DM plays mixture of editions...is that necessarily a bad thing?

[Aldeberess]

The two DMs have been playing for over 30 and 40 years respectively, but both play a mixed bag of way back 2.0, 3.5 and 5e. Is that necessarily a bad thing? My characters are allowed to do a lot of awesome hybrid spells and so forth, but I'm not learning as much when we play as hearing all the statistics and how each move we make differs in every edition.

Do most people play a mixed bag or is it usually pick an edition and stick with it? Would there be less meta in-fighting if there weren't 2 DMs at the table but one is PC and the other DM? Always diabolically opposed, of course :smallbiggrin:

Color me curious.

[Thrudd]

Making a homebrew with bits of different editions isn't all that strange, or wasn't back in "the day". It's not necessarily bad. The Basic line, 1e AD&D, 2e AD&D could all be mixed pretty easily, they were fairly close, and lots of people used to do that.

However, once you get to 3e and later, it gets a bit harder, as those editions changed quite a lot from those previous and from one another. I can see plucking some mechanics from later editions and using them in an AD&D game, like the advantage/disadvantage mechanic from 5e and using it in an earlier edition game. I wouldn't mix magic spells, though, that sounds like a recipe for insanity.

Certainly, they would need to pick one of those editions to be the primary one, and consult that one as the "rule book" when there are questions, while picking specific bits of the others (like races and classes) to translate into the primary rule set. To do otherwise would become rather incoherent, imo, unless they have done some major homebrewing and blending of the three into their own rule set (which hopefully they've informed everyone of). If there are lots of arguments at the table about rules of different editions, it sounds a bit like they might not have done this. Perhaps it's a work in progress, and you're all the playtest group.

If they have been playing that long, they might be used to just plucking bits from a new book and using it in an ongoing game, as we used to do when moving from Basic to 1e to 2e. However, they might need to read the rules of the newer games a bit more closely, and they'd see that's not such a good idea with post 2000 editions, as they vary in significant ways from AD&D, and will require changes from the book to be backwards compatible.

[LibraryOgre]

Not necessarily a bad thing; I know that I draw from several editions, especially where rules are unclear or bad. However, if it's really wide-spread, it can make it more confusing for players who don't have your breadth of knowledge and experience... or even particular flavor of it.

[D+1]

Never so much with D&D - we generally stuck to the edition at hand. However, we did play a fairly long campaign of Traveller back in the day that we actually christened "Hybrids and Headaches" because it was such a mish-mash of different editions of that game, and even entirely different games.

Certainly for players less familiar with a particular game, sticking closer to a single edition is better. But no RPG ever played has been limited to itself only - EVERY GM will add, modify and delete stuff, using resources from ANYWHERE that inspires them. Trick is simply to keep players on board for it.

[DammitVictor]

When I was first learning to play D&D (AD&D 1e) as a kid, I was using BECMI and 2e stuff for years before I figured out that the reason the rules didn't seem quite compatible was that they... weren't, and weren't really supposed to be. My longest-running "AD&D" character, from 1994 to Die Vecna Die was a troll assassin/shaman.

Right now, I'm trying to hollow out Fifth Edition and stuff it full of Pathfinder content like a gaming sausage. You can go ahead and tell me it's a bad idea and I'm a bad person, but I'm smoothing it out as a I go along and I've got high hopes for it.

One of the greatest strengths of RPGs compared to other media, in my opinion, is the ability to remix practically anything with practically anything else. There's something to be said for making sure all of your wheels are turning in the same direction before you hit the road, but there's nothing wrong with picking them up wherever you find them.

[Aldeberess]

Thank you Thrudd, LibraryOgre, D+1 and DammitVictor,

Very informative! I'm glad to know that a lot of people play this way. I did voice my opinion about putting it more into a fun story-ish way instead of always a battle of statistics. Yesterday we played more of our Netheril quest and we did have a lot more fun because he did tone down on calling out purely statistics.

I'm playing a 7th level Mountain Dwarf Female Fighter/Inventor Gadgeteer "Gadg" Meekaneek and her brother a 11th level Mountain Dwarf War Wizard Ragdavar "Tronk" Eldonar, she took the father's last name, and he, the mother's. Gadg has a ride Tony the Fat Pony and a fire lizard "Newton". Tronk has a flying carpet and Spit Fister, a demon minion.

Have built them up through the games - we've gone on 4 large quests over the past 2 years. That resulted in them going up levels, Gadg from 5th to 7th and Tronk from 8th to 11th.

So I'm not shiny new to the games, but since I only have played with my own group almost every Sunday morning for the past 2 years, it was hard to gauge if we were good or stagnant. And now I feel better about it and almost ready to host as the DM/GM. I bet it'll be harder to be on the other side of the screen, but I think it'll be fun to give it a go.

[Jay R]

Ignore what system(s) the DMs' game comes from. It's a good thing if the players know what they can or can't do, and enjoy it. It's a bad thing if they don't.

[DammitVictor]

So I'm not shiny new to the games, but since I only have played with my own group almost every Sunday morning for the past 2 years, it was hard to gauge if we were good or stagnant. And now I feel better about it and almost ready to host as the DM/GM. I bet it'll be harder to be on the other side of the screen, but I think it'll be fun to give it a go.

I had a dream tonight about answering this "question"; I think it was in relation to a Reddit thread I'm only half-remembering, about some kind of edition warring nonsense or game design or sensitive content or something. I hope this answer is helpful.

