What do you want? I'll tell you something -

[Ulrick]

It all comes down to just find your favorite edition and then shut up and play. 1st Edition has been around for decades and still there is a fan base. And that fan base provides its own support. It's a pity though that others don't feel that way.

I ran a 1e campaign last Spring. I had more fun running that campaign than I did with 3.5e. Unfortunately, the players didn't like the rules--despite the fact the combat was faster, despite the fact that I used OD&D for combat tracking and initiative. Some resisted tracking down a PHB--despite their cheapness and availability. They also didn't like all of the combat tables in the DMG--even after a photocopied them for their use. So, sadly enough, the campaign ended.

4e seemed like a breath of fresh air compared to 3.5e. I personally think it has a lot of attributes that 1e has. But instead I encounter hostility toward it "Screw 4e, all WotC wants is more money! I'm going with Pathfinder!" Or the time I got booed for even showing the 4e core books at a gaming club meeting.

Do people now place more trust/distrust in the game itself rather than the DM? I know I run good games, regardless of edition (though I'll hesitate running 3.5e for personal reasons). But with certain people, they must have that RIGHT EDITION. It doesn't matter who's running it, if it's not the RIGHT EDITION then they won't play.

It's frustrating.

One reason I ran 1e is because there is still plenty of PHBs out there that are cheap. Their not making any more books that have to feel obligated to purchased. And if you want more options, Unearthed Arcana, the Dungeoneer's and Wilderness Survival Guides are still available--for cheap. But it just wasn't good enough.

I just want to run a great game and tell a great story. I want to just play.

 

[thedungeondelver]

There's a rich community out there, no need to shut ourselves off from good gaming because you think you have to pick a side like its an election.

Naw man, I'm not gettin' all ecumenical like that. I'm still me.

 

[mhensley]

I've basically felt this way for years now. With just 3 core rulebooks, I've already got more campaign ideas than I could ever possibly run in a lifetime. I never figured out why people needs a stack of extra rule books. Never figured it out.

Easy. People like new shiny things. And buying those new things make people feel good.

 

[catsclaw227]

Excellent post.

I have also loved every edition of D&D that I have played in through the years. Yes, at times, I have become frustrated with some rules, some mechanics, some lack or change in "feel", but ultimately, it's the game I have been playing and DMing for some 30 years now.

Currently, I am running a 4e game from a 3.5 campaign AP. There's really a TON of stuff from all editions that I can use, with a little work. And in some cases, very little work.

For those that prefer 3.x, I have always been perplexed by the cries of discontinued support. My goodness, I have more 3.x adventures and campaign settings and crunchy books than I could use in my lifetime. The interwebs can give a player/DM a forum to ask questions, get clarifications, find other rulings interpretations, etc. How much more support does anyone acutally need?

 

[Stormtower]

Delver, I couldn't agree more.

When 4E was announced I took a long look at my collection and realized I had enough material to keep gaming for 30 years or more. Your assertion that a good GM running a solid game will be able to attract players is spot on, IMO.

I adopted 4E for one reason only: I enjoy the RPGA and that's where the game is today. I am still not sold on it, and it may not hold my interest for the long term. Regardless of that, however, your statements here ring true: we have a responsibility to the D&D game and its collective culture to support ourselves if company X chooses not to support our edition of choice.

Great stuff, and game on.

 

[ExploderWizard]

4e seemed like a breath of fresh air compared to 3.5e. I personally think it has a lot of attributes that 1e has. But instead I encounter hostility toward it "Screw 4e, all WotC wants is more money! I'm going with Pathfinder!" Or the time I got booed for even showing the 4e core books at a gaming club meeting.

Do people now place more trust/distrust in the game itself rather than the DM? I know I run good games, regardless of edition (though I'll hesitate running 3.5e for personal reasons). But with certain people, they must have that RIGHT EDITION. It doesn't matter who's running it, if it's not the RIGHT EDITION then they won't play.

It's frustrating.

One reason I ran 1e is because there is still plenty of PHBs out there that are cheap. Their not making any more books that have to feel obligated to purchased. And if you want more options, Unearthed Arcana, the Dungeoneer's and Wilderness Survival Guides are still available--for cheap. But it just wasn't good enough.

I just want to run a great game and tell a great story. I want to just play.

Some players won't play anything other than thier "pet" edition because they have spent a lot of time learning to crack the system and build the most abusable collections of abilities masquerading as characters that the world has seen. Third edition seems to be a favorite with these types because the exacting rules and build mechanics are well suited to rules lawyering. These same people will also balk at campaigns using core rules only calling them "boring" without ever playing a session because thier favorite broken build wouldn't be available.

Do any of these players want to run thier favorite system? If not then you might be better off finding better players.

 

[Tewligan]

Mmmm - Delver has delivered a delicious batch of Truth! Well said, sir.

 

[Dragonbait]

Testify!

For the 3E players, I just looked at the pdf market and there was a whole batch of new 3E products even AFTER the 4E GSL opened. It's -still- a well-supported game system.

 

[lin_fusan]

As I get older (and crankier), I feel that it's less the game or its rules and more the DM/GM/referee and the players that makes a quality game.

I've played with wonky rulesets that became great games because the players and DMs pitched in, played their hearts out, greeted success with hurrahs and failures with more hurrahs.

I've played elegant and simple rulesets that became boring games because players and DMs weren't willing to suspend disbelief or collaborate in the game.

I'd like to think that I'd still be gaming ten years from now. And when I decide to run another campaign, I'll look at my options and go, "OK, I think this idea would run better as a 1st ed game. Or, I think the 3rd ed ruleset would allow this game to evolve and change. Or, I think the 4th ed core would make it flow better."

 

[ProfessorCirno]

4e seemed like a breath of fresh air compared to 3.5e. I personally think it has a lot of attributes that 1e has. But instead I encounter hostility toward it "Screw 4e, all WotC wants is more money! I'm going with Pathfinder!" Or the time I got booed for even showing the 4e core books at a gaming club meeting.

Do people now place more trust/distrust in the game itself rather than the DM? I know I run good games, regardless of edition (though I'll hesitate running 3.5e for personal reasons). But with certain people, they must have that RIGHT EDITION. It doesn't matter who's running it, if it's not the RIGHT EDITION then they won't play.

It's frustrating.

Some people don't like some systems. They're perfectly allowed to dislike 4e as much as they so desire.