-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Are you happy with your current game/edition?
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
DMKastmaria
First Post
I run AD&D, OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord and Swords & Wizardry. Quite happy. 
And frankly, S&W is the "base game" I bash, mash, mangle & maul into the exact kind of D&D I want. Between it, my rpg library, the work of the OSR blogosphere and my own design stuff, I already have the game they're trying to sell me on.
If 5e is decent, I'll get it. If it has some ideas I can swipe, that's great. But, based upon what I've seen so far, and only based on what I've seen, it won't be replacing the games I already have.
And frankly, S&W is the "base game" I bash, mash, mangle & maul into the exact kind of D&D I want. Between it, my rpg library, the work of the OSR blogosphere and my own design stuff, I already have the game they're trying to sell me on.
If 5e is decent, I'll get it. If it has some ideas I can swipe, that's great. But, based upon what I've seen so far, and only based on what I've seen, it won't be replacing the games I already have.
Celebrim
Legend
Perfectly happy. I'm running a 3.0 inspired variant that is about as far from 3.0 as Pathfinder is from 3.5 - so familiar that at first you think its barely changed.
I can foresee tweaking some of the language and cleaning up the rules with some of Pathfinder's tweaks and innovations, and I would love to have more rules support than I have (the down side of having a homebrew), but honestly - how can anyone compete directly with a system I created for myself and which my players have all overwhelmingly embraced?
I don't even have to worry about a new edition poaching my players. My players with prior edition experience prefer my tweaks to the RAW game. My new players who have been tempted to stray to the tables of other DMs have come back to me after a few sessions and said, "Of all the RPG systems I've ever played, 4e has to be the least fun."
As with 4e and Pathfinder, I may poach some small subset of their innovations that 5e introduces, and in the unlikely event 5e provides rules support for things that I haven't gotten around to fully specify, and in the unlikely event that support meets my standards of quality, then I may poach that. But at this point, D&D has lost me even though its my preferred system. It lost me before, and 3e hooked me back by moving hard in the direction of what I'd always wanted from the game but it had never provided (if 2e had been 3e, I'd have never left), but it almost immediately moved away from what I wanted with a focus on prestige classes as player tools, player entitlement, skills as passive hurdle jumpers, lack of balance, lack of grit, power creep, power siloing, and simply endless poorly thought supplements.
Like 'weapon specialization' and 'critical hits' from earlier periods, much of what 3.5 introduced and pushed became things mechanically associated with the game and expected by many players, so I don't think that WotC can realisticly abandon many of the things I hated. Heck, even though I don't much like weapon specialization and critical hits and think that they were overall bad for the game, I haven't abandoned them in my house rules because of the expectations those variant rules created. At this point, I don't think its possible to make everyone happy because they've created too many divergent expectations. I want a game that combines gritty simulation with the 'zero to hero', farmer to demigod playability that I associate with well thought out D&D rules. I want a game that lets me run 1e with an updated rules set and less reliance on pure DM fiat (distasteful to me both as a DM and a player). I have no love of 'rules light' and prefer something that I might call 'rules intuitive' that allows a straight foward off the cuff concrete (proposition) to abstract (fortune) to concrete (result) resolution. Some people may have entirely different focuses.
I can foresee tweaking some of the language and cleaning up the rules with some of Pathfinder's tweaks and innovations, and I would love to have more rules support than I have (the down side of having a homebrew), but honestly - how can anyone compete directly with a system I created for myself and which my players have all overwhelmingly embraced?
I don't even have to worry about a new edition poaching my players. My players with prior edition experience prefer my tweaks to the RAW game. My new players who have been tempted to stray to the tables of other DMs have come back to me after a few sessions and said, "Of all the RPG systems I've ever played, 4e has to be the least fun."
As with 4e and Pathfinder, I may poach some small subset of their innovations that 5e introduces, and in the unlikely event 5e provides rules support for things that I haven't gotten around to fully specify, and in the unlikely event that support meets my standards of quality, then I may poach that. But at this point, D&D has lost me even though its my preferred system. It lost me before, and 3e hooked me back by moving hard in the direction of what I'd always wanted from the game but it had never provided (if 2e had been 3e, I'd have never left), but it almost immediately moved away from what I wanted with a focus on prestige classes as player tools, player entitlement, skills as passive hurdle jumpers, lack of balance, lack of grit, power creep, power siloing, and simply endless poorly thought supplements.
