| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Ozreth |
Posted - 26 Jan 2012 : 03:32:53
Seems like a LOT of people on here started playing D&D before 3e hit in 2000, but I mostly also see people talking about 3.x.
So, I'm curious, who started gaming before 3e but adopted and stuck with it? Why do you still choose to run your games with 3e? And have you hacked it to make it resemble older systems a bit more?
For example, I have done away with skill points by using Unearthed Arcana's simple level based skill system, I use slower xp progression, I've done away with AoO and simplified flanking to lessen the importance of the grid. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 07 Feb 2012 : 06:37:07
quote:
Originally posted by Ozreth
So, I'm curious, who started gaming before 3e but adopted and stuck with it? Why do you still choose to run your games with 3e? And have you hacked it to make it resemble older systems a bit more?
I played for several years in 2e and invested a good bit of money in 2e products before 3e came out. Initially, I was very opposed to the idea of switching editions, but the rules won me over: no THAC0, a single table for ability score bonuses, a more rational method of multiclassing, an improved skill system, and (imo) better rules for dealing with non-standard combat situations. I wasn't as impressed by the negligible changes made in 3.5, but I made the switch anyway. When 4e came out, though, I said no more. I did play one session with it, and it just didn't grab me.
I play a straight version of 3.5. We haven't tried to mod it to resemble older versions. If I were going to make any changes at all, I would look for some way to allow faster regaining of magical power. It gets tedious having to stop and wait for the magic users to regain spells when you're trying to get things done. |
| crazedventurers |
Posted - 04 Feb 2012 : 00:23:40
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
Looking forward to seeing SageRPG published under the OGL 
So should I count you among the play-test group for SageRPG, then? 
Aye most definitely most wise-one - just stick the OGL licence at the back and name all the sources you used and its legal and compliant :) Easy-peasy really to design a games based off the OGL
Of course being as you are upside down to me geographically, maybe you should run it on google+ ?
Cheers
Damian
who will no doubt have to wait patiently until 2024 or so to see the first draft released!
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 03 Feb 2012 : 14:34:35
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
Looking forward to seeing SageRPG published under the OGL
So should I count you among the play-test group for SageRPG, then? |
| crazedventurers |
Posted - 03 Feb 2012 : 10:51:43
quote:
Originally posted by Ozreth
Geez, have you heard of Castles & Crusades? It's almost exactly this :) Check it out if not, I think you'd love it. Unified d20 mechanic, ascending AC, no feats or skills, has all the flavor and danger of AD&D and is based off the OGL. The best part is they've made it almost %100 compatible with every D&D product from 1974 to 2007 :)
The books rule and the guys putting it out are wonderful.
am I allowed to do a +1 post?
C&C, easy to run, easy to add to, fast and friendly combat, the clever siege engine mechanic, core archetypes that can be made unique by picking your primes, backward and forward compatibility with 0E - 3.xE, the d20 mechanic, so essentially its a rules lite version of 1E using the 3E ruleset, and easy win-win for me and my personal choice of a 3E ruleset that I chose to stick with despite my love of (basic) D&D from the magenta box onwards (does that make me old? )
Cheers
Damian |
| crazedventurers |
Posted - 03 Feb 2012 : 10:38:02
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The straight D20 mechanic was a huge improvement, too.
I agree with this - the d20 mechanic certainly made introducing new people into the game easier (just add up  ) and am glad to see that the some parts of the OSR community understand this and have incorporated the d20 and the original die mechanics into the various rulesets that are available.
Looking forward to seeing SageRPG published under the OGL
Cheers
Damian |
| Ozreth |
Posted - 03 Feb 2012 : 03:58:00
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
As for hacking it to resemble older systems, I've actually done the reverse. I've taken the older editions and replaced THACO with BAB and the upward-progressing AC, and replaced 1E/2E style saving throws with 3.x saves, keeping everything else about the old rules. Generally, it works quite well; the result is a system with the logic of 3E and the simplicity of earlier editions, and without skills and feats it doesn't take any longer to create a character than it did under the original 1E/2E rules.
