PDA

View Full Version : Dungeons and Dragons: Which is your favorite edition/s, and why?



Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
04-26-2009, 03:32 PM
It's no secret that many of us grew up on Dungeons and Dragons, and so i thought it would be interesting to start a thread for folks to share with me, and everyone else for that matter, which edition is their favorite, and why?

I started playing way back in the mid-1970's, so have played every edition ever released. So, i thought it would be interesting if everyone would take the poll to see where everyone stands.

Please note:
1) Your votes are set to private so no one will know your vote. :cool:
2) You may vote for more than one edition, so go crazy.

I am willing to play all editions, but 1E/Hack Master are my favorites, with home brew rules added in, of course.

What say you?

Thoth-Amon

Lucian-Sunaka
04-26-2009, 03:35 PM
Umm.... what poll? lol

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
04-26-2009, 03:39 PM
It's completely unofficial and anonymous. Gamers are welcome to vote for more than one choice. It's all for fun. Please, Edition Scrooges need not play along. We, at P&PG, respect all the editions as well as everyone's right to have their favorites.

Lucian-Sunaka
04-26-2009, 03:44 PM
Welp, my votes are up, pretty obvious where I stand lol, 3rd edition all the way baby. (Though I am looking forward to learning 2nd in a campaign I'm in.)

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
04-26-2009, 04:08 PM
Welp, my votes are up, pretty obvious where I stand lol, 3rd edition all the way baby. (Though I am looking forward to learning 2nd in a campaign I'm in.)
Enjoy your 2E campaign, Lucian-Sunaka. A lot of great modules were introduced with 2nd Edition. And thanks for playing along.

Malruhn
04-26-2009, 04:25 PM
So I'm assuming that "1 E" is your name for "Advanced" D&D... and I right here?

You young pup! ;-)

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
04-26-2009, 04:28 PM
Old pup, actually. I started an immortal thread to try to change my predicament. So far, not many takers to assist in my pursuit for immortality. :laugh:

I thought about adding a few more choices from days long past, but decided against it. I also thought of one more choice i would have liked to have added, but it wont let me add to it once submitted. Oh well, spilt coffee, and all.

drewshi
04-26-2009, 08:35 PM
First edition then, now, always. I get the financial considerations in new editions and as a friend of mine put it, "Every generation needs its D&D, just like they need their Spider-Man or Doctor Who", but I always found that the first edition has and continues to suit my needs just fine.

mnemenoi
04-26-2009, 09:30 PM
I can agree, though feel the realism of 2nd fits my bill, but I know everyone has their fix and am glad its there for every generation.

tesral
04-27-2009, 12:20 AM
I've been blending since 0ed. I've never made a clean break with any edition to favor a new one totally. Always the new rules blended wit hthe old rules I still like.

The sole exception is Forry, which is too different to blend. It's a duck bill on a chicken

Windstar
04-27-2009, 04:47 AM
In my decrepit old mind I find the arguments amongst gamers of old vs new is be a little redundent. I just like D&D, havine played a hodge podge homebrew of 1-3.5 for a number of years and am now playing 4e. Am impressed with 4e as it seems to flow alot better, online anyways, will get my first tabletop game going in 6 days and counting. Somewhere on this board I read some of the best advice I have heard in eons, "just go into it with an open mind" or something to that effect {it is early for me sorry}. Well my votes are cast and let the chips fall.


:biggrin:Windstar:biggrin:

Dragon2605
04-27-2009, 10:17 AM
I got my start playing 2E but have recently transitioned to 3.5E after playing 3E for about 5 years. I must say I like them all. They are all alot of fun to play. I've never played the original version since I'm not that old. :p I also don't plan on converting to 4E. Since I couldn't make up my mind, I voted for 2, 3, and 3.5 editions. :biggrin:

yukonhorror
04-27-2009, 10:42 AM
I loved 1st edition. The only problem is we played it so much, I am kind of burnt out on it. If I had to play again, I would insist on starting at 5th level, because there is only so many different ways to play a game at lower levels. I have played every class, every race, and fought every monster you can fight at those levels.

edit: I never go the chance to play oriental adventures. That may be the only way I would start at 1st level. I always wanted to try the kensai class. All other editions screwed that one up. The first is the best.

I am really getting into 4e. The main reason: it has fixed everything I didn't like about older editions. Like limiting which races could be which classes or leveling up at different exp pts, or the overdependence upon a healer in the group. Also, the combat seems so much more cinematic, so the combat is just as enjoyable as the role-playing.

I liked 3.x, but at low levels there still exists the problem of being mundane at low levels. I like being epic. I like having these cool abilities like wielding fireballs or turning into wolverines.

Haven't played the other ones though, so can't comment on those.

Lucian-Sunaka
04-27-2009, 11:05 AM
Well, in defense of 3rd edition, it's got everything you just talked about, though it does try to present a lower scale at lower levels when it comes to flashy abilities.

Believe it or not, you do not NEED a healer in third edition (meaning anything listed up there with a 3 in it lol, I classify it all as third) I've ran multiple parties without a single caster who could cast much healing, and I didn't coddle them with free healing items or other such bs. Honest truth, the game is a little more brutal without it, but you don't need alot of magical healing.

yukonhorror
04-27-2009, 11:31 AM
i have played 3.x quite a bit. That's how it always came off to me. I felt if you didn't have some sort of healer (druid, paladin, whatever), the DM had to provide an alternative source of healing (potions and such), or else you could never survive a dungeon (at least with the level of challenge the DM provided).

As for low level play, it always felt like the powers that REALLY set classes apart weren't achieved until later levels. Also, the hp was so low at low levels, that you could go unconscious (and even die) with a well laid blow.

I like 3.x, but I am not a fan of playing it at any level lower than 4.

I am not bashing 3.x, just saying what I didn't like about it.

I didn't like 2e, and can't tell you why. We played it a little bit, but couldn't get into it as much as we did 1e.

Windstar
04-27-2009, 11:47 AM
[Believe it or not, you do not NEED a healer in third edition (meaning anything listed up there with a 3 in it lol, I classify it all as third) I've ran multiple parties without a single caster who could cast much healing, and I didn't coddle them with free healing items or other such bs. Honest truth, the game is a little more brutal without it, but you don't need alot of magical healing.[/quote]


Well in my experiance, all the parties I have been in have had to have them, we did try to get along without one once and had to go find one. Not that the DM's I played with were killers but we always seemed to be getting beat up, even against mundane creatures. Unless you are allowed healing time by your DM, which we weren't. Time to regain spells and sometimes not even that much time. He believed to keeping the flow moving like a river at flood season.

:D:D

Tawnos76
04-27-2009, 02:18 PM
I like AD&D 2ed the best. It is what I have the most in and grew up in. I do not mind 3.5 but do not like 4th at all. I like the style of 2nd and that is where I stay. I am currently trying to get another group together for another go ahead at 2nd ed.
4th never got my liking as it was too much a change from the older 2e style rules but that is the beauty of having different rule sets - you play the ones you like best. I know 2e very well and enjoy GMing AD&D.

MrFrost
04-27-2009, 05:06 PM
I like 3.5 because the rules were more defined and streamlined and much easyer to learn, though I must admit that as the editions grow it is starting to feel more like a "hack-n-slash" video games rather then a complex role playing game. My number one problem with 4e.

If 2.5 could be revised to be more streamlined, with a huge number of rule fixes and a more detailed account of how the rules should work and that could quickly become my favorite edition again...

Dammerung
04-27-2009, 08:49 PM
I started playing towards the end of 2.0 and really grew up on 3.x. I recently played through a 4.0 campaign and wasnt too impressed, while everything is simple i have a hard time with my 1st lvl warlocks bieng able to call down starfire from the heavens, you just start off WAY too heroic. The new Pathfinder setting gives 3.x the polishing it needed, The classes get some very cool new ability's without losing the "Humble beginning's" feel that makes reaching lvl 10+ that much cooler. The world has the flavors of everything ive loved in other games like Ravenloft, Eberron, and even a hint of Modern spattered across its realms. The rules have been stream lined (Hide & move silently= stealth. new IMO better rules for crafting, and combat.) And the Adventure paths are just plain awsome... Ill be playing the setting for quite some time. Check it out! its a great setting! No disrespect to those into 4.0 it just feels like a different game all together to me...
-Dammerung

Talmek
04-27-2009, 09:55 PM
Hi all -

I've only been playing/DM'ing D&D for about nine years now, (My GAWD I didn't realize how long it's been until just now!) and I haven't really ever thought about a favorite edition up until this poll. I've only experienced 1e/3e/3.5/4e with varying levels of depth. For instance, I've only read the 4e rulebooks I purchased recently as I have not had luck finding an in-person group going in quite some time.

Anyway, of all my experimentation/modification/play with the different editions, I'd have to say mine was 3.5e, but for a different reason than I have found posted yet. It really wasn't the rules being revamped or any of the technical reasons people liked 3.5 so much. Come to think of it, the reason 3.5 is my favorite has almost nothing to do with the edition itself or the rules.

My reasoning behind 3.5 is this: The sheer magnitude of options that a player had at his/her disposal was many, many times that of any other edition. Now let me be clear, I fully understand that a D&D player has only his imagination and the DM's discretion to limit him. However, I am not a numbers' master, nor have I probed the myriad ways a player could possibly make his DM's life miserable by developing a new prestige class or finding a combination of existing classes that could empower him to deity status by 4th level. I was not one of those players.

