" feel, like the way dump stats have hardly any impact.


You know, I have to agree with you on a few of those cons. I wish fighters had nice things, and it still bugs me that melee attacks never were able to attain the damage potential of a 5th level spell. I'm hoping I can alleviate that.

And the whole "Frost giant in hide nad rost giant in plate are the same" thing bugged me. It seems like an excuse for a wolf to be carrying 512 gilgold and a magic fire ring. :smallsigh: That bugs me.

And even at Epics, youre still not the best at SOMETHING. A wizard will almost never have a strength above 14 unless a spell got him there. 4e makes me miss having an 8 or lower sometimes. Not often, but sometimes.

And as unbalanced as they were, I liked kits. I hope I can pull a similar feel off with the class Paths I got planned. Yeah, it won't be everything for everybody, but I hope it can make a game where if the DM wants a fantasy game, by Denier, he gets a fantasy game!

jseah
2010-05-27, 11:05 AM
Things I like about 3.5:
- Options. Characters can do things that fundamentally change the way the game works
- - Thus, every game with a different set of characters operates differently
- - Gameplay has massive variety and is practically unpredictable
- Strategic play, the wider world matters more to the current battle than where you put your feet

Things I dislike about 3.5:
- What happened to balance? Mages have options and fighters don't... uh, what?
- Strategic play is hard to run and there's no help given in running a setting. Where are the charts?



Things I like about 4:
- Balanced. Kind of. I still think they made hp too important.
- Has a plug and play system. You could give a fighter wizard powers and it would work. Sort of.
- Some powers had interesting tactical effects you don't see in 3.5 (because tactics rarely mattered)

Things I dislike about 4:
- Where are my options?! Character choices don't seem to make much difference (at least not to the same extent as 3.5)
- Highly structured system. Sometimes a structure is good. Layering it over everything is not. You restrict choices that way.

Jokasti
2010-05-27, 11:09 AM
I want a game where even at 1st level you feel EPIC.

Erm...Exalted?

Thelas
2010-05-27, 11:10 AM
2e:

The infamous micro-roleplaying that was involved in detecting illusions (:smallmad:) or searching for traps.



I disbelieve the post! I disbelieve the smiley! I disbelieve the thread! I disbelieve the forums! I disbelieve the computer! I disbelieve the forum tags used to make the list! I disbelieve the bullet points! I disbelieve the poster! I disbelieve the white space! I disbelieve the air.

More relevantly, I like how in 3.5 not all classes have the exact same "4 from column A, 2 from column B" feel that they seem to, at least to me, in 4e.

alchemyprime
2010-05-27, 11:51 AM
Erm...Exalted?

... But I want a d20 system one... I like Exalted okay, but I like the d20 system best. Not so fond of the system Exalted used. Kinda fun, but it's the same reason I pretty much don't like White Wolf stuff.