Post/Author/DateTime	Post
graddlin 04-17-07, 12:32 AM	Greetings, friends. As a gamer of quite a few years, I am always happy to look back on the RPGs I have played and moved on from in favor of new ground. However, I sometimes find myself comparing new games to the older ones, and sometimes I feel that the more venerable editions had a better grasp on the whole "Role-Playing" element than that which is presented in the newer versions. Now, I am not saying that I dislike the new systems, they can prove to be quite enjoyable. What I am saying is that the RPGs of today's market feel like Sports Cars in comparison to those of the past which seemed ( in my opinion) to have the mystique of the Horse and Carriage. Which system holds the fondest memories for you? AD&D or D&D 3/3.5? Please, I respect each of you, thus I would certainly like for you to respect one another in this discussion. This is not about bashing any given system or saying one is better than the other. I simply wish to know which system holds the Number One spot in your eyes and why. Take care, friends.
ORC_Paradox 04-17-07, 12:43 AM	Considering all my games borrowed from all kinds of sources, it's all the same. And to use a saying I have for video games: It's not about the system, it's about the games.
Lord Gwydion 04-17-07, 12:57 AM	Neither of the above, actually. I prefer Classic D&D (specifically the Mentzer BECMI box sets from the 80's) of all the versions of D&D I've played. But I've had fun playing all the versions I've tried (which are all but OD&D--the original rules by Gygax and Arneson, and the Holmes Basic set which bridges the gap from OD&D to AD&D). I'm the kind of player that will play any version that the DM wants to run. :D
graddlin 04-17-07, 02:24 AM	Considering all my games borrowed from all kinds of sources, it's all the same. And to use a saying I have for video games: It's not about the system, it's about the games. A good saying, one which I will agree with. Take care, friend.
graddlin 04-17-07, 02:28 AM	Neither of the above, actually. I prefer Classic D&D (specifically the Mentzer BECMI box sets from the 80's) of all the versions of D&D I've played. But I've had fun playing all the versions I've tried (which are all but OD&D--the original rules by Gygax and Arneson, and the Holmes Basic set which bridges the gap from OD&D to AD&D). I'm the kind of player that will play any version that the DM wants to run. :D That is a good way to go about things. I, too, will play whatever my GM wishes to run, provided it's not BESM.:rolleyes: Take Care, friend.
RedUncle 04-17-07, 04:49 AM	since I began playing, I've played AD&D/2nd Ed/3rd/and 3.5 essentially, my gaming experience changes with the GROUP - not the rules themselves. I've played with extremely inventive players who made 3.5 work for the game - so we role-played just like the "old days" ... and I've played with 2nd Ed players who butchered the game with insanely dull attitudes... I honestly believe that the game will be defined by the player. Although I agree, 3.5 is a lot more like a "sports car" (great analogy!) than its predecessors. Sometimes I jokingly speak fondly of Thac0, as if overwhelmed by nostalgia - but fifteen years ago, Thac0 drove me NUTS!! Maybe we grow fonder of things as time passes, and the actual experience fades into golden-hued memory. :D
daggeroflath 04-17-07, 06:33 AM	Thac0 is easy. It's the DC of your attack roll. The enemy's AC is a bonus to the roll. (low, even negative scores were often good in 2e. Thac0 and AC were both better the lower they were). Is that so difficult? Now figuring out your Thac0 when you multiclassed... THAT was the problem. Meh, I loved the running and swimming rules from 2e, (though now that I think about it I never once used them) I miss the 2e MM and its ecology section and I loved Dark Sun a lot. Beyond that... yeah, I've got the warm and fuzzies for 2e still, but I think they've made a lot of genuine improvements for 3 and 3.5.
Zumarai 04-17-07, 06:33 AM	I started with 1st edition and then move on to 2nd, and now finally 3rd. I definitely played the most 2nd edition out of all of them (so far), and while I definitely think 3rd is mechanically the best, there was something about 1st edition…
mike_beavers 04-17-07, 10:21 AM	I agree with zumarai, I started with original and moved all the way to the current edition. Mechanically its superior to the other editions but for me some of the magic is gone, its more of a computer game in my opinion and other non quirks that made the previous editions enjoyable
CCS 04-17-07, 11:36 AM	Honestly? I make very little distinction between the versions. Especially when thinking about 1st ed/2nd ed. I started out back in the '80s with the Basic/Expert sets. 1st ed AD&D books and modules were very quickly added to the mix. Then we added in the Companion and Masters sets as they came out.... So for the better part of a decade I played a hybrid. Towards the end, we phased out the BECM stuff (never did use the Immortal set). Eventually 2nd ed AD&D arrived. But whenever 2nd didn't supply what we wanted? We just borrowed from 1st. So for the next 10 years(+/- a few) we played a hybrid of 1st & 2nd...... I largely stopped playing for awhile at the dawn of 3E. In fact I sat out that entire run, returning to a 3.5 game this fall. Later on this summer I'll take over as DM for a spell. And when I do? I've no doubt I'll be borrowing elements from 1st, 2nd, and 3rd/3.5. And just for good measure I'm using my ages old copy of Keep on the Borderlands as the entry adventure in my arc. And two of us have been pondering running a purely Basic retro-game at the local shop as many of us now have children beginning to show interest. Basic is certainly more user-friendly to the 10 year olds....:) I guess my fondest game related memories would be a mix of Basic/Expert & 1st ed.
