Although I appreciate the discussion of different character creation options in the different editions, the original topic was, "Which one is easiest to DM?" The number of character creation options is not particularly relevant to that answer, and in fact, the more options available to players to pick from, the more permutations you have to prepare for as a DM. I would argue that the more restrictive games are easier to DM, because you don't have to account for as much on your side as a DM.
For instance, if you follow the actual rules, a 1st edition D&D DM probably never has to worry about learning how Bards or Psionics work, because the odds were so tremendously against either of them coming up if you follow the actual rules for generating characters. In addition to the restrictions on character creation as Matt Coleville has said, 1e was very heavily skewed toward the gear making the character, rather than inherent powers gained as you level up. Those 2 elements (restrictions, and a PC's abilities depending so much more on gear than they do now) were a help to the DM. The restrictions meant you had less to account for in your prep work, and much more significantly, since the DM gives out magic items, but the rulebook gives out abilities, each DM could individually tune the power level and the options of the players to his or her preferences (and ability to handle as a DM) by deciding what items to give out. Don't want to deal with an invincible Paladin? Don't give out a Holy Avenger sword and +3 Plate. Don't want to deal with an uber-mage? Don't give out a Staff of the Magi. Want to have a crazy adventure that goes in unpredictable directions? Hand out a Deck of Many Things.
In 5e, they designed the characters so they don't actually need any magic items, but as part of that design they gave casters more spells to use, gave characters more special abilities, and so forth, and this takes control over the power curve away from the DM and puts it in the hands of the game designers. The trouble with this is that not all DMs have the same comfort zone, but there is only ONE zone in 5e -- the comfort zone of the designers.
Even the fact that supposedly "most people cheated" at AD&D back in the day, when making up characters, or ignored restrictions, etc... that was in the hands of the DM, too. Only DMs who wanted to lift the restrictions did so. This is another thing the "take restrictions off so I can make any character I want!" crowd does not seem to understand. If the game has restrictions in RAW, the DM can always relax them. But if you have NO restrictions in RAW, it is much harder for the DM to impose them ex post facto. This is true because: (1) it is always more frustrating to players when something is taken away, rather than given... so players will accept restrictions in RAW, and accept DMs lifting those restrictions, but they often bridle at having restrictions imposed that are not present in RAW; and much worse (2) without the restriction in RAW, the DM has to "wing it" to figure out the right restriction level, without the benefit of many designers and play-testers to help balance it out, often leading to over- or under-compensation and rather a mess.
For all of these reasons, I believe the more restrictive versions of the game with more limited player choice and flat-out weaker characters (on a level-by-level basis) is easier to DM. Might it be less fun to play? I dunno, maybe (though I would argue that whatever is easiest for the DM, will probably make sessions higher in fun), but that is not the topic of the thread. The topic is, "What is easiest to DM?" I'm going to reassert -- old school Basic/Expert. It has the same sorts restrictions of AD&D on character creation, which keeps the DM from having to deal with too many permutations, as well as the reliance on magic items rather than innate character abilities, but it is simplified vs. AD&D and much easier to learn and master. Even after the last almost 2 years of running/playing 5e, I would probably have a much easier time running Basic/Expert today.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The original poster hasn't come back, so I'm going to make some guesses about things, and if they wish, they can come back and correct me.
This is an experienced DM, who used an earlier system. They got a look at the 5th edition and they didn't like it. They want to see which version of the older games they would enjoy being a player in. They don't want to be a DM, they want to be a player.
I completely agree with IamSposta. Each edition of D&D has been tailored to be easier for new players to grasp and for DMs to run (with the exception of 4e, which the community agrees, never happened). The amount of fun you have is not related to how easy it is to play, it’s all about how and with who you play.
That... is rather revisionist. The story of D&D up through 3.5e was increasing complexity (my impression of Pathfinder is that it continues that pattern), while 3.5e was generally better edited than prior editions it was enormously complex to run. 4e was largely it's own thing that didn't play that much like prior editions, and significantly increased the complexity of non-spellcasting characters, but not in a way that a DM really had to care about, so it was pretty easy to run, other than turning a bit grindy at high levels because hp went up a lot faster than damage. 5e, by mostly killing off buffing spells and building everything as glass cannons, dialed back the complexity by quite a large amount relative to 3.5e (relative to 4e, it's harder to balance encounters but they're a lot faster to resolve).
