Every edition has cheerleading folks and jeerleading folks.
Every edition has flaws, benefits, good stuff and bad stuff.
Except 4e. *scowls and shakes fist*
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Every edition has cheerleading folks and jeerleading folks.
Every edition has flaws, benefits, good stuff and bad stuff.
Except 4e. *scowls and shakes fist*
4e was fine - it did a lot of things very well, including class balance, a working item system, giving lots of customisation options, and making martial classes as complex as magic classes. It had plenty of flaws also—but the militant hatred of 4e caused Wizards to over-compensate in excising anything 4e from the creation of 5e, resulting in a worse overall 5e that took none of 4e’s successes to heart.
Frankly I think 4e was a better designed game than any other edition from an objective game analysis stance—but from an actual play standpoint, it suffered due to its benefits. Everything that made it great also made it hard for casual players to pick up (or those who refused to learn the system)—if you and the others at your table did not have an encyclopaedic knowledge of your sheets, it could be a bit of a disaster to play.
I think 5e is probably the best overall edition. It could improve, to be sure (and a lot of the 5.5e playtest is addressing some of those flaws), but it does a good job balancing complexity and actual playability. It can be picked up and easily understood by a casual or new players, but gives hardcore players something they can work with. I think it could stand to have a little more complexity - but I would rather it err on the side of accessibility rather than create the exclusionary, gamer-focused environment of prior editions.
Tie between 3.5 and 5e for me. I'd like something riding the middle of the 2 complexity wise.
I think I'd agree with this take. It's been a long time since I played 3.5 but I have fond memories of all the resources and options. Ultimately they were too extensive and the power creep was very real, but having all the different ways to go with characters was a lot of fun. With that said I enjoy 5E very much, though I'd love to see a bit more access to feats for customization.
All subjective opinion of course, but my take would be....
1st edition B/X had the benefit of being a core foundation from which it is very easy to adapt the game to taste, so its essentially a D&D construction kit. For me this makes it the best edition of the game to work with if that makes sense. Like as written, if you just run it out of the box I don't think it would qualify, but as a toolkit, its amazing.
1e AD&D which is actually a different version of 1e I would argue was a mechanical mess, it was really hard to run, not even sure its possible to run RAW. The best thing that came out of this edition was the DMG and all the great settings, but as a game I think it was... so so.
2e AD&D was really strong, I still think its one of the easiest editions to just pick up and play without having to either make alterations or struggle with the rules. It also was the king of settings, a lot of great stuff was made for this edition. I haven't run it in years, but I do think it was one of the greats. It used THAC0 and negative math which is a chore, something 3e fixes but its easy to reverse so not really a major roadblock.
3e I think had some of the most innovative concepts that really broadened the way character's stories were linked to their class with stuff like Prestige Classes and of course 3e was the king of 3rd party material, more was made for this than all other editions combined times 10x. 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e all fit into this same edition in my view, but the 3e era was pretty fantastic, but I think the game could get pretty mechanical and complex. It was a bit of a chore to run. It was a lot harder to just pick up and play but in my opinion probably one of the best mechanical versions of D&D to date.
4e I think was very innovative, but it lacked D&D's heart and soul. It felt stale somehow. Combat was also really long and could swallow up entire sessions but was very tactical and intricate, so it really did a great job in that way. A lot of great concepts came out of it, monster design in particular was really clever introducing concepts like minions, the bloodied condition and it solved the 5 minute workday problem. I sort of feel like the game was in the right direction, but too many sacred cows were abandoned so it felt less like D&D and more like some other franchise.