I literally spent days traversing the Internet finding different books from different publishers, wondering which would have just a bit more information that I could utilize for my players or myself. You see, I wasn't blessed with the unique creative abilities that seem so common on these message boards alone. I was, however, a stickler for detail and a relentless researcher. These traits were able to help me build a campaign from the ground up that my former players still email me about to tell me how much they enjoyed the games I ran for them. It was the endless stream of information from all different directions, the countless splat-books and campaign settings that were released in 3.5 edition's prime that made it so easy for me to be a successful DM.

All of that is just a sepia-toned memory now. With 3.5e in it's death throes, the last remaining hope I have for the OGL and with it the openness of the game is with Pathfinder, and Paizo Publishing. I honestly hope that they will carry the torch of freedom in intellectual property that Wizards decided against in their 4th edition. After all, it's easier to find a gem with more publishers working on the same edition, or the same game.

Dytrrnikl
04-28-2009, 12:33 AM
For me hands down 2E is my favorite. Of course, other than one or two tidbits, the 2E Player's Option Revision was pretty much crap.

I've played and enjoyed 1E and Basic. Basic was fun with how playing a demihuman was bascially its class.

I was a slow transition to 3E. To this day, I cannot stand how multi-classing was handled and the removal of restricted classes. I enjoy 3E now, though I never really switched to 3.5.

Having purchased 4E and played it for about 6 months, I'm not a fan. Frankly, I think Hasbro/WotC dropped the ball horribly on this revision. Mechanically, at least from my perspective, each of the classes feel and play the same, no differentiation other than thematically how something is performed. The regualr gamers I run and play with are all of the same opinion. We're sticking with 3E. Although, I am working on a 3E/Star Wars Saga hybrid system. I like the talent/feat format they used with Saga, which was obviously taken from d20 modern.

I've never played hackmaster, but have heard favorable opinions about it.
Like another person has already stated, each generation will have their own editions of DnD...I just hope it stays away from digital format. I hate stepping into a group and seeing a bunch of laptops with the information on it. I like the feel of book in hand.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
04-28-2009, 12:38 AM
Hate to burst your bubble, Dyrrnikl, but i believe the age of laptops in gaming is-a-coming. PM sent.

Dytrrnikl
04-28-2009, 04:34 AM
Hate to burst your bubble, Dyrrnikl, but i believe the age of laptops in gaming is-a-coming. PM sent.

Sadly, you are quite correct. It'll be a really sad day when everything moves to digital format.

Sethannon
04-28-2009, 09:04 AM
For me hands down 2E is my favorite. Of course, other than one or two tidbits, the 2E Player's Option Revision was pretty much crap.

I've played and enjoyed 1E and Basic. Basic was fun with how playing a demihuman was bascially its class.

I was a slow transition to 3E. To this day, I cannot stand how multi-classing was handled and the removal of restricted classes. I enjoy 3E now, though I never really switched to 3.5.



I agree with all of these statements. 2nd ed is still my favorite as well, but good god the Options books were awful. 3rd edition isn't as bad as I thought it was when it first came out, but I can see the argument that it became cumbersome.

I've yet to try 4th, so I can't comment on it directly.

cplmac
04-28-2009, 06:44 PM
Since I am running a table top game and an online game here in the chat using it, obviously my favorite version is the one that I have exclusively played/DMed until recently. My vote went for 2E. Now I have started to play in another game on the chat here that is being run using 3.0 for the system. I am having fun getting to play a character in the new system, but as for being the DM of a campaign, I will stick with 2E.

fmitchell
04-28-2009, 07:05 PM
My votes were for 3.5e and pre-AD&D stuff (particularly the "Basic" D&D line and its retro-clones).

3.5e is a sprawling mess, but there's enough out there that you can craft your own game if you want to. The d20 mechanic unifies a lot of disparate rules. (I might also have voted for Pathfinder if I knew more about it.)

However, I've always preferred "Basic D&D" to its over-complex cousin, and through Labyrinth Lord and Swords & Wizardry I have a new respect for the simplicity of pre-AD&D versions. Sure, they don't have mechanical incentives for role-playing the way modern games do, but unlike later D&D they don't pretend to.* Mutant Future shows how flexible the LL engine is, and S&W is made for tinkering.

* If I want "roleplaying" mechanics I can graft on something like Prose Descriptive Qualities (http://www.atomicsockmonkey.com/freebies.asp#pdq) (pdf) (http://www.atomicsockmonkey.com/freebies/di/pdq-core.pdf), Aspects (http://evilhat.wikidot.com/aspects-v3), or Plain English Role Playing (http://web.archive.org/web/20070206165824/http://www.mearls.com/old_site/PERP.html).

Oldgamer
04-29-2009, 02:14 PM
It's tough for me, because I started with OD&D in the early 80's and worked up from there. I feel a nostalgic love of the 1st 3 editions (Od&d, Ad&d, 2e Ad&d) to be sure, but mechanically speaking, I think 3.x has my vote. I've tried 2 games in 4e, and I hated it, so there will be no "upgrading" for me. So my votes went all over the poll-board :lol:

Simplydone
04-29-2009, 02:16 PM
When I started roleplaying AD&D was my second gaming experience (the first being GURPS second edition). I had fun playing it, even subsitituted as our DM when she didn't bother showing up one night. Then came D&D 3.0 and I had a falling out with D&D to the point I hated the system. When combat came around everything slowed to molassas to the point we'd spend almost an hour looking up rules for one or two spells or what would happen if character X did this to NPC Y! 'Is that legal?' 'Can he do that?' Bleh ruined the fun.

SO I quit D&D, sought out other systems to play, and once again fun was had by all. I played WoD, Exalted, WoT, Mutants and Masterminds, and even pulp roleplaying games and dice-less systems (and let me tell you fun and creative). Then lo and behold I heard a fourth edition of D&D came out and that for some reason folks HATED it. So naturally being curious I browsed through the players handbook.

Next thing I know I'm hooked and I wanted to play D&D again. The combat system was streamlined and simplified. No more overly complexity attack of opportunity rules, characters at first level could actual pose a threat, all the rules and effects of spells and abilities on a card that was easy to read and you could print it out. Never again will you have to look it up unless you wanted to prove that yes that is what the thing does. The characters were HEROIC again not mundane, bland, or heaven forbid normal! Best of all the roleplaying element was still there, altered a bit, but still present. Your character could be played however you, the player, wanted it to be played. Yes alignments are still there but more as overall guides lacking detail which the players could fill in. And most important of all I had fun doing so. So for all you D&D folks out there no matter what your edition remember without fun there is no point in playing any game. Peace. :biggrin:

DragonmagRT
05-01-2009, 09:06 PM
I enjoy all the AD&D versions. Out of the entire 3rd edition jumble, pathfinder comes up as being very good. I also like 4th edition too. I know, tar and feather me, but I think that the newest addition addreses the oft complained problem of characters all coming out cookie cuttered. Not a perfect creation, but an improvement in my book.

nijineko
05-02-2009, 11:59 AM
i like the earlier editions, but i am most familiar with third ed and it's variants. so that's what is easiest for me.

but then i'm fond of lots of systems. ^^

Baron_Samedi
05-04-2009, 08:54 AM
I suppose it could be a case of simple bias, being that it was the first edition i really got into, but i'm going to have to go with 3.x. The variety of races, classes, spells, abilities and feats really allows for highly customised characters as opposed to some other cookie cutter PC's. Although i will admit, 4e is streamlined, and there is a considerable amount in the reduction of paperwork, and page flipping, it lends itself too much, (in my opinion) to power gaming, and seems at times to be too much like a CCG. Plus 3.x does have an incarnation of Ravenloft via Sword and Sorcery games, which was well thought out and very detailed about the campaign setting...

Webhead
05-05-2009, 11:42 PM
I just can't shake my nostalgia for the days of running and playing 2E. Things were so much simpler and more imaginative back then (at least, that's how I remember it anyway). Back when all we had was a PHB, DMG and MM and "Kits" were the coolest things ever. No other books or rules to clutter us up and a GM making an on-the-spot ruling still meant something which the players gleefully accepted and continued on to high adventure.

Also, the best D&D campaign setting ever was conceived during the reign of 2E...Dark Sun. All the attempts at converting it to other editions have been disappointing.

That said, these days I'd probably opt for either the Rules Cyclopedia (Basic D&D) or Labyrinth Lord (Basic D&D "retro-clone") for simplicity, fun and adventure.

Baron_Samedi
05-06-2009, 06:43 AM
Good call about Dark Sun; and although i'm a huge fan of Ravenloft, one must also not discount Al-Qadim and Planescape as well...

stonebreaker
05-06-2009, 11:39 AM
2nd for me. Lots of fond memories DM'ing a 2e campaign for 4 years with mostly the same group of guy's. 1st will always have a place in my heart, but 2e was a much cleaner game to play (rules wise). Just started playing again after 12 years away and I have to say 3.5 is great. Pathfinder looks promising. 4e is rubbish.

