| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Gambit |
Posted - 18 Aug 2010 : 03:53:21
As the title says, I am curious as to which edition of D&D everyone enjoys and partakes in, if you play multiple then pick your personal favorite. If you are a former player, not currently gaming, list the edition you last played or would choose to play now if given the chance. Also, feel free to comment on whether you stick with the timeline linked with each edition, or use them them interchangably, such as playing a 3rd Edition game set in 1st Edition times. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Azuth |
Posted - 10 Sep 2011 : 17:37:51
quote:
If Eliminster is going to sit around at Storm's place for the rest of whatever, someone has to step up to the plate, amirite?
I also have a campaign in the Birthright setting, the only other setting left, apart from the Realms, that to me still has a unique feel to it.
Well, I agree with the sentiment, but Elminster hasn't exactly been sitting around. ;-) |
| MalariaMoon |
Posted - 10 Sep 2011 : 17:22:19
I'm playing a 3.5e campaign in 1st ed. times plus a 3.5e campaign in 3.5e times. I'd be happy to explore 4e rules and timeline at some point in the future, although by the time that comes around we'll probably be in 6e. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 10 Sep 2011 : 11:17:09
I started with 1st (still have my Cthulhu/Melibone' Deities and Demigods - my precioussss), but advanced through 2nd, to 3/3.5, and settled on Pathfinder as my system of choice (although I do incorporate a few ideas from other editions, even from *horrified expression* 4th Edition).
I'm currently using the 4th edition Realms, sticking to the relatively untainted Sword Coast, and will be picking out ideas from the Neverwinter Campaign Setting, the 'theme' (as it were) being to fix what has gone wrong - as far as such a thing can be accomplished anyways. I mean, if Elminster is just going to sit around at Storm's place for the rest of whatever, someone has to step up to the plate, amirite?
I also have a campaign in the Birthright setting, the only other setting left, apart from the Realms, that to me still has a unique feel to it. |
| Farrel |
Posted - 09 Sep 2011 : 19:05:14
I grew up playing 2nd edition, some of my fondest gaming moments are from 2nd edition.
I would say that I enjoyed the transition to 3/3.5 and found the new rules helped me define certain things that I was fuzzy about in 2nd edition.
I never bought the 4E rules, mainly because i'm so happy with 3/3.5 and incorporate certain elements of the earlier edition as well.
The 4E rules look very fluid and well thought through, if I owned them I might choose to include parts of that too.
As for the era.. at the moment my campaign is set in 1353DR, I get lots of events to look forward to, the player will get to experience the Old Grey Box and then future updates as the years roll by.
We won't be including certain things, such as the Spellplague, because it either doesn't appeal to us or it doesn't feel right. Though, at the rate we're DMing we'll be lucky to reach the Time of Troubles before we are old and infirm  |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 09 Sep 2011 : 17:57:17
I'm familiar enough with 4E, although admittedly weak on 4E Essentials (I've hardly bothered to actually read the 4EE books). I view the comparison between the two as something analogous to Basic vs Advanced D&D, although I admit this analogy could be flawed. I note that Basic D&D and Advanced D&D characters and materials were similar enough that they could also easily be intermingled or transposed "as-is" while still maintaining approximate play balance. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 09 Sep 2011 : 17:39:42
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
4E is a matured gaming construct, one which learned from (and avoided) many of the mistakes made by earlier editions. I very much like the modular platform style which allows new material to be integrated with minimal disruption, it might be a very very long time indeed before it becomes clumsy and disorganized enough to warrant a comprehensive edition rewrite, reorganization, and cleanup effort. Although I'm confident we'll see various minor 4E reprints in coming years, I doubt they will require more than cosmetic makeovers to remain appealing to contemporary gamers.
That is unless you consider the Essential's line and the later products produced there after a revision (which some do for some strange reason). I agree with you that 4E is modular enough to incorporate a lot of elements without changing the core aspects of the game. Going back to the Essentials aspects, while they don't follow the AEDU model (at-will/encounter/daily/utiliy) doesn't mean that they can't work along side classes that do. And the relative power/balance between Essential and non-Essential classes is rather small if you don't talk to CharOps.