Geez, have you heard of Castles & Crusades? It's almost exactly this :) Check it out if not, I think you'd love it. Unified d20 mechanic, ascending AC, no feats or skills, has all the flavor and danger of AD&D and is based off the OGL. The best part is they've made it almost %100 compatible with every D&D product from 1974 to 2007 :)
The books rule and the guys putting it out are wonderful. |
| Jakk |
Posted - 03 Feb 2012 : 01:36:27
quote:
Originally posted by Ozreth
A lot of good stuff in here, but nobody is really talking about what made them stick to 3e. What about the system makes you prefer it over the earlier ones you started with? I'm not contending the edition here, as I play 3rd and enjoy most any other version of the game aside from 4th. This seems to be the only forum I visit where the older guys aren't complaining about skill and feats and actually embrace them while the rest of the old school crowd are condemning feats, skills, and even miniatures/grids as the downfall of d&d.
I have stuck with 3.x and Pathfinder for two reasons, one mechanical, the other materials-based. For mechanics, between the core rules, the PH2, and Unearthed Arcana, I have all the variant rules I could possibly want to play with (and there are some cool options in the class supplements as well, but many of the classes are just broken), and in terms of materials, the OGL was (and continues to be) a raving success. Pathfinder and its Advanced Players Guide, Ultimate Magic, and Ultimate Combat have given me a whole new set of options to play with, and Paizo has done an excellent job with both the game and the setting; I've never bothered to play Pathfinder in the Realms, largely because I didn't like what was done with the Spellplague and Golarion is a world that is very reminiscent of 1E FR. Aside from the 3E books and Pathfinder, I have a huge library of OGL materials from AEG, Atlas Games, Fantasy Flight Games, Green Ronin, Mongoose, White Wolf/Malhavoc, and other smaller publishers; a total of probably four full 6' tall bookcases of materials. So yes, when 4E came along and broke compatibility entirely, I was more than a little upset, about the core rules almost as much as about the 4E Realms.
As for hacking it to resemble older systems, I've actually done the reverse. I've taken the older editions and replaced THACO with BAB and the upward-progressing AC, and replaced 1E/2E style saving throws with 3.x saves, keeping everything else about the old rules. Generally, it works quite well; the result is a system with the logic of 3E and the simplicity of earlier editions, and without skills and feats it doesn't take any longer to create a character than it did under the original 1E/2E rules. In fact, this is what has me so excited about 5E: the ability to completely customize the ruleset for total backward compatibility. I'm not sure how they'll accomplish this for 4E, since one of the unstated goals of 4E was incompatibility with earlier editions... which is probably why WotC is back at the drawing board already. During the 4E years, I made several jokes (at least I hoped they were jokes when I made them) about the Edition Police not having confiscated my library yet, and with 5E it appears that such drastic action will be rendered counterproductive. 
Either way, I'll be playing 3.x/Pathfinder until WotC convinces me that 5E is actually a better game, and probably even after then. |
| Sylrae |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 06:06:17
Well, I started playing the oldschool ms-dos D&D games when I was really young. I still have the CD for dungeon hack and fantasy empires and dark sun. They don't work anymore, but I refuse to get rid of them.
Played a couple 2e games before 3rd, but 3rd were the first ones I owned. I played that from 2000-2006. Played NWN from 2001-2008 off and on, played Baldurs Gate and IWD somewhere in that time period as well. Had no TT Gaming from 2007-2009, and managed to find games again then. I own most of the Pathfinder books now.
I played 4e, and I didnt care for it, and care even less for the 4e realms.
I haven't had the opportunity to play in a FR game since I stopped playing NWN1. I ran a sword coast game using the pathfinder books. Finding Players for a FR game isn't terribly easy, and finding a FR Game to play in is nigh impossible.