LastGunslinger
05-06-2009, 04:40 PM
Like most of you, i grew up on D&D. And although I'm still fairly young (i have youth. jealous, i know.), i've had a chance to play all editions of D&D and have experienced them all quite well. Though i like AD&D's racial setup, added in with different titles for every class level, and the whole "age class" changing your stats, the whole combat system was a little confusing. 3.5 fixed that problem, but I wasn't really IMPRESSED by it. I'm gonna have to go with the underdog, here, voting for 4.0!

WOOT WOOT GO TIEFLINGS!!!!

Webhead
05-06-2009, 07:57 PM
...one must also not discount Al-Qadim and Planescape as well...

Indeed. I've still got an Al-Qadim boxed set plus Arabian Adventures. That was one setting that I always wanted to play but somehow never did.

And Planescape was cool too. I never owned it, but at least one person in each of my gaming groups did at any given time and I would page-flip frequently.

MortonStromgal
05-06-2009, 09:20 PM
2E but theres alot about 2E I don't like, however it was much easier to houserule to tolerable than the later editions(I dont like battlemats or minis for the record) and you had some great settings FR, Ravenloft, Planescape, and Dark Sun to name a few. 3.5E though has the BEST 3rd party books. Necromancer Games, Green Ronin and others really made some quality products there. The WOTC stuff was kinda boring in comparison.

Mead
05-07-2009, 11:05 AM
I prefer pre-Options 2nd Ed. but the old first edition modules.

Also voted for Hackmaster; I've bought several books, read through it, joined the HMPA, read all the KotDTs but never been able to find a game.

Moritz
05-07-2009, 03:56 PM
v3.5 baby. But mostly because I never really read or understood the rules of v1, v2 or ever even seen v4. v3.5 makes sense to me. Very straight forward.

chrono21791
05-17-2009, 02:42 PM
I've never played anything but 3.x and 4e, but I do like 3.x better than the fourth. I just like the versatility; I favor more options above anything else. I hate to be limited, and as a DM, I hate to limit my players. Aside from that, 3.x is easier to fudge up the rules to your liking without terribly unbalancing the game. Its a little harder to do in 4e... maybe its just because I havn't played it that much, though. For now, I prefer 3.x

kirksmithicus
05-18-2009, 01:15 AM
I played 1e and skipped to 4e. Anyway, I like 4e alright, better than 1e anyway. I wish they would have streamlined 4e a little more, like not including powers for the martial classes and such. Or maybe changing the way martial powers work. Instead of I use power Q and it does x, y, and z. They might have gone the, if conditions a, b, and c are met you can use your power. I dunno.

Moritz
05-18-2009, 10:43 AM
I found this by accident, it's an early review of D&Dv3. Interesting how WotC and D&D has come so far since 2000 (and beyond). Figured it would sort of fit in this thread.

http://www.gamegrene.com/node/20?fro...ts_per_page=70

Baldwin Stonewood
05-19-2009, 11:09 AM
I played 1E then took a long hiatus before gaming again. When I resumed 3.5 was out and WoWC had not announced the change over, so I went out an purchased a lot of the 3.5 books (over 40 of them). I'm sticking to 3.5 and pathfinder's backward compatible system. Besides the financial reasons, I like 3.5.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
05-19-2009, 11:19 AM
I had collected pretty much everything 3.5. Then when 4.0 came out, coupled with the fact that i was moving to a new location where the gamers i knew only played core, i gave all my stuff away to a fellow gamer that would put them to good use. I also gave him about 200 Dragon Magazines. yeah, i can be pretty cool. He's currently in and running a few campaigns down south. One of the other players in said campaign is a member here on P&PG. Perhaps you've seen him, his name it tamerath on these boards.

Rook
05-21-2009, 10:27 AM
While all the editions seem to have some merits, I have to stick with 1E + home rules as my favorite. It was simple and fun. Later editions, especially 3 and 3.5, seem overly cumbersome at times. I don't want to have to refer to 9 different rules in order to determine the outcome of a simple action.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
05-21-2009, 10:30 AM
While all the editions seem to have some merits, I have to stick with 1E + home rules as my favorite. It was simple and fun. Later editions, especially 3 and 3.5, seem overly cumbersome at times. I don't want to have to refer to 9 different rules in order to determine the outcome of a simple action.
1E plus homerules is the best. I 2nd that, Rook. Too bad you live about 2400 miles to far.

lespapillons
05-22-2009, 09:33 PM
I'm new to D&D, so it's hard to say. I like the 4th edition, but it doesn't seem challenging enough. I bought a couple of 3.0's from ebay, and hopefully they'll fit me better.

Garthungalor
05-24-2009, 11:00 AM
I got my feet wet back in the day with the box sets and could not wait to get the "hardcovers". I voted for 1E only because that's where it all started for me. It was all about getting together with your buddies on weekends and playing D&D until you dropped :)

I've played and grown up with all the other editions also and each of them brought something different to the table. Nothing is more exciting then buying the core rulebooks for the newest edition and sitting down with your friends and playing for the first time. I've had a blast playing them all but for sheer sentimentality, I went with 1E.

madcrazy986
05-24-2009, 01:00 PM
I grew up playing 2e, and it will always be my first love. I've played every edition after, and enjoyed them all to varying degrees. However, I have recently become enthralled with Hack Master and now own most of the books for it, it's pretty complicated but I love complicated haha.

Xandros
05-24-2009, 03:46 PM
I always have to go with 3.5 (with variant and house rules). Though I actually like the original game adventures more. When I finish designing my latest campaign world I plan to get out my old 'Keep on the Borderland' module, convert it to the 3.5 variant and start the players off with that.

Garthungalor
05-25-2009, 10:21 AM
I grew up playing 2e, and it will always be my first love. I've played every edition after, and enjoyed them all to varying degrees. However, I have recently become enthralled with Hack Master and now own most of the books for it, it's pretty complicated but I love complicated haha.

If you love complicated try a game called Rolemaster made by Iron Crown Enterprises (ICE). It's a great game but is VERY complicated. I played it with my friends for years but ended up going back to D&D for simplicities sake. Every once in a while we'll still bust it out!

MrFrost
05-25-2009, 10:31 AM
I agree with all of these statements. 2nd ed is still my favorite as well, but good god the Options books were awful. 3rd edition isn't as bad as I thought it was when it first came out, but I can see the argument that it became cumbersome.

I've yet to try 4th, so I can't comment on it directly.

I am going to have to disagree with this statement, there is NOTHING like getting together with your gang. Sitting around a table drinking beer and eating chips while rolling the dice of 20. No PC, Laptop or Console can replicate the fellowship you can only gain this way.

Being a Avid gamer (both online and p&p) it can be very fun playing games online (shooters and what not) but you never get that fellowship with out some face to face. Thats why I think a part of the game will always ramin Pen & Paper.

Ezero
05-26-2009, 12:39 AM
So far, I've only played 4E in depth, I've only played one game of 3.5, and it felt like it was rather cumbersome to me.

Of course, I'm willing to give it another shot, I'm just comfie with 4E right now.

Tamburlain
05-31-2009, 07:34 AM
For me it would be a tie between Moldvay B/X D&D and 4e. I've never played the OD&D that predates Holmes, but would love to give it a try... Grognards are few in my neck of the woods, unfortunately.

But in any case, I voted 4e in this poll for the simple fact that I started off NOT WANTING to like it. Really. Like many, I had prepared myself a long tall glass of haterade and was primed and ready to drink that sucker down. Then I played it. And played it again, and then again. Then I DMed it, and since then--and after ironing-out a few legitimate kinks--my players haven't wanted to play much else.

My first 4e game: I thought, well that was actually pretty fun. I had heard all of the WoW comparisons, and again I was ready to dislike 4e maybe mainly because I'd never thought Wow was all that much fun or all that interesting. But to me, after giving it a shot, it played much more like a well-contextualized miniature war game, with a little role-playing on the side in order to connect the skirmishes. It actually reminded me of Heroscape far more than some MMORPG.

My second and third 4e games: I thought, wait a minute, if this is just a minis war game, then why did I have even more fun than the first time I played? The answer was increased spontaneous role-playing. Okay, so maybe there is a framework for a moderate level of role playing here! Wellsy, I thinks to mysellf, this is interesting indeed...

And by the next game, I was hooked. It's all about managing the flow and freedom of skill checks.

Ultimately, and since extensively DMing 4e, I have come to think of this newest edition of D&D as an Action Adventure Tactical Roleplaying Game. Meaning, it is tremendously versatile. As a DM, with minimal prep and/or houseruling I can run it as schlock adventure pulp or intense sword & sorcery role-playing. My conversion from would-be hater came after I slowly began to appreciate why the changes make sense, and consequently how much control I now have as a DM to adjust the dial on the combat-to-role-playing ratio as my group sees fit, depending on my and my players' changing moods.

Dark
05-31-2009, 10:21 AM
My favorite was the Basic D&D but then again I loved 1e but my close second to basic would be 3.5e and unlike others I won't bring my hate into the post as it wasn't meant to be a why I hate this edition or why this edition is awesome for this or that.

Point is if you like 0e great if you like 1e great, 2e guess what? Great. If you like 3e great, 3.5e great and if you like 4e great. We all have our likes and dislikes what pisses me off is the ramming down the throats of which is better. I have stated which editions I liked and which ones I don't, as well as 99% of the rest of us.