celtredleg 04-17-07, 11:57 AM	Runequest 2nd ed. DnD?3.5. I start ODD in 1977, every edition has been an improvemnent somewhere, and a few problems. I was annoyed at 2nd ed for nerfing Magic missle. And fire ball come to that
RobbyPants 04-17-07, 12:27 PM	For me, the most fond memories come from 2nd edition. Not because I like the rules any more or less, but because that was the current system when I started gaming, so all of my early/fond memories are from then. As everyone knows, so much of this is subjective, and I like each edition for different reasons. My biggest draw to 3E when it first came out was that it was relatively clean, and contained within three books! Now, I have more 3.5 books than I had 3.0 and 2E, and 2E Player's Option combined! I was annoyed at 2nd ed for nerfing Magic missle. And fire ball come to that Out of curiousity, how did 2E nerf Magic Missile? (before my time :P)
Shadowhowler 04-17-07, 04:07 PM	I have played all kinds of games over the years... I would defenitly agree that its the game, and more importantly, the players in the game, rather then the system that makes the most differance. That being said, I'll keep this response on the subject of D&D in perticular. I've had my best gaming experinces with D&D 2.5, which was the bridge between second eddition and 3.0. If you look back at a lot of that stuff, you see the begainings of 3.0 VERY clearly. When I first started playing 3.5 I didn't like it much... becuase I felt the whole 'theme' of the game hand changed, the feel was differant. There seemed to be more emphisis on systems and numbers, less on roleplaying. Min-Maxers, once revilved in the old days, now seemed to be held in high esteme and were called Optimizers. Everything had changed. Now, having played it a bit, I'm not so sure. The problem for me lies in that... I only started playing 3.5 becuase I moved, and am gaming with new people. I had been gaming with the same group of friends (some left, some joined, but mostly the same group) for over 15 years. This was my first time playing with new groups, and across the country some 3k miles from my home. So... now I'm not so sure that the differnce in play styles and theme has all that much to do with the rules and changes in 3.5 so much as it has to do with the change in people. I'd say a lot of gamers today play a lot of the MMO's out there. Heck, on of my best friends and longtime game partners now works for EverQuest as a creater/writer. (The coolest thing about this is, when he puts characters and quests into the game, he sometimes uses old characters from our past D&D games. :) How many players out there can say there characters were brought to life and encountered by thousands of players in an MMO? Not too many... to bad *I* don't actually play it.) A lot of the MMO mentality seems to be creeping into todays D&D player. The new people I play with, I'm the only one who does NOT play the MMO's... so this may be a huge part of the differances between us. There are many things I like about 3.5 over 2.5. The way Multi classing works, the Skills, the idea of Prestige Classes. Theres a lot I don't like... feats, the way psionics are just like spells now, how spells have been made more 'genaric'. From a pure system standpoint, I'm not sure I can say one is better then the other. I can say I enjoyed 2nd Edd and 2.5 a lot more then 3.5 so far... but I just don't know if that means that 3.5 players are not as intrested in roleplaying as I am, and as my fellow 2nd edd players were... or if this is just that my perticular group was all about roleplaying, and the whole time we were in the minority. Time will tell I guess.
Sciron 04-17-07, 06:29 PM	I'd just like to start by saying this thread has been great! What a walk down memory lane. I myself started with Basic Dungeons and Dragons, and also played Keep on the Borderland way too many times. Not to mention, I also played the hybrid style, always keeping those old rules, items, monsters, and modules that were loved so much, but adding to them with each new addition. In the end, the system is just mechanics. They are rules to establish the probability of succeeding at a given task. The game is far deeper then that and a good player carries with him/her the tools necessary to make any system enjoyable. With that being said, if I had my choice I would play first edition. Not that it's any superior, but I've always looked at a character sheet with skills as limiting my imagination. Before I didn't need swim on my character sheet, as a player, I had the freedom to decide whether I could swim or not. Plus, I'd rather bluff as a player than make a roll. Same goes with all other social skills. I think it boils down to just preferring less non-combat oriented rules.
Zragon 04-17-07, 06:55 PM	Ive started out on 3rd but have atarted to play AD&D and i must say there is something missing in 3rd. BUt dont get me worng i love 3rd and 3.5 but mainly its what because they are what i no. One of the things that are missing form 3rd and 3.5 is the feel of cosmiztaion. Right no im runing a AD&D Ninja game where everyone is a ninja but they have very different abilites. where as in 3rd and 3.5 they would all have the same things. Right now there is 2 normal ninja that are very different. 1 Shadow warrior Kit and a Muit class Ninja Mage. They are all ninjas but completely different. You just dont get that in 3rd and 3.5. Instead you get its easier to understand for new players. At least that what i see.