I've always wanted to play in a Drow Campaign(Menzoberranzan perhaps), but I've *never* been able to find one.
I may be interested in 5e. We'll see what Wizards comes up with.
Lately I've been contemplating dropping the D&D system entirely, and running Forgotten Realms using a houseruled "Ghosts of Albion", maybe +"Dungeons and Zombies". The main thing thats been stopping me is the daunting task of converting the races and spells I'd want to use to the new system. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 04:39:39
Ok, here's my list (from an pro-4E guy):
The Rules: I've been playing 3.x and (most recently PF) for a lot of reasons, and the first is the rules. I know them pretty damn well. It's taken me a while (12 years) and I can create a PC without even looking at a book or SRD. Yea, that sort of system mastery sticks with a person.
DM know-how: One way of dealing with powerful PCs and derailing their might is putting them up against adversaries where ALL PCs must work together, and that includes a LOT of monsters with Spell Resistance. The funny thing is, monsters with SR greater than 20 really REALLY piss off spellcasting PCs. It's quite hilarious honestly. That one aspect is the biggest balancing factor against broken PCs that I've found while DM'ing. That and creating encounters where magic can fail and non-spellcasting classes can actaully succeed. And 3E/v3.5 makes this pretty easy IMO.
Adaptability: It's not hard to see that 3rd Edition has a LOT to offer in ways of versatility. It can work toward magic-heavy campaigns to no-magic campaigns and not sway THAT MUCH in terms of "brokeness". Meaning, I can run all sorts of different styles of game-play using the same ruleset be it alternative-earth with just martial play-styles and minimal magic to crazy, off-the-wall magic worlds like the Forgotten Realms. It's all pretty much there under the hood.
Character Customization: 3E brought a unique view to the game with level-by-level multiclassing. Forget the fact that it causes broken combos and min/maxing, it lets people simulate their exact ideal of what sort of character they want to run. No other system of D&D allows for this sort of customization which can really aid character themes and role-play.
Variants of the system: This system has LOADS of variants, from AC to HP to spellcasting to alternative class features. It's one of the most modular systems to date (for D&D). And it's this system that promotes all sorts of different play like E6 to Epic level campaigns.
And while I might always prefer 4E to 3rd Edition, I always know that it'll be there through the SRD and the OGL. It's the system that I grew into D&D playing and the most abundant system to-date. I think the OGL is the main reason it's stayed as popular as it has. The game is basically "free" with add-ons as a group or DM or player sees fit. |
| Halidan |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 01:00:46
I started playing D&D in 1977. I had the advantage of growingup about 45 minutes from Lake Geneva, and by attending early Spring and Autumn Revels and Winter Fantasy's in Lake Geneva, I ended up knowing lots of the TSR crew. I also had the pleasure of going to college (and gaming with) Julia Martin, so I got introduced to lots of the early WotC Realms folk.
I adopted parts of the Realms before the Grey Box, taking bits from Mr. Greenwood's Dragon magizine articles. When the grey box came out, I dropped my home-creation, and have stayed in the Realms ever since. I've DM'ed the Realms in 1E, 2E, and 3x. When 4E came along, we took a long look at the time jump and decided to stay in the Pre-Spellplague era. Eventualy we moved to Pathfinder for rules and that's gotten us to the current time. Our campaign is on hold for now due to my health, but I hope to restart later this year. I'll probably use one of the Pathfinder campaigns, converted to Realms locations.
I've added lots to the Realms from other systems and other companies modules. Nothing huge, a village here, an elven settlement there. Just enough to keep my players guessing. Three of my players are/were serious RPGA players and two DM in the Realms in their own campaigns. That's about all of my Realms progression.