I've noticed this conflict is starting to grow more and more I've said my peace as have the rest of you so for the sake of this fourm please let it rest and move on to something more constructive before this discussion dissolves into something ugly.

Tamburlain
05-31-2009, 10:41 AM
Huh. I'll have to go and re-read the posts on this thread from the beginning, but offhand I don't remember anyone ramming anything down anyone's throats. My throat, at least, feels relatively un-rammed.

tesral
05-31-2009, 10:58 AM
For me it would be a tie between Moldvay B/X D&D and 4e. I've never played the OD&D that predates Holmes, but would love to give it a try... Grognards are few in my neck of the woods, unfortunately.


No, no you don't. However you can accurately simulate playing 0e D&D by not using any books and rolling the dice occasionally for flavor. No one has any powers, the "magic-user" has a few anemic spells.

In the basic books (no supplements) you have Cleric, Fighting men and Magic user. Races barely get a passing mention as Dwarves, Elves Hobbits (not halflings) and Other Character Types. The rest of the books are similarly light on any detail.

Tamburlain
05-31-2009, 11:30 AM
Ah, well that's good to know. It may be that OD&D is just a little too "O" for me, then.

I've been thinking about trying out one of the retro clones that have recently sprung onto the scene, so now I know to skip the one that replicates the game from '74. There are two others, Basic Fantasy and Labyrinth Lord, that I hope to be able to use to supplement my old Moldvay material that I have from back in the day, and which I am now using to introduce the game to my kids.

OH, and if anyone's interested in retro clones, here (http://totheblogmobile.com/2009/05/08/a-guide-to-retro-clone-roleplaying-games/) is a good summary.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
05-31-2009, 11:43 AM
Thanks for the link. I'm going to go do some reading now.

tesral
05-31-2009, 11:51 AM
I find it intresting that people would want to play these rules. Old School isn't the rules. It's the attitude. You can old school game with any set of rules or no rules at all. My current game is old school because it has old school gamers.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
05-31-2009, 11:58 AM
There is a magick with the old-school games that cant be denied. I love old-school for this very reason. I've even played hesitant players through some of the older stuff, and they all said they were amazed how much they enjoyed it. tesral is right, there definitely is an attitude that comes with playing the classics (one doesn't need to play old school to enjoy the attitude of old school, but having experience from that time, or those rules, helps bring the attitude into today's editions).

To this day, all the gamers i had made try a 4-8 hour sessions can be called up on a moments notice to play another one day adventure. Sure, they still play their current editions, but they will put down everything for a one day adventure with the older editions. It's that 'attitude' that magickally appears when playing these old school games that calls them back for more adventuring.

Another thing about old school is that there are so many players still playing it...for a reason. I suggest everyone try it once, even if it is to get to know the roots of dnd. Here's just one of many support pages for your perusal. www.dragonsfoot.org (http://www.dragonsfoot.org)

korhal23
05-31-2009, 12:23 PM
I voted for 4E because I have the most fun with its combat. Quality roleplaying exists outside of any ruleset, but combat mechanics are unique to every game, and I believe 4E gets it done better than any of the other editions of D&D. It's not my favorite game ever, but it is my favorite D&D.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
05-31-2009, 12:41 PM
4E isn't my favorite edition either, but i must admit that its simplicity makes it a great edition for Cons.

Tamburlain
05-31-2009, 12:51 PM
I find it intresting that people would want to play these rules. Old School isn't the rules. It's the attitude. You can old school game with any set of rules or no rules at all. My current game is old school because it has old school gamers.

I hear what you're saying. An example of a deliberate attempt at this attitude would be Monte Cook's new 'Dungeon-A-Day' enterprise. And if I had more old school gamers at my disposal (am I mid-school, I wonder?)--then I would be happy to play (any game) their style and try my best to match what I think is the attitude.

However, there are a few other factors that lead me to want to try both the attitude and the rules--at the same time. At least occasionally.

1. The first is obviously just nostalgia. I can't deny it, though it's probably the reason I'm least comfortable with. The stripped down aesthetics just appeal to the kid in me.

2. Then there is economy and portability. There is something great about putting an entire game-world into a single little box. The smallness of scale eases any DM's "completion anxiety", e.g. Oh no, if I don't stay up to date on the latest new-fangled release, then maybe my players won't be able to play the way they want to. Lastly, by neatly packing the system itself into a smallish set of books and accessories, I can break out a game at work during lunchtime. As much as I am now enjoying 4e, I can't imagine how I would approximate this level of portability.

3. Lastly, I like the idea that a community of "old-schoolers" has evolved to share resources and ideas about how to maintain a style and lightness of mechanics that, at its best, encourages quite a bit of social negotiation, or communal imagination if you will. Yes, this can be acheived with other versions, but it takes more work and planning. And sometimes I'm lazy. I like the idea of a person being able to say, hey I'm bored, you wanna play a game of D&D?--and then being able to just whip out a few dice, a sheet or two of notebook paper, a single rules pamphlet, and say, Yeah sure, let's go!

Deadone
05-31-2009, 12:53 PM
I find it intresting that people would want to play these rules. Old School isn't the rules. It's the attitude. You can old school game with any set of rules or no rules at all. My current game is old school because it has old school gamers.

Spoken like someone who's never truly played old school dnd. I played two months of adnd and loved it before switched to 3e. We then switched to 3.5 and there I fell in love with the feel the way you could be what you wanted to be the freedom to mold your character. Now 4e I've played for 3 months now and it is ok but in no way is it better. Different yes faster I suppose so but does it have that same gritty feel? No to me it feels like no matter how hard they have tried the feeling of what dnd was is gone for 4e. I play dnd but if I get a offer to play earlier ones count me in brotha.

korhal23
05-31-2009, 01:38 PM
Spoken like someone who's never truly played old school dnd. I played two months of adnd and loved it before switched to 3e. We then switched to 3.5 and there I fell in love with the feel the way you could be what you wanted to be the freedom to mold your character. Now 4e I've played for 3 months now and it is ok but in no way is it better. Different yes faster I suppose so but does it have that same gritty feel? No to me it feels like no matter how hard they have tried the feeling of what dnd was is gone for 4e. I play dnd but if I get a offer to play earlier ones count me in brotha.

:confused: What? 3 and 3.5 had begun the transition away from the grit of old school games. And even before that, AD&D didn't have to be super gritty either. Everything comes down the the GM and what they do with it. You can make 4E just a gritty as any other with a little bit of ingenuity. Just as in old school D&D a GM could remove the grit.

Different yes, faster when your group is competant, and a slightly different default feel. Saying you don't like 4E for your purposes/group is one thing, and fair enough. But calling it a bad game... well that's just straight wrong. The combat is definitely the focus, and there's far more options now in combat than their ever were, and characters are more durable. You decry this as a weakening of the game, I applaud this as a strengthening of the players, and truly making the game more freeform and up to the players than ever before. Perhaps you got your jollies from slaughtering your players by the truckload. If that's your style more power to you, but that isn't for everyone. Continue to play your older edition, and let the people who like the newer one play that, and we'll each have our reasons for liking our edition of choice.

Attacking someone as, I don't know, I guess you were trying to imply tesral isn't old school/hardcore enough for you, just makes you seem a bit mean. There's no reason to bite someone's head off for disagreeing on something as insignificant (or one million percent subjective) as which flavor of RPG they prefer.

tesral
05-31-2009, 09:11 PM
Another thing about old school is that there are so many players still playing it...for a reason. I suggest everyone try it once, even if it is to get to know the roots of dnd. Here's just one of many support pages for your perusal. www.dragonsfoot.org (http://www.dragonsfoot.org)

Marked for later pursiual


Spoken like someone who's never truly played old school dnd. I played two months of adnd and loved it before switched to 3e. We then switched to 3.5 and there I fell in love with the feel the way you could be what you wanted to be the freedom to mold your character. Now 4e I've played for 3 months now and it is ok but in no way is it better. Different yes faster I suppose so but does it have that same gritty feel? No to me it feels like no matter how hard they have tried the feeling of what dnd was is gone for 4e. I play dnd but if I get a offer to play earlier ones count me in brotha.

(Chuckle) Dude, I have been playing non stop since 1976. I am hard core old school. Started with 0e D&D an worked up through every edition there is except 4.

How do you think I know what was in Men & Magic? I turn around, open a drawer and put my hands on it. I have full reference for D&D, AD&D and 2e AD&D right at my finger tips. (Except the 2e AD&D DMG, my son borrowed it and I haven't seen it since.) I don't have every book published. I never neede them and I'm not a collector.

korhal23
05-31-2009, 11:20 PM
(Chuckle) Dude, I have been playing non stop since 1976. I am hard core old school. Started with 0e D&D an worked up through every edition there is except 4.

How do you think I know what was in Men & Magic? I turn around, open a drawer and put my hands on it. I have full reference for D&D, AD&D and 2e AD&D right at my finger tips. (Except the 2e AD&D DMG, my son borrowed it and I haven't seen it since.) I don't have every book published. I never neede them and I'm not a collector.

Why, tes? Why would you turn this forum into a den of lies? ;)
When I joined the Air Force I got PDFs of all the old stuff I owned (easier to move repeatedly than books.) By the time I finished tech school 4E was on its way in a month, so I waited, loved it, and now I only have hard copies of 4E (well, that's all I have hard copies of that's D&D anyway.) But I have been playing D&D and games of the sort since I learned to roll dice damn near, and I too am old school hardcore.