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 09 Sep 2011 : 06:12:51
Although it's not at all a problem specific to D&D nor any particular edition, I personally feel there are typically less drastic alternatives for punishing uppity PCs who foolishly insist on rolling new characters. Unless of course they disregard my subtle (if occasionally ungentle and unpopular) cautions and remain particularly stubborn about wanting to die in turmoil and agony. In a way I suppose low-level PCs are somewhat like young children, you can't arbitrary treat them quite the same way you would instantly punish an adult, there are sometimes wiser methods for swaying them away from places they shouldn't be and things they shouldn't do. |
| Azuth |
Posted - 09 Sep 2011 : 05:20:53
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
My only great lament is that, quite unsurprisingly, new D&D publications by Wizbro are exclusively written for 4E - forcing me to improvise and convert them to my non-4E D&D ruleset. No fault can be placed on WotC for this inconvenience, since I made my edition choice knowing well in advance what the longterm consequences would be. How much worse for people who choose to maintain 1E gaming, how much worse still when 5E will eventually hit the bookstores.
4E is a matured gaming construct, one which learned from (and avoided) many of the mistakes made by earlier editions. I very much like the modular platform style which allows new material to be integrated with minimal disruption, it might be a very very long time indeed before it becomes clumsy and disorganized enough to warrant a comprehensive edition rewrite, reorganization, and cleanup effort. Although I'm confident we'll see various minor 4E reprints in coming years, I doubt they will require more than cosmetic makeovers to remain appealing to contemporary gamers.
I can't disagree with the gaming mechanics - I would have to think long and hard as to what might have been worse than THAC0 and how one might actually have a negative armor class. 2E had a few messed up constructions, but the D20 system in 3E worked very well. As I said previously, or alluded to is perhaps a better term, the DM will always know the right thing to do in a game, regardless of how calculations are performed. If the PC does one point less than needed to kill the dragon, but the PC Party won't survive another round, the DM may just allow the dragon to...suffer a HP from emotional overload and die. Conversely, if the PCs have been charging great wyrms as second level characters, it shouldn't come to a surprise as anyone when they have flambé du PC avec eau de dragon. If the DM depends on the rules to tell him/her how to run his/her game, then 3/4 the fun is already over. That's one reason that computers make terrible DMs - they can't improvise, and if they're programmed to cheat, people complain. Anyway, a long way of saying that it's interesting to read people's replies on here, but I think that what most people are saying is "my own version based on X edition."
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 09 Sep 2011 : 04:26:12
My only great lament is that, quite unsurprisingly, new D&D publications by Wizbro are exclusively written for 4E - forcing me to improvise and convert them to my non-4E D&D ruleset. No fault can be placed on WotC for this inconvenience, since I made my edition choice knowing well in advance what the longterm consequences would be. How much worse for people who choose to maintain 1E gaming, how much worse still when 5E will eventually hit the bookstores.
4E is a matured gaming construct, one which learned from (and avoided) many of the mistakes made by earlier editions. I very much like the modular platform style which allows new material to be integrated with minimal disruption, it might be a very very long time indeed before it becomes clumsy and disorganized enough to warrant a comprehensive edition rewrite, reorganization, and cleanup effort. Although I'm confident we'll see various minor 4E reprints in coming years, I doubt they will require more than cosmetic makeovers to remain appealing to contemporary gamers. |
| Azuth |
Posted - 09 Sep 2011 : 04:04:50
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
<snip>[P]retty much every gaming table is a unique D&D edition unto itself, it really doesn't matter which one you play as long as everyone in the group is playing the same game.
Cheers to that, and a strong second. The only thing I'd add is that the edition in use is agreeable to everyone and that everyone (including the DM) is having a good time. In fairness to myself (something I seldom do) I tried to run a 4E game and I hated it. The players complained about having to buy new books, but had at least some interest in what I might do with the Spellplague. Given the 3E FRCS sourcebook that pretty much said "without the Weave, there'd be no magic" I was somewhat at a loss as to how to explain how characters would know magic. And if I didn't want to start a new campaign (and my players most certainly did not) then I'd have to play through years of game time before the Spellplague even hit. I've found the novels well written as a norm, and Ed's work continues to be magnificent. Ed wisely set his major characters up as immortal (or the closest thing to it) so I look forward to his books. I do feel bad for Bob Salvatore, though. Being told that you have to kill off the majority of your protagonists just doesn't sound like much fun. And I'm talking about Cadderly first, just to be clear. :-)
Anyway, I return to echoing Ayrik's statement that each game is unique, and as long as everyone's having fun, it's good as gravy. Who doesn't use at least some house rules anyway?