P.S. - I like this thread, Ozreth. It's always good to see how other folks found the Realms, and how they've changed them. |
| Mumadar Ibn Huzal |
Posted - 28 Jan 2012 : 21:40:20
quote:
Originally posted by Ozreth
A lot of good stuff in here, but nobody is really talking about what made them stick to 3e. What about the system makes you prefer it over the earlier ones you started with? I'm not contending the edition here, as I play 3rd and enjoy most any other version of the game aside from 4th. This seems to be the only forum I visit where the older guys aren't complaining about skill and feats and actually embrace them while the rest of the old school crowd are condemning feats, skills, and even miniatures/grids as the downfall of d&d.
3.x was far more intuitive than its predecessors (for both players and dm's) and though the player's options towards the end of 2e were nice it still made the rule set maybe even more complex. 3.x gave more freedom to customize and not have stormtrooper clones of each class only differentiated by perhaps a choice of spells and weapons. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 28 Jan 2012 : 19:50:50
For me, I always ran whatever iteration was 'current', including the incremental options book that 1e & 2e were plagued with.
I have always been about teaching new players the game, so it doesn't make sense for me to foster my grognardise onto the the 'next generation'. If I can get them to play D&D and like it, then they will need to buy some books, and why force them to track down old stuff? that wouldn't make sense - not if I want to grow the community (which has always been my goal).
However, I never used 4e because I though it was too much of a departure from 'classic' D&D. On the other hand, i haven't run a single game since 4e was released (so I was still able to 'stay true' to my own goals). I guess I might blame some of my non-playing on 4e, but the truth is I have a LOT going on RW since then, and just don't have the time to DM (hopefully much of that will resolve itself).
I would have loved to play in someone else's campaign - regardless of edition - had I been able to find one (although, once again, I didn't really go looking for one).
So I guess I could say I haven't played because of 4e, but its more like an excuse, because I needed one. I probably would have eventually run a 4e game, and now I plan to run a 5e game. looking forward to it, in fact.
Mind you, I am talking rules here. The 4e Forgotten Realms held no interest to me, except for a few juicy bits I could plunder. As a DM who strives for immersion, I needed the depth the earlier Realms provided for me. If I no longer have the time to even run a game, how could I have the time to just 'make it all up'?  |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 28 Jan 2012 : 16:27:10
quote:
Originally posted by Ozreth
A lot of good stuff in here, but nobody is really talking about what made them stick to 3e. What about the system makes you prefer it over the earlier ones you started with? I'm not contending the edition here, as I play 3rd and enjoy most any other version of the game aside from 4th. This seems to be the only forum I visit where the older guys aren't complaining about skill and feats and actually embrace them while the rest of the old school crowd are condemning feats, skills, and even miniatures/grids as the downfall of d&d.
The reason why I like 3.5 edition is with its skills and feats system, it actually finally made it hard for a wizard to do all the darn stuff I could make him do in 2nd edition. Why? There were no longer a lot of contingency type spells that stored other spells. Why? Because you now needed a feat to do that. Similiar for making spells that you cast and have up as a ward for a long time... there is the persistent spell feat for that, and you need to build to being able to use it. Thus, different "types" of wizards were realistically being built (or different "types" of clerics or druids or whatever) through the feats. Then there were feats for the person who wanted to focus on maybe a certain "school" of spellcasting rather than a style of casting. All of these didn't limit the types of spells you could cast, but they did limit how you might use those spells. Then 4th edition came out.... and wizard X and wizard Y look pretty much the same except for maybe a few spell choice differences and they are very much defined by those spell choices.
This is all well and good for maybe a computer game. For instance, I play everquest2 and my fury has pretty much about 10 attack spells. I know exactly what they do, and I know which I prefer to cast in what order. But, that's a computer came. When I play a role playing game with friends, its about breaking the boundaries of what I can do with a computer.... its about playing with possibilities. Maybe I keep a scroll of tenser's floating disk handy so that I can strap a ram on it to smack open doors. Maybe I like to put a caged rat on it and send it into a room to see if it sets off any traps. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Jan 2012 : 16:15:55
quote:
Originally posted by Ozreth
A lot of good stuff in here, but nobody is really talking about what made them stick to 3e. What about the system makes you prefer it over the earlier ones you started with? I'm not contending the edition here, as I play 3rd and enjoy most any other version of the game aside from 4th. This seems to be the only forum I visit where the older guys aren't complaining about skill and feats and actually embrace them while the rest of the old school crowd are condemning feats, skills, and even miniatures/grids as the downfall of d&d.