5e is a kind of crossover between 3e and 4e, to me it has some great ideas poorly implemented as it has terrible ideas in general. I don't think its a bad system, but regardless of your playstyle, there are systems that came before it that do it better which I think is fundamentally the problem with 5e. If you want a balanced and intricate combat system 4e is your game, if you want deep character customization, 3e is your game. If you want to fiddle with the rules and create a custom version of D&D for yourself 1e B/X is your game. If you want to just run a game out of the box with little effort 2e is your game. If you want to do Dungeon Crawls or Hex Crawls 1e, 2e or 3e do a much better job. Really the claim to fame for 5e is that it's a game with "narrative focus" which to me is silly assessment as this is true about all editions of D&D and RPG's in general, a system can't make a game narratively focused, a gaming group does that. To me, 5e does everything other editions do, just with a level of mediocracy. I would be hard-pressed to name something specific it does, that isn't done better in one of its predecessors.
As with every game engine, it really depends on what you want it to do. A jet engine isn't better than a car engine, and cannot be considered so. You can trot out all the numbers you like - power, mpg per kg, etc etc. Doesn't matter what you say to prove it's superior, I ain't letting you swap out the engine in my car for a jet engine, even for free. Well, maybe I would, but only to remove it and sell it, not because it's "better".
You can only ask what we personally prefer, or which one is the most popular (and therefore implicitly, which one has the most appeal). For the latter, it's inarguably 5e. It's significantly more popular than any other TTRPG engine. There is argument to be made as to how much of that is actually down to 5e per se and how much is down to fortunate circumstance, funding, marketing and so forth. However, given everything I've heard about previous editions, I think 5e genuinely does have broader appeal. It lends itself more to storytelling, which has more appeal to more people than the "let's see how long this character survives before someone slaughters them" style that proponents of previous editions push for. Nothing wrong with that kind of game if you want it, but more people over all will be interested in the "let's tell this character's story" style of 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I started with the red box back in the day (basic) and have tried them all.
I can, with confidence, say that it's not the rules we used; it's the adventures we had. Each edition has enabled adventure and fun and the question of "best?" is a distraction from the more important question: "Are we having fun?"
I was just wondering what was the best edition because I only have experience in 5e!
Matter of personal preference.
Every edition has cheerleading folks and jeerleading folks.
Every edition has flaws, benefits, good stuff and bad stuff.
Except 4e. *scowls and shakes fist*
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
4e was fine - it did a lot of things very well, including class balance, a working item system, giving lots of customisation options, and making martial classes as complex as magic classes. It had plenty of flaws also—but the militant hatred of 4e caused Wizards to over-compensate in excising anything 4e from the creation of 5e, resulting in a worse overall 5e that took none of 4e’s successes to heart.
Frankly I think 4e was a better designed game than any other edition from an objective game analysis stance—but from an actual play standpoint, it suffered due to its benefits. Everything that made it great also made it hard for casual players to pick up (or those who refused to learn the system)—if you and the others at your table did not have an encyclopaedic knowledge of your sheets, it could be a bit of a disaster to play.
I think 5e is probably the best overall edition. It could improve, to be sure (and a lot of the 5.5e playtest is addressing some of those flaws), but it does a good job balancing complexity and actual playability. It can be picked up and easily understood by a casual or new players, but gives hardcore players something they can work with. I think it could stand to have a little more complexity - but I would rather it err on the side of accessibility rather than create the exclusionary, gamer-focused environment of prior editions.
The best edition is whichever one you can find a fun group for. The edition doesn't matter as much as the people you play with
BECMI basic into AD&D for me. :) and 5e.
I'm just a bit nostalgic right now though. It'll change tomorrow.
From a rules point of view 5e is my favorite. Hopefully, the revised books will be better organized so people can actually find the rules. :)
Tie between 3.5 and 5e for me. I'd like something riding the middle of the 2 complexity wise.
I think I'd agree with this take. It's been a long time since I played 3.5 but I have fond memories of all the resources and options. Ultimately they were too extensive and the power creep was very real, but having all the different ways to go with characters was a lot of fun. With that said I enjoy 5E very much, though I'd love to see a bit more access to feats for customization.
All subjective opinion of course, but my take would be....
