| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Yasraena |
Posted - 30 Nov 2008 : 01:04:57
The question says it all. What version do you normally play now? 1st? 2nd? 3rd? 3.5? 4th?
The author is very curious as to what everyone is actually playing these days. I play pretty exclusively 2nd Edition. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Diffan |
Posted - 07 Feb 2013 : 00:30:02
Im getting ready to run a v3.5 game set in the Border Kingdoms but with the E6 variant. My biggest concern is scaling down the level of...well everyone. Obviously im not required notion of canon but it easier when NPCs fall into the level 2-6 range and have henchmen that have non-PC classes. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 05 Feb 2013 : 13:06:24
Technically Pathfinder (3P), but only because my 3e/3.5 books all burned, along with all my older edition stuff, and 4e isn't my cup-of-tea. I want to run 3rd edition, which means I have to use PF (and it is an incremental improvement over 3.5). If I didn't lose my stuff, I'd just be using 3e and my old books.
I also radically change everything anyway, so its a highly homebrewed version of PF - every campaign in any edition I've ever run was heavily modified. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 05 Feb 2013 : 09:24:02
Ah. Not all of my players have "common sense", regardless of game rules or editions.
Player: "I touch it."
DM: "You get zapped for 1d100 damage."
Player: "Ouch! I touch it again."
DM: "Um, okay. You get zapped for 1d100 damage again."
Player: "Ouch! I touch it again."
DM: "Uh ... you do realize this thing causes damage when touched, yes?"
Player: "Yes. But it's gotta run out of charges eventually!" |
| wwanno |
Posted - 04 Feb 2013 : 12:53:07
quote:
Originally posted by Shottglazz
Voted 3.5, since that's what we've played for about a year and a half, but would go back to 2e in a minute if I could get a group willing to...
EDIT: Switched back to 2e in 2010 - haven't looked back...introduced half a dozen guys to 2e who only knew of PF or 3.5...heh heh...
you are my hero! I started playing ad&d when i was young, at that time we had only the introduction box (we were kids, and here in Italy D&D was not so easy to find in stores, internet did'nt even exist, nor Amazon). After a long forced pause for lack of players I palyed again with 3.x ruleset. My players now pretend I draw the grid, but I remember with joy a time when description of the situation and common sense were enough to play. |
| Brunswick |
Posted - 31 Jan 2013 : 14:36:58
Playing since 1987, originally with AD&D, then 2nd Ed, then 3rd Ed, then 3.5, then flirted with 4th Edition (didnt like it) with a homebrew setting but am now comfortably back in the Realms with Pathfinder. |
| Mr Dark |
Posted - 30 Aug 2012 : 19:00:07
My version is a mix of 3e/3.5 and some houserules. I have borrowed ideas from most of the modern D&D editions and have been pretty happy with the results. |
| combatmedic |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 10:54:42
I often use minis/counters and a wet erase grid map when running AD&D or Basic D&D. IME, the combined use of minis and a battlemap reduces player confusion and actually helps to speed up combats. Some tactically simple fights don't really need this treatment, but any big or complex battles tend to work a lot better with such play aids.
YMMV |
| Ozreth |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 09:24:03
oquote:
Originally posted by Vaeldroth
1st and 2nd, 1st if it's Greyhawk and now 2nd for FR. There are a couple of reasons I didn't move to 3 or 3.5, and that's Attacks of Opportunity, and the individual initiative. I also don't play with minis because it's expensive and clutters up the table.
I think 2e fits FR the best anyway, and the largest breadth of solid material has come out for it.
However, the Menzoberranzan book is on its way to me, and I've preordered the new FR setting that is also supposed to be multi-era. Huzzah for edition and era neutral products!
I'm sure you've heard it a thousand times before but the game works fine without AoO, individual initiative and miniatures. In fact, I play typically in this manor and so do many others.
However, I prefer 2e :p |
| Vaeldroth |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 18:23:31
1st and 2nd, 1st if it's Greyhawk and now 2nd for FR. There are a couple of reasons I didn't move to 3 or 3.5, and that's Attacks of Opportunity, and the individual initiative. I also don't play with minis because it's expensive and clutters up the table.
I think 2e fits FR the best anyway, and the largest breadth of solid material has come out for it.
However, the Menzoberranzan book is on its way to me, and I've preordered the new FR setting that is also supposed to be multi-era. Huzzah for edition and era neutral products! |
| combatmedic |
Posted - 20 Aug 2012 : 22:21:44
I suspect that 2E remains ahead of 4E for the following reasons:
It's been around longer.
A lot of material published for FR was made for use with AD&D 2E. Many guys regard the 1990s as the glory days of not only published FR, but of TSR's campaign settings as a whole.
|
| glitter |
Posted - 20 Aug 2012 : 11:22:56
Even if I haven't played for a while because of a lack of players in East Europe, my favorite version is 3.5.
But with (only ?) 166 votes, I find amazing that the 2nd Ed is ahead of the 4th Edition. |
| combatmedic |
Posted - 20 Aug 2012 : 06:57:25
These days, I play B/X D&D.
I used to run 3.5 online.
I have a soft spot for AD&D 2E. |
| jazirian reborn |
Posted - 30 Jul 2012 : 07:51:23
quote:
Originally posted by Tyranthraxus
My current D&D campaign uses the 3.5 core rules mixed with some 3e.
