Well, it's been a little over a year and a half since our regular campaign went on hiatus and we began a great experiment to see which version of the D&D game best fits our concept of the campaign we would like to play. Although the conditions of the experiment kept changing (different campaign worlds, different character classes and races, and differing numbers of players), I think we were able to come to a definite conclusion about a few things. Each system will be rated on the scale of: VERY FUN, FUN, INDIFFERENT, NOT FUN, NO FUN AT ALL.
BASIC D&D: This was our first attempt at something outside of the players' comfort zone. I think it went well, and the players all had a great time. We used the upper levels of the moathouse from T1 as the adventure for this version of the game. The combats went rather smoothly, even though I took extra time to explain everything that happened each round. The combat system was streamlined and easy to work with. The lack of rules is actually a benefit since the players are less concerned with specifics and able to enjoy themselves more. Character creation took a little over an hour, and most of that was me explaining the differences between this and AD&D, the players making gear selections, and coming up with names. The rulebook is well-organized and we were able to find most rules without much problem. My biggest problem was getting them to think in simpler terms with fewer options.
RATING = FUN
ADVANCED D&D DOGMA: This version took us back to AD&D, but using all the rules strictly as written, inconsistencies and all. We used the lower level of the moathouse for this version with different characters (all given enough XP to make a fighter 2nd midway to 3rd level). We found that multi-classed characters suffer from a lack of power that is disturbing at the lowest levels. Mortality rates are high, but the action is very exciting. Keeping track of large combats can be a bit of a chore, but the work is well worth it. I think this version was the most fun...and also the most disheartening. We spent a long time getting all the details of the characters right (a full 5 hour session to make sure 3 players had all their characters complete), but then spent a long time in town interacting with the populace. This, to me, is the essence of why T1 is such a great module. It gives the players a base home in which to invest their time and interest. If the DM makes the NPCs memorable and worth interacting with, then the whole thing comes alive. The party died once in the beginning to the zombies; we rebooted and continued since the cleric was unaware of how turning worked in this version of the game. They did very well until the final encounter, which I think is way too hard for a party of 1st level characters. The rulebooks are the biggest problem for this version of the game. The rules are spread out between three books (or more!) and rules were constantly being added in modules and supplements over the life of this version. We restricted our run to the core three books (PHB, DMG, and MM) and had trouble locating some specific rules during play.
RATING = FUN
2nd EDITION AD&D: I used the Forgotten Realms as the setting for this adventure, and used the adventure the Haunted Halls of Eveningstar. In retrospect, I think that this was a bad move. I should have stuck with Greyhawk and used the Temple of Elemental Evil for 3rd level characters or higher instead of breaking the groove we had. We also should have tried keeping the same characters, but since those died in the last encounter, I felt a change was in order (plus half-orcs don't exist in 2nd edition as PCs). The party made more characters than usual, two players running 2 characters each, so we had 5 PCs this time. The module was not very well written or presented, and it seemed that the tricks and traps were deadlier than a 1st level dungeon should have had. The players were frustrated by choke points that prevented their advancement into the dungeon. They had spent one full session (plus a little more) to complete their characters. They were not impressed with non-weapon proficiencies. The strange thing is that I had run these players in 2nd edition before, but they had no memory of it. In the end, the players aborted the adventure because they just weren't getting anywhere. I don't think this version got a fair shake. The rulebooks were a bit better organized than 1st edition, but the rules were written almost verbatim from 1E, inconsistencies and all, with little or no editing!
RATING = NO FUN
3rd EDITION D&D: I decided that pre-made modules would not work with this group so I made up a quick scenario to see how this version of the game worked with my own homebrew campaign of Sturmgard. The character creation took about 1 full session because only some of the players had already played this version of the game. All the fiddly math was a bit much for one of the players. We played this version only a few sessions because I wanted to move quickly through the versions. The players tend to drag their feet even when I explain that we're not making these characters to keep forever. The scenario was a bit hard but rewarding. The characters survived, although they did take their lumps. I think this version played well, but I would have preferred a more neutral GREYHAWK type adventure. Players enjoyed the new character classes and how much more they could do even as 1st level characters. The rulebooks, although well organized, were quite dense and hard to locate specific information. The rules are so integrated that changing one stat affects a host of other stats. Creating encounters is a CHORE for DMs - one that I was not happy to re-experience.