Oldgamer
06-01-2009, 07:40 AM
Spoken like someone who's never truly played old school dnd. I played two months of adnd and loved it before switched to 3e. We then switched to 3.5 and there I fell in love with the feel the way you could be what you wanted to be the freedom to mold your character. Now 4e I've played for 3 months now and it is ok but in no way is it better. Different yes faster I suppose so but does it have that same gritty feel? No to me it feels like no matter how hard they have tried the feeling of what dnd was is gone for 4e. I play dnd but if I get a offer to play earlier ones count me in brotha.


Actually, AD&D gave you more freedom to be what you wanted. there were no splat books. You wanted to be a buccaneer? You made a Fighter and acted like he was a pirate, you role-played a pirate. In 3.x you have a splat book that defines a pirate, gives it rules and binds it. Not like the old school stuff, and I know, because I've been playing since 1983. Not as long as tesral, but a lot longer than most D&Ders. When I started, it was all imagination with little rules to stand in the way. Now it is the other way around. I've enjoyed all editions since Basic (including the lesser known Expert, Companion, Immortal, etc) all the way to 3.5 where I stop ... I played 4e twice with hopes it was going to be something special, and to me is another step away from what D&D was and more towards a tactical game.

I'm not going to argue which is better, since I like them all until the most recent split. But when people start saying the older rules gave you less freedom, I gotta say whoa. The newer the version, the more the rules dictate.

tesral
06-01-2009, 10:43 AM
I'm not going to argue which is better, since I like them all until the most recent split. But when people start saying the older rules gave you less freedom, I gotta say whoa. The newer the version, the more the rules dictate.

Forry comes full circle back to the Fantasy Supplement for Chainmail. It's a wargame again, minis required.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
06-01-2009, 10:50 AM
Actually, AD&D gave you more freedom to be what you wanted. there were no splat books. You wanted to be a buccaneer? You made a Fighter and acted like he was a pirate, you role-played a pirate. In 3.x you have a splat book that defines a pirate, gives it rules and binds it. Not like the old school stuff, and I know, because I've been playing since 1983. Not as long as tesral, but a lot longer than most D&Ders. When I started, it was all imagination with little rules to stand in the way. Now it is the other way around. I've enjoyed all editions since Basic (including the lesser known Expert, Companion, Immortal, etc) all the way to 3.5 where I stop ... I played 4e twice with hopes it was going to be something special, and to me is another step away from what D&D was and more towards a tactical game.

I'm not going to argue which is better, since I like them all until the most recent split. But when people start saying the older rules gave you less freedom, I gotta say whoa. The newer the version, the more the rules dictate.
I find that most folks that find fault with the early editions, are speaking as parrots to others, for without exception, when confronting these anti-early edition gamers, find that they have never played said edition they're making comments on.

Tamburlain
06-01-2009, 11:57 AM
Pardon me. I'm now going to have to clear myself a little space and pitch a fit.

The accusation that satisfied players of later D&D editions (2nd-4th) are somehow less imaginative than or else are playing less imaginatively than their golden age predecessors is one that really bums me out. And I say this as someone who has respect for the "old school" movement and enjoys playing old-fashioned Basic D&D.

Unless the game prohibits it, I don't understand the logic that says just because the system provides structured options to customize characters (classes, builds, paths, etc.), that you can't opt for less structured character creation or role-play. These modes of play are not exclusive.

Quite the opposite, the structure is provided with the aim to expedite a selection of options. Think about it. If you want a game that maximizes choices for character-building, would it really be better if no structure was provided to benchmark those choices? If we are advocating the stripping away of over-specialization as a poison to imagination, then why settle for creating a fighter who also happens to be a pirate? What is so magically imaginative about the concept of "fighter"?--Why not just have a class called guy with a weapon who then may be role-played like a fighting man, who in turn is role-played like a fighter, which in turn is role-played like a buccaneer, who in turn is role-played like Dread Pirate Roberts?

If you want to play Dread Pirate Roberts, what difference does it make if you took one, two, or twenty steps in customizing him?--As long as you're free to keep it as rules-light as you wish. Does the amount of imagination we bring to bear on playing a given character increase by virtue of its having utmost generic origins? If so then I must ask, why then should a "magic user" have a pre-generated list of spells provided by the game? Wouldn't it be more imaginative to describe to the DM whatever you happen to think up and want to happen? "And for my next trick, my good DM, I shall cast a little something I like to call 'Kobold's head blows up real good'"...

And, hey, while we're stripping things down, why use dice or other randomness generators? Why involve encounters of any sort that force players to mitigate uncertainty by making tactical decisions? If we were really imaginative like they were back in the old days, wouldn't we just tell stories to each other, bounce back and forth narratives, whose structural variations would "compete" spontaneously for their next retelling? As it turns out, there are in fact story-telling rpgs which try to simulate this process through a variety of ingenious, mostly tacit, mechanics. I even like some of them. But they're not D&D, which, for as long as I've played the game, has always involved explicit structure, narrative-binding (but also narrative-branching), and tactically-determined outcomes.

To me, aside from the obvious importance of enjoying a game's central mechanic and having a talented GM, whether I'm playing B/X D&D or 4e (any rpg of this genre), what matters equally are questions of choice, equity, and challenge. For instance:

1) Does this game allow me to bring to life the character I have in mind to play? And concurrently...

2) Does the game provide an equitable framework to negotiate the evolution and integration of my character with the lives of other players' characters and the game-world we are shaping?

These questions leave a lot of elbow room for personal predilection regarding the type and degree of scaffolding that a game-system may provide; yet, if I can answer yes to them on my own terms and in terms satisfying to my fellow players, then I count myself lucky! For I have a quality game made for quality play. And edition-partisans, along with their catalog of grievances, can jump in a lake. With the fundamentals in place, there shouldn't be anyone else to blame if I don't have fun, because ultimately the final limit on imagination is me, the imaginer.

Oldgamer
06-01-2009, 03:24 PM
You are then rare indeed Tamburlain, because the responses you're getting from "old schoolers" are from people who've experienced the majority of newer gamers the exact opposite. In my experience, and I have a lot, the newer gamers who have or have not played the old systems and like the latest and greatest coming out, are typically powergamers focused on mechanics and not imagination. You Tamburlain, apparently are the exception to this, but the fact that there are more than 80 splat books for 3.x says that there has been a very good market of people who require laid out rules for making that Dread Pirate instead of just using their own imaginations.

And I have played in diceless and practically rule-less games many times and it's quite fun. The only rules are common sense and general physics mixed with imagination.

Tamburlain
06-01-2009, 03:56 PM
And I have played in diceless and practically rule-less games many times and it's quite fun. The only rules are common sense and general physics mixed with imagination.

Yup, me too. Well, diceless at least; not rule-less. I suppose it depends on how we define rules. And some are among my favorite games. Have you ever played Polaris (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12354.phtml)? Hyper-atmospheric role-playing based on a mechanic that consists of little more than ritualized storytelling... A real story game, mind you, not an action/adventure rpg dressed up as a storytelling game (e.g. WoD).

I haven't had a chance to play Amber yet, but among the completely diceless games I've tried, my current favorite--which I just cannot say enough good things about--is a diceless rpg called Montsegur 1244 (http://thoughtfulgames.com/montsegur1244/index.html). Amazing game.

yukonhorror
06-01-2009, 04:02 PM
I would have to say though that official support for things like pirates is nice, because some DM's won't allow it unless it is published.

Case in point. I wanted to be a barbarian in first edition. The DM didn't have the unearthed arcana (yet), so we made him a fighter. I tried to stay with the barbarian concept (leather or hide armor, etc...) but the game doesn't support that gameplay. It is much harder to survive alongside the paladin sporting platemail next to you when all you have is leather. In 3rd edition (and 4e) there are game mechanics to work around having to use big heavy metal armor (and those mechanics actually discourage its use) and still be as useful as the armor clad paladin.

I think this would apply to your pirate too. If everybody is a pirate, then there is no problem, but if one is a pirate and the other is a man-of-war, the man-of-war is going to outshine the pirate unless the DM intervenes in the mechanics. Intervening in the mechanics is like changing the source code of a program. By getting one thing to work out for you, you may be creating 20 more problems as a result.

RoryN
06-01-2009, 04:09 PM
I voted for 2E, because that's the edition I spent the most time with. Starting as many did with the red and blue boxed sets of Basid D&D, our group moved up to Advanced D&D pretty quickly. We had a lot of fun no matter which edition we played, although we never did get nastolgic and move back to 1E or the boxed sets after moving to 2E.

I did play some 3E early on after it's release, and enjoyed what we did, but I felt it was kind of skewed towards the power gamer (min/maxer) type player. Since I never really played that way, I just wasn't into it that much.

Haven't really seen anything of 4E, but I've heard that some people think it's better that the previous versions, and some say it's the worst. But hey, to each his own. At's all about having fun, right? :D

Tamburlain
06-01-2009, 04:56 PM
I would have to say though that official support for things like pirates is nice, because some DM's won't allow it unless it is published.