Remember, at the table there is no other game than the exact, idiosyncratic game you're playing; there is nothing to compare your game to, favorably or unfavorably, until everyone packs up their dice and goes home. When you're playing the game, there is nobody else in the world playing in your game except the people at your table. The only standard that can exist for you to compare your game to is itself, whether any changes you could make would make your game better or worse for the only people playing in it.

Between games, you can compare yourself to other umpires running other systems, but it's really only useful when approached in terms of "what is this dude doing that I can bring home to my game for my players?" And so far the Twenties have been great for that, like drinking from a firehose, but it's way too easy to get bogged down in how polished and professional... actual professionals can make their games look when that's not why you're running your game for your players.

If you want to be a great umpire, the two most important things you need to accept are that: 1) as long as your players keep showing up, your game is good enough, and 2) as long as your players keep showing up, you can still get better. Sharpshooters like Mercer and Mulligan have years of experience and, y'know, staff but their biggest advantage over Wednesday night at the FLGS is that they see themselves as artists and they study other artists to hone their craft.

[BBQ Pork]

The two DMs have been playing for over 30 and 40 years respectively, but both play a mixed bag of way back 2.0, 3.5 and 5e. Is that necessarily a bad thing? My characters are allowed to do a lot of awesome hybrid spells and so forth, but I'm not learning as much when we play as hearing all the statistics and how each move we make differs in every edition.

Do most people play a mixed bag or is it usually pick an edition and stick with it? Would there be less meta in-fighting if there weren't 2 DMs at the table but one is PC and the other DM? Always diabolically opposed, of course :smallbiggrin:

Color me curious.

Often, people play 1 edition and throw in a number of house rules, many of which they got from other editions. Playing 100% Rules As Written is rare, because even if you try, you tend to either forget a rule and just make a ruling on the fly, or a rule gets mis-interpreted.
I am curious which PHB you make your character out of. I'm suspecting 3rd or3.5.

Your 2 DMs being diabolically or diametrically opposed is a symptom of not being on the same track as each other. That's going to happen when neither can point to a single resource as the basis of the rules, or whichever one is the player at the time not being able to just go with the DM's ruling. There's a reason why the DM is sometimes called the Referee. They are the arbiter or what the rules are at the table. When it's the other DM's turn, then they are.
Do the rules of this table's game seem to stay consistent? Do things work one way on Friday and a different way Tuesday?

[Leon]

If they know all of them well enough it could work.
Have had two experiences where people tried it and nether did it very well ~ didn't actually play with the second one as I had concerns (learnt from the first one), voiced those concerns and didn't like the results even more and declined to play, my friends who stayed regretted that choice.

The better thing is to pick One system to play and tweak it to suit, I very much doubt anyone plays wholly RAW outside of the organized play settings.

[Aldeberess]

Thank you, Leon :smile:

You're right, I don't believe anyone could be wholly raw either because why reinvent the wheel, but just stretching the rules and intermingling the editions is getting to much more fun as all of us almost newbs get the gist :cool:

We've actually started a new game where we're all some form of evil and using the mixed is working out. It's a 3.5 edition with elements of 2nd and 5th edition and some homegrown added in for our playing pleasure. We've been having a lot of fun with this one. Lost one player, but hopefully she'll return as her character is pretty entertaining.


If they know all of them well enough it could work.
Have had two experiences where people tried it and nether did it very well ~ didn't actually play with the second one as I had concerns (learnt from the first one), voiced those concerns and didn't like the results even more and declined to play, my friends who stayed regretted that choice.

The better thing is to pick One system to play and tweak it to suit, I very much doubt anyone plays wholly RAW outside of the organized play settings.

[Corsair14]

We swap around editions and even entire game systems every 6 months to a year. We are going from Pathfinder 2e to Warhammer 4e in January. Prior to PF2 we were playing Rifts, and then 2e ADND before that. Some of it is to prevent burn out the rest is I have ADD when it comes to game systems.

[Pugwampy]

I normally stick to 3.PF rules but i have on 2 occasions incorporated 4th Edition characters just to be different . I made 4th edition Dragon born and attacked the players . I just remember getting wrecked .

The 2nd one i just did the old , you are dreaming you are somebody else in a different time ..... Then i handed 4th edition miniatures and their game cards to the players and we all did an encounter . We had no problems .

[kyoryu]

I once played in a game that was a mix of Runequest, AD&D 1e, and The Fantasy Trip.

Mixing games can be fine, so long as they're mixed well. Does the game, as a whole, work well? If so, it's fine and don't worry about it. The danger is when putting in elements that contradict or cause issues with other elements from other games.

[Duff]

Is it necessarily a bad thing?
No! Absolutely not!
It is effectively a fair bit of homebrew, and there's nothing wrong with that either.

But, there's nothing wrong with *Anything* in an RPG as long as everyone is having fun (in a healthy, consensual and legal way)

That said, most games I've seen, played or heard about are at least mostly a single edition of a single game. I've played an AD&D that was a 1st/2nd hybrid, that worked well and an Ars Magica that was mostly 5th ed (with some bits of 4th ed brought over) which suffered from a number of issues including poor communication of rules interpretations

[2D8HP]

I once played in a game that was a mix of Runequest, AD&D 1e, and The Fantasy Trip.

Mixing games can be fine, so long as they're mixed well. Does the game, as a whole, work well? If so, it's fine and don't worry about it. The danger is when putting in elements that contradict or cause issues with other elements from other games.

@kyoryu,

That sounds immensely cool!

I remember (and owned) all of those, but I only ever got to play one session of TFT, and not many more of RuneQuest, D&D was always a hodgepodge of different types (including All the World’s Monsters and Arduin).

Congratulations!