In my opinion, 3.x gave a lot of options to the PCs -- it had the best range of options available to PCs, allowing for a lot of distinctive classes and styles of play.
It also had clear and concise rules to address most situations, without the overlap or grey areas of prior editions, and those rules also gave a DM a firm basis for winging it for those things not covered. All editions will, at some point, force a DM to wing it, but it is my opinion that in 3.x, the DM had more rules he could draw on to be able to wing something in a fair and consistent manner.
The straight D20 mechanic was a huge improvement, too. |
| Ozreth |
Posted - 28 Jan 2012 : 05:50:57
A lot of good stuff in here, but nobody is really talking about what made them stick to 3e. What about the system makes you prefer it over the earlier ones you started with? I'm not contending the edition here, as I play 3rd and enjoy most any other version of the game aside from 4th. This seems to be the only forum I visit where the older guys aren't complaining about skill and feats and actually embrace them while the rest of the old school crowd are condemning feats, skills, and even miniatures/grids as the downfall of d&d. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 28 Jan 2012 : 03:44:10
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The S.A.G.E. system.
Superior Abstract Gaming Edicts
The perfect system for the Procastinator Most High, eh? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 28 Jan 2012 : 03:42:19
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
My start was a mix of Gamma World, Star Frontiers, Palladium, and AD&D ...
Ah, yes. I incorporated some of the early stuff from the first edition of Gamma World too. I've flicked through the few Palladium game books I've got, but have never really sat down and scanned them for anything definitive -- rules-wise -- that I can borrow. Though some of the options from Book Three: Zentraedi for the "Robotech" RPG always intrigued me. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 28 Jan 2012 : 02:57:18
The S.A.G.E. system.
Superior Abstract Gaming Edicts
I do the same thing, BTW - I am constantly tweaking. I don't think I ever ran two campaigns the same way. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 27 Jan 2012 : 22:49:27
My start was a mix of Gamma World, Star Frontiers, Palladium, and AD&D - all "1E" by default because subsequent editions were published - although I wasn't very interested in fantasy RPGs prior to FR0; largely because the established Greyhawk setting seemed stale and overdone while the "new" Dragonlance setting was far too sparse. AD&D 2E (with FRA) was where I really cut my teeth on the game, and "2.5E" Planescape is still my overwhelming personal preference. Although numerous components of 3E, 3.5E, "3.75E" PRPG, d20 OGL stuff, and even 4E have been hybridized into my gaming, making it something of a bastardized D&D thing resembling (and completely differing from) Sage's ruleset. I suppose it might be called "2.875E". |
| Brian R. James |
Posted - 27 Jan 2012 : 21:45:42
I started with the 1st-Edition gray boxed set, but I’ve adopted each new edition as it came out. Oh there are certainly things about each edition I didn’t like personally, but as with real life I accept the good with the bad and try to smooth over the rough edges as I’m given the opportunity. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Jan 2012 : 06:09:38
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I began with 1e, but it's been decades since I've used a wholesale D&D-only rules-system.
Instead, I usually pick and choose what I like from multiple games and rules-sets [like 3e's Feats, for example] and then incorporate them into my hodge-podge RPG rules system.
Is SageRPG available in PDF?
Given your interest in STAR FRONTIERS and ALTERNITY [both systems I've borrowed stuff from], I think you might actually find something to like in my SageRPG system. [Cool label, BTW.]
