|
SilenceOfLolth
Acolyte
4 Posts |
 Posted - 30 Dec 2025 : 17:51:56
|
We still use 3rd edition. Specifically 3.5 core books with a selection of 3e and 3.5e sourcebooks and rulings (some 3.0 rules have been maintained). As someone else mentioned upthread, 3e was a nice cleanup and consolidation of 2.5e for us. Keeping the game limited to the core books and selecting further options to incorporate on a case by case basis offers you a very robust ruleset that can keep things fresh and interesting enough for a lifetime of gaming. The consistency of the rules makes them intuitive and easy to remember. Or to wing it as needed.
As for rules lawyering situations mentioned above, I maintain, as I always have, that this is group and DM dependent. Certainly not edition dependent, and those who played 1e/2e might recall how open those editions were for arguments when so many rulings needed to be made on the fly and potentially not in a consistent way. But hopefully your DM was consistent and your group understood that the nature of those rules meant it was best to just nod and agree rather than argue (or "rules lawyer").
With 1e/2e, and even 5e, the blank spaces in the rules that are hailed as strengths need to be filled in somehow when certain scenarios arise. Wisdom has always said that "rulings not rules" should rule the day, especially with much of the OSR revisionism that has happened in the last 10-15 years. However, we seem to be quick to forget that by the end of the 1990s, many people were clamoring for these gaps to be filled in, it is part of the reason 3e was a resounding success. At the end of the day, if you make a ruling, we know that the best thing to do is then be consistent with that ruling with your group. However, if you codify each ruling you make (which is good etiquette), you are simply then making new rules, and these add up. But I am no game designer and cannot easily predict the effects throughout the rest of the system. I prefer to have had the work already done for me and to use the rules if, when and how I desire, knowing that the foundation is sound enough.
This is especially true in the case of feats, which were a wonderful addition to the game and an extrapolation on WP/NWPs (as was the skill system, another great addition). Fans of more "rules-light" systems (I don't entirely agree with the designation, especially in the case of 1e AD&D), will say that in their games characters are allowed to attempt anything. For the style of play my group enjoys, anything that is allowed to be attempted should be expected to be allowed whenever the same circumstances arise, for consistent play and to maintain player/character agency. Well, what you have just done is created a feat.
I do love 2nd edition, however, especially with a handful of options from PO: C&T used, and have considered running a Dark Sun game on the side with 2e rules. However, after so many years of 3e, I cannot help but look at 2e and see that A) Much of it is in the DNA of 3e, just extrapolated or made more reasonable and B) I would often be looking to 3e to fill in the blanks on many rulings when situations called for it, so I have yet to make the return. This is similar to me in the way that I look at 1e and cannot help but think that, despite my respect for it and the mountains of charm within the books and rules, I would simply rather run 2e than 1e. A poster above commented their reasons for wanting to run 2e over 1e, and mine would be the same. Though I don't wish to disparage any of these editions and am fond of 1e-3e. 4e and 5e just didn't do it for me and I decided to draw a line for myself, and the group agreed.
And yes, later 3e/3.5 and the internet culture that arose around it is rife with problems and could easily turn one off from play if they let it get to them. But that is an entirely different discussion and has no bearing on the strengths of the 3e rules as written and intended by the 3 main designers. They certainly did not anticipate the way an emerging internet would break their game apart. They did not even intend for new classes to be published beyond the 11 core classes (notice no 3e sourcebooks had new classed added outside of Oriental Adventures, this was by design as the new feat, skill and multi-classing systems were meant to enable one to achieve most fantasy archetypes they could think of without needing to add new classes). Skip Williams himself still runs his game as core 3.5 (being one of the only 3 original designers who also worked on the revision) with some select material from the FRCS added (although he does not run in the FR).
The later 3.5 material certainly went in a direction that I don't agree with, and my game has always hovered around the 2000-2003 material, assumptions and playstyle, which is not dissimilar to how the game was being played by many at the tailend of the 90s with 2nd edition, especially if you were using some of the PO stuff.
I should also say that I can go on for just as long, if not longer, about everything I do not love about 3e. But I could do the same with any edition of the game.
My new campaign, which sees us beginning play again after a several years break, can be viewed here: https://swordsagainstfaerun.wordpress.com/
One group (all new to D&D, but all of us old friends) is beginning with the Crucible of Freya module from Necromancer games (2000), with Mielikki in place of Freya. This is set on the border of Impiltur and Damara and will focus on a revitalization of Orcus worship in the area.
The other group (my long-time in person group) begins play in two weeks with Raiders of Galath's Roost (2001) by Skip Williams from Dungeon Magazine. |
Edited by - SilenceOfLolth on 30 Dec 2025 21:46:03 |
 |
|
Which edition do you run your Realms games in?
