Hi all. Been away for a while as life has taken some cool detours. Finished up an awesome BW game awhile back, but looking to start up a D&D group as we are now in a new part of the country. As part of this process, been pulling out the old rules and reviewing the various systems as I have been away from the scene for a few years.
My question is this: As DM, what variant of D&D to you find the easiest (cleanest) to rule from (balancing options vs. ease of play)? And to be clear, I am not saying "easiest" as "simplest" by virtue of scope of rules. But rather, the ruleset which you personally find as the smoothest to make a ruling. This includes both the availability of rule guidance, but also the fact sometimes "more" rules leads may actually slow things down. So, put directly, what D&D version do you find the most rewarding to run from your side of the screen, balancing DM "authoritah" and rule transparency? Hope this question makes sense.
And to put it all out there - As I was going through this whole thought process myself, I was coming to the surprising conclusion that (for me), 3.0 was the sweet spot for me personally.
Curious everyone else's thoughts...TIA.
I find 5e D&D very very easy to run. Initially it lacked some things like encounter tables I need to riff off, but that's sorted now. The core mechanic is very very easy to adjudicate.
OD&D was always easiest for me as a DM because the players had fewer character options. 5E is a lot more fun for the players because they have so many character options. I think that C&C is a nice sweet-spot of the two, with a minimum of DM prep and a decent number of player options at the same time. Having said that, we mostly play 5E in my group because it's what my players know best.
Quote from: finarvyn;1112089OD&D was always easiest for me as a DM because the players had fewer character options.
The one thing I really dislike in pre-3e is having to reference the damn saving throw charts every time the PCs cast a spell! Love the S&W single save.
It's a tie for me between BECMI/RC versus 5E. Neither is a perfect fit, as I find the need to add somewhat to the former and cut/extend some from the latter. I picked 5E to run recently mainly because it was easier for my players to get and with other things going on in my life, it's easier to take things away from it than add to RC.
If in some mad experiment, I had to run a game with the default rules as written, AD&D or low-level 3E might win over 5E. Those are easy enough to run. I think, however, that 5E (and BECMI/RC) are easier to internalize, and then adjudicate to the spirit of the core rules.
Quote from: S'mon;1112121The one thing I really dislike in pre-3e is having to reference the damn saving throw charts every time the PCs cast a spell! Love the S&W single save.
I concur.
For me Swords & Wizardry Core is my go to foundation for anything involving classic D&D.
As for the OP, I found D&D 5e and Swords & Wizardry, Core equally useful.
However the reason I find Swords & Wizardry, Core useful is that through reading up on the origins of tabletop roleplaying I developed an understanding of what armor class, hit points, etc represent. Thus a better understanding how to manipulate those concepts to rule on what the PCs try to do as their characters.
Unlike 5e, OD&D is a tool to take what one knows about fantasy and medieval history and turn that into a roleplaying campaign. OD&D doesn't have explicit rules for flanking, yet many of the original players used flanking that in because they knew it was a factor from their own reading of medieval combat and from wargaming miniatures. The same for formations, morale and other concept not fully explained in the 3 LBBs of OD&D.
If you are a 15 year old without that knowledge than D&D 5th edition is likely a better fit as it explain more and has more mechanics that covers the above.
However if you are knowledgeable than OD&D (or Swords & Wizardry) would be a better because there not a lot of mechanical cruft that get in the way of you applying a modifier or make a favorable ruling because the PC executed a flanking maneuver
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I will take another look into 5E with this feedback in mind as I haven't actually ran a game with it. Related to this, I know that when originally released, it was claimed that one could run the "basic" version of the rules along side of the more advanced options. Do any of ya'll have experience with this claim, and if it actually plays out?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules
They are probably talking about this, which is basically RAW for 5e. I'm not sure what they mean by run alongside the more advanced options. 5e isn't super complicated as is. One hint, the monsters in 5e are definitely made to have actions taken as written in the stat block, not just basic attacks like in previous editions. Otherwise, monsters are kinda meek if they just make basic attacks and all that.
OD&D (either with or without the Greyhawk supplement).
Quote from: finarvyn;1112089OD&D was always easiest for me as a DM because the players had fewer character options.
Ease for me is one reason. My dislike of the setting assumption that every inn, marketplace, bar, or shop looks like the Star Wars cantina is another.
Quote from: estar;1112168Unlike 5e, OD&D is a tool to take what one knows about fantasy and medieval history and turn that into a roleplaying campaign. OD&D doesn't have explicit rules for flanking, yet many of the original players used flanking that in because they knew it was a factor from their own reading of medieval combat and from wargaming miniatures. The same for formations, morale and other concept not fully explained in the 3 LBBs of OD&D.
If you are a 15 year old without that knowledge than D&D 5th edition is likely a better fit as it explain more and has more mechanics that covers the above.
