PDA

View Full Version : Which do you like best and why?



Moritz
10-19-2007, 08:58 AM
Of the above list, pick which you favor and please list why you do.

I personally like the mechanics of 3.5, but I truly miss the books of the Beginner set. I had the Basic set, but back then, it wasn't really all that. When the Beginner, then Expert Sets came out, I was really getting into the game and fell right into the concept. The books were easy to read and had some 'fun' pictures/maps. Also, it was a time of innocence, and when I look back upon those years, I always wish to recapture the games I ran and make them better in the present.

fmitchell
10-19-2007, 09:42 AM
Something not D&D.

Since I had to pick one, I chose 3.5. At least it has a unifying mechanic, and it's still OGL. Previous versions seemed to be random mechanics glued together.

4.0 might be better, might be worse. We'll have to wait and see.

As far as nostalgia goes, as I've mentioned before, I fondly remember The Fantasy Trip and RuneQuest. D&D was just ... there.

InfoStorm
10-19-2007, 12:35 PM
I have to say 3.5 at this time, because it is the game system I have had the LEAST trouble getting groups together with to play. My longest running live game has been in 3.5.

I personally have strong nostalgia for the Basic/expert/Companion/Master version (I'll leave out the infamous Immortal Gold box and follwing "correcting "Wrath of the Immortals". I skipped AD&D 1 & most of 2 staying with that series. only got involved with 2nd ed because a friend had the books (which I later bought on my own).

Farcaster
10-19-2007, 02:10 PM
Its really no contest. Although I sometimes wax nostalgia for the feel of 2nd edition, the problem was that it was a deeply broken system in the higher levels. Challenges didn't scale well and character advancement started to crawl all around 12-13th level. Not to mention that the (optional) proficiency system was way too closely tied to attributes. 3rd edition did a spectacular job of fixing these problems. So, my vote is with 3.5.

I have no idea of how 4th edition will be. From what I have read, I am excited to give it a try, but a little nervous that they have made it even MORE complicated in their efforts to "streamline" it. I'm also concerned that a lot of what Wizards is doing sounds like they are redesigning the system to be more like how you would expect a MMPOG to be designed, which is not what I want in my table-top roleplaying experience.

Wrolf
10-19-2007, 03:11 PM
I have to admit I like the structure of the 3.5 series, and the fact that any race can be any class. The old AD&D limited the classes by race and stats. I never got to be an old time paladin because I never could roll high enough for the stats. We used to follow the old 3d6 rule for stats.
Though I have one worry. The acceptance of D&D players is higher than ever but many game shops are shutting down. Hopefully, this doesn't portend to people locking themselves in and playing on-line only. I still like the live game groups the best.

Cheers!

Grinnen Baeritt
10-19-2007, 06:06 PM
Having played all of them (except Beginner...?) I'd have to plump with 2nd simply because, as a Dm, I felt comfortable with it. It had a better skills system than AD&D 1st ed.. and was a quicker system and less complicated system than 3rd or 3.5 ultimately became. Yes, it had quirks, but quite simply, as a DM I like to be able to make adjudications based on MY knowledge of the situation rather than the players knowledge of the rules...

(If 4.0 goes the way of Saga SW then I suspect my opinon may change once again with respect to skills only..)...

Of all them I've played 1st and 2nd about equally. And have found that the combat was handled a LOT faster in the early editions.

I'm afraid I'm not too au fait with "matching encounters" since I'm not a great fan of players apparently only ever meeting things that they can handle (because they are a certain level..).

starfalconkd
10-20-2007, 09:30 AM
I chose 3.5. For the most part the rules and mechanics flow very well so as not to detract too much from the role playing aspect. Plus there are so many race, class, and prestige class combinations that the mechanical aspect will never get old.

rabkala
10-20-2007, 10:03 AM
Version 3.5 is a love-hate relationship for me. It is the best written and most sound version of the game ever produced.

As a DM, I see that the 'rule for everything' attitude of 3.5 has become somewhat cumbersome. The system seems to lend itself toward the rules lawyers and power gamers to an alarming extent.

As a player, my fondest memories are the earliest. Many unforgettable moments from expert and advanced immediately spring to my mind. Most of my favorite characters came from second edition, though. Looking back through the veil of the years, it almost seems unreal. It is like looking back at my early memories of my father and seeing the disconnect between the language that was spoken. A language that I no longer think in, that has become faded and almost alien.

PhishStyx
10-20-2007, 12:27 PM
Can I pick none?

A few years ago, I got into a small game of Basic, and while it was ok, it didn't enthrall me anymore.

ronpyatt
10-21-2007, 10:37 AM
I suspect the 4.0 will lend itself to players being about to play characters that make sense to them. The biggest change I can see people flocking to 4.0 is with the "no-dead-levels" that has plagued the previous versions.

Moritz
10-21-2007, 12:19 PM
What's a 'no-dead-level' ?

fmitchell
10-21-2007, 12:53 PM
What's a 'no-dead-level' ?

"Dead Levels" are the levels where you don't get any feats, spells, or special class abilities, just increases to BAB and saves (if that).

MortonStromgal
10-22-2007, 04:31 PM
Thats tough, I like when elves were elves and dwarves were dwarves (basic). I like AD&D 2e from a GMs perspective (no minis required) and I like 3.5 as a player (hurray skills) and 4e fixes a pet peve I have had since the beginning (spells per day)...

I guess I have to say 3.5 because I can still play it like AD&D 2e its just got gobs of flexibility (just might take more time than 2e). However I hate feeling forced to use minis. Thanks to the OGL theres some really good non WOTC/TSR stuff out there to. Oh and I can convert things from 3.5 to BRP fairly easy to.

Skunkape
10-23-2007, 06:55 AM
As far as a class based game system, I just like 3.5 better than all of the rest. I like the fact that the system has changed to roll greater than for every aspect of the game. It's fairly easy to determine what a difficulty rating will be for any task and then have the players roll it.

Plus, the players can get a general idea of what roll they'll need to make for success by how hard the task is.

Revolt268
11-08-2007, 03:50 PM
I would have to go with 3.5, mainly because it was the one I started on. I did go back and play 2nd for2 or 3 games, but I couldn't get into it and I felt limited in my options. I am a play who likes a lot of choices, be it feats, classes, races or anything else. And when I DM, I enjoy the way the system flows. I would say that the only problem with it is the same thing I love, the amount of options can overwhelm players and its sometimes hard for me to get them to just make characters because the spend all day looking up feats trying to find the perfect combination for their character. This doesn't just mean the most powerful either, my GF once spent days looking for the right feats just because she wanted them to fit the character's story.

RealmsDM
11-08-2007, 10:44 PM
I too voted 3.5, but the memories of my first fighter from "Keep on the Borderlands" for the basic set are my most cherished.

feickerr
11-08-2007, 10:57 PM
I picked second edition because that's what I always played. I've heard alot of talk about 3.5, and there are some aspects that sound good, there's also aspects that I don't think I'd care for.

Plus I'm cheap and like buying used stuff for my campaigns.

Moritz
11-09-2007, 06:55 AM
I too voted 3.5, but the memories of my first fighter from "Keep on the Borderlands" for the basic set are my most cherished.

Loved it.

Loved it so much I put it into my most recent campaign world as well as my NWN module. However in the NWN module, it was more like level 16-17 instead of 3-4... I sort of accidentally amped up the orcs and hobgoblins. DR wasn't the player's friend.

Bloodwyrm
01-05-2008, 03:36 AM
I Choose 3.5 Because with larger groups the game flows much more smoothly than any other version i have tryed so far.

GC13
01-05-2008, 12:20 PM
*hops in to the necro after Blood*

I voted 4.0 because of my experience with SAGA. I haven't been following 4.0's previews at all, but I'm told that SAGA was written with a lot of "beta" 4.0 features and I like where SAGA went. I missed being able to divvy up skills as I pleased, but it's not that bad. The talent trees were cool in d20 Modern, and they were better in SAGA.

So here's to me hoping that 4.0 does indeed keep the things that made SAGA cool. I doubt 4.0 will have autofire that = death to all non-Scouts, but you never know. :cool:

tesral
01-05-2008, 05:06 PM
You forgot home made mashup of rules from the 0 edition forward.

Xaels Greyshadow
01-05-2008, 06:33 PM
3.5 Hands down. I love D&D as whole element. I didn't play 1E or 2E or even 3.0. Had kind of a "Pause" between Basic and Expert Box sets and tons of Modules, but I find 3.5 to be what I had dreamed it to be when I was playing basic and expert.

Mulsiphix
01-05-2008, 09:26 PM
I chose v3.5 because it currently has the biggest following and you can easily convert 3E material over to v3.5. Overall the amount of available products is staggering.

Malruhn
01-06-2008, 01:03 PM
I voted for 3.5 because it helped get rid of my three, 3" binders of house rules that I was forced to create for 2nd Ed. It keeps the magic of gaming alive for me...

But there is still something magical for the Basic books - those six, stupid little books that changed my life so many years ago.

Drohem
01-06-2008, 03:01 PM
Hey, where's AD&D 2.5? Skill and Powers?

J/K....I already voted for 3.5 D&D.

Braeg
01-21-2008, 03:56 PM
4.0

I do like what I've heard so far, and I'd already quit playing 3.5 in favor of Iron Heroes when I heard that the guy who wrote Iron Heroes became the lead developer for 4.0. I am hopeful.

Mulsiphix
01-21-2008, 11:22 PM
Mike mearls wrote it didn't he. He is working on 4E?

Braeg
01-22-2008, 08:57 PM
Mike mearls wrote it didn't he. He is working on 4E?


Yes, Mike Mearls wrote Iron Heroes, and now he's the Lead Designer for 4E. I don't know if that means he's going to make it Iron Heroes-y, but I take it as a good sign.

Good enough that I just pre-ordered all the books. ^^;

Mulsiphix
01-23-2008, 08:06 AM
I doubt he'll make it Iron Heroes-esk as that game was a heavy variant rule supplement hehe. Good to know somebody is filling the big shoes of Monte Cook since he moved on.

upidstay
01-23-2008, 12:54 PM
I voted for 3.5, but I gotta say I will always like 2nd edition rules. Mainly because I knew them by heart. Used to get invited to games because it was faster to just ask me than flip through the books...

rabkala
01-23-2008, 02:12 PM
I voted for 3.5, but I gotta say I will always like 2nd edition rules. Mainly because I knew them by heart. Used to get invited to games because it was faster to just ask me than flip through the books...
There is nothing like knowing the rules by heart. It is like a warm comforting blanket to keep the chill of the night air at bay.
I would say I knew 2e and know 3e by heart. I know 3.5 core, a few of the less popular or newest supplements are still not fully entrenched in my mind yet.
I believe many people love the game for this very reason. There are rules in game which everything must abide by no matter what. Real life is not so black and white and has few rules to which people must conform universally.

Mulsiphix
01-23-2008, 05:20 PM
The only real rules are those created by man. The world demands very little in the ways of conformity. Survival and instinct are the only true rule sets to which all humans must conform. Even those can be bypassed, much to the detriment of said fool :o

tesral
01-24-2008, 02:39 AM
I just like role playing and I like D&D role playing. If the game is good the rules are secondary. And good rules will not save a bad game.

Never turn down a game because of the rules the GM is using.

cplmac
01-29-2008, 04:15 PM
I currently like 2.0 best, probably because that is all I have ever played and been the DM. I am not a fan of needing to use minis to keep track of what is going on, whether it is in general or combat. I have no opinion on 4.0 yet, since I am waiting to see what the new version will be in whole, as opposed to the little bits and pieces that have been slowly coming available.

tesral
01-29-2008, 04:27 PM
I currently like 2.0 best, probably because that is all I have ever played and been the DM. I am not a fan of needing to use minis to keep track of what is going on, whether it is in general or combat. I have no opinion on 4.0 yet, since I am waiting to see what the new version will be in whole, as opposed to the little bits and pieces that have been slowly coming available.

Minis are a plus edition aside. It saves discussion as to what is really happening in combat. Even if you use counters it's a help. There are aspects of the gridded movement that bug the dickens out of me. I mean rules I would change in a New York Minute. I don't like the artifical restrictions imposed by square gridded movement. Give me a bloddy ruler.

Never mind I like minis. I suppose I should start collecting DDMs. They are simpler to handle than pewter.

rabkala
01-29-2008, 06:09 PM
Most of the movement rules also bug me. I would prefer metric hex grids for everything.

I do love my minis, though. :D

Mulsiphix
01-29-2008, 08:15 PM
I was just about to say Hex grids are the best way for grided movement. If not hexes, then a ruler should be the only other medium ;)

Maelstrom
01-29-2008, 08:42 PM
Hex grids for a dungeon? *shudder* For overland I can understand, but I don't think I could stomach a hex-based fortress or mine.

tesral
01-29-2008, 10:45 PM
Hex grids for a dungeon? *shudder* For overland I can understand, but I don't think I could stomach a hex-based fortress or mine.

You don't base a building around a movement scale. You do your building and lay a hex grid over it for movement. Hero and GURPS have done it for years.

Better still you use a ruler and move where it pleases you. It is that ridged locked into the 5 foot square that drives me nuts. People and creatures don't behave that way. A movement system should mimic how things are, not force an artificial mechanic on movement.

Mulsiphix
01-29-2008, 11:09 PM
I find hex grids to be the most useful in systems that use grids and have rules for facing. It allows for a nice forward and backward arc as far as line of sight and facing are considered. If you use facing rules in your D&D combat sessions, I can't imagine preferring a square to a hex.

Maelstrom
01-30-2008, 07:31 AM
You don't base a building around a movement scale. You do your building and lay a hex grid over it for movement. Hero and GURPS have done it for years.

Hmm, so you have a plastic/glass overlay sheet with hexes that you can see through to the building?


If you use facing rules in your D&D combat sessions, I can't imagine preferring a square to a hex.

Facing doesn't apply in D&D - it is assumed your character is facing whichever direction a particular threat is coming from (constant motion). The only problem comes when you are flanked so you can't watch both sides. Then they get a bonus and rouges get to use their sneak damage.

Mulsiphix
01-30-2008, 07:51 AM
I believe I read their bringing facing back into 4E. If that is the case, hexes would be best. I know they'll go with squares, but hexes rule!

tesral
01-30-2008, 11:19 AM
Hmm, so you have a plastic/glass overlay sheet with hexes that you can see through to the building?


That would be one way to do it. Or draw your square building on a hex battlemat. Rulers, remember those things? I have a steel rule two feet long.

gdmcbride
01-30-2008, 12:22 PM
Rulers are my favorite way too. I like my D&D with minis and Dwarven Forge's Master Maze (and lots of it). Now that's a way to kill a weekend.

Gary

tesral
01-30-2008, 01:40 PM
Rulers are my favorite way too. I like my D&D with minis and Dwarven Forge's Master Maze (and lots of it). Now that's a way to kill a weekend.

Gary

And you budget.... :eek:

Mulsiphix
01-30-2008, 05:30 PM
Hmm, so you have a plastic/glass overlay sheet with hexes that you can see through to the building?Actually you just throw a building onto the map where you want it. In most systems if a structure or unit is taking up a partial portion of a hex, no matter how small, then that hex is considered to be occupied by said structure/unit.