I'm working on a guide to D&D editions, pic related being the rough draft, describing the pros and the cons of each of the editions, and I'd like /tg/'s input. And yes, before you ask, I am going to end with "Remember, you can always try not playing D&D."
I'll post my the current draft of the write-up itself.
>>46223446
>I'm new to D&D, /tg/; which edition should I play?
>Well, that depends on what you want out of the game. If you're new to roleplaying games in general, chances are you're not sure what you want. If that's the case, talk to your group. If you don't have a group yet, you probably shouldn't be worrying about which edition to use just yet.
>But what if everyone in my group is also new?
>Ask them (and yourself) what they think they might want. To simply have a grand adventure? To climb their way to the top and become powerful heroes? To do battle with ferocious monsters? Some combination of the above?
>Classic TSR Editions
>"Back in my day..."
>These are listed in the same category because they're more similar to one another than to any of their modern successors. Many grognards will tell you that these are the gospel and that even thinking of using anything else is blasphemous, but these are emphatically not for everyone.
>They have some pretty clunky, dated mechanics, but they're heavily customizable. This is because they're essentially collections of house rulings by the DM that happened as the developers ran and played the games, which were then recorded and standardized.
>If you choose to play one of the early editions, feel free to come up with as many house rules as feel necessary for you to play the way you want to play. The early D&D ruleset was very flexible, and as a result, even the "Advanced" rulebooks are easier to master than most of the editions since.
>If you want to start with only one book, get the Rules Cyclopedia -- it has everything you need to get started with the game and then some. If you're feeling up to it, procure one copy each of the Player's Handbook, the Dungeon Master's Guide, and the Monstrous Manual for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition. It is, as its name implies, the most polished of the TSR editions.
>>46223446
Please take AD&D: Player Options off the chart.
It's shit, and it makes the otherwise good AD&D line look shit by association.
>>46223641
The next thing on the draft, which wouldn't fit under the charlimit is this:
>The supplements that start with the words "The Complete" or "Player's/DM's options" have some neat, but often untested and poorly-balanced ideas. Feel free to mess around with them if you feel like, but the bit about only using the rules you need goes double here.
>>46223684
>>46223703
The Complete series had neat but poorly balanced ideas.
The Player's Options series were a failed market grab with no playtesting.
The DM Option book (there is only one, High Level Campaigns) is a pretty good book. Not great, but good.
It's got crappy untested mechanics that you should ignore, but the bulk of the book is tips for DMing.
>>46224255
>The Player's Options series were a failed market grab with no playtesting.
The Player's options series does have some neat ideas. Very few of them would be very fun when used as-is, but they can still serve as inspiration.
>>46224624
>The font
Fair enough.
>If you are new to D&D you should play 5th edition. I don't even like 5th edition, I think it's bland and lazy, but (A) it's what most D&D players are playing and (2) it is fairly simple and easy to get into. The only reason to play any other edition is cheaper books and variance in style. But this doesn't matter to a newcomer and most newcomers to RPGs these days do not have the dedication for games like 3.5, AD&D, or even 4e. D&D 5 is the best option for them.
I agree that 5th edition is a good choice, but firstly, price absolutely does matter to a newcomer, and secondly, this is for people who are interested but aren't sure where to start. "Play 5e" is the lazy answer to these people; informing them so that they know the reason why they should play 5e over any of the other editions is more valuable.
>People just post them and no one fucking reads them
You don't know what people do and don't read. If no one read them no one would save them, and if no one saved them, no one could post them. I read them.
Also can you show me some of these like twenty infographics.
>>46226333
>Dude I don't even like 5e but 3.5 is hard to get into without people who know it to teach you.
Yeah, which is why in the 3.5 section we should mention why they might want to play 3.5 and why they might not, and mention that coaching from real-life friends who know the system well is strongly recommended, and that, lacking that, 3.5e is an all-around bad idea.
>>46223446
>>But what if everyone in my group is also new?
>>Ask them (and yourself) what they think they might want. To simply have a grand adventure? To climb their way to the top and become powerful heroes? To do battle with ferocious monsters? Some combination of the above?
I get this is still a work in progress but all of these COULD apply to each edition.
This statement is not helping anyone choose an edition.
And if the players ARE new, they probably aren't going to care since every edition is a blank slate to them.
>>46227370
We'll make it more explicit and say "Simply a grand adventure," "Making their character as powerful as they can be," and "Engage in highly tactical combat."
>>46223446
Well, there's this thing.
>>46224624
Moldvay Basic is rules-light and is a grand total of 128 pages. 5e is rules-medium at best and the three core books combine to over 900 pages. I'm not saying that there aren't reasons to choose 5e, but I think you're selling Moldvay Basic short.
>>46228502
>Pathfinder
>Caster supremacy is still a problem, despite some effort to mitigate it
>despite some effort to mitigate it
>effort to mitigate
Nigga, PF makes no attempt to mitigate caster supremacy. It's built into the design philosophy of the game that magical people can break the real-life laws of physics, and nonmagical people can't, that casters play by fantasy rules but martials play by real-life rules. With exceptions where the system provides silly RPG edgecase logic. Then it doesn't have to make sense because of reasons.
>>46223446
You're missing a version of basic between the first basic and the ecyclopedia.
>>46229597
Neither Holmes nor Mentzer Basic (BECMI) is pictured.
>>46229597
>>46229776
I meant include Mentzer Basic; it's the folder I have for the project.
>>46229569
>Throwing "but the magic guy can do X!" as an argument is irrelevant when we're talking about the game rules modeling what a human can physically do without using magic.
>Unless you're suggesting that a mid-level gunslinger has a MAGICAL ability to reload a dozen times in six seconds?
Are you fucking kidding me.
>>46234178
Classes should be balanced. If you're gonna constrain noncasters to what real life human beings can actually do, you need to limit casters so that they're no more powerful than that. And if you let casters exceed that, you need to let noncasters perform superhuman feats. D&D is highly unrealistic anyway, so get finicky with what noncasters can do because of "real life" is downright punitive.
>>46234433
Out of curiosity, do you prefer 4e's method of turning everyone into the wizard or 5e's method of turning everyone into the fighter?
>>46224592
2e/5e or bust.