I hope you were making a joke. The # of times I have tried to find basic information in the books and utterly failed to do so for long minutes is too high to count. The books, especially the DMG, are *horribly* organized in 5e. 1e was much better at that.
I'll echo your HAHAHAHAHA :) ... honestly, having played and DMed all of the editions though mostly 1e (AD&D) and 5e - I would have to strongly disagree with that opinion. 1e was not better organized and I would likely rate it worse than 5e. Structure of classes, organization of spells (what class spell did you want to find again in the PH?), the structure of the 1e DMG was a series of random bits of knowledge on how to run things mostly grouped together while the 5e DMG tries to group things functionally related to World, Adventures and Rules. The 5e DMG is more designed to be read as much as perhaps referenced. (both could use a better index).
I guess I just remember it differently ... and looking at my copy of the books doesn't make me think any better of 1e.
P.S.
To the OP, From a mechanics stand point, the s20 stats system, and the unification of to hit/ability check/saving throws makes 5e FAR easier to run and play than 1e. THAC0, the tables modifying weapon type to hit by armor class, the different saving throw tables for every class and level rather than stat+proficiency .... 5e is far easier to understand and run for both DM and players even if I did start with D&D/AD&D and have lots of happy memories from playing/running games - 5e is, in my opinion, a much better system.
Been reading a lot of topics lately on how limiting 5e is for players and in making characters for their games. They often mention how 3.5e and Pathfinder allow for much more customized play. What I never see is how the game is for dungeon masters. So I'm wondering which edition or game is easiest or most enjoyable to play as a DM?
In my experience, 5e isn't limiting for for players. Players can make a wide variety of characters just using the published materials that fit many different types and styles of fantasy characters. I don't think any of the previous editions provided significantly more choices unless you start including all of the various splat books for classes/race/options and go quite a distance beyond what is included in the base system books.
However, some of the earlier versions of the game - particulate 3->3.5->Pathfinder offer more complexity and specialization. The ability to stack skill bonuses/to hit bonuses so that a task that is trivial for one build is impossible for another. The earlier editions also have more options at the high levels - prestige classes, alternate advancement options etc while 5e has more or less stuck to the 1-20 progression. However, if you are talking about play in the most common level ranges from 1-15 then I think 5e has a decent number of options and combinations if you include feats and multiclassing without having so many possibilities that players need to follow specific steps or rules to be competitive at the higher levels.
Anyway, having started with 1e and played all the editions in between to one extent or another - I think 5e is the most accessible, easiest and most fun to DM since the DM more often can focus on the creativity and adventure creation and worry less about the rules since the rules are generally more streamlined and require less effort.
Although I appreciate the discussion of different character creation options in the different editions, the original topic was, "Which one is easiest to DM?" The number of character creation options is not particularly relevant to that answer, and in fact, the more options available to players to pick from, the more permutations you have to prepare for as a DM. I would argue that the more restrictive games are easier to DM, because you don't have to account for as much on your side as a DM.
For instance, if you follow the actual rules, a 1st edition D&D DM probably never has to worry about learning how Bards or Psionics work, because the odds were so tremendously against either of them coming up if you follow the actual rules for generating characters. In addition to the restrictions on character creation as Matt Coleville has said, 1e was very heavily skewed toward the gear making the character, rather than inherent powers gained as you level up. Those 2 elements (restrictions, and a PC's abilities depending so much more on gear than they do now) were a help to the DM. The restrictions meant you had less to account for in your prep work, and much more significantly, since the DM gives out magic items, but the rulebook gives out abilities, each DM could individually tune the power level and the options of the players to his or her preferences (and ability to handle as a DM) by deciding what items to give out. Don't want to deal with an invincible Paladin? Don't give out a Holy Avenger sword and +3 Plate. Don't want to deal with an uber-mage? Don't give out a Staff of the Magi. Want to have a crazy adventure that goes in unpredictable directions? Hand out a Deck of Many Things.
In 5e, they designed the characters so they don't actually need any magic items, but as part of that design they gave casters more spells to use, gave characters more special abilities, and so forth, and this takes control over the power curve away from the DM and puts it in the hands of the game designers. The trouble with this is that not all DMs have the same comfort zone, but there is only ONE zone in 5e -- the comfort zone of the designers.
