| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Apex |
Posted - 23 Sep 2008 : 18:48:02
What edition of the Realms do you play/desire to play most? And what do you like most about the edition you play (no negative comments on other editions)? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 12 Jan 2010 : 22:36:41
I started out playing 2nd ed, and when 3rd came out, I started mixing a little of it in, creating my own hybrid that I called 2.5. Now we play strictly 3.5. Staying away from 4th- tried it, didn't like it... |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 11 Jan 2010 : 10:50:23
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
I never really considered those events as RSE's since they didn't effect the Realms as a whole, but rather just specific parts of the Realms.
Ah, I see your point. I think most areas north of the Shar was influenced by the Shade thing and the situation in Cormyr would have long reaching effects with the effects on trade and shift in the power balance. As this effects more or less all parts of the Realms that I use (much more than the Time of Trouble would, where I to use it), I tend to lump them in with the Realms-shaking events. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 09 Jan 2010 : 03:58:35
I'm still a fan of 1st Edition Forgotten Realms.
I'm ashamed to say that I attempted an online game of 1st Edition and honestly just remembered at this moment that I left the folks hanging on that when things went south for me.
To me, the original edition of D&D is just the first I ever knew.
So later editions just kinda took away from that. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 08 Jan 2010 : 23:11:10
quote:
Originally posted by danbuter
I actually like the 3e book quite a bit as well, as it includes tons of info, but didn't have an RSE.
The lack of an RSE was a huge drawback, for me. Not that I'm a fan of them -- far from it! But there was so much that was changed that only an RSE could have explained it. Instead, if we got an explanation at all (which wasn't common), it was something like "it's always been that way, but no one knew about it!"
That's why I'm convinced continuity was losing its official importance then, and the official importance just kept diminishing from there. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 08 Jan 2010 : 19:58:38
I never really considered those events as RSE's since they didn't effect the Realms as a whole, but rather just specific parts of the Realms. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 08 Jan 2010 : 18:14:51
The campaign setting had both Shade and the destroyed Cormyr just to mention two. There could be more, but its been years since I looked at that book thoroughly. These might be novel detailed, but the campaign setting should be seen as the start of 3ed. shouldn't it? |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 08 Jan 2010 : 16:21:20
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
quote:
Originally posted by danbuter
I strongly prefer Gray Box, plus FR1 through FR 6. The setting is more swords and sorcery, less vanilla fantasy.
I really did not like the Time of Troubles, as it was too much change just for a new edition. I had the same problem with the 4e version.
I actually like the 3e book quite a bit as well, as it includes tons of info, but didn't have an RSE.
I thought the 3ed. had multiple Realms shaking events?
It didn't start off with one. They all just progressed from the novel line. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 08 Jan 2010 : 14:39:37
quote:
Originally posted by danbuter
I strongly prefer Gray Box, plus FR1 through FR 6. The setting is more swords and sorcery, less vanilla fantasy.
I really did not like the Time of Troubles, as it was too much change just for a new edition. I had the same problem with the 4e version.
I actually like the 3e book quite a bit as well, as it includes tons of info, but didn't have an RSE.
I thought the 3ed. had multiple Realms shaking events? |
| danbuter |
Posted - 08 Jan 2010 : 01:56:14
I strongly prefer Gray Box, plus FR1 through FR 6. The setting is more swords and sorcery, less vanilla fantasy.
I really did not like the Time of Troubles, as it was too much change just for a new edition. I had the same problem with the 4e version.
I actually like the 3e book quite a bit as well, as it includes tons of info, but didn't have an RSE. |
| Zorro |
Posted - 05 Jan 2010 : 17:58:48
A heavily houseruled 3e in a massively changed Realms. Every little thing about the New Realms turned me off, so I had no reason to throw my money at WotC for 4e. Later I got the 4e PHB as a present, and to this day it just takes up valuable shelf space. But hey, at least now I know that I haven't missed a thing - boy, do I dislike 4e...
Zorro |
| ZeshinX |
Posted - 05 Jan 2010 : 15:23:02
While I am currently not playing (unfortunately), I prefer the 3/3.5 system, simply due to the highly customizable nature as it relates to characters.
I started playing at the 1e/2e transition, so I have a very warm place in my heart for the 2e system (including Skills and Powers). If and when I manage to get a group together to play again, I may even decide to indulge my memories and run a 2e game. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 05 Jan 2010 : 12:50:17
quote:
Originally posted by Surly Dwarf
I will never play 4th. ed or buy the new realms guide, the less I know of it the better.