1st edition B/X had the benefit of being a core foundation from which it is very easy to adapt the game to taste, so its essentially a D&D construction kit. For me this makes it the best edition of the game to work with if that makes sense. Like as written, if you just run it out of the box I don't think it would qualify, but as a toolkit, its amazing.
1e AD&D which is actually a different version of 1e I would argue was a mechanical mess, it was really hard to run, not even sure its possible to run RAW. The best thing that came out of this edition was the DMG and all the great settings, but as a game I think it was... so so.
2e AD&D was really strong, I still think its one of the easiest editions to just pick up and play without having to either make alterations or struggle with the rules. It also was the king of settings, a lot of great stuff was made for this edition. I haven't run it in years, but I do think it was one of the greats. It used THAC0 and negative math which is a chore, something 3e fixes but its easy to reverse so not really a major roadblock.
3e I think had some of the most innovative concepts that really broadened the way character's stories were linked to their class with stuff like Prestige Classes and of course 3e was the king of 3rd party material, more was made for this than all other editions combined times 10x. 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e all fit into this same edition in my view, but the 3e era was pretty fantastic, but I think the game could get pretty mechanical and complex. It was a bit of a chore to run. It was a lot harder to just pick up and play but in my opinion probably one of the best mechanical versions of D&D to date.
4e I think was very innovative, but it lacked D&D's heart and soul. It felt stale somehow. Combat was also really long and could swallow up entire sessions but was very tactical and intricate, so it really did a great job in that way. A lot of great concepts came out of it, monster design in particular was really clever introducing concepts like minions, the bloodied condition and it solved the 5 minute workday problem. I sort of feel like the game was in the right direction, but too many sacred cows were abandoned so it felt less like D&D and more like some other franchise.
5e is a kind of crossover between 3e and 4e, to me it has some great ideas poorly implemented as it has terrible ideas in general. I don't think its a bad system, but regardless of your playstyle, there are systems that came before it that do it better which I think is fundamentally the problem with 5e. If you want a balanced and intricate combat system 4e is your game, if you want deep character customization, 3e is your game. If you want to fiddle with the rules and create a custom version of D&D for yourself 1e B/X is your game. If you want to just run a game out of the box with little effort 2e is your game. If you want to do Dungeon Crawls or Hex Crawls 1e, 2e or 3e do a much better job. Really the claim to fame for 5e is that it's a game with "narrative focus" which to me is silly assessment as this is true about all editions of D&D and RPG's in general, a system can't make a game narratively focused, a gaming group does that. To me, 5e does everything other editions do, just with a level of mediocracy. I would be hard-pressed to name something specific it does, that isn't done better in one of its predecessors.
As with every game engine, it really depends on what you want it to do. A jet engine isn't better than a car engine, and cannot be considered so. You can trot out all the numbers you like - power, mpg per kg, etc etc. Doesn't matter what you say to prove it's superior, I ain't letting you swap out the engine in my car for a jet engine, even for free. Well, maybe I would, but only to remove it and sell it, not because it's "better".
You can only ask what we personally prefer, or which one is the most popular (and therefore implicitly, which one has the most appeal). For the latter, it's inarguably 5e. It's significantly more popular than any other TTRPG engine. There is argument to be made as to how much of that is actually down to 5e per se and how much is down to fortunate circumstance, funding, marketing and so forth. However, given everything I've heard about previous editions, I think 5e genuinely does have broader appeal. It lends itself more to storytelling, which has more appeal to more people than the "let's see how long this character survives before someone slaughters them" style that proponents of previous editions push for. Nothing wrong with that kind of game if you want it, but more people over all will be interested in the "let's tell this character's story" style of 5e.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I started with the red box back in the day (basic) and have tried them all.
I can, with confidence, say that it's not the rules we used; it's the adventures we had. Each edition has enabled adventure and fun and the question of "best?" is a distraction from the more important question: "Are we having fun?"
I have played all 6 edition (if we include DnD Next) and all 13-14 versions of D&D. I enjoy BECMI best of all although BX would be my second.