Even the fact that supposedly "most people cheated" at AD&D back in the day, when making up characters, or ignored restrictions, etc... that was in the hands of the DM, too. Only DMs who wanted to lift the restrictions did so. This is another thing the "take restrictions off so I can make any character I want!" crowd does not seem to understand. If the game has restrictions in RAW, the DM can always relax them. But if you have NO restrictions in RAW, it is much harder for the DM to impose them ex post facto. This is true because: (1) it is always more frustrating to players when something is taken away, rather than given... so players will accept restrictions in RAW, and accept DMs lifting those restrictions, but they often bridle at having restrictions imposed that are not present in RAW; and much worse (2) without the restriction in RAW, the DM has to "wing it" to figure out the right restriction level, without the benefit of many designers and play-testers to help balance it out, often leading to over- or under-compensation and rather a mess.
For all of these reasons, I believe the more restrictive versions of the game with more limited player choice and flat-out weaker characters (on a level-by-level basis) is easier to DM. Might it be less fun to play? I dunno, maybe (though I would argue that whatever is easiest for the DM, will probably make sessions higher in fun), but that is not the topic of the thread. The topic is, "What is easiest to DM?" I'm going to reassert -- old school Basic/Expert. It has the same sorts restrictions of AD&D on character creation, which keeps the DM from having to deal with too many permutations, as well as the reliance on magic items rather than innate character abilities, but it is simplified vs. AD&D and much easier to learn and master. Even after the last almost 2 years of running/playing 5e, I would probably have a much easier time running Basic/Expert today.
Everyone has different experiences but my recollections of running and playing 1e don't appear to match up with yours at all, especially in relation to my experience with 5e.
A DM has always been able to add and remove content whether it is 1e or 5e. I've never run into greater difficulty in either if I said that humans can multiclass in 1e or running a game without multiclassing and feats in 5e. However, 1e "RAW" was much harder to explain to new players either during play or for character creation. The rules weren't as refined or as simple. Players needed to look up several different tables to find out what their modifier to hit things were. Only strength had exceptional values offering larger bonuses and it was only available to martial characters. A fighter could have 18/XX while a rogue could not. Non-human races multiclassed, humans could dual class. Non-human races, as well as classes had both minimum and maximum stat values that had to be adhered to (one of the reasons a ranger/cleric was such a good option in Baldur's gate :) ).
Power progression between classes was far from even. A wizard at level 5 picked up fireball and scaled up from there. The other classes not so much. The other classes needed equipment to compensate for the higher level spell capabilities of wizards. There was a reason why high level 1e games (and later editions) appear to be less common than in 5e. I have trouble convincing my friends that 5e plays well through tier 3 and even tier 4 since they are basing their judgement on past 1e experiences where the game typically broke or turned into a "Monty Haul" game with eye-popping treasure.
Personally, I find 5e much easier to DM than 1e (creating the story lines is about the same but implementing them is easier, especially at higher levels due to bounded accuracy and character scaling). I also find the game much easier to explain to the players (there are a few things I might tweak in relation to stealth/vision rules/advantage-disadvantage but overall the ruleset is clean and easier to understand). The characters in 5e do scale up in power as they level up - the players seem to appreciate and enjoy this - and as a DM, I don't find it to be an issue.
Finally, I can't say that in my experience "Most people cheated". Sometimes DMs would have more or less generous systems to roll stats - typically some number of sets of 4d6 drop lowest - occasionally 3d6 one set in order for lols though those rarely lasted long. However, if a DM decided to use the optional psionic rules then the player had a free roll at character creation based on their mental stats. I made it on one character :) ... fairly rolled while folks watched ... game didn't last that long. I even had a character with 18/00 strength ... since this was high school, everything was rolled with witnesses so that "most people cheated" wasn't an option unless it was DM fiat adjusting the rules of the game.
Anyway, in my opinion, if you are looking for a D&D version to play - in my opinion 5e is the best so far from player and DM perspective in terms of ease of understanding and ease of running. I also don't find it particularly limiting in terms of character concepts that can be implemented using the system.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Although I appreciate the discussion of different character creation options in the different editions, the original topic was, "Which one is easiest to DM?" The number of character creation options is not particularly relevant to that answer, and in fact, the more options available to players to pick from, the more permutations you have to prepare for as a DM. I would argue that the more restrictive games are easier to DM, because you don't have to account for as much on your side as a DM.
