What's Your Pleasure? (What version do you prefer?)

[Alethan]

So as not to hijack Omega's Looking For Players thread, I moved those last two comments to a new thread on an otherwise interesting side topic. What versions do you prefer playing? And why?

I agree with Athelan - site looks great.nice one Omega!

Alethan - you must be tempted to get in? Or are you a 1e man only?

I'm highly tempted by the website and the organization capabilities Omega is displaying, but not at all tempted by the version.

Having played rule sets from ODD to 3.5e (including ODD, Chainmail, Greyhawk, Holmes, Redbox, OSRIC, Eyre Tor (a home brew simplified rule set), Carcosa, Labyrinth Lords, 1e, 2e, 3e, and 3.5e - I never bothered with 4e), I've found my ratio of fun:rules drops significantly after 1e. That is, of course, when the rule system starts to focus more on rolling skill checks than on role playing skills.

Over the years, I've pretty much stopped playing anything that goes above 1e in the D&D World. I'd much rather describe how I'm going to search a desk for secret compartments than state, "I'm going to search the desk for secret compartments," and roll a D20 to see if I find anything.

Excellent example of 3.5e here: http://itispitchdark.blogspot.com/2011/ ... itory.html

Honestly, I have a hard time even lurking on higher version games. I tried lurking a 4e game on the same forum as my Greyhawk game and... meh. It was boring! The characters were so powerful, even at just Level One or Two, that there wasn't any challenge to it. That was how my experiences were, as well. I thought at first that maybe it was just me. But then I listened to/watched the great live WOTC 4e game with Wil Wheaton (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... d/20090218) and... it did nothing for me. It was too much like playing a board game - everything was so formulaic and "processed".

So... I've given up on them. I'm a ODD/1e guy.

[dmw71]

Excellent example of 3.5e here: http://itispitchdark.blogspot.com/2011/ ... itory.html

That is too funny!

[Argennian]

Version preferred: 1E (/OSRIC) hands down

I have played and enjoyed OD&D but only a couple of times. B1 "Caves of the Unknown" was my first DMing experience back when I was a wee lad. Sadly, none of my young friends wanted to play D&D. We actually played other awesome 1E goodness in Metamorphosis Alpha, Gamma World, Top Secret and Boot Hill way more than we did with D&D. I really do like the OD&D system but once 1E came out, we went to that and never looked back. The blokes I FtF game with in the northbay all use 2E or a hybrid 1E/2E system that's heavily house-ruled. Although 1E and 2E are mostly compatible, there are a number of differences. The southbay gang use Swords & Wizardry.

As far as TETSNBN, I have all the books and actually went to a convention and played a 3E multi-class toon. After a 25+ year break from rpging, I was very lucky to hook up with a group of friends that had all been gaming and going to Cons since they were in high school way back when. Their system of choice was 1E. (Thank goodness! )


My pleasure: honestly, anytime that you can get a chance to game with others that are passionate about the game and really enjoy it, it can be a "magical" gaming experience. Regardless of game and edition, it's really all about the quality of involvement and the passion for the game of all involved that makes the difference, imho.

[dmw71]

I've really only ever played 1E AD&D with maybe a handful of original D&D (BECMI) back when I was younger. I discovered the Rules Cyclopeida about four or five years ago and was tempted to try and find a game using that ruleset, but I am far and away most familiar and comfortable with 1E (even if I realize now we didn't really play the right way back in the day).

I will admit to an extremely brief fling with 3E back when it was first released and did not care for it. Not at all, really. I may have participated in a few one-off adventures over a couple of weeks but the game definitely didn't stick. I never considered 3.5 or 4E as all the things I didn't like about 3E (namely, and I'm going from (spotty) memory here, but the use of skills for literally everything) still are heavily used in these later versions as well from my understanding.

But then I listened to/watched the great live WOTC 4e game with Wil Wheaton (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... d/20090218) and... it did nothing for me.

I have seen the beginning of few videos with games run by that Chris Perkins and I couldn't stomach it. Not that he's necessarily bad, I just can't handle what the game has become. Personally, I think it's insulting the way they're claiming to be playing the "red box."

At first I was really excited, thinking that WoC is embracing the roots of the game it inherited, only to discover that "red box" is how they're marketing 4E. Seriously?!

I'm not familiar with 2E (yet), but I have agreed to participate in Omega1143's game because I like the sound of it, but also because I want to at least give 2E a legitimate shot.

If given my preference, though, it's 1E all the way. It has its flaws, no doubt, but it's what I grew up with and the game I most enjoy playing.

[Alethan]

But then I listened to/watched the great live WOTC 4e game with Wil Wheaton (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... d/20090218) and... it did nothing for me.

I have seen the beginning of few videos with games run by that Chris Perkins and I couldn't stomach it. Not that he's necessarily bad, I just can't handle what the game has become. Personally, I think it's insulting the way they're claiming to be playing the "red box."

At first I was really excited, thinking that WoC is embracing the roots of the game it inherited, only to discover that "red box" is how they're marketing 4E. Seriously?!

To be honest, I stuck with it mostly for Wil.

[ToniXX]

I started with the Holmes box set, then moved into 1ed and that's all I played, stopping around 16 years old (got a car, heh). Since i've been back into it, I've played a lot of 2ed, and I like it, but the combat rules can be a little cumbersome for my taste, but with the right DM it's not bad. My FtF group plays 2ed and we all share the DMing, and we've gotten pretty good an making the combats go smoothly.

I'd like to play a BECMI game, and I have the Rules Cyclopedia, but at this point there's not enough time.

[dmw71]

I'd like to play a BECMI game, and I have the Rules Cyclopedia, but at this point there's not enough time.

I'd eventually like to participate in a BECMI game as well.

[saalaria]

Doh - bit slow to pick up there are other chats other than the games' threads but better late than never - glad to get a response on my question from you Ethan!
I started on BECMI when I was about 12 and then played a becmi/1e hybrid with a little 2e thrown in at the end till I stopped around 19 or so. Since coming back to the game in the last 6 months or so its a bit early to comment but I can see benefits of all 3 systems (BECMI, 1e/OSRIC or 2e) depending on the group you are with. Haven't seen the later versions in detail eg 3e etc but haven't heard good things and can't see a reason to improve what I love already!

[Nuke66]

I like the NWP in 2e, but miss the monk from 1e.

[Distorted Humor]

Used to be 1ed, but more I play, I like to slide back into B/E+ (Low level BECMI) there the demi-human limits make a lot of sense. Of course, LL is the game system that does the best "out of the book" for me.