Steelwill 04-17-07, 09:53 PM	I would unabashedly have to say D&D 3.5 Core. This rule set being, imho, the most refined and intuitive, actually made it possible to focus more on the game and still get the rules right without having the rule set be overly cumbersome and hindering. With 2nd ed, it was nearly constant checking and rechecking to see if we might have been doing something correctly, and it basically did more to get in the way of the experience of role-playing D&D than to bolster it. My 2 cents.
celtredleg 04-17-07, 11:49 PM	For me, the most fond memories come from 2nd edition. Not because I like the rules any more or less, but because that was the current system when I started gaming, so all of my early/fond memories are from then. As everyone knows, so much of this is subjective, and I like each edition for different reasons. My biggest draw to 3E when it first came out was that it was relatively clean, and contained within three books! Now, I have more 3.5 books than I had 3.0 and 2E, and 2E Player's Option combined! Out of curiousity, how did 2E nerf Magic Missile? (before my time :P) In ODD there where no dice caps. As long as you went up levels, you added dice. So 20 level magic user tossed 10 missles. Or 20 dice of FB or LB. I had an interesting argument just after 3.5 came out and haste got hosed. Somebody was complaining that they never nerfed FB. I was laughing to much to effectively explain that it had happened 2 editions ago.
JoAT 04-18-07, 04:53 AM	I, too, will play whatever my GM wishes to run, provided it's not BESM.:rolleyes: Strangely enough, the system that has the most fond memories for me is BESM (along with the Sailor Moon RPG that quickly followed 1st edition, as D&D was largely regarded as 'Do Not Want' by just about everyone I knew) when I think back on those games, I really can only smile and wish we had more people who'd get what was going on, so we could start them again. The other runners up come from the truly horrible Palladium system - Nightbane and Heroes Unlimited, to be exact. One day I should bring all the old characters back for a new game...
Leilond 04-18-07, 07:19 AM	D&D 1st edition have my heart and it's PERFECT to teach role-play AD&D have my heart because I played it a lot but it is a terrible system. During combat there isn't ANY difference between strenght 10 and strength 15... With strenght 16 you get +1 to damage and with strenght 17 you gain +1 to hit and +1 to damage. The bonus for dextrity was completely different (but still no difference between dex 10 and dex 14, whila gaining a -1 to AC at each point over 14). There was a dice to roll to see if you survive a resurrection, based on costitution... that means fighters are usually easier to resurrect than wizards... There was a different table for "breaking doors" and "lift gates" (yes a totally different table for two things based on strenght). Strenght at 18 start to have decimal (18,01 to 18,49 to gain +1 hit and +3 damage, 18,50-18,74 to have +2/3... and so on... so crazy!) But it was fun, because it was role-playing 3/3.5 have my heart now, because I love the system. They created something very good... and I like very much the "miniature issue"... it's very nice if you plan your table (I use a whiteboard with ereasable pencil to draw the map to put the miniature in... it work perfectly and do not take away any time) I love the feat and skill idea, that make rogue finally a very good and fun class to be played The role play issue depends only marginally from the system, it depends on the players Is it flawless? Obviously no, but is that really necessary?
Toran_A_Sunder 04-18-07, 07:28 AM	I'm going to have to also say that, for, it wasnt the system so much as the game and the players. I had a wonderful, tho shotlived, experience with BESM (prior to d20 BESM), I started out with 2nd ed, my first LARPing experience was with Vamp: The masquerade, and I have soooo many good memories. Even my shot time with the Warhammer RPG was a blast. My favorite character, however, comes from 3.x so I guess that says something there to. Really, I just love to game. I love to make characters and play characters. Whether they pack a mean punch or can tal their way out of a dragon's mouth, I just love the game. Truly I have no favorites. Though I wish I could get back into other systems besides D&D.
aotrscommander 04-18-07, 07:30 AM	Me, I attribute no 'feel' to any set of rules. The style and quality of our games has not changed in 17 years, regardless of whether we play HeroQuest, D&D or Rolemaster. Come to that, it doesn't change all that much between generas, either, on a bad day! I experience no nostalgia, since I didn't start on D&D, I started on the aforemention HeroQuest and Rolemaster. By the time I played AD&D, I had already played about three or four other sets of rules, so it held no special place. I remember campaigns, but the set of rules used are irrelevant. The fact when I DM'd, I had to house-rule all the pointless character restrictions away from AD&D did not especially endear me to it, either; Rolemaster's great advantage was that I could go anywhere and anywhen and do anyhing. We used AD&D as a 'simple' system compared to Rolemaster. I do think 3.5 is massively the better system mechanically (and therefore the better system, since all else is equal). 3.x effectively replaced Rolemaster as out sytem of choice (though we still play the latter with old parties!) simply because I find it easier to run (it's much better at wiping out arbitary or difficult situations that before 3.x rules were non-existant or cumbersome in most systems). I like all the extra options, the fact that your characters can measurably and significantly grow in power now. Being the child of Rolemaster that I am, I never have felt the need to use everything from the splatbooks, only what I as DM feel appropriate (since in Rolemaster you flat-out couldn't use all the rules, since half of them were completely incompatible variant rules.)
gwiber 04-18-07, 08:56 AM	I see some bad comparison requests here honestly. Basic DnD does not really compare to ADnD. Basic DnD, and ADnD are two different creatures. Always were even from the start. The Morphing of both into a single system n the end may have been questionable and put people off as well who had bad thoughts of DnD versus the “Advanced” version a lot of people chose to play for many years. I started as a lot did, around the time 2nd edition had come out. I was playing 1st Edition Advanced for a littl less than year when 2nd Ed Advanced came out. I had little to no contact with the Basic DnD Boxed Sets before this. For me it all was Orange binding books, and then the new stuff. It was not until a few years later when the Basic DnD boxed sets disappeared and the Rules Cyclopedia appeared that I even considered Basic DnD, and the reality of it was a stark change for someone who had grown accustomed to Advanced DnD. Humans were classed, Demi-Humans were not. Their race WAS their class? That stuck out first and foremost directly in my mind. I can recall seeing some elements in it as well they stood out. But that was some 15-17 years ago. I remember thinking “Well,. It is BASIC DnD after all”. I can definitely say I miss certain intelligent thought and considerations in 2n Ed Adv DnD. The doing away with such silliness as the Cavalier and Barbarian Classes as they were in Unearthed Arcana was a god send. The thought that went into getting rid of an Assassin class makes perfect sense to this day to me as well. The reasoning that Anti-paladins did not exist, and were replaced by Necromancers, was brilliant. That being said. The mechanics in most cases were AWFUL. Even if I appear to be one of the few individuals who found no problem whatsoever determining off the top of my head a Thac0 score. The Skill issue in 2nd Ed Adv was horrible, the total lack of even seemingly worrying about them I hated. I can't say I like the over all solution in 3.0/3.5 either. The one thing I always liked about 2nd Ed Adv DnD was that when a DM told you to roll. The difficulty was almost NEVER subjective. You know what you needed to roll because it was spelled out for you. These days of you make a Knowledge History roll. The difficulty is subjective based on how hard the DM thinks the Diff should be, and you can never quite be sure. While I like that fact for it's realism. I deplore it somewhat in my DnD which should be far more streamlined. Reaching on to 3.0 and 3.5 The To hit, armor class, and magic bonus clean up was pure genius, and a LONG time over due. No more of this ... +'s subtract, crap that you had to have a basic degree in Algebra for from previous incarnations of the game. The change from 3.0 from 3.5 brought a much needed change to the “Buffing”(to use an MMO term) system. No longer did your characters wake up in the morning and take their “Buff Pills” to last them the better part of the day. It made the use of such spells a little rarer, and a little more tactical on the part of the caster. He had to be more careful about when and where they were put to use. I dunno how to explain this directly, but I will try. I really, don;t like the way some classes exist in 3.0/3.5. There is an intrinsic difference I can feel between a Class ion 2nd Ed Adv DnD and the new incarnation. It feels like we are slipping back to the era of late 1sr Ed Adv DnD, where every class justifies it's existence by stacking special powers on top of it left and right. (Something I call RIFTS syndrome) The new DnD Monk is a massive example of this. The 2nd Ed Adv DnD Monk, when and where you could find him, would get his arse whooped based on sheer power available to him if he fought a new Monk. Every time I look at a book, and all the “nifties” That come along with it, I get the horrible feeling of the slide back towards the 1st Ed Adv DnD Cavalier from the 1st Ed Adv DnD Unearthed Arcana. Where does the silliness stop, and the pseudo-realism begin? Classes like the fighter, and the Cleric feel a lot more balanced to me. I feel like almost ALL the classes should find their ability to be “Different” and specialize in feats like the Fighter does. Back in 2nd Ed Adv DnD, the Kits you could get from the various Complete books were really only variations on a theme, replacing one ability with another without giving MORE abilities to top the original and make it different. (Excepting that Magic using Thief class in the Complete Thief, which I hated) That being said. I love the new Mutli-classing Advancement system. It takes the guess work out of the situation entirely, and leaves things less subjective (“Well did he use any kind of Thief like abilities this adventure? He's Multi-classed as a Wizard. Yeah he was sneaky here. Nope. No Exp for you this adventure, sorry!”) I totally despise the loss of the full page monster layout from 2nd Ed Adv DnD. I much preferred some information and a more complete “Picture” of the monster to the 1st Ed Adv DnD monster scheme they have now. Just a small basic splash is good for reference, but when I am making up my adventures, I'd like some info on the thing in question. It would go a LONG way to helping me understand their use of such a creature, and especially in designing the situation to which the creature is encountered. The information is just NOT there now. And don't tell me to go read a Dragon. Even if I DO read the magazine. It should be in the monsters manual. I should not have to go off to another book to get such basic info. In the end I prefer the Classes in 2nd Ed Adv DnD, and the over all fighting and mathematics mechanics of 3.5. I have no real nostalgia for 1st Ed Adv DnD, and no feelings whatsoever, except bad ones about the Race/Class thing for Old Basic DnD. And none of them quite has the skill set up right for how I think it should feel in DnD. [Its fine for other systems. I just don't play DnD for that sense of realistic, arbitratianism??? Is that a word?)
Steely_Dan 04-18-07, 09:11 AM	Segments – now there was a nightmare from 1st edition.
Grand Theft Otto 04-18-07, 10:09 AM	Greetings, friends. . Which system holds the fondest memories for you? AD&D or D&D 3/3.5? AD&D is a great game.... for me to poop on. I've played for roughly 20 years... maybe more. I've had the most fun in 3.0/3.5. A good chunk is due to the people I've been gaming with (more normal folks as opposed to hardcore gamers), but a fair amount is due to the system itself.
