Edition Peace: the Right Version for the Right Game

[EccentricCircle]

one of the things that i've kept hearing about 4th edition D&D is that it is a very different game, and having now played it a bit I can see what they mean. so much has been changed and overhauled that there is very little continuity with the third edition of the game.
while i'm now getting more familier with how 4e works i'm still not convinced to run a game as DM myself, it always comes down to a question of could I not run that using 3.5 just as easily if not more so due to knowing the system better.
both games have more or less the same genre. they are fantasy adventures. so are a number of other roleplaying games. but I wonder if the changed mechanics and different feel of one system over another makes it more apropriate for certain games rather than others in the same way that I could run a warhammer game more effectively using WFRP than D&D seeing as it is tailor made for that sort of wolrd.

so the basic question for debate is this:
are different editions more tailored to different types of games?
are there certain stories that can be run more effectively using one edition rather than another?

this isn't just limited to the transition from 3.5 to 4e, pathfinder is nice, but is almost too close to 3.5 to sugest a different way of playing the game.
what about the earlier editions? i've not had opertunity to play 1st or 2nd edition so am not familier with how similar or different the games are but would be interested in hearing other peoples opinions on the matter.

EC

[true_shinken]

so the basic question for debate is this:
are different editions more tailored to different types of games?

Yes. That's pretty much a consensus here, I believe.

are there certain stories that can be run more effectively using one edition rather than another?

Yes, of course.

[Totally Guy]

Totally right. We can take this one step further though. Role playing systems, outside of and including D&D, do different things.

[Leolo]

I would say yes.

Of course the rules system affects the stories - and therefore it can be better to switch the rule system for a specific story. But you should know that most times those are details, as D&D in general is a mainstream system. It is not really specialised to a single story.

The most simple example for this would be 4E and 3.5. While 4E does have things like skillchallenges and rewards for non combat encounters you could not really say that 3.5 (that is missing such things) is not usefull for non combat adventures, because the DM can adjust this without changing the feeling of the rule system. (Please note that this is not the "there is no problem, because the DM can solve it" fallacy - the point is only valid if this is no major change for the rule system)

You do feel a difference between both systems when you play such stories. As a DM i feel more encouraged to use those things as they are part of the core rules. And maybe i can use them now more often or easier. But both systems allow such stories, and you could tell the same story in both rule systems.

Same would be true for combat heavy stories. A classic dungeon crawl story is possible in every edition of D&D - but feels different, too. For example 3.5 is much more about preparation than 4e, while 4E is much more tactical.

[EccentricCircle]

Prehaps my question wasn't clear,
I'm not so much interested in a yes and no answer as to whether you agree as your thoughts on what makes each edition unique. why choose one over another? and how can the idiosyncracies of a game be used by DM's to run a better game by picking the edition most suited to their concept.

[CycloneJoker]

I would say yes.

Of course the rules system affects the stories - and therefore it can be better to switch the rule system for a specific story. But you should know that most times those are details, as D&D in general is a mainstream system. It is not really specialised to a single story.

The most simple example for this would be 4E and 3.5. While 4E does have things like skillchallenges and rewards for non combat encounters you could not really say that 3.5 (that is missing such things) is not usefull for non combat adventures, because the DM can adjust this without changing the feeling of the rule system. (Please note that this is not the "there is no problem, because the DM can solve it" fallacy - the point is only valid if this is no major change for the rule system)

You do feel a difference between both systems when you play such stories. As a DM i feel more encouraged to use those things as they are part of the core rules. And maybe i can use them now more often or easier. But both systems allow such stories, and you could tell the same story in both rule systems.

Same would be true for combat heavy stories. A classic dungeon crawl story is possible in every edition of D&D - but feels different, too. For example 3.5 is much more about preparation than 4e, while 4E is much more tactical.

{{scrubbed}}

[CycloneJoker]

Prehaps my question wasn't clear,
I'm not so much interested in a yes and no answer as to whether you agree as your thoughts on what makes each edition unique. why choose one over another? and how can the idiosyncracies of a game be used by DM's to run a better game by picking the edition most suited to their concept.

4e was designed for newbies or for those that don't want to think about combat, ability rationing, or character design. Much more newbie-friendly, and much too boring. Also, true optimization doesn't exist. You can't do anything cool, like having a Samurai keep up with a well done wizard. And, as I said, powers are a terrible system. Fighters should NOT be able to cast, and the idea of only being able to swing really hard only once per day is absurd.