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 09 Sep 2011 : 03:19:48
I viewed 2E as basically being a cleanup for 1E, not a lot of real difference except that all the new materials said "2E" on the cover, even with all the optional so-called "2.5E" stuff. Then very much the same thing between 3.5E and 3E, same game, new name. In a way, I view 4E as really being only the third paradigm for D&D (or the fourth if all the "Basic D&D" stuff is lumped as well, although OD&D was more like a simplified "D&D Lite" precursor to Advanced D&D, in my mind). It's all in the perspective; 4E (and 4E Essentials) could instead be viewed as the 13th (or even 18th) official D&D ruleset edition if your focus is at a different depth than mine. Then there's all the 3rd party, d20, OGL, and other (errata, options, fan-stuff, house-brewed, or questionably "unofficial") stuff published everywhere ... pretty much every gaming table is a unique D&D edition unto itself, it really doesn't matter which one you play as long as everyone in the group is playing the same game. |
| Azuth |
Posted - 09 Sep 2011 : 02:08:28
I still think that 2E was the most fun to play, but 3E brought a lot of accessibility in the game to others. I'll freely admit that as a young DM, sometimes I got tired of calculating THAC0 and just decided a character hit or missed depending on how I wanted the fight to go. It frustrated my players that they couldn't understand how "a fifteen hit last round!" and I just shrugged and said "but it missed this one. Huh." Ahh, the joys of being a DM. :-)
I saw NO point in 3.5... it was (to me) an excuse to plop down more money on books that basically corrected typos. 4E to me is like a movie remake - no matter how hard they try, it will never be as good as the original.
|
| Drakul |
Posted - 08 Sep 2011 : 20:58:58
3E or 3.5E all the way. 4E is trash. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 08 Sep 2011 : 20:25:33
I don't personally see a lot of difference between core 1E and core 2E; aside from changes to the "optional" classes, a more reasoned (if still somewhat inadequate) reorganization of spell magic (along with damage caps), and several complete rewrites on psionics (which not everybody used as-written in any event). All of the later 2E rules about kits and options and such stuff are easily imported into 1E gameplay. |
| stormdragon |
Posted - 08 Sep 2011 : 18:57:28
I voted for Other - specifically, Castles & Crusades, but it's really between that and 1E AD&D. I just haven't been able to decide which system I want to use.
As for which 'edition' of FR I'm going to use, that's a no-brainer: Grey Box all the way. |
| Abenabin Gimblescrew |
Posted - 27 Aug 2011 : 18:38:21
3.5/Pathfinder/AD&D 2nd Edition are the editions I currently own. I have some 4e content, but it isn't the system for me after giving it a chance. For the most part though I am just 3.5/Pathfinder now. |
| Varl |
Posted - 27 Aug 2011 : 16:12:05
First and second. 1e gray box plus the myriad of 2e supplements. Compatibility is such a wonderful 13-letter word.  |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 27 Aug 2011 : 00:56:19
I've played them all, except the very earliest of the OD&D and latest of the 4EE stuff.
D&D "2.5E" is the preference of myself and my (large) gaming group as well - basically AD&D 2nd Edition with shamelessly stolen material from later (mostly 3E) publications. House rules to clean up problems are half the fun, and just enough High Gygaxian seeps into the sourcecode to maintain flavour without making it incomprehensibly archaic.
I'm pleased to see so many other grognards also hail the golden age of D&D. Also pleased to see that the Edition-bashing wars and condemnations have finally burned down to a harmless simmer. |
| Gouf |
Posted - 26 Aug 2011 : 20:36:31
quote:
Originally posted by entreri3478
It's been a few years since i have played, but i have always loved the 2nd edition. For me it always felt like a good balance of rules and freedom to have a good time. I don't think i would be able to get on board with 3rd or especially 4th edition.
I am right there with you. I tried 3/3.5 and dropped it and went back to 2nd for exactly the reason of balanced rules and freedom to do more with characters based on imagination.