Yeah , I found it really hard to move from 2ed , but after Icewind Dale II and then Neverwinter Nights while I lost all time to group play with work, I began to deal. Prestiges really made it easier to escape the "hes your basic fighter" problem and more monster templates to make stuff as well. |
| DestroyYouAlot |
Posted - 25 Jul 2012 : 14:02:31
First edition. (With Unearthed Arcana, the Dungeoneer's / Wilderness Survival Guides, and quite a few Realms spells from 2nd as well as 1st - a sort of "1.5e", if you will. |
| Varl |
Posted - 18 Jul 2012 : 14:53:15
2nd edition, modified. |
| Ozreth |
Posted - 18 Jul 2012 : 01:04:00
I mostly run 3.5 but 2e is probably my favorite edition. That being said, something about the codified skill list (which needs to be condensed) and feats (which need tweaking) make play smooth for all involved. |
| Delwa |
Posted - 17 Jul 2012 : 19:02:02
I only own 3.E rulebooks, but I made a lot of the "improvements" Pathfinder made as house rules before I was aware they'd been published. (0-levels as at-will abilities, etc.) Lore-wise, I use anything up to the end of 3.E. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 17 Jul 2012 : 17:25:59
Voted 4th Edition even though I still retained all my 3.5 books and sometimes play Pathfinder as well. And with the advent of Dungeons and Dragons: Next, it appears 4E is probably where I'm claiming my stake and drawing the line in the sand, so to speak.
I honestly can't see myself going forward basaed on their (WotC's) direction in game design nor do I see myself getting heavily involved with a lot of v3.5/pathfinder based games as I have this uncontrollable urge to just break the system. And I really have nothing positive to say about 2nd Edition/AD&D except that they provided the Realms with a plethora of Realms-lore. |
| Darkmeer |
Posted - 17 Jul 2012 : 16:13:17
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
"Other"
Paizo's Pathfinder Role Playing Game rules 
And I still have your excel sheet for Domains I use for my PF games.
"Other" for myself as well.
Paizo's Pathfinder and Crafty Games' FantasyCraft are my tools of choice for Realms games. |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 17 Jul 2012 : 14:33:32
2E was perfect (near perfect) for me |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 05 Mar 2009 : 14:30:34
quote:
Originally posted by Fatherdonz
H.A.C.K.M.A.S.T.E.R.
 |
| Fatherdonz |
Posted - 05 Mar 2009 : 14:14:11
H.A.C.K.M.A.S.T.E.R. |
| crazedventurers |
Posted - 03 Mar 2009 : 23:32:25
quote:
Originally posted by Julian Grimm
BRIMSTONE
If you do and you have any questions feel free to ask me.
And me too if you wish!
Castles and Crusades is an excellent system if you like roleplaying and more friendly rules-lite gaming over roll-playing and the rules heavy 3.x
Just my thoughts
Damian
|
| Purple Dragon Knight |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 00:33:12
"Other"
Paizo's Pathfinder Role Playing Game rules |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 Feb 2009 : 17:22:06
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Heh, I made a similar joke yesterday, while playing Lord of the Rings Online. A guy and I were discussing versions of D&D, and he said he'd not tried 4E. I told him that it was what we were playing. 
It's so ironic that that was pretty much the same thing said about 3e by the old timers when it came out. Not that I'm buying into 4e, but it's still funny. 
I grew up in 2E. And other than a few things here and there, I'll readily admit 3.5 is better. |
| Penknight |
Posted - 21 Feb 2009 : 07:50:39
I voted 3.5E as well, though I really miss 2nd Edition too. All the good times, and it was where I learned all about D&D and the Forgotten Realms. Plus, the bladesinger kit was just... incredible!! My players are all about skill points, feats, and PrCs, which is fine. But I'd really love to start up my old Fall of Myth Drannor campaign again from 2nd Edition.
As far as companies are concerned though, I miss TSR, LOL. Gamers running a company. It must have been fun. Especially after reading the book that came along with the Silver Box Anniversary set.  |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 21 Feb 2009 : 07:36:52
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Heh, I made a similar joke yesterday, while playing Lord of the Rings Online. A guy and I were discussing versions of D&D, and he said he'd not tried 4E. I told him that it was what we were playing.
It's so ironic that that was pretty much the same thing said about 3e by the old timers when it came out. Not that I'm buying into 4e, but it's still funny.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 Feb 2009 : 07:04:00
quote:
Originally posted by Raith
and since I canceled my WoW account I haven't been playing 4e at all lately.
Heh, I made a similar joke yesterday, while playing Lord of the Rings Online. A guy and I were discussing versions of D&D, and he said he'd not tried 4E. I told him that it was what we were playing. |
| Raith |
Posted - 21 Feb 2009 : 04:56:50
Voted 3.5, though I use the 3.0 version of Heal and Harm.
Never really played 1 or 2, and since I canceled my WoW account I haven't been playing 4e at all lately. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 20 Feb 2009 : 04:25:06
There are large populations of gamers around me with two brick and mortar stores in driving distance.
I have found (fortunately) that it is easier to find a game of 3rd edition D&D than $e D&D. The response around here (north new jersey) has been pretty dire towards 4th edition even amongst gamers in the 18-22 year old range which makes me happy.
I have very little to say positively about $E. |