Grand Theft Otto 04-18-07, 10:12 AM	One of the things that are missing form 3rd and 3.5 is the feel of cosmiztaion. Right no im runing a AD&D Ninja game where everyone is a ninja but they have very different abilites. where as in 3rd and 3.5 they would all have the same things. Right now there is 2 normal ninja that are very different. 1 Shadow warrior Kit and a Muit class Ninja Mage. They are all ninjas but completely different. You just dont get that in 3rd and 3.5. Instead you get its easier to understand for new players. At least that what i see. You're joking right? This has got to be a joke. I cant imagine anyone can look at the multitude of feats, prestige classes, alternate class features, ease of multiclassing etc and even come close to thinking 1st/2nd edition had anything resemblign the level of class customization. You do realize not everyone playing a ninja is required to take levels of the ninja class?
Steely_Dan 04-18-07, 10:19 AM	You do realize not everyone playing a ninja is required to take levels of the ninja class? Exactly - wasn't everybody doing just fine with his or her monk/rogue multi-class homie until CV came out?? Or anything else for that matter, because just like the samurai the ninja is more of a social standing/caste etc.
Leilond 04-18-07, 10:23 AM	Who tell you to take that prestige class? Who tell you to use any book at all? D&D 3.5 "core rules" are enought to give you all the customization you need, more customization than anything you can never do with ad&d If you want to add "non core rule" you only have MORE material, but not "less customization" because none is forced to use any of the classes out there
Grand Theft Otto 04-18-07, 10:35 AM	Thac0 is easy. It's the DC of your attack roll. The enemy's AC is a bonus to the roll. (low, even negative scores were often good in 2e. Thac0 and AC were both better the lower they were). Is that so difficult? Now figuring out your Thac0 when you multiclassed... THAT was the problem. Pretty sure you took the best one. Same with saves. That being said, THAC0 was pretty stupid. Humans add easier than they subtract. Additionally, its counterintuitive that an AC bonus is subtracted from your AC. Your THAC0 goes down as you go up in level, but you get bonuses that add to your roll. AD&D was full of "roll high, roll low" wierdness with little consistency. The current additive system is so much more intuitive its a joke. When 2nd edition came out, I couldnt believe they kept the stupid system the same, considering we'd converted to a model exactly like 3rd edition's attack bonus much earlier. When children are designing a more streamlined game, you stink as a designer. Yeah, you grew up on THAC0, and you rolled with it. You can learn to drive a car with the headlight switch in the truck, the ignition in the rear passenger seat and the horn in the glove compartment. It doesnt make it a good design.
Grand Theft Otto 04-18-07, 10:39 AM	Not that it's any superior, but I've always looked at a character sheet with skills as limiting my imagination. Before I didn't need swim on my character sheet, as a player, I had the freedom to decide whether I could swim or not. Plus, I'd rather bluff as a player than make a roll. Same goes with all other social skills. I think it boils down to just preferring less non-combat oriented rules. Of course you dont want skills. It doesnt make you automatically great at everything. You still get to decide if you can swim or not. You just have to use resources to do so. Hell, I'd like my fighter to never miss as well.
Sciron 04-18-07, 01:52 PM	Hell, I'd like my fighter to never miss as well. Shouldn't that be a topic for the character optimization board? I think you might have missed the point of the original comment. If I want to play a pirate I'll put on an eye patch, buy a parrot and say ARRRR a lot. If the system has skills I'll arrange my character accordingly, but I'm equally as happy just being a base fighter or thief that purely acts like a pirate. All the extras are flavor, I don't require any special abilities, in the end I'm still an adventurer, and all I want are the standard rules to govern these interactions to determine my success (this basically means outside of combat, or life and death situations I'd prefer freedom from rules and rather more DM/player interaction). I understand that this is a game style that while I enjoy, isn't for everybody. It also requires a good DM and players that can accept a DM's decisions. This diversity in playing styles, along with different group dynamics is what makes roleplaying so great. Anybody finding the right group can have an amazing time.
Grand Theft Otto 04-18-07, 02:12 PM	Shouldn't that be a topic for the character optimization board? I think you might have missed the point of the original comment. If I want to play a pirate I'll put on an eye patch, buy a parrot and say ARRRR a lot. If the system has skills I'll arrange my character accordingly, but I'm equally as happy just being a base fighter or thief that purely acts like a pirate. All the extras are flavor, I don't require any special abilities, in the end I'm still an adventurer, and all I want are the standard rules to govern these interactions to determine my success (this basically means outside of combat, or life and death situations I'd prefer freedom from rules and rather more DM/player interaction). I understand that this is a game style that while I enjoy, isn't for everybody. Actually you were the one who brought up that you wanted to be able to decide what you can do. I was replying to that. You CAN decide what skills your character knows. You spend skill points on what is important. You are just limited. In the "no rules way" you are basically good at anything and everything you can con the DM into buying before he puts his foot down (hence my joke about the fighter who never misses). It also requires a good DM and players that can accept a DM's decisions. Systemless systems only work for superb DM's. Most DM's suck and are incredibly biased. So its a bad way to design a rulebook. I detest "impress me" and "guess the phrase" style gaming. Why is it good for swimming, bluffing etc, but not for combat? If you're going to toss out rules and dice, you may as well do it for everything.
Puggins 04-18-07, 04:10 PM	Oh there's something missing in 3.5e for me as well- the rose-colored glasses that came standard in 1e for us ten- to twelve-year olds that started in that bygone era. Face it fellas, back then we thought Gilligan's Island was the height of hilarity.... We thought Three's Company was witty, fresh and original every week.... Galactica 1980... what acting! What drama! Wilma in Buck Rogers was the hottest woman on the planet (okay, she was pretty hot).... We remember those early years so fondly that ANYTHING we saw back then is given some mystical aura of sanctity and coolness compared to today. There are STILL people that insist that the old Galactica is tons better than the new version. Unfortunately, those first few steps into roleplaying will never be duplicated for us again, mostly because we're older, wiser, and a bit more finicky. So no doubt, my fondest memories are reserved for first edition and the Otus Red Box, just like I fondly remember Jason of Star Command, blow-up lightsabres and Reggie Jackson. Doesn't mean they were better than what we have now, though.
Sciron 04-18-07, 04:20 PM	Most DM's suck and are incredibly biased. Now come on, you can make fun of me all you want for enjoying a different style of play than you do, but leave the poor innocent DM's out of it. Seriously though, I thought this thread was meant to share what we each enjoyed about the different systems, not to argue about which one is better. I currently play 3.5, and I love it. However, some of my best memories come from playing first edition and just plain old D&D. When I played back then, we didn't need all the rules, and we had fun. I do enjoy talking about and debating game mechanics, this thread just doesn't seem like the right forum for it, I don't think that was the intent of the person starting it. So if you are interested you are free to message me, I will gladly both listen to your thoughts and share my own with you.
Stormonu 04-18-07, 04:29 PM	I'd have to say, out of all the editions, basic D&D is the only system I'd consider going back to play, and that's probably just due to fond memories (through rosy glasses) of that version. I can't conceive of going back and playing 1E or 2E; I'd rather just convert adventures/accessories to 3E and use them there. I will say that in those days that I played previous editions, I enjoyed them - but now that I know what I know about the systems, I just prefer 3.5E to all others. The skill system and grappling rules are two of the best improvements in the rules since the days of 1E, though the former still seems like a tack-on compared to the complexity of the combat rules. Also, monsters seem much more vicious in this version; they are basically mini-characters with almost all the powers and quirks of a single PC's character. THAC0 never bothered me, and for its time, it was quite a godsend to avoid looking at the Attack Matrixes every time a combat broke out. Some people in my group never caught on to THAC0, but compared to keeping the attack tables in front of you, it was better than the original way of doing things. That's not to say 3.5 is perfect; I don't like the dependance on magic items and the epic system really gets my goat, but there's not anything about the system that I can't deal with. Optimization somewhat gets under my skin, but I've seen it fall apart enough during the game to know that a good DM can mop the floor with optimizers if they get cocky. Organic characters (who just sort of develop as the game goes on) are still alive and well. In the end, I'm running a 3.5E campaign every other Friday and as best I can tell, we're having a blast. And that's what counts.
Shadowhowler 04-18-07, 05:15 PM	Who tell you to take that prestige class? Who tell you to use any book at all? D&D 3.5 "core rules" are enought to give you all the customization you need, more customization than anything you can never do with ad&d If you want to add "non core rule" you only have MORE material, but not "less customization" because none is forced to use any of the classes out there I dissagree. With AD&D 2.5 you could do WAY more custimzation then you can in 3.5 core only, and even after you add all the splat books, they are pretty close.
Shadowhowler 04-18-07, 05:18 PM	Pretty sure you took the best one. Same with saves. That being said, THAC0 was pretty stupid. Humans add easier than they subtract. Additionally, its counterintuitive that an AC bonus is subtracted from your AC. Your THAC0 goes down as you go up in level, but you get bonuses that add to your roll. AD&D was full of "roll high, roll low" wierdness with little consistency. The current additive system is so much more intuitive its a joke. When 2nd edition came out, I couldnt believe they kept the stupid system the same, considering we'd converted to a model exactly like 3rd edition's attack bonus much earlier. When children are designing a more streamlined game, you stink as a designer. Yeah, you grew up on THAC0, and you rolled with it. You can learn to drive a car with the headlight switch in the truck, the ignition in the rear passenger seat and the horn in the glove compartment. It doesnt make it a good design. I know that I, and a few other players I knew... used some of the complicated nature of D&D's old rules system as a 'setting the bar' sort of messure for stupidaty. If someone couldn't figure it out, they were probably not the brightest bulb in the bunch, and might not be the best choice to game with long term.
Stormonu 04-18-07, 05:48 PM	There are STILL people that insist that the old Galactica is tons better than the new version. As a side note, I'll take the old Battlestar Galactica any day over the 3rd season crap they are airing now....
Zragon 04-19-07, 02:54 AM	You do realize not everyone playing a ninja is required to take levels of the ninja class? actully yes u do need at least one lvl in ninja to be a ninja because that one lvl acts as basic training that without would mean you are something else trying to be a ninja. but maybe you are thinking of shinobe
JoAT 04-19-07, 03:43 AM	actully yes u do need at least one lvl in ninja to be a ninja because that one lvl acts as basic training that without would mean you are something else trying to be a ninja. but maybe you are thinking of shinobe On a similar note, one must take a level in the obscure 'Thief' class in order to steal, have levels in the Assassin PrC in order to kill people for money, and, of course, getting into a fight of any kind requires at least one level in Fighter. Oh, and all uncivilized begins have a tendency to fly into a mindless rage whenever they fight, gaining strength and endurance when they do so. Sorry, but I really couldn't resist. Class is a meta-concept (for the most part - some classes are very specific, but most are not) - you don't graduate from ninja academy (and if you did, there would be no guarntee that you were, class-wise, a ninja, instead of a scount, monk, rogue, swordsage, or heck, even a Barbarian, Wilder, Fighter or Swashbuckler, depending on what you picked up on best and how you were taught.
Steely_Dan 04-19-07, 07:00 AM	Sorry, but I really couldn't resist. Class is a meta-concept (for the most part - some classes are very specific, but most are not) - you don't graduate from ninja academy (and if you did, there would be no guarntee that you were, class-wise, a ninja, instead of a scount, monk, rogue, swordsage, or heck, even a Barbarian, Wilder, Fighter or Swashbuckler, depending on what you picked up on best and how you were taught. Exactly, a cool (nimpo?) ninja could be a rogue/sorcerer or what not. You don't have to be part of the "Knight" class to be knightly/knighted, even though the Queen has been giving those away like candy in the last few years…
Etarnon 04-19-07, 10:16 AM	Of course, 2nd edition AD&D. I've got a complete set of 2nd ed revised books, and core rules 2.0 with extensions on CD-rom, plus dragon mag archive on CD-rom. Good luck.
protonik 04-19-07, 02:41 PM	I think that with anybody who has been playing this game as long as I have the general consensus would be AD&D of some sort. I started just before 2e came and we didn't really have access to it where I Lived so we played a combination game of 1e PHB with the OCE and some hacked rules until we got the 2e DMG which helped a lot. Amazing how compatible that stuff really is when you look back. But most of my fondest memories of D&D play are from that period. I have had some great experiences with 3e as well, just not in NPC creation. LOL.
protonik 04-19-07, 02:53 PM	Now figuring out your Thac0 when you multiclassed... THAT was the problem. Nah, that was easy as well, it was the better of the two, which was the standard through all of it including saving throws. Its why multiclassing was almost broken... you got bit in the butt multiclassing by the XP division... BWAHAHAHAHHAAHAH
protonik 04-19-07, 03:08 PM	One of the things that are missing form 3rd and 3.5 is the feel of cosmiztaion. Right no im runing a AD&D Ninja game where everyone is a ninja but they have very different abilites. where as in 3rd and 3.5 they would all have the same things. We are talking about the same 3e right? LOL
Grand Theft Otto 04-19-07, 04:14 PM	Nah, that was easy as well, it was the better of the two, which was the standard through all of it including saving throws. Its why multiclassing was almost broken... you got bit in the butt multiclassing by the XP division... BWAHAHAHAHHAAHAH No way. You were a fool to be anything BUT multiclassed. You were a level behind your single classed bretheren.
Zragon 04-19-07, 04:58 PM	what a lote of you nay sayers dont get is yes there are a lot of feats but the class is the same no matter how you use your feats you still get this and this. BUt in AD&D skills and Powers you get to pick and chose what class abilites you get if any and what race ablites you get as well and as you lvl you get more point to pick up more stuff to personalize you character to your liking.
skathros 04-19-07, 05:30 PM	AD&D is a great game.... for me to poop on. How very, very clever of you! Back to your parents' basement now. Run along!:rolleyes:
hiryuu 04-19-07, 05:37 PM	I dissagree. With AD&D 2.5 you could do WAY more custimzation then you can in 3.5 core only, and even after you add all the splat books, they are pretty close. Ah, yes. The Player's Option books. I remember those. Had a tavern-hopping gutter-wallowing fighter/mage that could kick the crap out of anyone with her fists, without even starting in on her spells for the day. It was easier to hone in on character concepts with those books. ____________ Our group got out our old 2E books the other day, since we got a hankerin' for some nostalgia. We got halfway through making characters when everyone pretty much at the same time decided to go back to 3E. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, but facing down the horrid DM vs. Player mentality in the DMG was making pretty much everybody at the table sick, as well as the completely arbitrary rules for thief skills, nonweapon proficiencies, and the unclear delineation of game text and flavor text. On a side note, I do like the way those books were written. They felt very in-genre. I wish 3E flavor was written like that. We did, however, play a great game that day. We all made very traditional characters and played 'em to the hilt. Halfling rogue with eyes too big for his pockets, paladin with a booming voice and noble bearing, bard in poofy pants and a lyre, and an elven wizard with a spellbook made of massive, browned oak leaves.
protonik 04-20-07, 01:46 AM	what a lote of you nay sayers dont get is yes there are a lot of feats but the class is the same no matter how you use your feats you still get this and this. BUt in AD&D skills and Powers you get to pick and chose what class abilites you get if any and what race ablites you get as well and as you lvl you get more point to pick up more stuff to personalize you character to your liking. You didn't say you were using S+P though. You said you were playing Ninjas and implied that AD&D in general was more customizable than 3e and that is not true unless you use S+P which was HORRIBLY unplaytested.
protonik 04-20-07, 01:48 AM	2e had that player vs. dm feel? Not that I recall but I haven't read them in a LOOOONG time. One easy fix to the discrepancies in Thieves Skills vs. Proficiencies... don't use Proficiencies... LOL.
