What would you play?

[Pentius]

I marked everything except 3.0 and 3.5, but included "Various 3rd party d20 games". Basically, anything I haven't tried I'd be willing to try. I prefer 4e, so of course that went on the list. And I've played some 1e before, but would like to see that system as a player, instead of DM(which I never had the chance to do, back in the day). Likewise, I've played a small amount of Pathfinder, but not enough in my estimation to say that I gave it a fair shot. I think that falls under "3rd party d20".

 

[Lhorgrim]

If I could consistently guarantee a table of 4 to 6 players plus myself, I'd play or run any of those games on the list.

My problem is finding reliable gamers more than finding reliable rules...

 

[Ahnehnois]

I can imagine playing non-d20 games, but it would take some pretty special circumstances for me to be playing non-d20 D&D. 3e and PF and similar derivatives are fair game to me.

 

[Umbran]

What editions of D&D would you play if people you liked to play with wanted to play it?

I'm with Crothian - if I like the people, I'll play any of those games, and many others not on that list. The people are far, far more important to me than the system.

 

[alms66]

I had to vote for all of them, because quite frankly, while I dislike D&D/d20 as a system in general, I'm willing to play any RPG with people I like and want to roleplay with.

 

[JeffB]

There is not a game I would not play if my friends came to me and said they wanted to play it. There are games I would not want to run but that takes a lot more effort and requires more from me.

Exactly. I refuse to DM one particular version, and am loathe to DM another.

But I'd play any version of the game.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I don't see it as a "fight".

Reading through many of the threads here give me a different impression...

However, I recognize that some systems are better suited to certain types of play than other systems. Theoretically, any group could take any system to make it work for them, but why bother? Seems to me better to select the system bested suited to everyone's expectations rather than shoehorn those expectations into a system not suited to them.

My perspective is that of a 99.9% GM, desperately grasping any chance to change sides. As long as we're talking D&D, I can live with each and every version. For a BD&D game I'd expect a more improvisational, free-wheeling style compared to 3.xe or 4e. Only if the GM starts with an older system and heaps his own home rules on it to make the game more tactical or detailed, thus producing a Felton effect, I might reconsider.

 

[Starfox]

You realize there is something wrong with the development of the core game when the most popular choice is "Various OGL/d20 3rd Party Games". Of course, this includes Pathfinder, which many people today feel IS the core development of the game.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

You realize there is something wrong with the development of the core game when the most popular choice is "Various OGL/d20 3rd Party Games". Of course, this includes Pathfinder, which many people today feel IS the core development of the game.

No, should I? I see a wide spread and little signs of the zealous behaviour all those edition war threads would imply.

Also, the people voting have given their votes to more than 5 options on average.

 

[Jhaelen]

Given a good DM I'd play all of them. I didn't vote for BECMI and earlier, though, since I didn't enjoy playing them in the past, so it would require some convincing arguments why we should use one of these systems in preference of AD&D 1e and later.

I also excluded retro-clones - why play using a clone system if you can play the real thing?