Your perception of 4e, based off the comments of others (by your own admittance of refusing to know much of it), is determining your opinion?    |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 05 Jan 2010 : 12:34:06
I mostly use a modified Grey box Realms with the 2ed. rules with 2.5 ed. added if needed or fitting. That is if I use a D&D system at all. The early Realms are the ones I am most comfortable with and 2ed. is simply the system I am used to and the one that fits me best. If it works why fix it? The 2.5 rules can become clunky, but they are great if you are running small groups with one to three players and so some parts of these books can enhance the game. |
| Zm |
Posted - 01 Jan 2010 : 15:41:54
Although our games are heavily RP-based and include close to none calculations and stuff, we try to stick to 3/3.5e. Tried 4e, but meh, even by skipping some rules it just doesnt give the same feeling. |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 01 Jan 2010 : 14:45:33
The version I play most is 3rd Edn (but not 3.5). In second place is 2nd Edition (skills and powers). |
| Naroon Shimmerflow |
Posted - 25 Dec 2009 : 23:59:15
We have been playing 2e for 15 years now and are still happy with it. We treid both 3rd and 4th edition but always fall back on the good old 2e books. It might have something to do with the fact that we know the 2e system like the back of our hand, but i like to believe that it`s the feeling you get when you sitt with the old books with old scars and memories in you hands that keep us playing 2 e :) |
| Surly Dwarf |
Posted - 25 Dec 2009 : 19:22:56
I have just recently aquired The Old Grey Box, and also have a fair amount of 2nd and 3rd edition lore. I'm considering running some games with a reset to the OGB and using the interesting odds and ends from the other products, probably with 2nd ed. and skills and powers.
I will never play 4th. ed or buy the new realms guide, the less I know of it the better. |
| Julian Grimm |
Posted - 25 Dec 2009 : 06:24:03
quote:
Originally posted by Varl
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
I would say that my favorite edition is 3/3.5, but I would happily play 1E or 2E if someone invited me to join a group, as long as they had gotten rid of the silly level limits for non-humans.
I think the majority of 1e/2e/hybrid DMs have chosen to do this, and only the strictest BTB DMs haven't.
I had them removed when I started playing in the late 80s early 90s. Recently I have incorporated stat bonuses based off Castles and Crusades and a resolution system that is much more unified. Still I'd say my game is about 85-90% 2e. |
| woodwwad |
Posted - 25 Dec 2009 : 05:59:08
I'm running a 3.5 FR game and am playing in one. I like 3.5 best, have played all the editions. Really dislike 4th, it's just not D&D. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 24 Dec 2009 : 08:07:11
Currently, I'm playing in two 4E games set in the Realms of 1479. I do play in a 3.5 campaign (the Shadowdale adventuer) and it's loads of fun too. |
| bladeinAmn |
Posted - 24 Dec 2009 : 05:03:42
I use 2e rules w/Skills & Powers, but also add some of the versatility and some of the prestige classes found in 3.5e. |
| Neil Bishop |
Posted - 24 Dec 2009 : 04:01:16
I use the 4E ruleset and the 4E Realms.
I do this purely for convenience: everything for PCs is in the character builder and I can stat up monsters and NPCs very quickly using the monster builder.
If a real, functioning character and monster builder for 3.5E was invented tomorrow I have no doubt that I would switch back. I think, too, if the character builder allowed for meaningful customisation I would switch back to the Realms as at 1372 DR and ignore every novel and everything else that came after that point.
|
| Rory |
Posted - 23 Dec 2009 : 18:23:01
I played 2e the most simply because I had more friends that played back then yet I believe 3e is the best ruleset. |
| Julian Grimm |
Posted - 23 Dec 2009 : 18:06:16
2e with my own few modifications. I have played all the editions but 4e and find 2e the rules that I enjoy most. |
| Artemel |
Posted - 23 Dec 2009 : 17:32:03
3.x for rules, because it is flexible enough for my group of friends to run pretty much any character concept. For instance, our one friend's Fighter/Rogue/Wild Mage was a lot easier to put together in 3rd than in 2nd. (I never cared for dual-classing rules).
For FR lore though, everything that came before 3rd ed is superior to what wotc put out. Which is a bit of a shame, really. I have the 4e FR books (second hand, though). I don't really use much of that information. |
| froglegg |
Posted - 22 Dec 2009 : 02:57:30
As of late I have been using 1st edition but I have no beef with 2nd or even 3rd edition. 
John |
| evildmguy |
Posted - 25 Sep 2008 : 20:14:54
I play 4E because it's the most fun for my group. I find combat a lot more exciting now, with the movement and more fluid possibilities.
As for a "version" of the Realms, I am using the 4E versions because I like that the Realms are now a more fantastical world, more so than the monsters and magic. I like the nodes and other ideas in it.
Sure, it can be in any version. I hope everyone plays what they enjoy and have fun! I do like the latest version myself but perhaps it's because I like the history I have available to me as well.
edg |
| Varl |
Posted - 25 Sep 2008 : 16:31:09
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
I would say that my favorite edition is 3/3.5, but I would happily play 1E or 2E if someone invited me to join a group, as long as they had gotten rid of the silly level limits for non-humans.
I think the majority of 1e/2e/hybrid DMs have chosen to do this, and only the strictest BTB DMs haven't. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 25 Sep 2008 : 14:16:40
Well, thanks for the heads-up. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 25 Sep 2008 : 13:55:36
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
No, I do not have a D&D Insider subscription, nor will I ever have one.
It's still free.
Until sometime next month, anyway (Official announcement) |