Case in point. I wanted to be a barbarian in first edition. The DM didn't have the unearthed arcana (yet), so we made him a fighter. I tried to stay with the barbarian concept (leather or hide armor, etc...) but the game doesn't support that gameplay. It is much harder to survive alongside the paladin sporting platemail next to you when all you have is leather. In 3rd edition (and 4e) there are game mechanics to work around having to use big heavy metal armor (and those mechanics actually discourage its use) and still be as useful as the armor clad paladin.

I think this would apply to your pirate too. If everybody is a pirate, then there is no problem, but if one is a pirate and the other is a man-of-war, the man-of-war is going to outshine the pirate unless the DM intervenes in the mechanics. Intervening in the mechanics is like changing the source code of a program. By getting one thing to work out for you, you may be creating 20 more problems as a result.

Yes, this is exactly why increased specialization finds an easy market among consumers of the splat books, etc. that OldGamer mentioned earlier. People want to play the character that they want to play, which goes back to the two questions I posed in my post above. Does the game support it? Does it give you adequate choices? Finally, does it make for equitable and challenging role playing?

I for one appreciate how 4e supports and individualizes the thematic and mechanical benefits of different roles, classes and builds, and this is one of the reasons it's my favorite of the later editions; but not everyone looks at mechanical advantage as a the final incentive for role-playing their character. Not to insult, but I think that your DM sounds a little fussy. In many ways, earlier-edition DMs were far more powerful in terms of picking and choosing which rules they wanted to play by. A 1st ed. AD&D fighter could indeed be min/maxed to look and feel like a classic barbarian, and in a way that would not necessarily leave the game unbalanced. Though it's also true that there would be no guarantee that such a barbarian would be as powerful as you or I might wish or in every way that we might wish. And, yeah, maybe this would be a reasonable motive for moving to a system that allowed me to take my imagination where I wanted to take it.

korhal23
06-01-2009, 05:06 PM
Yay Tamburlain, you are spot on. I love the splat books, the extra PHBs, the classes in official campaign guides... extra player choices are never ever ever a bad thing.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
06-01-2009, 05:35 PM
I'm also pro spatbooks. Anything extra is always a good thing.

cigamnogard
06-01-2009, 05:47 PM
I am really getting into 4e. The main reason: it has fixed everything I didn't like about older editions. Like limiting which races could be which classes or leveling up at different exp pts,...
Interesting! I don't want to play basic races and I totally disagree with you on this point - I want to play trolls, hound archons, and well I don't want to play a human - I am one!



... the overdependence upon a healer in the group.
Very interesting! Now this point I totally agree with you on.

Xandros
06-02-2009, 02:43 AM
Actually, AD&D gave you more freedom to be what you wanted. there were no splat books. You wanted to be a buccaneer? You made a Fighter and acted like he was a pirate, you role-played a pirate. Unless you wanted to be a magic user or thief that wore armor. You couldn't. There wasn't a penalty to move or casting if you did, you simply couldn't. "What happens if I try to put armor on my thief, does he explode?" "No, you just can't." Or if you wanted to be a Dwarven Paladin or other forbidden class. Or a fighter/thief. Every class also had a minimum attribute, so you didn't have the freedom to be a fighter if your Strength wasn't high enough. So you had more freedom to play the limited number of classes presented within the constraints laid out for each class, so long as it was one of the acceptable classes for your race and you had the prerequisite ability scores, then you could call it another name. In 3E you could still play a fighter as a pirate, act like a pirate and roleplay a pirate, or you could play a pirate class from a 'splat book'. Wouldn't more choices actually be More Freedom? So in 3rd Ed. you had the same freedom mentioned plus some others.

tesral
06-02-2009, 10:06 AM
I would have to say though that official support for things like pirates is nice, because some DM's won't allow it unless it is published.
.

And there it is in a nutshell. Everything is forbidden unless it is permitted. It has to have the official stamp of approval for many "new school" gamers or they will not touch it.

Old School is in the just do it camp. Everything is permitted unless it is forbidden. And we didn't take forbidden all that seriously. We didn't have published details for this or that, you made it up.

Tamburlain your attitude is unusual. Old School has nothing to do with the rules and everything to do with the attitude. An attitude that came from having no rules. I started playing D&D with four digest sized books a combined 9/16th of an inch thick. That is less total verbiage than the average 3.5 splat book. That was for ALL the rules, monster descriptions, spells, everything.

Because of that lack of structure the Old School gamers learned to invent structure on the fly. The Instant Authoritative Answer is the old School DM's stock in trade. You don't look it up, you decide. New School has to consult the books.

Oldgamer
06-02-2009, 12:07 PM
In many ways, earlier-edition DMs were far more powerful in terms of picking and choosing which rules they wanted to play by. A 1st ed. AD&D fighter could indeed be min/maxed to look and feel like a classic barbarian, and in a way that would not necessarily leave the game unbalanced.


Unless you wanted to be a magic user or thief that wore armor. You couldn't. There wasn't a penalty to move or casting if you did, you simply couldn't. "What happens if I try to put armor on my thief, does he explode?" "No, you just can't." Or if you wanted to be a Dwarven Paladin or other forbidden class. Or a fighter/thief. Every class also had a minimum attribute, so you didn't have the freedom to be a fighter if your Strength wasn't high enough. So you had more freedom to play the limited number of classes presented within the constraints laid out for each class, so long as it was one of the acceptable classes for your race and you had the prerequisite ability scores, then you could call it another name. In 3E you could still play a fighter as a pirate, act like a pirate and roleplay a pirate, or you could play a pirate class from a 'splat book'. Wouldn't more choices actually be More Freedom? So in 3rd Ed. you had the same freedom mentioned plus some others.

Actually, I still put restrictions even in today's rule-filled games of 3.x and 4e. Just because you want to play a pirate, being the DM and it being a homebrew world set on dry land where no pirates would be found unless sent there as torture by some evil wizard ... I would still say no pirates. I also say no psionics. This decision is not edition based, I have freedom whether a splat book exists for it or not. Splat books are good for a lot of people, they give you templates to work with. But something AD&D taught me, is rules are meant to be broken. By making more of them means you just have more to break.

You want to put armor on a thief? Go ahead, it's your death when the rattling armor gives the thief's chance of Moving Silently a 30% reduction for your intelligent decision. They couldn't wear armor for common sense reasons, but if you wanted to do it ... your DM should consider it, regardless of edition. When I DM any edition, I allow things that others, and the books ... don't. The books were originally designed as a guide, you are only limited by your imagination, not by the rulebooks.

As in all editions, new and old, you will find restrictions by your DM ... most of them you will find are not edition specific, but rather world or campaign specific. Is disallowing certain prestige classes or splat books in your campaign as a DM make the decision any worse than not allowing magic users armor? I've not been in a game yet, regardless of edition that doesn't have some kind of restrictions of some sort. Most games I've played don't allow the Tome of Battle ... my gosh that's restrictive! And guess what ... it's 3.5. Restrictions are not edition specific. Go to Meathweavers.com and look at the games being advertised and write down how many you find that are unrestrictive and then write down how many are and give me the ratio. I would do it myself, but apparently people need to see it for themselves. There are LISTS of books, classes, races, alignments, etc that are not allowed. Look at what edition is being played. To put bluntly since I don't have the actual numbers in front of me (but I've been on the site for a few years now and have read thousands of game ads), you will find the newer editions are the ones with the biggest restrictions. You'll find 4e DM's who don't like Dragonborn characters and wont allow them ... that's as new of an edition as you get.

By using freedom or lack thereof as an argument for which edition is better, just remember DM's choice trancends all editions; you can't attack older editions because they were restrictive when a DM can be just as restrictive (if not more given the amount of errata now to restrict in comparison) in 3.x or 4e.

Webhead
06-02-2009, 09:14 PM
...Old School is in the just do it camp. Everything is permitted unless it is forbidden. And we didn't take forbidden all that seriously. We didn't have published details for this or that, you made it up...

Yes! Let me bask in this phrase for a while! That's the attitude I occasionally find missing in some game groups.


...Because of that lack of structure the Old School gamers learned to invent structure on the fly. The Instant Authoritative Answer is the old School DM's stock in trade. You don't look it up, you decide...

Oh yeah! Though most gamers I have played with regularly prescribe to much the same philosophy, there have actually been a few who could never seem to understand this concept. It could definately be frustrating for both sides in those cases.
--- Merged from Double Post ---

...Wouldn't more choices actually be More Freedom? So in 3rd Ed. you had the same freedom mentioned plus some others.

It's ultimately a matter of personal preference and nothing more. Some people like to have all of their options clearly presented to them and some like the more "do-it-yourself" approach which lets them define their own choices.

agoraderek
06-03-2009, 11:44 AM
1e, mostly due to nostalgia, to be honest. I don't mind 3x, but I hate most of the splatbooks...

deathboy
06-03-2009, 04:27 PM
Hmm, I seem to be in a small minority liking the Pathfinder System. Then again it will not be fully released until GenCon.

Harwel
06-03-2009, 04:45 PM
1e and Basic Sets was my vote. I'll freely admit it for nostalgic reasons since D&D isn't one of my favorite systems. I'm not a hater, it's an OK game system and I'll play it if it's what's being played (I've been in an on-again off-again 2e campaign for the past year or so), but my preferences lie elsewhere.

Webhead
06-03-2009, 07:56 PM
...I don't mind 3x, but I hate most of the splatbooks...