For instance, if you follow the actual rules, a 1st edition D&D DM probably never has to worry about learning how Bards or Psionics work, because the odds were so tremendously against either of them coming up if you follow the actual rules for generating characters. In addition to the restrictions on character creation as Matt Coleville has said, 1e was very heavily skewed toward the gear making the character, rather than inherent powers gained as you level up. Those 2 elements (restrictions, and a PC's abilities depending so much more on gear than they do now) were a help to the DM. The restrictions meant you had less to account for in your prep work, and much more significantly, since the DM gives out magic items, but the rulebook gives out abilities, each DM could individually tune the power level and the options of the players to his or her preferences (and ability to handle as a DM) by deciding what items to give out. Don't want to deal with an invincible Paladin? Don't give out a Holy Avenger sword and +3 Plate. Don't want to deal with an uber-mage? Don't give out a Staff of the Magi. Want to have a crazy adventure that goes in unpredictable directions? Hand out a Deck of Many Things.
In 5e, they designed the characters so they don't actually need any magic items, but as part of that design they gave casters more spells to use, gave characters more special abilities, and so forth, and this takes control over the power curve away from the DM and puts it in the hands of the game designers. The trouble with this is that not all DMs have the same comfort zone, but there is only ONE zone in 5e -- the comfort zone of the designers.
Even the fact that supposedly "most people cheated" at AD&D back in the day, when making up characters, or ignored restrictions, etc... that was in the hands of the DM, too. Only DMs who wanted to lift the restrictions did so. This is another thing the "take restrictions off so I can make any character I want!" crowd does not seem to understand. If the game has restrictions in RAW, the DM can always relax them. But if you have NO restrictions in RAW, it is much harder for the DM to impose them ex post facto. This is true because: (1) it is always more frustrating to players when something is taken away, rather than given... so players will accept restrictions in RAW, and accept DMs lifting those restrictions, but they often bridle at having restrictions imposed that are not present in RAW; and much worse (2) without the restriction in RAW, the DM has to "wing it" to figure out the right restriction level, without the benefit of many designers and play-testers to help balance it out, often leading to over- or under-compensation and rather a mess.
For all of these reasons, I believe the more restrictive versions of the game with more limited player choice and flat-out weaker characters (on a level-by-level basis) is easier to DM. Might it be less fun to play? I dunno, maybe (though I would argue that whatever is easiest for the DM, will probably make sessions higher in fun), but that is not the topic of the thread. The topic is, "What is easiest to DM?" I'm going to reassert -- old school Basic/Expert. It has the same sorts restrictions of AD&D on character creation, which keeps the DM from having to deal with too many permutations, as well as the reliance on magic items rather than innate character abilities, but it is simplified vs. AD&D and much easier to learn and master. Even after the last almost 2 years of running/playing 5e, I would probably have a much easier time running Basic/Expert today.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The original poster hasn't come back, so I'm going to make some guesses about things, and if they wish, they can come back and correct me.
This is an experienced DM, who used an earlier system. They got a look at the 5th edition and they didn't like it. They want to see which version of the older games they would enjoy being a player in. They don't want to be a DM, they want to be a player.
<Insert clever signature here>
That... is rather revisionist. The story of D&D up through 3.5e was increasing complexity (my impression of Pathfinder is that it continues that pattern), while 3.5e was generally better edited than prior editions it was enormously complex to run. 4e was largely it's own thing that didn't play that much like prior editions, and significantly increased the complexity of non-spellcasting characters, but not in a way that a DM really had to care about, so it was pretty easy to run, other than turning a bit grindy at high levels because hp went up a lot faster than damage. 5e, by mostly killing off buffing spells and building everything as glass cannons, dialed back the complexity by quite a large amount relative to 3.5e (relative to 4e, it's harder to balance encounters but they're a lot faster to resolve).
I'll echo your HAHAHAHAHA :) ... honestly, having played and DMed all of the editions though mostly 1e (AD&D) and 5e - I would have to strongly disagree with that opinion. 1e was not better organized and I would likely rate it worse than 5e. Structure of classes, organization of spells (what class spell did you want to find again in the PH?), the structure of the 1e DMG was a series of random bits of knowledge on how to run things mostly grouped together while the 5e DMG tries to group things functionally related to World, Adventures and Rules. The 5e DMG is more designed to be read as much as perhaps referenced. (both could use a better index).