[Kurald Galain]

Saph has made an insightful post on the topic:

4e was designed to be played in a very specific way. Each character plays a Hero (capitalisation intended) who joins up with a party that contains at least one each of the four roles. The party then travels around and kills monsters (assembled in level-appropriate groups). Combat is the main focus of the game, the way you fight combats is by reducing monster HP, and most of what PCs can do revolves around either taking off monster HP or helping to take off monster HP. In between fights you have occasional skill challenges, which are basically a way of organising every encounter that's not a combat so that it follows the same basic structure/XP format as a combat.

This is what 4e does, and it's good at it. If the above paragraph appeals to you, you'll like 4e: there's a lot of content, it's reasonably simple to learn, and it's fairly well balanced.

The drawbacks of 4e are all mirror-images of its good points. 4e works great as long as you play it the way the designers want, but it quickly starts running into problems when you try something different. If you decide you don't want to organise a party in terms of roles or don't want to play a character who does HP damage or don't want to play a game that revolves around killing small groups of monsters, 4e isn't going to work very well.

[Asheram]

The most simple example for this would be 4E and 3.5. While 4E does have things like skillchallenges and rewards for non combat encounters you could not really say that 3.5 (that is missing such things) is not usefull for non combat adventures, because the DM can adjust this without changing the feeling of the rule system. (Please note that this is not the "there is no problem, because the DM can solve it" fallacy - the point is only valid if this is no major change for the rule system)

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Double negative, Joker

[Comet]

Also, powers are a terrible system.

Not helping, man.

Anyway, my views on AD&D (and older editions, in my case the red box), 3.5 and 4th ed, based on my experiences as a DM and a player:

AD&D is all about the story and the classic, unique settings. The DM has a lot of control over everything, the rules are limited and several conflicts require the players, not the characters, to be up for the task at hand. The art, mechanics and writing in AD&D books draw me into adventures that resemble those in Dragonlance, Planescape: Torment, Baldurs Gate and other classics.

3.5 is about the multitude of options. Imaginative races, vast opportunities for spellcasters and a comprehensive set of mechanics that allow you to make almost any character or world come alive with a bit of work. The art, writing and mechanics are more bland, though, making the books themselves less fun to read and, as such, I get my inspirations for stories from other sources and use the mechanics to play simply because it's what my players know best.

4th edition takes the middle ground between AD&D and 3.5, with an added element of tactical thinking and a fast pace that's great for a dynamic action adventure. The art and writing are more specific to a certain style instead of trying to do everything in a generic way, making the books more interesting to read than in 3.5.

All in all, AD&D is my favourite but I often end up playing 3.5 because the system is so readily familiar to a lot of players. I would play 4th ed more, but the bookkeeping with powers and such and the more involved encounter designs make it harder to wing the story without extensive prep work. I'm lazy like that.

[The Rose Dragon]

Saph has made an insightful post on the topic:

The same can be said of 3rd Edition and 3.5, though. As long as you try to play a "dungeon crawl" (as characterized by a series of events where you fight and suffer consequences connected by certain pathways all leading to a main event with a big fight), 3rd Edition works passably. It breaks down quickly with most anything else.

[Kurald Galain]

The same can be said of 3rd Edition and 3.5, though.

Perhaps, but it is fair to say that 3E can handle a wider variety of situations or settings than 4E does. This is easy to see: 4E was explicitly and intentionally designed to feel like 3E at approx level 6-12 (what WOTC calls the "sweet spot"), and can deal with neither the fragile ordinary people that 3E characters are at level 1, nor with the ridiculously overpowered deities they can become at level 17.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Saph has made an insightful post on the topic:

I actually agree with most of that statement. My caveat is that the Minion mechanic makes mass combat as easy to do as "killing small groups of monsters."

Of course, you can say the same basic thing ("If you don't play the system as it's intended to be played, you run into problems") about every system.

Prehaps my question wasn't clear,
I'm not so much interested in a yes and no answer as to whether you agree as your thoughts on what makes each edition unique. why choose one over another? and how can the idiosyncracies of a game be used by DM's to run a better game by picking the edition most suited to their concept.

The rules make each game unique. All of them.

There isn't some base RPG rules paradigm from which you can gauge idiosyncrasies between system. Each system operates in a particular manner (whether by design or accident) and that action defines the sort of gameplay it is well suited for. WotC D&D, for example, does a really poor job of running a "diplomacy" game: the bulk of the rules are designed to adjudicate combat and the rules for non-combat encounters lack depth at best and are inoperable at worst. By comparison, Burning Wheel does a terrible job of adjudicating tactical combat - its rules just don't cover that sort of game play.