However if you are knowledgeable than OD&D (or Swords & Wizardry) would be a better because there not a lot of mechanical cruft that get in the way of you applying a modifier or make a favorable ruling because the PC executed a flanking maneuver
And all of this.
Quote from: Tyndale;1112264Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I will take another look into 5E with this feedback in mind as I haven't actually ran a game with it. Related to this, I know that when originally released, it was claimed that one could run the "basic" version of the rules along side of the more advanced options. Do any of ya'll have experience with this claim, and if it actually plays out?
Yes and no. In the way that people imagined that they meant that before launch, no. It's not that flexible. However, you can make feats, multi-classing, etc. optional or not. If an option, people that ignore them aren't all that put out. To give you an idea, I allow feats but not multi-classing (though I'd allow the latter if anyone had a concept that required it). Out of around 30 characters in my groups right now, maybe 5 have taken a feat. Plus, the characters in the free rules are a subset of what is in the full. If you've got a player using the fighter out of the basic rules, he won't have as many options in character "builds" as someone using the PHB, but the character itself will be just fine. We have 4 characters like that in my groups.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1112281If you've got a player using the fighter out of the basic rules, he won't have as many options in character "builds" as someone using the PHB, but the character itself will be just fine. We have 4 characters like that in my groups.
Yeah, there are PCs IMCs that could have been built using the Basic Rules. It's just a fully compatible subset of the full rules. There are no changes or missing core elements.
Ease of Playing, and DMing?
A rewrite of OD&D, such as White Box - FMAG
Quote from: Tyndale;1112087My question is this: As DM, what variant of D&D to you find the easiest (cleanest) to rule from (balancing options vs. ease of play)? And to be clear, I am not saying "easiest" as "simplest" by virtue of scope of rules. But rather, the ruleset which you personally find as the smoothest to make a ruling. This includes both the availability of rule guidance, but also the fact sometimes "more" rules leads may actually slow things down. So, put directly, what D&D version do you find the most rewarding to run from your side of the screen, balancing DM "authoritah" and rule transparency? Hope this question makes sense.
I have been finding Pathfinder 2e to be the easiest version of DnD to run. It has the best combination of rules to free form roleplaying with the rules actually actively supporting your roleplaying. It is easy to set DCs, key words make sense and fights are more dynamic.
1E.
When it comes right down to it, it's still the same old, simple D&D game with a few more options added for class, race, and spell selection. But the number of classes and variations are kept in check so that when I see "F4" or "MU6" in a stat block, I still know instantly what that means. The "rules" that some seem to feel bog the game down aren't really rules at all but guidance. And I don't mean this in the glib way some people say "They're not really rules, more like guidelines" as a free pass to ignore the rules entirely. I mean that any sober perusal of the DMG shows that for the most part it's just a series of "Here are some things that came up in play and here's a way of handling it that works." If you read it that way, there aren't very many rules, but there is a lot of guidance. And the organization makes a lot more sense as well.
Quote from: Shasarak;1112375I have been finding Pathfinder 2e to be the easiest version of DnD to run. It has the best combination of rules to free form roleplaying with the rules actually actively supporting your roleplaying. It is easy to set DCs, key words make sense and fights are more dynamic.
This is interesting. Does the game work fairly well despite the number bloat compared to 5e? I was looking to run it, but the group voted to try out 5e this game sadly.
Quote from: ZetaRidley;1112504This is interesting. Does the game work fairly well despite the number bloat compared to 5e? I was looking to run it, but the group voted to try out 5e this game sadly.
The numbers are higher then in 5e but I find that gives you a better range so that if your character is a Master then they feel like they are a Master rather then just being 2 pluses higher then someone who is untrained with a high ability score.
It also gives you a good sense of progression where that one Ogre was killing you when you were 2nd level is now an even fight at 5th and you can steam roll right over them at 8th level.
The Pathfinder 3 action economy plays a lot more smoothly then 5e as well and dont even get Sacrificial Lamb talking about the improvement in the crafting system ;)
Quote from: Lunamancer;11124581E.
Ditto: AD&D 1e or OSRIC.
Allan.
Heck, there's so many D&D-derived games that I find easy to run. Adjudication works so similarly in them. Simpler is easier, of course. But it's the adventure design that makes work for me, not the adjudication.
These are all easy to run:
Whitehack, Black Hack, DCC, Over the Wall, or Maze Rats. D&D 5e is not quite as simple, but pretty easy to run as well.
I find B/X,BECMI,RC to be the easiest. Sure the saving throws lack a certain transparency, but they stand out as the only such rule in the system. Side initiative, the monster stat block, d6 weapon damage, and a myriad of other little details make it easy to run and very forgiving if one makes an off ruling.
The Black Hack 2e
It's just a really easy OSR hack with robust expandable mechanics. I could run any D&D module with it and then some.