Search results

If I were a betting man, I’d wager cons are less representative than ENWorld.

Well, I’ve long said that 3e is an enjoyable game but not D&D. People express the thought for—I think—three reasons...If edition X and Y are really different games, then there’s no reason for them to not be in print at the same timeD&D has a unique position in the hobby and gamers would like to...

I’d say the “has kids” crowd. ^_^

The only reason I’ve never finished one myself is that I’m horribly indecisive. Anybody can do it. First thing to realize is that even (especially) the best creators in any field leverage the existing corpus—stand on the shoulders of giants. Prefer using (or tweaking) an existing and proven...

If balance is the concern, it might be better to keep druids, call them wizards, and drop wizards.

Honestly, I currently think I have more of a preference against the 3e style than a preference for any of the others. Old school style? Yeah, I’ve really come to appreciate this even more than I did the first time around. UA generic class style? Yeah. That’s more want I kept wanting 3e to be...

Also, I suspect a lot of people abstained voting for editions they have little or no personal experience with. Which seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I think D&D’s not-quite-generic/not-quite-specific hybrid has actually been a big factor in it’s success. It combines some of the best things about both. Other games do the generic toolkit better. Other games do the very specific better. Best for D&D to continue to serve the middle-ground it has...

Based on the data I’ve had for other products, I would note that there can be quite a difference between best selling and most played. Because not every game bought gets an equal amount of play. I’ve got no idea. I might guess D&D, Storyteller/ing, GURPS standing out above the crowd. Then...

I’m probably biased, but my first choice would be the c. 1981 Basic Set. It is, unfortunately, the one basic set they don’t sell a PDF of. Rules-wise the c. 1983 Basic Set (which someone linked to above) is almost—if not entirely—identical. While the 1981 book is organized in the manner of most...

Cross Star Munchkin d20 with Labyrinth Lord.

Then why not get a Basic Set PDF?

Although...just because someone always uses a battlemat, that doesn’t necessarily mean they want battlemat dependent rules. It’d be interesting to have that poll too and see how it correlates to this one.

Everyone I know either started with one of the Basic Sets or started with an experienced group. I don’t know anyone who started cold with AD&D. So, I’d suggest starting with one of the old Basic Sets and then moving up to AD&D.

phbdmgua

There’s an official D&D battlemat now?

Same reason that if they put out an edition of D&D with Cleric as the only class people would have a problem with it. People want the option to play either. My group is playing Marvel Super Heroes right now. We almost always go with random chargen because it’s really hard to come up with...

B/X: Quick! Is this monster going to be in the Basic book or the Expert book? (^_^) BECMI: Stretched the progression out over way too many levels. Everyone at TSR (including Frank) really played AD&D. Some of it seems not very well play tested. (^_^) 1e: Tried to make a game that should never...

My experience has been that just about anyone can do a good enough job for an RPG. With just a little maturity and a willingness to enlist the aid of the players in making his rulings, and you’ve got not just a fair DM but a good one. Though I realize that is contrary to popular opinion. I...

I think I’d call 3e and 4e design pessimistic. 3e tried to codify as much as possible to avoid arguments. 4e actually shows some optimism leaving some things uncodified than 3e codified. But among the things they did codify, they tended to drop anything that anyone might have ever found to be a...