DeLaPoer 04-20-07, 03:33 AM	I'd have to say 1E AD&D, if the choices are 1E vs. 3E. That said, my favorite D&D version is Classic D&D. I like pretty much all of it: B/X (Moldvay/Cook/Marsh), BECMI/RC (Mentzer), and Holmes. Right now, I'm running three games: 1 Castles & Crusades game in Greyhawk 1 Castles & Crusades game in the Wilderlands of High Fantasy 1 Holmes Basic + OD&D(1974) game using B4 - The Lost City.
hiryuu 04-20-07, 09:38 AM	2e had that player vs. dm feel? Not that I recall but I haven't read them in a LOOOONG time. One easy fix to the discrepancies in Thieves Skills vs. Proficiencies... don't use Proficiencies... LOL. In the 2E DMG, there's lots and lots of direct "Don't let the PCs do such-and-such," advice to be vindictive when the heroes do anything clever to bypass your plans (read as: punish them when they try to walk away from your railroad), and lots of "if the PCs want to customize their character class at all, make them take way more XP to level." There's very little advice in the way of talking things out, helping people who made mistakes in character generation, or helping people get their character concept down on paper and working with the hero's background to integrate into the story. Instead, the writing is focused on being as vindictive as possible and punishing players for simple mistakes (like, say, writing down the wrong alignment on accident).
protonik 04-20-07, 10:50 AM	Oh wow, I completely missed that stuff or forgot about it but you're right, I thought it was just a 1e thing.
Shadowhowler 04-21-07, 03:54 AM	In the 2E DMG, there's lots and lots of direct "Don't let the PCs do such-and-such," advice to be vindictive when the heroes do anything clever to bypass your plans (read as: punish them when they try to walk away from your railroad), and lots of "if the PCs want to customize their character class at all, make them take way more XP to level." There's very little advice in the way of talking things out, helping people who made mistakes in character generation, or helping people get their character concept down on paper and working with the hero's background to integrate into the story. Instead, the writing is focused on being as vindictive as possible and punishing players for simple mistakes (like, say, writing down the wrong alignment on accident). Again... see 2nd Edd 2.5... players are ENCOURAGED to masivly customize their characaters there.
gwiber 04-21-07, 08:00 AM	As a long term player like so many are, I have to say I found the Players Option stuff not only not that ground breaking, but it wasn't particularly relevant. The first thing is did, was foremost provide the players an "out" in most class cases so that players did not have to "Deal" with some of the pitfalls of the class they chose. "Man, I wanna play a Wizard, but the lack of armor sucks. I can't play without armor! Wait this book says I can do that YIPPIE!" It ended up being a crutch system for mostly bad role players who didn't want to have to deal with adversity. Most systems that award you for taking bad things for oyur characters from a listg, do end up that way. Players just pay attention ot play styled, and then proceed to take the bad things they l know will have almost no effect whatsoever on the game, and thne load up with the extra points they gained from that on nifties that can over balance or even trivialize certain parts of the game. AD&D was played by it's players, the good ones anyway, precisely because of hte feel of the game, and the majority of the mechanics(Thats where the game feel came from after all) Players Option was two things in the end. a stop gap measure to plug hte leaking hole that TSR had become for bad ideas, and poor marketing. And a test of the waters to see just how fsar players would let them push the AD&D set up into a new game format before the rebelled or totally accepted it with open arms. Player's Option was a failure, big time. If it had not been. then proceeding products would have had much larger sections of them devoted to the support of Player's Option material. instead of only the 3 or 4 rapid books and handful of modules that acknowledged it. In the end I enthusiastically used the Player's Option books for a while,I ran 3/4 of the Night Below Campaign using it actually, and I found for the most part, it was more or less viable to throw about 80% of the options presented because players simply were not going to put those options to use anyway, they ended up being dead page filler. Once I realized this. me and my group marathoned the PO stuff for several weeks, creating new characters of varying levels, putting them through scenarios and the like, and found that the only use, as I said, ofr hte book was to do away with class handicaps without replacing them with anything serious, and to, as it is put in a lot of forums, just to "twink" out a character. Some people, usually immature player's, gravitate towards characters with no faults or flaws to overcome, they want the power and glory of the game without the hardship that should come with it (in game). They find brazenly walking up to a dragon and blowing it to smithereens and the counting the gold more fun than the actually difficult process of figuring out the dragon's habits, what its quirks are, where it sleeps, and actually trying to get close without risking being roasted alive. In the end both accomplish the goal, but who do you think feels more rewarded at the end of the day? Who more carefully considers what to do with their winnings? Who has a more in depth RP experience? PO/2.5 was a bad system over all, and tried far too hard to mimic other systems like White Wolf.
hiryuu 04-21-07, 12:55 PM	Again... see 2nd Edd 2.5... players are ENCOURAGED to masivly customize their characaters there. Yeah, commonly known as the Player's Option books (as long as you ignore the 2E psionics rules), like I mentioned in a previous post. I was, in the post you quoted, talking about the 2E DMG, not Player's Option.