Question of the Day, December 9, 2010

[Explorator Vimes]

Umm... who says anything that Salvatore says has any merit to it? The guy's a really crappy writer of run-of-the-mill sword and sorcery stories...
At any rate, I HATE D&D with a passion. I hate both the mechanic and the system in general. I've ranted enough about it in Check for Traps, not going to do it any more. The game gets too much credit for what it is.

Good for you, though I think the point of this discussion is talk about which ones we like, not to just try and get a rise from fans because you dislike a popular and prolific writer and the setting/system he happens to use as a framing device. Aren't we supposed to try and be a little nicer all told from the new guidelines?

Surprising amount of votes for 4th Edition. I heard that the D&D folk tend to go "World of Warcraft Rip-off!" or something towards it.

As for me, I would tend to agree with the fact that 4th Ed just feels like an MMO in so many ways. Having spent my money and did my time in Everquest, I didn't feel any great need to relive the experience in my table top, so I too am surprised at the number of votes 4th Ed is getting.

 

[Halceon]

Call me a snob, but I haven't played a widely popular RPG in a very, very long time. I keep to my underdogs.

 

[Nocta-Aeterna]

I have only played 4th as of yet, so I can't say anything about the rest yet, but I'd like to play D&DA sometime.

 

[Explorator Vimes]

Call me a snob, but I haven't played a widely popular RPG in a very, very long time. I keep to my underdogs.

Not sure how relevant this is to the overall discussion, but I have to ask because I'm always curious about system preference. What have you been playing lately?

 

[itf cho]

4th Edition was awful. It heralded the change from trying to make computer games like D&D, to trying to make D&D like a computer game.

 

[Cabamacadaf]

I haven't played real D&D, but based on video games using D&D rules, I prefer 3rd edition (Icewind Dale II).

 

[RoBi3.0]

I voted other cause I love d20 modern. I suppose that isn't technically dnd, but neither is 4e, so I think it counts. It is a better balanced dnd with guns. Who doesn't like machine gun wielding kobolds?

 

[pluizig]

I thought AD&D *was* 2nd edition. Can anyone explain the difference?

I voted 3.5, but only because that one and the horrible, horrible 4th ed are the only versions I've got experience with.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

I really enjoy playing/DMing 4th Edition, it's far breezier than 3.5 and what it loses in depth it makes up for in straight up fun. Granted if 3.5 were less about designing your Uber Pimped Level 20 Half-Wanker Wizard/Bard/Sorcerer/Flesh Toucher and more about just doing awesome stuff, it would be considerably better as well.

 

[linwolf]

Advanced are the only edition that I have played so it wins by default.

 

[Croaker42]

I have always played a 3.0/3.5 hybrid. My DM likes her broken mechanics. I have my longest running characters in this world so it is my favorite.

Also I have just started DMing DnD with the starfarers handbook. (Dragons in space)

 

[j0frenzy]

I usually stick to 4th. I tried going back to 3.5 to try a more role-play oriented game and just decided that the annoying mechanics and sheer complexity in making characters was not worth it to me. Then again, I don't think I am going to be playing D&D for more than a one shot anytime soon. I am just more attached to World of Darkness and Adventure! right now. Though I was talking about running a Tomb of Horrors game to punish my munchkin friends. It would be fun.

 

[j0frenzy]

I thought AD&D *was* 2nd edition. Can anyone explain the difference?

In the early versions of D&D they had this thing going where they would have two editions simultaneously. One was the more simplistic main game and the other was the advanced game for people who wanted more depth and complexity. An interesting idea that I don't really understand why they stopped. At least that is my understanding of it. I've never really looked at anything older than 3rd edition.

 

[Deacon Cole]

Tom Moldvay Basic Set

And the David Cook Expert Set

I do not know why I prefer this edition. I don't like the basic sets that have come before or after. The original Holmes Basic Set was just a consolidation of the original three book original D&D and later sets, especially the Rules Cyclopedia, made the game as complicated as Advanced, so why not just play AD&D?

 

[Trifer420]

Pathfinder is my new favorite, it's pretty much 3.5 but with more stuff that makes the classes more unique. (more class specific skills, feats, etc)

 

[GahzlyGriffon]

We had a poll very similar to this a while back didnt we?

oh well never played d&d but scince 3.5 is what neverwinter nights is based on ill go with that

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Planscape anything.

2nd ed ravenloft was great too....

But the planescape books are the most interesting, plot wise, characterwise, setting wise, and art direction wise.

So 2nd.

 

[Vanbael]

None, its Pathfinder.

 

[ace_of_something]

Apples and Oranges I think... I've played 2nd ed longer than any other edition. My fondest memories are with the group I had that played 3.5 obsessively while in college. I really like 4th ed but i feel like it's a whole different game really. I am enjoying teaching it to my nephews and playing it with my wife. (who only dabbled when 3.5 was around)

I've tried pathfinder and didn't really find it all that impressive thought it was just more clutter for 3.5...

I will still vote 3.5 though.

You guys should do one on campaign setting. I tried it once and it was nitpicked to death. Cuz there are only 8 options though...