When I recognized early on the direction 3E was going with their splatbooks, it was what ended up disenfranchising me with the game. To give you an idea:

August 1, 2000 - bought PHB

September 1, 2000 - bought DMG

October 1, 2000 - bought MM

January 1, 2001 - bought Sword and Fist

March 1, 2001 - bought Psionics Handbook

July 1, 2001 - bought Tome and Blood

September 2001 - decided not to invest further in 3E books

June 2002 - started to slowly identify and analyze my general beefs and dislikes for the d20 System

February 2003 - long, fun and epic D&D 3E campaign ends and I decide (since I no longer need them) to sell all my 3E books

I played in a couple of short-to-medium 3.5 games after that, but I never reacquired the books. The nice thing was that plenty of players had their own copies, so I could easily just flip through theirs.

SneakSneakStabStab
06-03-2009, 08:11 PM
well being pretty young i have never played any other edition other then 3.5E and a bit of 3E. I was very discouraged to play 4E it just reminded me to much of WOW and I did not want to play that again. So i put my vote down for 3E and 3.5E.

korhal23
06-03-2009, 08:51 PM
well being pretty young i have never played any other edition other then 3.5E and a bit of 3E. I was very discouraged to play 4E it just reminded me to much of WOW and I did not want to play that again. So i put my vote down for 3E and 3.5E.

You know, I hear this from time to time. Makes me giggle a tad, as if Warcraft isn't heavily influenced by D&D (http://www.white-wolf.com/warcraftrpg/).

I mean, when I first picked up Saga Edition Star Wars I was giggling like a schoolgirl cuz of the force powers... then here comes 4E and EVERYONE has powers that are fun and tactically interesting (generally) and I was in Crunchy Gamer Heaven. If you've never been, I'll send you the brochure sometime. I think that having predefined templates for powers is awesome... but here's something fun to do. Next time you play D&D 4E, as a player redefine the flavor text for your powers. Keep the base mechanics, but give your powers a personal spin.

How is D&D like WoW, really though? The archetypes for characters don't come from WoW. A lot of people cite the (relatively) new "tanking" mechanic (I say relatively because go look up the Knight class from 3.5 sometime... PHB2 I believe). However I argue that it's inherently different. In most MMOs, tanks have some arbitrary hate system where they do less damage but cause more hate and their nitwit opponent (who, if a boss of some kind, presumably got to power through SOME kind of show of brains or at least knowing how to fight) doesn't take on the bigger threats, but rather the armored up guy who made fun of their manhood. D&D on the other hand, through marking and other mechanics simulates something much more real (or can be used for such, with a good DM)... that it's exceptionally hard to just up and turn away from someone in a fight without it being exceptionally dangerous for you. But I digress, because I'm not entirely sure why you'd say it reminded you of WoW.

So... why DOES it remind you of WoW?

Webhead
06-03-2009, 08:58 PM
I wouldn't directly compare 4E to WoW but I will say that it is a much more "tactically defined, categorized and cross-balanced" game than its predecessors. Whether you perceive that to be a "good" or "bad" thing in terms of how you want to play your D&D is nothing more than a matter of personal opinion. I'll leave it at that. :)

Tamburlain
06-03-2009, 09:09 PM
An exhaustive discussion of 4e vs. MMORPGs can be found here (http://sigilism.com/blog/?p=33#comment-7). Sigh.

korhal23
06-03-2009, 09:12 PM
Sheesh... I got some readin' to do :P

1958Fury
06-03-2009, 09:18 PM
An exhaustive discussion of 4e vs. MMORPGs can be found here (http://sigilism.com/blog/?p=33#comment-7). Sigh.


...as well as in every third thread posted on the Gleemax forums (http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=693). Until it gets locked.

tesral
06-03-2009, 09:20 PM
I wouldn't directly compare 4E to WoW but I will say that it is a much more "tactically defined,

"Tactically defined", that's a good turn of phrase. Right back to minis and movement.

Webhead
06-03-2009, 09:21 PM
"Tactically defined", that's a good turn of phrase. Right back to minis and movement.

Precisely...

Tamburlain
06-03-2009, 09:33 PM
It's an action adventure tactical rpg to me. But the 4e system is not reducible to miniatures tactical combat. There is also the role-playing adventure part of the equation, which in my own game is punctuated by combat. Not the other way around.

korhal23
06-03-2009, 09:37 PM
It's an action adventure tactical rpg to me. But the 4e system is not reducible to miniatures tactical combat. There is also the role-playing adventure part of the equation, which in my own game is punctuated by combat. Not the other way around.

Bingo.

Grimwell
06-03-2009, 11:09 PM
I like pasta.
...and booze.

Webhead
06-03-2009, 11:13 PM
...There is also the role-playing adventure part of the equation, which in my own game is punctuated by combat. Not the other way around.

Very cool. Tamburlain, I salute you! :usa2:

Oldgamer
06-04-2009, 11:31 AM
I like pasta.
...and booze.


Huzzah!!!

cigamnogard
06-04-2009, 06:14 PM
Huzzah!!!
Pip-pip
Pip-pip
Pip-pip

Soft Serve
06-18-2009, 05:22 PM
I'm apparently a trend whore or something cause every pole I vote in, I end up in the one with the most results.

3.5 E for me.

....but only cause that's the only one I've ever played...

Q-man
06-18-2009, 08:02 PM
I had to vote for both 2E and 4E.

2E since I played it for so long, and just never was able to make the leap into the 3.0 and 3.5 rules. I read them, but for some reason they just never clicked for me.

4E is quickly becoming a favorite. Its shaved off a lot of the minutia that we tended to ignore anyway in 2E without really cutting out the depth of the game. Is still a role playing game, but the combat has simpler rules.

I'm curious about the Pathfinder rules. One of these days I need to grab a copy and do some reading.

deathboy
06-19-2009, 07:44 AM
I'm curious about the Pathfinder rules. One of these days I need to grab a copy and do some reading.


My suggestion Q-Man is to wait until after GenCon, when the final version is released.

You can also see some of the teasers for character on the Paizo site in the Paizo blog section. So far they have done the Fighter, Ranger, Sorcerer, Cleric and Paladin. They are releasing each of the Iconics every Wednesday. They usually have a good break down of the characters so you can see what they did, like their ranger who can deal out 134 points of damage, on average, to a Giant with a crossbow!

The website is: http://paizo.com/paizo

Q-man
06-19-2009, 10:14 AM
Thanks for the tip Deathboy. I'll peruse that blog over the weekend and look into getting the book once its available.

agoraderek
06-21-2009, 07:54 AM
Hmm, I seem to be in a small minority liking the Pathfinder System. Then again it will not be fully released until GenCon.


Oh, I'm playing using Beta rules now, and will pick up with Pathfinder final in August. But, the question was, "which is my favorite", and, like my first true love, AD&D (Gygax edition) will always be first in my heart ;)

Seriously, try to find a 1e group these days...

:)

drewshi
06-23-2009, 08:49 AM
Oh, I'm playing using Beta rules now, and will pick up with Pathfinder final in August. But, the question was, "which is my favorite", and, like my first true love, AD&D (Gygax edition) will always be first in my heart ;)

Seriously, try to find a 1e group these days...

:)

I've got one! :cool:

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
06-23-2009, 09:43 AM
I'd love to play in one.

Oldgamer
06-23-2009, 10:37 AM
I'm playing in a 1st Ed PBeM called Paladin's Nightmare. The DM says it's based off of the old module, but he's kind of tweaked it around some to match our characters backgrounds. We've been playing it for probably better than 10 years.

cigamnogard
06-23-2009, 03:54 PM
I have always wanted to play an Eberron adventure and we just started one this past Sunday!

agoraderek
06-25-2009, 02:42 AM
I'd love to play in one.

From San Antonio:

Take I-10 East. Drive @ three hours. Exit Durham/Sheppard. Take a right on Durham. When you cross Westheimer, take your second right. Go until the road "T"s. Take a right. Call me. Bring dice and paper.

:)

prinnycook
07-13-2009, 08:32 AM
Yes Hackmaster was on the poll list, I though I was one of the few who played it. I started with 1st, but 2nd was out of the time(the group I joined wanted to finish there campaign before starting 2nd). I played 2nd almost from the start of it. Hackmaster for me is like a warm blanket from my early days. Oh I do like 4th a lot.

Soft Serve
07-13-2009, 10:58 AM
From San Antonio:

Take I-10 East. Drive @ three hours. Exit Durham/Sheppard. Take a right on Durham. When you cross Westheimer, take your second right. Go until the road "T"s. Take a right. Call me. Bring dice and paper.

:)


Rofl!

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
07-13-2009, 11:32 AM
I'll be in Texas next year. I may just have to drive by and sit in on a session or two.

Deadone
07-13-2009, 12:47 PM
I voted Pathfinder. I've played Pathfinder at Darks when he got it. I do have to say it is better than 3.5 and ten times better than 4e on a bad day. Dark is in the middle of a huge 3.5 World's Largest Dungeon with the party half way through it. I asked him and he said this winter. I am so pumped I've read the rules back to front and it is such a improvement I can't understand why Wotc didn't do 3.75 it makes so much more sense.

