This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Ease of Play  (Read 1854 times)

Tyndale

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 83
Ease of Play
« on: October 27, 2019, 07:18:58 PM »
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.
-The world grew old and the Dwarves failed and the days of Durin’s race were ended.

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
Ease of Play
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2019, 07:25:54 PM »
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.

finarvyn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1646
Ease of Play
« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2019, 07:27:35 PM »
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.
Marv / Finarvyn
Kingmaker of Amber
I'm pretty much responsible for the S&W WB rules.
Amber Diceless Player since 1993
OD&D Player since 1975

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
Ease of Play
« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2019, 03:28:06 AM »
Quote from: finarvyn;1112089
OD&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.

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 3770
Ease of Play
« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2019, 11:04:55 AM »
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.

estar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10065
Ease of Play
« Reply #5 on: October 28, 2019, 11:53:16 AM »
Quote from: S'mon;1112121
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.


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
« Last Edit: October 28, 2019, 11:55:40 AM by estar »

Tyndale

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 83
Ease of Play
« Reply #6 on: October 28, 2019, 10:54:50 PM »
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?
-The world grew old and the Dwarves failed and the days of Durin’s race were ended.

ZetaRidley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 60
Ease of Play
« Reply #7 on: October 28, 2019, 11:09:35 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2019, 11:15:25 PM by ZetaRidley »

Bren

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7638
    • http://honorandintrigue.blogspot.com/
Ease of Play
« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2019, 12:01:29 AM »
OD&D (either with or without the Greyhawk supplement).

Quote from: finarvyn;1112089
OD&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;1112168
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
And all of this.
Currently running: Runequest in Glorantha + Call of Cthulhu   Currently playing: D&D 5E + RQ
My Blog: For Honor...and Intrigue
I have a gold medal from Ravenswing and Gronan owes me bee

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 3770
Ease of Play
« Reply #9 on: October 29, 2019, 12:05:28 AM »
Quote from: Tyndale;1112264
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?

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.

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
Ease of Play
« Reply #10 on: October 29, 2019, 02:16:08 AM »
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1112281
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.

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.

Razor 007

  • Razor 007
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1319
Ease of Play
« Reply #11 on: October 29, 2019, 04:30:18 PM »
Ease of Playing, and DMing?

A rewrite of OD&D, such as White Box - FMAG
I need you to roll a perception check.....

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
Ease of Play
« Reply #12 on: October 29, 2019, 04:57:54 PM »
Quote from: Tyndale;1112087
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.


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.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

Lunamancer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Ease of Play
« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2019, 08:07:53 AM »
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.
That's my two cents anyway. Carry on, crawler.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.

ZetaRidley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 60
Ease of Play
« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2019, 01:16:37 PM »
Quote from: Shasarak;1112375
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.

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.