alright need to know! 2e, 3e or 4e

[Legacy_bussinrounds]

               As far as the art goes, Loved the art in the 1st edition books.    When i was in a bookstore and looked at a 4th edition book, it looked really childish compared to the old classic drawings, imo.  

I prefer the 1st and 2nd edition rules also , btw.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_UrkOfGreyhawk]

               I still play 1st edition AD&D with some 2nd edition house rules (like non-weapon proficiencies) thrown in, but since you can't legally get a 1st edition PH from Paizo any more I use OSRIC for character development and custom character sheets.

I also play 3.5 from time to time, although I'm migrating that campaign to pathfinder.

4th edition can kiss my butt.

GTG. Work puter is done rebooting.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_TSMDude]

               

lordofworms wrote...

My first experience was I was about 12 my sister was 15 and she was dating her long time boyfriend of like 7+ years , his name was Jeff Pogi (if you out there man I owe you my imagination and almost everything I am today). I was the typical guy trying to fit in with sports and such but I couldn't throw for sh!t and my catching was worse. I could run real fast and I loved to draw. that was the extent of my skills...lol.
anyways one christmas he gives me 'The Hobbit' by lord tolkien for christmas that year and said read it, when your done reading it, if you liked it I will show you what we all have been playing ..

I ate that book right up...here it was, my imagination come alive, no more stupid sports(no offense sporty types) and dumb boring early 70's life for an awkward 12 year old who could only draw monsters and fantasy shots...here were dwarves, elves (not elfs!!), dragons, oh my god!
I finished it in like 3 days...he came over a few weeks later and told my sister he would be taking me over some friends house and he would be back to take her out later that night.

We ended up at some guys house and I just remember him saying "just sit here and watch and maybe you can play with us next time"
I won't even try and explain everything I felt and saw...I thumbed through their monster manulas, read the player handbook...reached for the DM book and was cast a baleful eye on the all powerful DM himself..."thats not for you just yet" he said in an imposing voice..
I remember the spell of pizza, of sheafs of paper..I remember listening avidly to things like..
" I poke my sword tip into the hole and shake it around...."
and
"I used my spiderclimb ability to scale down the wall to retrieve our fallen friend"
the secret notes passed from DM to that one PC in the group....OMG what does he KNOW!!???!
looking at the realworld clock sadly and wishing you knew that timestop spell yourself

D&D shaped who I am as a person, what I like to read and watch and play...how I 'see' the world..
that girl's charisma is like 2, but I give her intelligence a 15...lol

sadly, I never got to play with Jeff and his friends as graduating, college and relationship issues between my sister and him prevented it..
but I always remembered THAT day.
several years later I teamed up with a friend and started our own campaigns, played with others I met at school, work..but I will always remember that day just watching as being my first time.

I read all this and the first thing I think....your sister is single huh?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Quillmaster]

               My first taste was the blue paperback book that came in the box which included die you had to colour in yourself!  I think I was about 17 back then.  I then moved on to 2nd Edition AD&D having been lured in with the hardback book cover of the Demon statue having a gem removed from its eye.  It's still my favourite, and the ruleset I use to this day if I run a game (although I do often use the Star Wars D6 system for other settings).  I liked the fact it made a point of saying the purpose of the game was to have fun, and that the rules were only there as GUIDELINES.  After 2nd Edition it just seemed to get too bogged down in statistics for my liking, attracting players who craved high numbers over immersive storyline and use of their own imagination.  To me at least, having fewer character classes led to better character development.  Fighters, Thieves, Clerics and Wizards, with Assassins, Druids, Bards and Paladins as optional extras was more than enough.  As soon as they started introducing more, players lost touch of their soul in favour of their statistics.
I confess money might have been a factor too.  I resented spending more money updating when I'd already spent so much on the 5 excellent hardback books.
Of course, that's just my personal opinion, but it still works for me, and my tabletop playing guests are still having immense fun to this very day. '>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_henesua]

               I got into D&D right when the advanced hardback books came out.in the 70's. I was a little tyke at the time (about 7) but convinced the older kid up the block to teach me how to play. As much fun as I had back in those days, the stripped down 3E rules - just the three core books - I think was the best game system put out for the game - as everything fits together sensibly and scales well from 1st to 20th level.

We rarely had to look anything up. The game just flowed on, and I was able to DM an open ended campaign well with it. I pretty much made up the encounters on the spot most of the time, and could throw anything t the players, relying on them to be creative with their solutions. And the rules always had a way to handle the situation. I actually ran with the same group for years and the game evolved from 1st edition to 2nd to 3rd. While we had some amazing adventures in 2nd edition, I didn't shine as a DM until I had the flexible ruleset of 3rd edition. I am a stickler for fairness, and that was hard to pull off without being a control freak in 2nd edition. -- but this might be for the style of play I allowed: occassional conflict and competition between players. After all its all about role play, and I encourage the players to play true to their character.

All that said... I think NWN's application of the rules is an attrocity. 3rd edition is much more flexible and sensible than what was pulled off in NWN. But perhaps that is because they felt a need to adapt it as a computer game.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par henesua, 04 juin 2011 - 12:36 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Failed.Bard]

               I haven't even opened a 4th edition book, so I'm not going to touch on that one at all here.

 I started with the basic set, back in elementary, but no, I'm not quite that old, AD&D had been out for years already, that's just what my friend had.  The Hobbit was the first real book I'd ever read, so when I suddenly had a chance a few years later to act out, I was hooked.
 I got the basic set from him a few weeks after he first showed it to me, and the core AD&D books not long after that.  Oh, the joys brought on by zealous religious parents forcing my friends to get rid of those "satanic" books.

 From the DMs perspective, since I almost always ran the games for the group of friends I played with, I like AD&D right up until they released Unearthed Arcana.  I felt that destroyed any semblance of balance in the game to the point that a fresh start with 2nd edition was a good, and in my views running the game, necessary thing.

 2nd Edition is still my favourite, though again, some (most) of the the class and race kits were more about ways to make your character "uber" than in fleshing out their histories.  My players loved them, but as a DM the only thing I liked was thh fighters handbook, since that had combat options any class could use in it.

 3rd edition, and 3.5 fall into the same sort of trap as 2nd edition did.  The core books are great, I actually think WotC did a really good job on the 3.5 ruleset, but almost all the expansion books are just power-building nonsense.  I actually think, if they'd never come up with the idea of prestige classes and just had those abilities selectable as feat options, 3.5 would be my favourite system.

 As it is, I'd have to say, in order:
 2nd Edition, minus the kits.
 3.5/3.0, even with the PrCs in, but non epic levels.  Epic level 3.0/3.5 isn't on my list at all.
 AD&D.  Sadly, Unearthed Arcana really did ruin the game for me.
 Basic/Expert sets.  I was never a fan of the Companion set up.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_motorheadabega]

               Started out red box/blue box in 1980, moved to 1st edition AD&D almost immediately after. 1st ed was simple and elegant, but the rules were laid out with no regard for ease of lookup. 2nd ed made spell listings alphabetical by Spell name, and with no duplicate entries for class. 3rd ed further streamlined the design so that fewer tables were required and embraced "higher is better" as a design principle. 3.5 allowed them to apply errata and fix bugs.

Give me 3.5 or give me death.
4th ed made all characters the same, but with different keywords to describe their damage. It allows characters to level every so many sessions, regardless of what they actually do IG - kinda like how they teach K-8 these days. To quote one online SRD: "As it stands, the SRD for 4e is just a list of names so I won't be making 4e version of this SRD."