As for making it available... I'm not entirely sure I could do that, legally, given some of the rules I've cut, often wholesale, from current rules-systems still in publication. I can't imagine it would make much different for material that is already wholly replicated elsewhere, though, like some of the freely available OSRIC products for example.
If you're interested in a sampling or, perhaps, a Quick-Start Rules for SageRPG, I might be able to work something up for that. Eventually. |
| Jakk |
Posted - 27 Jan 2012 : 05:35:48
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I began with 1e, but it's been decades since I've used a wholesale D&D-only rules-system.
Instead, I usually pick and choose what I like from multiple games and rules-sets [like 3e's Feats, for example] and then incorporate them into my hodge-podge RPG rules system.
Is SageRPG available in PDF? |
| Jakk |
Posted - 27 Jan 2012 : 05:32:17
I started gaming in 1982 with Tunnels & Trolls (the second fantasy RPG ever, after original D&D); I moved to D&D because it was what everyone else at school was playing, starting with the red-box basic set and blue-box expert set, then moved to AD&D 1st edition in 1986. I moved to 2E when it came out in 1989, and to 3E in 2000. I LOVED the changes made in 3E, except for the new ranger class, which wasn't worth taking past 1st level; I was particularly upset about this because my favourite character from 2E was a ranger (with the berserker kit from the Complete Fighter's Handbook) whom I played to around 15th level. 3.5 fixed the ranger enough that I actually bothered to convert my character, and I was impressed with what was done with the barbarian too. When Unearthed Arcana came out, I rebuilt the character as a Bbn/Rgr gestalt, and this has been his final build since... although I've only played him once in 3.x, and that was as an NPC in a non-combat situation. When 4th edition came out, I pre-ordered the core books because I liked what I'd seen in the preview titles that had been released... and either I misread them or they misrepresented the final product, because my group's interest in 4E ended with the first session, despite there being some core mechanics that we liked. When Pathfinder came out, I got the original campaign setting book and downloaded the alpha version rulebook, and those were good enough to convince me to buy everything that wasn't an adventure (I've never been much for buying adventures). I'm currently playing in one Pathfinder group and one 3.5 group, and I'm seriously considering getting involved with the 5e playtest project. 2012 marks my 40th birthday and my 30th anniversary as a tabletop RP gamer (and I've tried other systems in this time - Palladium/RIFTS, Top Secret, Star Frontiers, Alternity, White Wolf, and a variety of smaller-publisher games and OGL-derived systems including Spycraft, Conan d20, and Babylon 5 d20), and I suspect that when I stop gaming, it will be because I've stopped having birthdays. In other words, I'd like to think I'm someone WotC should listen to.  |
| Marquant Volker |
Posted - 26 Jan 2012 : 20:28:40
My first RPG books was the German "Das Schwarze Auge" i still remember the well made poster map and the detailed equipment and weapons books,i was 10 years old and the time and i could not even read the books (they were in German so...) . At least i had the best grades in German class at school, lol
Then a friend of mine got an D&D game somesort of "starter" think, it had very basic rules and a board consisting some ruins and a haunted house. I still remember how odd it seemed to me that the cleric wore armour and casted clerical spells, i found it pretty stupid. We didnt liked the game and after a couple of game went back to "Schwarze Auge"
As we grew up our "homemade" simple rules were not enought anymore, we wanted something that every player can understand.
So we bought the basic 2nd edition books, played a couple of months and then 3rd edition came after and we happily switched.
Since then we "stuck" with 3-3.5 and we dont plan to change it in the near future |
| Rhewtani |
Posted - 26 Jan 2012 : 16:19:32
I started with 2E, switched to 3.0, 3.5, pathfinder. In the middle of 3.0, I switched a group from 2(.75ish)e to 3.0 that I was a player in. I don't think they ended up making the pathfinder jump. I don't think there's anyone out there actually playing pure 2e, is there? |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 26 Jan 2012 : 12:48:07
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
I started with First Edition. But nobody wanted to play with me. Later on I bought some Second Edition books. And again was left with books to read but no-one to play with.