I guess I just remember it differently ... and looking at my copy of the books doesn't make me think any better of 1e.
P.S.
To the OP, From a mechanics stand point, the s20 stats system, and the unification of to hit/ability check/saving throws makes 5e FAR easier to run and play than 1e. THAC0, the tables modifying weapon type to hit by armor class, the different saving throw tables for every class and level rather than stat+proficiency .... 5e is far easier to understand and run for both DM and players even if I did start with D&D/AD&D and have lots of happy memories from playing/running games - 5e is, in my opinion, a much better system.
In my experience, 5e isn't limiting for for players. Players can make a wide variety of characters just using the published materials that fit many different types and styles of fantasy characters. I don't think any of the previous editions provided significantly more choices unless you start including all of the various splat books for classes/race/options and go quite a distance beyond what is included in the base system books.
However, some of the earlier versions of the game - particulate 3->3.5->Pathfinder offer more complexity and specialization. The ability to stack skill bonuses/to hit bonuses so that a task that is trivial for one build is impossible for another. The earlier editions also have more options at the high levels - prestige classes, alternate advancement options etc while 5e has more or less stuck to the 1-20 progression. However, if you are talking about play in the most common level ranges from 1-15 then I think 5e has a decent number of options and combinations if you include feats and multiclassing without having so many possibilities that players need to follow specific steps or rules to be competitive at the higher levels.
Anyway, having started with 1e and played all the editions in between to one extent or another - I think 5e is the most accessible, easiest and most fun to DM since the DM more often can focus on the creativity and adventure creation and worry less about the rules since the rules are generally more streamlined and require less effort.
Everyone has different experiences but my recollections of running and playing 1e don't appear to match up with yours at all, especially in relation to my experience with 5e.
A DM has always been able to add and remove content whether it is 1e or 5e. I've never run into greater difficulty in either if I said that humans can multiclass in 1e or running a game without multiclassing and feats in 5e. However, 1e "RAW" was much harder to explain to new players either during play or for character creation. The rules weren't as refined or as simple. Players needed to look up several different tables to find out what their modifier to hit things were. Only strength had exceptional values offering larger bonuses and it was only available to martial characters. A fighter could have 18/XX while a rogue could not. Non-human races multiclassed, humans could dual class. Non-human races, as well as classes had both minimum and maximum stat values that had to be adhered to (one of the reasons a ranger/cleric was such a good option in Baldur's gate :) ).
Power progression between classes was far from even. A wizard at level 5 picked up fireball and scaled up from there. The other classes not so much. The other classes needed equipment to compensate for the higher level spell capabilities of wizards. There was a reason why high level 1e games (and later editions) appear to be less common than in 5e. I have trouble convincing my friends that 5e plays well through tier 3 and even tier 4 since they are basing their judgement on past 1e experiences where the game typically broke or turned into a "Monty Haul" game with eye-popping treasure.
Personally, I find 5e much easier to DM than 1e (creating the story lines is about the same but implementing them is easier, especially at higher levels due to bounded accuracy and character scaling). I also find the game much easier to explain to the players (there are a few things I might tweak in relation to stealth/vision rules/advantage-disadvantage but overall the ruleset is clean and easier to understand). The characters in 5e do scale up in power as they level up - the players seem to appreciate and enjoy this - and as a DM, I don't find it to be an issue.
Finally, I can't say that in my experience "Most people cheated". Sometimes DMs would have more or less generous systems to roll stats - typically some number of sets of 4d6 drop lowest - occasionally 3d6 one set in order for lols though those rarely lasted long. However, if a DM decided to use the optional psionic rules then the player had a free roll at character creation based on their mental stats. I made it on one character :) ... fairly rolled while folks watched ... game didn't last that long. I even had a character with 18/00 strength ... since this was high school, everything was rolled with witnesses so that "most people cheated" wasn't an option unless it was DM fiat adjusting the rules of the game.
Anyway, in my opinion, if you are looking for a D&D version to play - in my opinion 5e is the best so far from player and DM perspective in terms of ease of understanding and ease of running. I also don't find it particularly limiting in terms of character concepts that can be implemented using the system.