If you, as a DM, are looking for a system to run a particular sort of game then you need to understand how a system operates and what it is designed to do before making your selection. In a perfect world, the DM would be able to always use the most appropriate system for the sort of game they want to run; in reality DMs are constrained by the availability of systems and the ability/desire of Players to learn new systems. As such DMs tend to mod the systems they and their Players know in order to produce something like the sort of game they want to play.

An imperfect process, but it usually works well enough

EDIT: Comet actually makes a neat comparison there. I'll also add in a pat piece of comparison - 3.5 is the GURPS of D&D. It can do anything you want if you work hard enough at it. Of course, I don't personally regard that as a virtue of a system

[Sine]

so the basic question for debate is this:
are different editions more tailored to different types of games?
are there certain stories that can be run more effectively using one edition rather than another?

D&D is essentially the same game, regardless of edition. The only thing I can categorically say about the editions is "Each new edition gets more balanced, more heroic, less gritty and less dependent on DM skill." So if you want to play a dark gritty game that requires a great DM to be a great game? Play AD&D. Want to play a heroic game that can get by with a mediocre DM? Play 4e.

But the more important factors are: "Which edition am I familiar with?" "Which ruleset do I like best?" "Which edition did I start with, or have the best groups with?" "Which is the current edition, and therefore the easiest to find groups for?" Few gamers play D&D based on its ability to be tailored to a particular type of campaign, because D&D is essentially vanilla fantasy. Its strength, like the strength of the Bible, is that it appeals to a wide audience. It can be tailored to certain stories, but that's not what D&D is best at.

[Kurald Galain]

My caveat is that the Minion mechanic makes mass combat as easy to do as "killing small groups of monsters."

Except if you have any auto-hit power.

Of course, you can say the same basic thing ("If you don't play the system it's intended to be played, you run into problems") about every system.

Well, that's pretty much the point. Anyone who claims that RPG system X is the bestest game ever and that it is ever so suitable for every setting and genre is, fundamentally, not familiar enough with other RPG systems.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Except if you have any auto-hit power.

Hardly.

I could argue this further, but to what end? And it is somewhat inappropriate for the "Edition Peace" thread, no?

[WarKitty]

If you, as a DM, are looking for a system to run a particular sort of game then you need to understand how a system operates and what it is designed to do before making your selection. In a perfect world, the DM would be able to always use the most appropriate system for the sort of game they want to run; in reality DMs are constrained by the availability of systems and the ability/desire of Players to learn new systems. As such DMs tend to mod the systems they and their Players know in order to produce something like the sort of game they want to play.

This so much. From what I know, my games and DMing style would probably work better in a system that emphasized skills and roleplaying more and de-emphasized rollplaying. (I really detest 3.5 skill check "roll until it works" mechanism.) But my group and my players are familiar with 3.5, so it's easier to modify the existing system than to drag everyone through learning a completely different ruleset.

[valadil]

I've run both quite a bit now. My games are full of plot and intrigue rather than the usual D&D stuff. While I agree that a game system affects the stories told within that system, I don't think 3.5 and 4e are dissimilar enough that you couldn't tell a story in one system but not the other.

I can think of a few campaign themes that make sense in just one though. I wouldn't want to run a low magic game in 4e. If you take away the magical classes, everyone else still behaves like a martially themed mage. I don't think 3.5 is ideal for low magic either, but you an make it work. I also think a high magic game where spell components are used as currency would be out in 4e unless you homebrewed your spell components. But I don't see either of these as a story per se.

The biggest difference for my group has been familiarity. In 3.5 everyone knew all the core spells. If I threw a mechanical puzzle at the players, they could quickly list all the ways they could cast it with two level 3 or lower scrolls. Now if I give them a cliff to climb and they don't have a fly speed, they don't automatically know the right rituals to solve that problem. This opens the game up for more discovery and exploration of solutions, instead of using a solution they saw written up on the charop boards 6 months ago.

Actually I take back what I said about some stories not working. 4e is not designed for PC on PC conflict. If you were running something where the PCs were supposed to kill each other, it might work oddly. I can't comment on how oddly though.

[Prime32]

Random note: Someone's running a PbP 4e game here based on Touhou. I can see how it's more suited for the task than 3e... since all combat in Touhou is in the form of ritualised magic duels where all forms of attack become non-lethal spells (even slashing someone with a sword) and you can only use each non-basic attack once. Which is probably the reason these exist.

Though it seems kind of odd something that's supposed to be natural in one source simulates something artificial in another so well.

[Tiki Snakes]

Well, I can see your point Valadil, but I disagree slightly on the low-magic point. Personally, I'd say 4e works much better for (heroic) low magic, simply because the martial and other non / partially magical classes are much more capable of surviving without the arcane/divine/etc power sources than in 3.5, where a beatstick without a heal-bot or so on is effectively a pretty sad fellow (and so on).

For non-heroic low-magic, though, they both are pretty rubbish in comparison to any intentionally gritty system.

High Magic is definately all about 3.5, though. You really can't justify the Tippyverse in quite the same way in 4e.

[valadil]

Personally, I'd say 4e works much better for (heroic) low magic, simply because the martial and other non / partially magical classes are much more capable of surviving without the arcane/divine/etc power sources than in 3.5, where a beatstick without a heal-bot or so on is effectively a pretty sad fellow (and so on).

Yeah, that's fair. A party of all martial classes could get by without too much trouble. I just don't think it would feel like a low magic game since you still have daily attacks. At any rate, I don't think I'd choose D&D if I wanted gritty realism in the first place.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Yeah, that's fair. A party of all martial classes could get by without too much trouble. I just don't think it would feel like a low magic game since you still have daily attacks. At any rate, I don't think I'd choose D&D if I wanted gritty realism in the first place.

Eh, gritty is about gameplay. 4e isn't great for it (nor is any HP-based RPG) but Dailies wouldn't be the problem.

As a DM, you just run more Encounters per day so that the drain on Surges and the expenditure of resources becomes a real issue. Do you use your Daily now to geek the Mage or will you grind him down (and risk losing Surges of HP) in case he has friends

Honestly, looking at my current games which are too story-rich and Encounter poor I think my Players would almost appreciate a "grittier" game. Hell, the last 4e game I ran caused the PCs to hop into a one-way portal to an Epic Dungeon in the Shadowfell 'cause they got bored with political intrigue.

They were Heroic at the time.
It didn't go well

[Totally Guy]

By comparison, Burning Wheel does a terrible job of adjudicating tactical combat - its rules just don't cover that sort of game play.

Do you perhaps mean big ol' mass battles? You can have tactical fights, there's an entire subsystem devoted to it.

[EccentricCircle]

I agree with the sugestion that seems to be comming up that 3.5 is better for the grittier style games while 4e is more of a game of Heroes (in fact I think i've heard it described as fantasy superheroes somewhere)

I think that one of the great strengths of any roleplaying game is the ability of the story to transcend the intentions of the designers, ultimately the plot is in the hands of the DM and if they want to take a game of magical monster slaying and turn it into a gritty game of intrigue and treachery it is entirely possible. that sort of game doesn't neccersarly play to the games strengths but it is still entirely doable.

some of my favourite games are those that don't fit the "traditional" model of kick in the door and kill the monsters. grittier games can be achieved fairly easily with 3.5 by ensuring that the players do not optimise their characters. I'm not sure to what extent that aproach can be applied to 4e due to the games greater balance between the classes.
that said there may well be other ways to play a grittier game in that system. I think to a large extent I have gotten used to using 3.5 for non typical games and learnt all of the ways to use the system for the game I want to play rather than playing the game the designers wanted me to play.
I suspect that I would find that 4e can be adapted. albeit in different ways to the same playstyles.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Do you perhaps mean big ol' mass battles? You can have tactical fights, there's an entire subsystem devoted to it.

Damnit, did I miss another section in that book?

So far I haven't gotten anyone to play a game of Burning Wheel so I just read the book for inspiration. Is it remotely on par with the tactical combat of 4e?

@EccentricCircle - I think you might have a better understanding of systems if you played some non-D&D games. Also, you may want to define "gritty" as I somehow doubt any system can be made gritty merely by "not optimizing"

[Britter]

Burning Wheel's Fight! system is nothing at all like 4e, in any way.

It is, however, a deep and interesting subsystem designed to model the fundamentally unpredictible nature of combat, force you to out think your opponenets, and has a lot of depth and nuance.

Fight is played out in a manner very similar to the Duel of Wits system, though it is more complicated, having mechanisms to simulate superior and inferior possitioning, stance, and different types of attacks and defenses which interact in multiple ways.

No grid or map is used.

It is not in any way designed to simulate the type of encounter that is typical of DnD.

I feel, personally, that it is a better system by far than any version of DnD for resolving violenct conflcits, but it won't fill the same need that 4e combat does.

Edit: I should note that I don't consider 4e's combat system to be very tactical. It is much more strategic, in my opinion, playing out like a more complex version of chess. Fights in 4e always feel quite predictable to me, and I usually can pick the moment in which my side has crossed the line and will win, regardless. Burning Wheel Fight! has you on your toes all the time, because the unexpected can, and will, happen, and your victory can very easily be snatched away.

Fight! is a very deep system, and is at least as complex as 4e combat, if not more so in some ways, but it won't appeal to everyone. I tend to only use it for big deal encounters, conflicts with major villains, and moments of violence that have deeper meaning to the characters. Otherwise I tend to use the simpler vs. test method of resolution.

[NMBLNG]

I think we're missing an important part of the equation here. Yes, the DM's style and the kind of game they want to run needs to be well matched with the system they're playing. A no-combat, skill heavy campaign will not go over well in 4e and will need a lot of work in 3.5.

But just because the DM wants to run a game of intrigue doesn't mean that the players want to as well. I do like campaigns where I get to sneak around, mess with politics and all that stuff. But some days I just want to bash/stab/explode something in the face.

So don't forget what the players are planning on doing. I've seen groups get frustrated because they didn't know what the DM wanted them to do, players struggle to find the best course of action in combat, players that want to find a way out of combat when the DM is planning a fight, etc.

You can do a intrigue campaign in 4e, I'm in one now. But it wouldn't work if the players only wanted to kill stuff.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I think we're missing an important part of the equation here. Yes, the DM's style and the kind of game they want to run needs to be well matched with the system they're playing. A no-combat, skill heavy campaign will not go over well in 4e and will need a lot of work in 3.5.

But just because the DM wants to run a game of intrigue doesn't mean that the players want to as well. I do like campaigns where I get to sneak around, mess with politics and all that stuff. But some days I just want to bash/stab/explode something in the face.

So don't forget what the players are planning on doing. I've seen groups get frustrated because they didn't know what the DM wanted them to do, players struggle to find the best course of action in combat, players that want to find a way out of combat when the DM is planning a fight, etc.

You can do a intrigue campaign in 4e, I'm in one now. But it wouldn't work if the players only wanted to kill stuff.

In my defense, I did pitch the game as an intrigue game to the Players and they said they wanted to play. And it certainly wasn't a matter of Players getting confused - they knew the factions involved and were engaging with them.

It's just that they wanted to get out there and work their character sheets. Kill some orcs, loot some dungeons, etc. 4e, as a system, focuses on "characters in combat" and unless your intrigue game involves a lot of that (which it probably does) it can feel a little silly spending all this time picking out Attack powers that you never really use.

One of my Players put it best when he said "you run the most 1st Edition game of 4th Edition I've ever seen" - I was focused on engaging the player characters in a narrative story rather than their character sheets in mechanics. So I shelved that game of 4e and ran a game of Bliss Stage instead. The next 4e game I ran took more care into structuring the story as a series of Encounters and it works much better.

N.B. Structuring a story is a question of organization, nothing more. I don't find my storytelling more limited because I conceptualize things as Encounters (and opportunities for Encounters); I simply take more care to engage with the system when writing. Each system lends itself to a particular brand of storytelling in the same way that it lends itself to a particular form of game play.

[navar100]

Campaign elements are independent of the system. Plots, combat, non-combat stuff happen in every edition. The only difference between them is the game mechanics used. If you don't like particular game mechanics, you're not going to like the system.

However, I think there's another element involved related to the game mechanics: the tolerance level of how powerful a player character can be. Regardless of edition anything that's broken for within that system is to be done away with, but the concept of a player character being powerful is not in itself broken. Those who are comfortable with powerful characters can play any system, but in some cases dislike a system that doesn't allow "powerful enough" in their subjective opinion. Those who are uncomfortable with powerful characters will have a preference, and in some cases vehemently dislike the systems they don't prefer because they allow for "too powerful" characters.

[EccentricCircle]

I think defining gritty is one of those things where everyone has a slightly different idea, but I would say that a gritty game is one where the world is a dark and dangerous place and no amount of encounter powers is going to change that. the characters will struggle, they will have to use their wits (and indeed the wits of their players) rather than their special abilities.
a gritty game is one where fighting should be a last resort, rather than the buisness of the day. it is a game where characters can be killed if they don't think before they jump and a game in which every action has a consequence even if it does arguably succeed.

that sort of game isn't what D&D is designed to do. a gritty game is not a heroic game or a game of tactical battles. I agree that 3.5 is better than 4e for such games but that there are a lot of better systems out there. The point I was making was essentially that an optimised party will make the DM's job of running such a game a lot harder than it would otherwise be. I apreciate in hindsight that it reads as "the way to be gritty is not to optimise" and so apologise for any confusion.

its interesting that the consensus seems to be that the older versions of D&D lend themselves better to this sort of game. I suppose that a lighter rules load gives the DM more flexibility to create a grittier story.