It was only when 3rd Edn was out that I started seriously gaming. *sighs* That was good fun.
I subsequently started gaming online using the Neverwinter Nights game engine and the Menzoberranzan setting. Unfortunately, one of the admins swooped and made me a DM after my first game. But that was also a lot of fun. But that kept me at 3rd Edn for quite a while.
When 3.5 came out, I was eager to see what had changed, and realised I'd just bought basically the same three core rulebooks. That soured me. I never really worked out what had changed in 3.5 really, apart from spells being much weaker, so I stuck with 3rd Edn.
I've gone backwards in the sense that since buying a lot of the 3rd Edn books, I then started buying some of the 1st Edn and 2nd Edn books too. There's a lot of good stuff in 2nd Edn.
I've also branched sideways into buying other settings. Hellfrost and Ptolus are fantastic. Kalamar, Arcanis and Scarred Lands are also great. So these influences all mix together to create something very much based on 3rd Edn but with rules from other settings: like the boost you get from praying to a deity in Scarred Lands. I've also added in gender modifiers. Females get a +1 boost to CHA, and males get a +1 boost to STR. Anyway, getting off-topic a bit now.
Yeah, I'll give it to the people who made the scarred lands setting. I really liked their world. Their rules needed a little more review for new spells, prestige classes, etc.... but the story of the world itself was very well done. I never ran a campaign there, but its one of the few worlds where I wish I had the time to do so. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 26 Jan 2012 : 12:45:29
I started with the light blue box (the one before the "blue box"), then played D&D, then 1st edition, all the way to 3.5. I've played in all those editions, and my favorite was 3.5. I hated 4th edition. I've since picked up the pathfinder stuff and played with the idea of delving deeply into it, but life has gotten in the way. |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 26 Jan 2012 : 10:59:10
I started with First Edition. But nobody wanted to play with me. Later on I bought some Second Edition books. And again was left with books to read but no-one to play with.
It was only when 3rd Edn was out that I started seriously gaming. *sighs* That was good fun.
I subsequently started gaming online using the Neverwinter Nights game engine and the Menzoberranzan setting. Unfortunately, one of the admins swooped and made me a DM after my first game. But that was also a lot of fun. But that kept me at 3rd Edn for quite a while.
When 3.5 came out, I was eager to see what had changed, and realised I'd just bought basically the same three core rulebooks. That soured me. I never really worked out what had changed in 3.5 really, apart from spells being much weaker, so I stuck with 3rd Edn.
I've gone backwards in the sense that since buying a lot of the 3rd Edn books, I then started buying some of the 1st Edn and 2nd Edn books too. There's a lot of good stuff in 2nd Edn.
I've also branched sideways into buying other settings. Hellfrost and Ptolus are fantastic. Kalamar, Arcanis and Scarred Lands are also great. So these influences all mix together to create something very much based on 3rd Edn but with rules from other settings: like the boost you get from praying to a deity in Scarred Lands. I've also added in gender modifiers. Females get a +1 boost to CHA, and males get a +1 boost to STR. Anyway, getting off-topic a bit now. |
| Mumadar Ibn Huzal |
Posted - 26 Jan 2012 : 07:54:45
I started playing 2e, made the transition to 3e and 3.5e and its those rules that I use (with some house rules like always spontaneous casting for divine magic users) in my PbeM games. I found that the 3x rules made the DM workload a little smoother (not perse less) and more intuitive. Never really was interested in switching to 4e, though recently read up a little on Pathinder. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 26 Jan 2012 : 05:42:33
I began with 1e, but it's been decades since I've used a wholesale D&D-only rules-system.
Instead, I usually pick and choose what I like from multiple games and rules-sets [like 3e's Feats, for example] and then incorporate them into my hodge-podge RPG rules system. |
|
|