Like 'weapon specialization' and 'critical hits' from earlier periods, much of what 3.5 introduced and pushed became things mechanically associated with the game and expected by many players, so I don't think that WotC can realisticly abandon many of the things I hated. Heck, even though I don't much like weapon specialization and critical hits and think that they were overall bad for the game, I haven't abandoned them in my house rules because of the expectations those variant rules created. At this point, I don't think its possible to make everyone happy because they've created too many divergent expectations. I want a game that combines gritty simulation with the 'zero to hero', farmer to demigod playability that I associate with well thought out D&D rules. I want a game that lets me run 1e with an updated rules set and less reliance on pure DM fiat (distasteful to me both as a DM and a player). I have no love of 'rules light' and prefer something that I might call 'rules intuitive' that allows a straight foward off the cuff concrete (proposition) to abstract (fortune) to concrete (result) resolution. Some people may have entirely different focuses.
I'm running AD&D (levels 4/5) and playing Pathfinder (level 12) right now. We also have a 4e campaign (level 14) on hiatus, perhaps permanently (which would be a shame -- we stopped right before initiating a bloody, semi-religious Communist revolution).
I'm quite happy with all of those campaigns. But I'm also up for checking out 5e when it arrives.
Each campaign is the game, systems are merely tools. I don't have a preferred system... though I'm quite keen on AD&D at the moment, thanks to it's speed of play, the wealth of adventures to mine materials from --that I purchased back in high school!-- and some great stuff coming out of the OSR (like Vorheim).
I'm quite happy with all of those campaigns. But I'm also up for checking out 5e when it arrives.
Each campaign is the game, systems are merely tools. I don't have a preferred system... though I'm quite keen on AD&D at the moment, thanks to it's speed of play, the wealth of adventures to mine materials from --that I purchased back in high school!-- and some great stuff coming out of the OSR (like Vorheim).
OnlineDM
Adventurer
I run a whole bunch of 4e and am perfectly happy with it.
That said, I'm still curious about D&D Next and will certainly participate in the play test when it opens. I think there are some great designers working on the game, so my bet is that I'll enjoy what they come up with.
That said, I'm still curious about D&D Next and will certainly participate in the play test when it opens. I think there are some great designers working on the game, so my bet is that I'll enjoy what they come up with.
BriarMonkey
First Post
I'm currently in a 3.5 game. Too, I'm putting together my houserules and campaign for Pathfinder. And, I am quite happy with my game of choice.
You may wonder why I said I'm happy, yet I have houserules. It's more that I want to model specific things in my campaign, not that the rules are failures. It's no different than really liking chocolate ice cream, but still using it to make a banana split - you just want some extra, customizable, things in there.
As for any thoughts towards 5e, I'm ambivalent. I'd picked up the core books for 4e, thinking to give the system a try. Well, I've never purchased anything 4e since; I disliked the system far too much. I'm willing to look at 5e, and will probably get the core books, but for anything beyond that initial dip, the system will really have to grab my imagination.
You may wonder why I said I'm happy, yet I have houserules. It's more that I want to model specific things in my campaign, not that the rules are failures. It's no different than really liking chocolate ice cream, but still using it to make a banana split - you just want some extra, customizable, things in there.
As for any thoughts towards 5e, I'm ambivalent. I'd picked up the core books for 4e, thinking to give the system a try. Well, I've never purchased anything 4e since; I disliked the system far too much. I'm willing to look at 5e, and will probably get the core books, but for anything beyond that initial dip, the system will really have to grab my imagination.
I mainly play 4e and still enjoy it very much. At the same time also enjoy playing new games and one of my gaming groups plays a new game every month. I'll definitely give 5e a try when it comes out (and probably try the playtest). If that doesn't work I might go back to something else, but who knows.
A
amerigoV
Guest
A very Happy Savage.
I play 1E AD&D and I'm happy with it. Its not beyond possibility that I could change to 5E when it comes out, but its highly unlikely. My hope for 5E is that it is close enough to what I play that it has game entities (spells, monsters, adventures, etc) that I can port to my campaign.
I'm currently running Classic Deadlands, and playing in a Star Wars Saga Edition game. Both of these are out of physical print.
I am curious to look at Savage Worlds, and its version of Deadlands, but I don't expect I'd change rules for my current campaign. We're plugging along quite happily, thanks.
I don't pick up a system for a campaign unless I feel it is suitable for the game I intend, as it is in print. So, I never "need" a new version - I don't start if I'm going to need a new version. Will I enjoy a new version, regardless? Quite possibly, depending on the new version.
Similar Threads