:D |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 26 Aug 2011 : 19:16:06
It's been a few years since i have played, but i have always loved the 2nd edition. For me it always felt like a good balance of rules and freedom to have a good time. I don't think i would be able to get on board with 3rd or especially 4th edition. |
| GMWestermeyer |
Posted - 25 Apr 2011 : 18:23:07
I played 0D&D and AD&D 1e and 2e. My current campaigns use 2e rules, but I allow some 1e and Hackmaster elements. Primarily classes, I allow old 1e classes like monks, Anti-paladins, or Duelists. From Hackmaster I especially allow spells. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 25 Apr 2011 : 13:58:34
quote:
Originally posted by MrHedgehog
I just haven't learnt the 4th edition rules well enough, and don't know anyone to play with. I occasionally play with a couple of people but its like...every couple of months. Also i'm not the DM and the DM uses his own world.
If your ever in the Pittsburgh area of Pennsylvania, let me knwo and we're run a few games of 4E |
| MrHedgehog |
Posted - 24 Apr 2011 : 08:49:40
I just haven't learnt the 4th edition rules well enough, and don't know anyone to play with. I occasionally play with a couple of people but its like...every couple of months. Also i'm not the DM and the DM uses his own world. |
| froglegg |
Posted - 24 Apr 2011 : 06:06:02
As of late I have been looking at B/X, BECM and RC. Ahh old is new again.
John |
| chamber101 |
Posted - 21 Apr 2011 : 02:51:34
quote:
Originally posted by Gambit
Personally I play both Pathfinder and 2nd Edition. I voted for 2E because it is where I started, and it has this...mystical feel to it (I cant really describe it), one that was prevelent throughout AD&D, slightly lessened in 3E, and taken out back and slaughtered with the rest of the sacred cows in 4E.
I know that feeling - an intagible nostalgia and almost mythical quality. It comes whenever my DMs guide just falls open at the THAC0 charts! |
| Quale |
Posted - 20 Apr 2011 : 20:08:43
Close to Pathfinder/2e E6, with a lot houserules (e.g. just three classes, mostly no xp for fights ...) |
| Big Mac |
Posted - 20 Apr 2011 : 15:27:33
I used to play AD&D, but never did any Forgotten Realms gaming until after I gave up D&D and later got lured back by a 3e Forgotten Realms game. I own some 2e FR products, but have never played them, as is.
The 3e PHB and FRCS were my first two 3e books. I originally found the changes in the rules frustrating...and was disappointed when I found out that Leira was removed from the pantheon. But eventually I came to prefer the 3e rules. I know that some folk find 3e stats a bit OTT, but I find that things like skills and feats give me a bigger picture of characters. I quite like a long description of a major NPC. (I would be happy to see a netbook full of FR NPCs.)
However, when it comes to lore, I think that 2e covers a lot of area that 3e neglects. I am interested in all the FR sub-settings and am sorry that each of them did not get at least a single 3e hardback. I consider 3e FR to be "incomplete" without 2e to back it up.
I would love to see every FR element converted to 3e rules for myself. And for fans of other rules, I would love to see the best 3e stuff retro-converted to 2e or 1e rules.
I would even say the same for cross-edition games using 4e, although I've not touched it. I think that taking the time travel rules from Arcane Age and allowing some PCs from Maztica to travel into the far future and see Returned Abeir displacing their land could be fun. A bunch of PC from The True World could actually be shown Returned Abeir by the Maztican gods and then sent back to an era closer to their own time to discover how the gods of the invading Amnians were about to unleash the Spellplague and destroy the world. If successful, they could "cancel" The Spellplague and avert many of the changes that 4e brought to the Realms. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 20 Apr 2011 : 13:56:54
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
The main reason I don't like rules changes is that I'm lazy. I seldom have time it seems to convert all the rules from edition to edition so that the proper stats are to be had...easier to simply play in an era that has the same game system I'm using.
I hear that, but there really isn't much to convert unless you using a specific NPC's stats or strong magical items. And for those hurdles, you can always ask for advise or a homebrew write up from one of us |
| Asharak |
Posted - 20 Apr 2011 : 11:18:00
I've play 1E, 2E, 3E, and my preference goes to AD&D 2E with Players Options. |
| Skeptic |
Posted - 20 Apr 2011 : 05:44:29
Since I can’t stand D&D anymore (any edition), I always said to myself that I should try FR with another system (e.g. Burning Wheel, Shadow of Yesterday), but then my gaming partners moved away, so I had to made up my mind that FR will be "novels only" for me further on. |
|
|
