Game of Choice

[Matt Forbeck]

Game of Choice

Matt has decided to run a D&D adventure for his kids, but now comes the hard part - which edition to play?

Read Full Article

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

Me and Dungeons&Dragons broke up awhile ago, we tried to stay friends but after seeing it in the hands of others I just couldn't take it anymore, we wanted different things out of gaming and we both knew it and could barely stand the sight of each other, thus we both went our separate ways.

Since then D&D has changed a great deal, it has shed the cumbersome crunch of 3.5 and replaced it with a shiny veneer of clever combat mechanics whilst removing what little narrative support elements it had. The result was a brand new D&D that was faster and smoother than it's old self. Unfortunately, I was still unimpressed, especially since I'd been hooked up with D&D's more interesting middle sibling Star Wars SAGA Edition whom gave me what I needed despite some neglect from its parents, Wizards of the Coast.

However I have recently been dragged back to D&D by some friends, reacquainting myself with D&D's strange clone Pathfinder, and while I must admit that Pathfinder is a better time than 3.5 ever was, it still has most of the same problems of the original. Thus I find myself longing after the refined Door Kicking, Stuff Taking, Monster Killing machine than D&D has become, instead of the bloated Pathfinder beast that now holds me in thrall.

In brief, if you want to play "Dungeons and Dragons" I cannot think of a better way to do it than by playing 4th Edition.

 

[SaintWaldo]

I'd recommend either 3.5 or 4. The rules are faster, the math is transparent, and the archetypes fit the common MMO archetypes closer than older versions. 4 is most likely best to start right now, since you won't be gambling on overstock to secure needed rule sets.

Resist all temptation for Basic, AD&D or 2nd ed. Those hellish times when THAC0 lent us a chilled hand...

 

[GonzoGamer]

All good suggestions but I would go with Palladium. It's the most versatile and it's probably got one of the easiest sets of rules to grasp... for a versatile rpg: like if they want you to make it high-tech, involve super-heroes, involve mutants, or anything else.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

All good suggestions but I would go with That Game System. It's the most versatile and it's probably got one of the easiest sets of rules to grasp... for a versatile rpg: like if they want you to make it high-tech, involve super-heroes, involve mutants, or anything else.

You're kidding right? That Game System only makes sense if you beat the rules with a hammer until they work. I played it when I was 14, thought about going back to it, took one look at the rules and nearly had a heart attack! Woefully Unbalanced Character Options, a confusing as hell battle system and nearly meaningless skill choices with a very cumbersome Percentile System.

It's like a "How To Guide" of bad rules design.

Besides, the column author already knows of a system that does what That Game System does better than That Game System it's called Savage Worlds, and it is awesome.

Spoiler

I call it That Game System because it's creator has a very bad reputation of sending cease and desist letters to anyone who criticizes the game and suggests it might be anything less than perfect. He is not a popular man in the industry by my understanding, something to do with not paying the freelance writers who worked for him and then taking credit for their work, but that's just hearsay.

 

[Slycne]

I'd recommend either 3.5 or 4. The rules are faster, the math is transparent, and the archetypes fit the common MMO archetypes closer than older versions. 4 is most likely best to start right now, since you won't be gambling on overstock to secure needed rule sets.

Resist all temptation for Basic, AD&D or 2nd ed. Those hellish times when THAC0 lent us a chilled hand...

3.5 and 4 are faster then Basic, AD&D or 2nd ed? We can practically run an entire dungeon in Basic/Expert in the time it takes to finish a decently sized fight from 3rd or 4th edition. While I will agree that new tabletop gamers familiar with MMOs will pick up and identify with the concepts of 3rd/4th possibly easily then earlier editions.

I know everyone like ragging on THAC0, after 100+ hours of Baldur's Gate I still didn't understand what it was fully, but after playing in a Basic/Expert game for awhile now I really don't see why it gets so much grief. It's certainly no more complex then attack roles + untold number of modifiers seen in later editions.

I think Matt put it quite well, and I believe this statement applies even in the realm of the editions of a single game.

Arguably, these other games are better games than D&D, although "better" is a slippery word. They may be better for some uses, or some groups than others. They may play faster, or be more realistic, or be more innovative.

 

[Dirty Apple]

I played a little AD&D when I was in junior high, and found it quite a nice way to waste a saturday night. Unfortunately, I was always the DM. I had the best grasp of the game mechanics and no one else was willing to take the helm, so the job was mine. To this day, I've always thought sitting in on an expertly run game of AD&D would be an unforgetable experience. Your children are lucky, and I hope they enjoyed the experience.

 

[ChronoNexus]

Meh.
Don't underestimate how smart a kid can be or what they can comprehend. Of course, you know your kids better than I do... but 3.5 isn't really that much more complex than 4e. Just a different kind of complexity.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Personally, I've found you can't really go wrong with FUDGE.

But then I was brought up on original Basic D&D, back when you were only an elf when you elfed!

And I still love ThAC0.

 

[keyworkkiller]

But then I was brought up on original Basic D&D, back when you were only an elf when you elfed!

I would say that I miss the days of Elf being a character class but I'd be a total liar. AD&D 2nd Edition will always be my edition of choice, but if I had to choose between the later editions I think I'd have to go with 4th.

 

[Saris Kai]

I never agreed with exception-based game mechanics being a positive feature in the 3.5 to 4th edition switch. Its easier to learn and functions well at first but the more content that is added to the game the more exceptions get placed on the very basic core system. As time goes on this accumulation of exceptions creates situations where the system starts contradicting itself and unintentional combinations of abilities start breaking things. In games like M:TG (which I've been playing for 8 years) this is only kept to a minimum by restricting the use of cards older than a given point in the release schedule and D&D isn't the kind of game that will work with. Given how much content WotC obviously plans on releasing for 4e we are going to reach the point in this edition that we reached in 3.5 when there was too much published work much faster. Sure as a DM it should be your job to filter what content does and doesn't end up in our games but lets be honest, some DMs don't always have that much control over there player base.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

4th Ed... would be fine if it didn't have tieflings and Dragonkin as basic races.

 

[Fenixius]

I'd recommend either 3.5 or 4.

You... do realise that by now, he's already chosen, right? Hell, he's also -run- his game. Your reasons are good, but... little late, aren't we?

4th Ed... would be fine if it didn't have tieflings and Dragonkin as basic races.

I fail to understand how that is a significantly detrimental quality of 4th Edition.

[...] whilst removing what little narrative support elements [Version 3.5 had over 4th].

What narrative support elements were there in 3.5?

I've found that the formalisation/re-formalisation (I was never too knowledgeable of 3.5) of Skill Challenges has made out of combat encounters much easier.

Indeed, Dungeon Master Guide 2 for 4th edition has -heaps- of storytelling and story-writing support and information. More than I've ever seen in a single place, in fact, not that I've looked especially hard.

This supports my general idea of DnD - the DM comes up with the story, and simply implements it within the provided rulesset. 4th edition allows you to simulate almost any given combat, or noncombat challenge, based on the rules provided in PHB1, DMG1 and DMG2, with the help of any number of MM books.

What did 3.5 do that 4th didn't do, here? I'm really curious, because I know a vast number of people seem to prefer 3.5 to the "simplified" 4th.

 

[anyGould]

You can talk about easier/harder games, but I think 4th is a better fit for new gamers. Simply put, while a 3.5 character is an Adventurer, a 4E character is an Action Hero. The entire system is based around kicking ass and looking good while doing it. 3.5 is grittier in comparison (while still being fairly low in realism).

My group still plays both systems, as they scratch different itches. The big 3.5 advantage is that there are a lot of "reskins" out there to change the feel of the game without needing to learn another ruleset. (Two that come to mind are Arcana Evolved and Iron Heroes, from Monte Cook).

 

[domicius]

I take your point about dead games - I still run and play a lot of dead games simply because of rule familiarity, and how well some of these games introduced great new ideas to the game. For example, my group recently unearthed a long-lost copy of the Marvel Superhero game and, you know what? The basic ruleset is a lot of fun, and makes for a really colourful and rules-light game night.

My only issue with D&D, ultimately, is that in any edition it tends to struggle hard to suppress the innate storytelling desire inside every player. The player, and kids especially, want to DO things and make things HAPPEN, but D&D puts a rule on it and says "Only if you roll the dice".

Newer (and indie-er) games have taken the mechanic and twisted it around, allowing the game system to support the players rather than fighting them every step of the way.

But, you know what? It took me a heck of a lot of playing D&D to realise why it wasn't really roleplaying, and I still believe it's a very good game in and of itself. So, yes, it's a great place to start the kids.

Oh, before I forget - if you have the time, I do recommend the basic Pendragon ruleset and some of the official "adventures" books. The rules were simpler than D&D, and the game had a rather interesting "passions" mechanic to govern character actions, and the adventures were so well written that through a few of them is bound to be fun. No need for a campaign, actually, just a few one-offs

 

[Flying-Emu]

All good suggestions but I would go with That Game System. It's the most versatile and it's probably got one of the easiest sets of rules to grasp... for a versatile rpg: like if they want you to make it high-tech, involve super-heroes, involve mutants, or anything else.

You're kidding right? That Game System only makes sense if you beat the rules with a hammer until they work. I played it when I was 14, thought about going back to it, took one look at the rules and nearly had a heart attack! Woefully Unbalanced Character Options, a confusing as hell battle system and nearly meaningless skill choices with a very cumbersome Percentile System.

It's like a "How To Guide" of bad rules design.

Besides, the column author already knows of a system that does what That Game System does better than That Game System it's called Savage Worlds, and it is awesome.

Spoiler

I call it That Game System because it's creator has a very bad reputation of sending cease and desist letters to anyone who criticizes the game and suggests it might be anything less than perfect. He is not a popular man in the industry by my understanding, something to do with not paying the freelance writers who worked for him and then taking credit for their work, but that's just hearsay.

I always play fast and loose with the 3.5 rules, any tabletop game rules for that matter. For us, at least, the game is about the adventure, the roleplaying, the story; not about the combat situations.

Oh, and Pathfinder fixed the classes.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

I'm currently in 3.5 right now for my D&D.



Fights take like 2 hours.



ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT THERE'S VERSIONS WHERE THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN?

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

[...] whilst removing what little narrative support elements [Version 3.5 had over 4th].

What narrative support elements were there in 3.5?

I've found that the formalisation/re-formalisation (I was never too knowledgeable of 3.5) of Skill Challenges has made out of combat encounters much easier.

Indeed, Dungeon Master Guide 2 for 4th edition has -heaps- of storytelling and story-writing support and information. More than I've ever seen in a single place, in fact, not that I've looked especially hard.

This supports my general idea of DnD - the DM comes up with the story, and simply implements it within the provided rulesset. 4th edition allows you to simulate almost any given combat, or noncombat challenge, based on the rules provided in PHB1, DMG1 and DMG2, with the help of any number of MM books.

What did 3.5 do that 4th didn't do, here? I'm really curious, because I know a vast number of people seem to prefer 3.5 to the "simplified" 4th.

I comment that DnD has few "narrative support elements" because well... it doesn't. Elements of Narrative Support are System Mechanics that help to drive The Story, not just The Action. DnD drives The Action just fine, but point out to me a good "Story Support Mechanic" in DnD, a specific rule that helps the PC's and the DM create a better story.

You may think I'm wrong in this, but first I recommend you look at a system like FATE (http://www.vsca.ca/Diaspora/diaspora-srd.html) or Burning Wheel, both which have a very unique way of integrating Character Backstory, Character Personality and Character Relationships with Game Play. These games do not however do the "Kick Down the Door, Kill The Monsters, Take their Stuff" part so well though, FATE has little to no equipment and Burning Wheel is a very gritty game.

I guess what I was initially getting at is that saying 3.5 had MORE Roleplaying than 4th Ed is folly, DnD has NEVER had good roleplaying rules and as you point out, the two DMG's are some of the best Campaing Help Books I've ever seen.

 

[JusticarPhaeton]

You can talk about easier/harder games, but I think 4th is a better fit for new gamers. Simply put, while a 3.5 character is an Adventurer, a 4E character is an Action Hero. The entire system is based around kicking ass and looking good while doing it. 3.5 is grittier in comparison (while still being fairly low in realism).

My group still plays both systems, as they scratch different itches. The big 3.5 advantage is that there are a lot of "reskins" out there to change the feel of the game without needing to learn another ruleset. (Two that come to mind are Arcana Evolved and Iron Heroes, from Monte Cook).

Quite so. My friends and i were in cahoots over how 'easy' everything in 4e felt. In 3e and 3.5 (and all its variants), your character is fairly good at a few things and woefully inefficient at all others. In 4e, he'll be incredibly good at a number of things and somewhat average in all others. The focus and skillsets in 4e are definitely more action-oriented - boiling it down to the aforementioned door-kicking, orc-bashing, and stuff-taking, with a real can-do attitude to it all. If you're dealing with a younger audience, 4e is obviously the way to go, but I personally prefer 3.5 for its massive customising options and background resources, and for the fact that everything is much more difficult, which emphasizes tight and well-thought character/party setups.
Again, action hero vs. adventurer is a succinct way to put it.

All good suggestions but I would go with That Game System. It's the most versatile and it's probably got one of the easiest sets of rules to grasp... for a versatile rpg: like if they want you to make it high-tech, involve super-heroes, involve mutants, or anything else.

You're kidding right? That Game System only makes sense if you beat the rules with a hammer until they work. I played it when I was 14, thought about going back to it, took one look at the rules and nearly had a heart attack! Woefully Unbalanced Character Options, a confusing as hell battle system and nearly meaningless skill choices with a very cumbersome Percentile System.

It's like a "How To Guide" of bad rules design.

Besides, the column author already knows of a system that does what That Game System does better than That Game System it's called Savage Worlds, and it is awesome.

Spoiler

I call it That Game System because it's creator has a very bad reputation of sending cease and desist letters to anyone who criticizes the game and suggests it might be anything less than perfect. He is not a popular man in the industry by my understanding, something to do with not paying the freelance writers who worked for him and then taking credit for their work, but that's just hearsay.

Oh, dear. Not That Game System. It's right down there with Steve Jackson's GURPS in terms of convoluted rules complexities. If you need to know calculus to stat a vehicle, something is terribly, terribly wrong with your game. Both suffer from being so-called 'universal' games. There's so much rules lawyering in both because they must encompass almost every possible game situation. Overall, they just collapse under their own weight, and they don't have a specific stylistic flavour to them that makes the slog through rules hell worth it.

The (new) World of Darkness system by White Wolf is fantastic. Lightweight but very versatile rules, excellent storytelling and background resources, easy to learn but very fulfilling to play, and with an impeccable neo-noir flavour element to it. That game has everything in my opinion.

 

[ReverseEngineered]

As a young kid (13 or 14) I would spend nights reading the AD&D 2nd ed. player's handbook. It was a lot of rules, but honestly, I didn't find it much more complicated than trying to learn the 4th ed. rules at age 21. I'd say, find a ruleset that you understand and are comfortable with and use that; you can put a good campaign on top of any ruleset.

That said, 4th ed. did take a turn for the better in making the system easier to comprehend. THACO0 was confusing and there was almost too much freedom in the way classes could be built. On the other hand, the abilities in 4th ed. seem limited, kinda like playing an MMO where you have a small handful of attacks that you just repeat over and over. I found myself relying on the abilities I was given rather than trying to invent new ways to turn the tide of battle.

Of any system I've tried (basically 2nd, 3rd, and 4th ed AD&D), my suggestion for a newcomer would be 4th ed. The rules are simpler and cleaner with less confusion of what does what and whether or not you hit.