RAD7atmosphere
07-13-2009, 06:11 PM
I am pretty new to playing D&D and I have only played with 3.5E but there isn't anything wrong with it and I'm having fun so I guess it's my favorite. My opinion on the subject prolly doesn't mean much since I haven't tried any other :p

Herr_Alvaro
07-14-2009, 07:14 AM
Altought I liked AD&D and played a lot of 3 ed. I have to say that 3.5 was the best of all. it fixed a lot of issues of the 3rd ed. making it better for all, masters and players.
Regards

templeorder
07-14-2009, 09:30 AM
Having just gotten more exposure to 4e recently, i will again state that the franchise has devolved. Everything about a character is legislated through the rules and there's little need for imagination - it compartmentalizes everything nice... great for a video game of hack, slash, rinse, repeat. Thats just my opinion.... I still like 2E. 4E is great for a powers based system, but there's a lot of other games and editions that were superior for encouraging role-playing.

WhiteTiger
07-14-2009, 11:52 AM
I am currently playing in & also running games using 3.5 with house rules mostly derived from the beta Pathfinder pdf. so I guess you'd call it a mix of 3.5 / 3.75.. :cool:

Bargren Timnath
07-14-2009, 08:53 PM
I've played 2nd Ed, some 3rd, and mostly 3.5 Ed.

For me, 3.5 is where it's at. I love everything about it. I don't have direct experience with 4th Ed, but from everything I've read it's a complete twink-fest.

I will not say I can speak with great authority, but I'm willing to say that 3.5 is the pinnacle of D&D. I hope WoTC takes things in a different direction after 4th Ed. fades out...it's obviously been made for the "video-game" generation of role-players.

I'm not trying to offend anyone that likes 4ed, just stating my opinion! BTW it's great to be on these boards :)

Purgatory
07-24-2009, 08:17 AM
For me I started with AD&D. Played 2nd Edition and 3rd then 3.5. I enjoyed each one of them. Each have there own mechanics that make them work. Also having your friends around and enjoying the game is what it's all about. Havent tried 4th, prolly never will. I just dont feel that it is D&D when they came out with 4th. Like other have said its just a video game on paper form, and I happen to agree.

tesral
07-24-2009, 08:53 AM
Favorite Edition? I have yet to actually state a favorite.

Zero Edition:

Why? The rules are nearly not there, it is barely playable. The why is because it is first, the genesis, the beginning. Without Zero Edition D&D there would be no other versions. No development, no AD&D no Three no nothing. D&D without any numbers started us down the rollicking and rocky path that leads to gaming today. For that reason it is my favorite.

Soft Serve
07-24-2009, 01:47 PM
Favorite Edition? I have yet to actually state a favorite.

Zero Edition:

Why? The rules are nearly not there, it is barely playable. The why is because it is first, the genesis, the beginning. Without Zero Edition D&D there would be no other versions. No development, no AD&D no Three no nothing. D&D without any numbers started us down the rollicking and rocky path that leads to gaming today. For that reason it is my favorite.


Honoring the oldies.

RoryN
07-24-2009, 06:56 PM
Well, earlier in the thread I voiced my opinion for 2E. I am seriously looking at getting some of the 3.5 books though, if for nothing else to open up more possibilities for gaming. I found 5 of the books on Amazon for under $50 total (PHB, DMG, and MM's I, II, & III). Should be a decent start at least. Any other 3.5 books that people favor having to enhance that version?

Soft Serve
07-24-2009, 10:11 PM
Get at least one supplement.

Like Eberron, or Pathfinder.

Eberron gives you The artificers and Warforged for races which are major pluses for me.

Or Psionics but psionics seem to make people mad...

Oldgamer
07-25-2009, 10:16 AM
Well, earlier in the thread I voiced my opinion for 2E. I am seriously looking at getting some of the 3.5 books though, if for nothing else to open up more possibilities for gaming. I found 5 of the books on Amazon for under $50 total (PHB, DMG, and MM's I, II, & III). Should be a decent start at least. Any other 3.5 books that people favor having to enhance that version?


Hmm, the Oldgamer in me says Unearthed Arcana, you would probably like the flavor there. Also the PHB2, the Complete series (ie: Complete Warrior, Complete Divine, Complete Scoundrel, etc.) The Races of series, (Races of the Wild, Races of Destiny, Races of Stone, etc) and any of the Campaign Settings you like, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Eberron ... and they each have nice expansion books therein for each setting.

Soft Serve
07-25-2009, 02:31 PM
Hmm, the Oldgamer in me says Unearthed Arcana, you would probably like the flavor there. Also the PHB2, the Complete series (ie: Complete Warrior, Complete Divine, Complete Scoundrel, etc.) The Races of series, (Races of the Wild, Races of Destiny, Races of Stone, etc) and any of the Campaign Settings you like, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Eberron ... and they each have nice expansion books therein for each setting.

And then theres Stormwrack, Frostburn, and Sandstorm that are pretty amazing. I love the Ice Chucker Crossbow from Frostburn. It deals 1d12. :D

OH and Oriental Adventures, and Ghostwalk. Oriental Adventures is pretty popular with people surprisingly.

Now you've got a list!

CEBedford
07-26-2009, 11:17 AM
I wish I could change my vote to Pathfinder. I didn't get into it until after I voted. :biggrin:

Soft Serve
07-26-2009, 07:54 PM
I wish I could change my vote to Pathfinder. I didn't get into it until after I voted. :biggrin:

Could always start a new thread.

(my evil plot to clog P&PG bandwidth is working!)

Takatchi
07-27-2009, 01:00 PM
Considering that I've played 3.5 for most of my D&D career, with a brief stint in 3.0 before it, I have to say that I'm in love with it. As my first pen and paper RPG, it was the one that managed to endear itself to me the most. A lot of folks claim it was flawed or broken or otherwise maligned for various things, but I don't care - I never looked at its flaws and got so hung up over them that I couldn't enjoy the game.

Grimwell
07-28-2009, 12:47 AM
Could always start a new thread.

(my evil plot to clog P&PG bandwidth is working!)

Or perhaps run this bi-annually, or quarterly and note the trends?

Then it's not insanity, but is also useful. :lol:

Doom Crow
07-28-2009, 09:38 AM
Pathfinder all the way :tea:

Why? The writing for the adventure paths and the campaign setting is fantastic, the rules smooth out the bumps and problems in 3.5, they made the core classes useful again as opposed to needing eight prestige classes, and still the game retains the variety and options for combat that made 3.5 fun, this time without being so darn time consuming!

That's just from reading the Beta Rules. I can't wait for what the Core Rulebook has in store for us!

Azar
07-28-2009, 03:37 PM
3.5ed all the way I love the map rules they put in like flank and all that cool stuff,and they fixed the stuff that was needed with 3ed,but I still have to give props to 2ed,I started with that.

Webhead
07-29-2009, 12:25 PM
I like D&D: Wushu Edition. :biggrin:

Soft Serve
07-29-2009, 02:29 PM
I like D&D: Wushu Edition. :biggrin:
I don't see how anybody coulden't?

I would like to play a wushu game and see if I could get kicked out...

"I veto your veto and continue to kill everybody I see."
"I veto your existance."
"I veto you kicking me out of the game and/or leaving this one to start a new one without me."

Drivvic the Southlander
08-04-2009, 04:08 PM
3.5 is my favorite but 2nd is close on its heels. My distaste for 4th edition is so bad it is no able to be phrased. 2nd is what I learned to play (seeing as I was born in 1982) and there for it will always be close to my heart. I am looking forward to this 3.75 as you have put it have downloaded the beta for pathfinder but I have been trying for like, two months, to talk my PCs into giving it a try... I don not think they will cave.
--- Merged from Double Post ---
Pathfinder really is what 4th edition should have been, just a retooling of 3.5 to iron out the few flaws it had and maybe change some classes and races around...

Deadone
08-05-2009, 01:40 AM
Agreed and my DM is going to order it as well and from what I have saw so far it looks sweet.

tesral
08-05-2009, 08:04 AM
I won't use it, but I will likely end up buying it just to support the idea.

Lucifer_Draconus
08-17-2009, 01:20 PM
I voted on several...

OD&D for LL & S&W retroclones as I like the back to basics , rules-lite play. At least for quick pick-up games.

1st ed. is still a favorite & play it if given the chance.

3.5 & 3.7/Pathfinder as I like these editions minus the 'tactical movement & combat rubbish , which I refuse to use. In fact I just complete the 1st draft of my 3.5/PFRPG Homerules doc.

tesral
08-17-2009, 01:23 PM
3.5 & 3.7/Pathfinder as I like these editions minus the 'tactical movement & combat rubbish , which I refuse to use. In fact I just complete the 1st draft of my 3.5/PFRPG Homerules doc.

Join the club. Computers are wonderful tools.

Marley117
08-17-2009, 03:48 PM
Ummm...I am a fan of old school DnD, but my favorite "DnD" is actually C&C..Castles and Crusades. It is ....a retooling of older DnD?

Crossroads_Wanderer
08-18-2009, 11:52 AM
I like 2e, 3e, and 3.5 about equally. I can't really choose between 3e and 3.5 because there were only a few changes, some of them very necessary, and others that I wasn't so fond of (such as the reduction of druid companions). I love 2e because it was what I played first, and I remember going through the books over and over when I was 10. It just has a warm fuzzy feeling attached to it. :)