RATING = FUN
4th EDITION D&D: I had a hard time explaining the rules on this one. The game is so different from anything resembling D&D that it was really hard to explain how it all related. The character choices were not based on intelligent decisions, but rather on following a template blindly. The character types selected were probably not optimal for the adventure and they were only a party of 3 characters, instead of the recommended 5. That was my fault, as I ran the adventure, Keep on the Shadowfell, straight from the book, without regard for the shortage of players. If we had the full complement of players, this could have actually worked better. As it was, we ran the first encounter twice, then, by the final encounter with kobolds the players had had enough! They kept dying to creatures who could stymie their powers easily. I think the players just felt embarrassed being beaten up by kobolds.... We aborted under player request and never got past the second encounter! The rulebooks were organized strangely, and I found myself constantly flipping back and forth. The plethora of powers, each with a few paragraphs of important data, would get to be a nightmare at higher levels.
RATING = NO FUN AT ALL
PATHFINDER: Although technically not D&D, it was a direction that D&D 3.5 went after the great diaspora of D&D fans. This time we had 5 players and a full complement of character types. I ran the old module Citadel by the Sea by Sid Fisher from DRAGON Magazine #78(?). The concept was sound and showcased all the things I wanted to highlight in the system. The players enjoyed role-playing their wacky characters and had a blast running the combats. I got more positive feedback on this adventure than any others we ran. The system had some very good points and ran well out of one rulebook. Characters were strong, even at 1st level, and had access to many powers that they could use continually. Level advancement was graded so one could run on a fast track, a normal level of xp, or a slow track. Many of the rules were optional. I have to say that this was one of my favorites to run, but took a lot of behind the scenes work to stat out all the monsters (most of whom were classed). This is one of the downfalls of the 3.5 or Pathfinder systems - DM burnout! The rulebooks are the best organized that I think I've ever seen. I knew just were to go to find each and every rule I needed, and as I said, the rules were mostly in the Core Rulebook.
RATING = VERY FUN
5th EDITION D&D: I did not run this adventure, it was run by one of the other players. She had experience in the 5th edition system as both player and DM, so I jumped at the opportunity to play. I found the character creation took a long time, seeing as the players had more decisions to make and additional role-playing options to incorporate. The system seems fairly robust and easy to run, but there seemed to be something lacking to me. The scenario we ran was not usual D&D, but a Ravenloft horror scenario. Therefore we were isolated and experiencing opponents that were dumbed down for our level. The XP system seemed a bit arbitrary - I never really looked at it myself, but it seemed that XP levels were assigned rather than actual points tallied for what we accomplished. Also, the creatures for the scenario were way out of our league! I suppose that highlights 5th edition's ability to use monsters of any level in any scenario? The at-will spells were very helpful to the party, but I can see this being a problem when used against the party. Despite all these boosts to the characters, we still managed to lose one character to the final encounter with a critical hit one-shot death. Talk about brutal! I didn't see anyone clamoring to continue running this scenario. The books had minimal information on some things (like skills) and too much information on others (backgrounds and other RP bits) for our tastes. Also, the digital versions were very hard to read due to the fonts and colors used. Rulebooks should be legible, not artistic expressions that conceal text and blur page numbers!
RATING = INDIFFERENT
I had planned to try two other clones - Basic Fantasy RPG and Castles & Crusades, but the players decided that they had had enough. We all just wanted to return to our characters stuck in the middle of G2 for the past year and a half!
The whole point of this experiment was to do what 5th edition should have done - take the best pieces of each system and stitch them into a coherent campaign setting and rule set. I like to think of it as Flesh Golem D&D (or FrankenD&D). We found nothing of use in 4th edition. 2nd edition was similarly useless as little more than a re-write of the 1st edition rules. 5th edition had its strengths, but those were mostly related to what I house-ruled in my own campaign already. Basic, 3rd edition, and dogma 1st edition rules were the most fun, even though the players found some bits useless or restricting. Everyone agreed that Pathfinder was by far the superior system. We had the most fun with this system.
So, to recap:
✰✰✰✰✰ PATHFINDER
✰✰✰✰ BASIC D&D, AD&D DOGMA, 3RD EDITION D&D
✰✰✰ 5TH EDITION D&D
✰✰ 2ND EDITION AD&D
✰ 4TH EDITION D&D
It is important to note that the players have taken to calling 4th edition "The Edition That Shall Not Be Named!" Whenever it comes up in conversation, they all groan and shake their heads. It had that much of an effect!
In the end, the players decided that our house-ruled AD&D 1st edition campaign is the system that best fits their needs for their current characters. Perhaps, if this campaign ever ends, we will create characters to adventure in Pathfinder, but I don't see this ending any time soon. It would have been better I think to have played through the versions as they came out, giving us longer time to experience the flaws and merits of each. No system is perfect, even Pathfinder (with its lack of carrying capacities for containers), and in the end it comes down to the preferences of the players and the DM as to which system is the best fit for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment