36 réponses à ce sujet

[lordofworms]

I am old school, I loved 2e more than any other. (yeah I just gave my age away)

I LIKED that you had to be a different race to be any type of multiclass.
I LIKED that a human was the only way to create that one of a kind dual-class character....remember not being able to use your first classes skills until you leveled it by 1 with your new class then the excitement of using ALL your skills finally!
how about THAC0!! lol (probably THEE most confusing thing ever to explain to a new player)
remember when clerics could only use blunt weapons?


the only things I have gotten excitment out of from 4e is the pretty pictures in the monster manuals.


so how bout it, how many 2e lovers out there? and while we are at it, what about 3e and 4e?
any lovers of those out there? and why? give me some shiners on what makes YOUR edition your favorite?
and for you fellow brothers and sisters of mine that still hold the 2e torch, why is it YOUR favorite? I would love to hear...

lets keep the flames to a minimum as I am sure this could turn heated...lol

[CBrachyrhynchos]

I'm kind of split between 2e and 3e myself. 2e was actually a nice, minimal framework that allowed you to homebrew your own custom class around roleplay. 3e had better skill implementation and more sensible approaches to multiclassing but quickly suffered from huge feature bloat. I have a soft spot in my heart for the humor and inside jokes of 1e (Giant Space Hamsters! Gelatinous Cubes!).

[AndarianTD]

I cut my AD&D teeth way back in 1980 on the 1st Edition books just after they came out. So even though some aspects of the game mechanics were primitive compared to later systems, I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for the old first edition rules. I stopped playing P&P right around when the 2nd edition came out, so while I studied them and ran some later games with the updated rules, I never had a lot of experience with them. Most of my 2e experience was with computer games that used them (e.g. BG), and my only real experience with 3e (again, aside from buying and skimming the books) was playing NWN and NWN2. And I know nothing about 4e.

I'm not sure I can easily answer which edition is my favorite. Each has its own charm in my mind. I really like the flexibility of 3e in terms of using and customizing skills, and I definitely did find the multi-classing restrictions of the earler editions to be arbitrary and annoying (even if I did understand them from a game balance perspective). But there was a charming kind of "untamed wild west" feel to the 1e rules that I'll probably never forget -- because it's what came first before we had enough gaming experience to start refining the rules to be more systmatic. I felt like I had more room to improvise with 1e, but I may be biased since I was the DM and was actually the one who got to do most of the improvising.

[Beerfish]

Bwa ha ha 1E! Like Andarian I'm........experienced (ie old)

[omen_shepperd]

The first time I can remember hearing about dungeons and
dragons in 1984 when I was nine years old almost turning ten. The kids in the
elementary school that played informed me I could not play until I was ten. Therefore,
I can remember the buildup of excitement over four months until I could finely
play. My first real D&D was the red basic D&D box set followed by the
blue expert set, and a few more I cannot remember the names of. I soon got into
first edition D&D when I found modules at a bookstore at the old mall.

 I really did not
learn about role-playing until second edition came out. I think I can safely
say it was my favorite edition mostly due to my owning almost every book made
for it. I lost so much in a flood years ago, it would take the rest of my
lifetime hunting down and buying it all back.

I played both 3.0 and 3.5 and enjoyed it variety it offered.
However, as I soon found out it had flaws that when exploited created legal
mega uber PC’s. This is what angered more than one group of gamers that I and a
couple of my friends played with. Hence, why we are still looking for a gaming
group to this day.

I purchased a number of the fourth edition book’s and read
through them. I have not played the new edition yet but I found one of my old
second edition groups and will be trying the game out with them.

I mostly play Rifts and Heroes Unlimited now. Besides NWN kind
of filled in the void of D&D for me.

 

Modifié par omen_shepperd, 05 mai 2011 - 05:14 .

[Aleron]

Haven't played much 2E outside of baldur's gate (compy game) so don't feel I have enough to comment there. I can say parts still confuse the hell out of me (lower AC = better? wth!).

Personally I love 3.0/3.5 since that was what I got started on. I've played it the longest and it has all the nostalgia and good memories associated with it. My personal favourite is the Pathfinder version though. Excellently done and soon as I can get a group you can bet I'll be playing it. Awesome fun and unlimited levels and advancement or unti your DM got sick of it lol.

I like 4E for the ease of learning and the balance. For new players it is unparalleled. However, the various lore changes and similar they introduced into the settings means I generally actually stick to 3.0 lore for whatever I run but use 4th ed system. I'm also not big on the "skill challenges" but I can understand why they were added.

[Elhanan]

Been playing D&D since 1975; using copies of the old soft bound booklets. No polyhedral die; just d6's. pizza, pencil, paper, and imagination. Great fun, but vague.

AD&D was cool, and was where I spent my majority of a time as a player. But even then, the majority of games I pref were seasoned with House rules.

2E had some great settings (eg; Al-Qadim, Ravenloft), but I hated the plethora of books, esp for Kits.

Since that time, my fave general design is 3E, mainly because I do not like race and class restrictions. I already had quite a collection of various rules from many games I was using, but pushed most aside with 3E. And while 3.5 had some good suggestions and fixes, I still prefer 3E for the beasic structure.

Then came the 4E & MMO mindset, and I ran for cover. It had become all about the combat, IMO. Little to no imagination seemed to be present; just the relentless push for mapboards. minis, and extended battles. Left it all on the shelves, and have not returned.

[The Amethyst Dragon]

I started with 2nd Edition AD&D within a couple years of its release, and played/ran it for many years. I was a fan of the Spelljammer setting, and ran my own homebrew campaign world (a little place called Aenea).

A couple years after 3rd Edition came out I finally took the plunge and converted my homebrew campaign...and was quite pleased with the results, since it did streamline lots of the calculations and such. I never really used prestige classes (besides the few in the DMG), so the only thing I used supplemental books for was monsters and some spells...if a PC wanted to do something different, it was easy enough to do without a bunch of extra materials.

With NWN being 3rd Edition rules-based, I found it quite easy to slip right into playing and designing stuff for this game.

I've looked through the players handbook and DMG for 4th Edition...and put it right back on the shelf after a couple minutes. The mechanics and entire ruleset seems so far from D&D that I figure I'll never bother with it.

So for me:
1st Edition: I've seen the books (and own a couple)
2nd Edition: Nostalgia (and I've still got things I've come up with that I can mine for ideas to this day)
3rd Edition: My favorite (both PnP & NWN!)
3.5: Never bothered with it, since I already bought what I wanted for 3rd Edition.
4th Edition: Won't bother with it.

And yes, I call them "editions". Is it that difficult to type 7 or 8 extra letters to make a complete word? (sorry, kind of a pet peeve of mine ever since 3rd Edition came out)

Modifié par The Amethyst Dragon, 05 mai 2011 - 09:20 .

[Karvon]

'Nother old school guy here; started with the original white boxed rules in JHS and played thru 2nd in PNP. Got acquainted with 3rd via NWN1. Haven't played anything later, and no interest at all in 4th from what I've heard/seen/read.

Fav is probably the original version with house rules and 3rd party stuff like Arduin Grimore. I did, however like the whole skill thing and the variety of options provided by kits in 2nd too. 3rd seems too PC to me, with all races able to play virtually all classes equally, but it is what it is

Karvon

[Aleron]

I've never really understood the hate for 4th ed, but man there is a lot of it. I suspect it is the same for 2nd ed players when they encountered 3rd ed and the like lol.

It's much more logical and easier for players to learn. Without a doubt. This is a social experience so I think there should be an easy way for new people who are interested to join. Additionally, the way they set it up it is also much easier for a new DM to learn and run a module or even something of their own.

The arguments it is like an MMO and "nothing like D&D" I've never got either tbh. Sounds a bit jaded to me or like it hasn't been tried. The core experience is still there and whether there is story or simply all combat STILL falls on the sort of DM you have. There is every bit as much opportunity for storyline and RP as every other system. It has a combat system, yeah, and personally I like the idea that a wizard can actually *GASP* cast spells instead of throwing two magic missiles a day then using a crossbow. Bleh.

I hate seeing people knock something that while it might not be their cup of tea, is having a good impact overall and getting more players interested in D&D and this world in general.

I will say the Forgotten Realms story and lore they brought along with 4th ed is total crap though lol. Also don't get me wrong, I do prefer 3.0/3.5/pathfinder myself but balancewise and for ease of learning 4th is superior.

[Elhanan]

Aleron wrote...

I've never really understood the hate for 4th ed, but man there is a lot of it. I suspect it is the same for 2nd ed players when they encountered 3rd ed and the like lol.

It's much more logical and easier for players to learn. Without a doubt. This is a social experience so I think there should be an easy way for new people who are interested to join. Additionally, the way they set it up it is also much easier for a new DM to learn and run a module or even something of their own.

The arguments it is like an MMO and "nothing like D&D" I've never got either tbh. Sounds a bit jaded to me or like it hasn't been tried. The core experience is still there and whether there is story or simply all combat STILL falls on the sort of DM you have. There is every bit as much opportunity for storyline and RP as every other system. It has a combat system, yeah, and personally I like the idea that a wizard can actually *GASP* cast spells instead of throwing two magic missiles a day then using a crossbow. Bleh.

I hate seeing people knock something that while it might not be their cup of tea, is having a good impact overall and getting more players interested in D&D and this world in general.

I will say the Forgotten Realms story and lore they brought along with 4th ed is total crap though lol. Also don't get me wrong, I do prefer 3.0/3.5/pathfinder myself but balancewise and for ease of learning 4th is superior.

Fair enough.

However, From my Ancient POV:

* At least some of those grabbing rules marked 4E are hardly newbies, and do not require use of the wheel again.

* As an imagination first DM, this is the last system I would choose available in which to teach them the concepts. I like boards, minis, carboard cutouts, pennies, grease pencil, chalkborads, etc as aids, but cannot and am unwilling to delve into the cost of making these into a 'must have' part of play. And it does appear to be strongly flavored from MMO seting to me; another link I wish to avoid.

As for spells, I offered a House rule to my party at Character Creation for the memorization system (which I loathe personally as you illustrated), or Free casting like Bards & Sorcerers; available to all. The last party I had chose Memorization/ reg rules; their choice. Much could be said about various rules using any rule set, as I have many varied rules gathered from 35+ yrs of play.

Now if I could only halt the aging effects of fantasy & magic on the DM....

[TSMDude]

Wow...we are old. I still miss Basic DnD in the red box.

Where Elf and Dwarf was a class.

Back then it seemed more about character devolpment than anything else as there was what? 8 choices?

Then Advanced showed up and introduced some okay things...

Then Unearthed Arcana with the Thief Acrobat....who has not played one? Cmon you all know you have been one before....

2nd was neat because it allowed more unique house rules and character options. Still not my fav though.

I do dig 3rd and 3.5 alot as the system with the feats and skills makes a lot of sense to me.

4th...I do not know if I like it at all yet. It is purdy. It does have some features I dig but at the same time it seems to be almost...dumbed down in a sense. That it is more video gamish than regualar PnP...

So yeah...3rd, basic, 2nd, then 4th in my eyes.

[Elhanan]

In my day we only had d6's aquired from board games; no plastic pyramids and fancy folded die. A DM screen was a notebook full of written notes, and a chalkboard was considered a luxury item; more so any chalk. We wet our fingers and drew; quickly.

We had to figure out monster, spell, and ability descriptions on the fly, as well as sound effects. We had paper thin walls on maps containing the mightiest of dragons, and these were often placed in the least likely of places because Dragon's don't die; players do.

We had maps made from water-stains, distance was a best guess, and the baddest item in the room was the DM's eraser.

We had Ftr/ MU/ Cleric/ and Thief; no silly spying Rogues cause we knew what he was doing. Dwarves and Elves all looked the same; even the womenfolk. And a RL lass in the party ate free, got to go first, and could do little wrong.

*and altogther* AND WE LIKED IT!!!

Modifié par Elhanan, 05 mai 2011 - 03:11 .

[Aleron]

Elhanan wrote...
 Dwarves and Elves all looked the same; even the womenfolk.

Well some things never change...

[TSMDude]

[quote]Elhanan wrote...

In my day we only had d6's [quote]

that were made from rocks we chiseled ourselves! We had to play in the snow barefooted on a hill with nothing but our own blood to use as ink on sheepskin we had to kill ourselves with our bare tooth....yes...i said tooth.

Modifié par TSMDude, 05 mai 2011 - 03:28 .

[Elhanan]

TSMDude wrote...

... that were made from rocks we chiseled ourselves! We had to play in the snow barefooted on a hill with nothing but our own blood to use as ink on sheepskin we had to kill ourselves with our bare tooth....yes...i said tooth.

You had a chisel and sheepskin?!

[lordofworms]

So I see I am not alone in all this, I admit 1st edition was my favorite as well (nostalgia wise) but I didnt want to give away TOO much of my ancient age here...

I guess the biggest change for me nowadays is that back in 1st-2nd edition...your characters had to evolve and you had to really create a unique character because of limited skills and attribute points. our DM used to allow us 3 rolls of which we could take the 'best of' but still that always left one player with a 9 strength or an 8 int.
thats what I missed, players that were flawed, hero's that had maybe no strength, were frail and weak but had a rockin inteligence! or vice versa...
now with 4th edition etc...its like everyone out there is in the +15 across the board, everyone is the same, elf human dwarf, doesnt matter your all still powerhouses with supreme inteligence, strength, wisdom ,charisma,etc...
my favorite characters of all time I have played p&p never had a stat above 15 unless it was their ruling attribute (int for wizards, dex for rogues,etc)

nowadays... like I said...
oh look...another +15,+15,+15,+15 fighter fighting along a +15,+15,+15,+15 wizard who is accompanied by a +15 ,+15,+15,+15 rogue...

just not alot of 'roleplaying options' in my humble opinion...sure you can 'act' out your PC but back when things were flawed you had to 'work' around those flaws usually to the outcome of a truly memorable PC.

just my thoughts...

[Elhanan]

lordofworms wrote...

So I see I am not alone in all this, I admit 1st edition was my favorite as well (nostalgia wise) but I didnt want to give away TOO much of my ancient age here...

I guess the biggest change for me nowadays is that back in 1st-2nd edition...your characters had to evolve and you had to really create a unique character because of limited skills and attribute points. our DM used to allow us 3 rolls of which we could take the 'best of' but still that always left one player with a 9 strength or an 8 int.
thats what I missed, players that were flawed, hero's that had maybe no strength, were frail and weak but had a rockin inteligence! or vice versa...
now with 4th edition etc...its like everyone out there is in the +15 across the board, everyone is the same, elf human dwarf, doesnt matter your all still powerhouses with supreme inteligence, strength, wisdom ,charisma,etc...
my favorite characters of all time I have played p&p never had a stat above 15 unless it was their ruling attribute (int for wizards, dex for rogues,etc)

nowadays... like I said...
oh look...another +15,+15,+15,+15 fighter fighting along a +15,+15,+15,+15 wizard who is accompanied by a +15 ,+15,+15,+15 rogue...

just not alot of 'roleplaying options' in my humble opinion...sure you can 'act' out your PC but back when things were flawed you had to 'work' around those flaws usually to the outcome of a truly memorable PC.

just my thoughts...

Oooh! All 15+? Be still my old Powergaming heart! Maybe I was too hasty....

[ShadowM]

Ahhh I played them all, 3.5 and 1st-2nd are my favorites. My reason are pretty much what lordofworms said the characters felt more like real characters (with flaws). 1st-2nd with some house rules it work good. 3.5 for the simplified rules for new players and with some house rules too you can get though flawed characters back. Ah the nostalgia is a factor when you played at lunch and only had some paper to get everything done. Ahh played in a party of 12 were almost everyone died, but in a fun and entertaining way so it was all good, I think I died from a spider bite because back then poison meant something not just a lower ability score. Poor DM having to deal with that many. The most I DMed was 8. 4th just does not feel right, but it can be fun with a good dm and a good module.

[Bubba McThudd]

I started with 1e, moved to 2e and then my group all switched to I.C.E.'s Rolemaster, so I never played D&D past the 2e. 2e is my sentimental favorite.
Rolemaster was very complex, but it had the most morbidly amusing crit charts with hundreds of varieties of dismemberment and death. Rolemaster was so complex and involved, you practically needed a computer to play it. I wonder who owns the rights to it? It would make a brilliant computer game.

[Mirgalen]

That's an easy one. Let's see by order of preference.

1. AD&D (1E) PnP with a handful of house rules. The best of the best (10/10)
2. D&D (from Basic set to Companion supplement) PnP. Simple and fun (8/10)
3. 3E NWN/SoU/HotU More complex than AD&D but more roll-play than role-play. (5/10)
4. 3.5E NWN2. Again more complex even more roll-play than the above. (4/10)

2E?
4E?

What I see with all these version is a typical trend. Selling paper is good for business but it does not mean it is good for the hobby. The game complexity (the roll-playing factor) increased over the years at the expense of realism and role-playing. Don't you think somebody could have written a chapter in these thick books telling (new) players how you role play a character based on alignment, race, sex, class, stats, skills/feats and motivations? The other key thing that seems to have been lost with the so called "rebalancing the classes" and proliferation of magic (items) is the true cooperative play or teamwork. In the early editions, it was nearly impossible to survive in a (TSR) module without the four key classes being present (Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User and Thief) and it was necessary to coordinate efforts in/out of battle (in a long campaign we played back then my mage was always aware of how many dispel magic the cleric had memorized and vice versa). The other important teamwork aspect was that at low level the fighter was the shining class who had to protect the group. Level one spellcasters were almost useless (DnD level 1 cleric had no spells btw). This was reversed in mid to high level where Mages and Clerics had access to powers far beyond what any fighter or thief could ever do. What I have seen over the years playing MP 3E (NWN) is more like self-centered individuals (characters not players hopefully) with overlapping powers moving together in dungeons with little if any coordination/teamwork. clearly another weakness in the newer rules.

Happy gaming!

[JanrithShadowbloom]

Oh man... I remember getting the DnD Blue box set in junior high school... this was the set between ChainMail/Blackmoor and ADnD. It didn't even have dice in it; it had chits that you had to punch out of cardstock. To tell if you hit or not, you had all the chits face down in the lid, shook it around and then picked one .

Our first gaming "upgrade" was the old style, cheap plastic dice that wore down to round sling bullets after several hundred rolls lol.

To this day, my preferred gaming setup is a combo of 1st edition ADnD + Arduin with select 2e and HackMaster components sprinkled in.

Oh, and did I mention I'm a Greyhawkian through and through???

d20 FTW!

Modifié par JanrithShadowbloom, 06 mai 2011 - 05:49 .