Simon Atavax
First Post
I think in the OP I mentioned "3.0/3.5". I don't see them as profoundly different; for instance, I use rules from both when running 3.5.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Curious about something: would you play in an AD&D campaign?
- Thread starter Simon Atavax
- Start date
I think in the OP I mentioned "3.0/3.5". I don't see them as profoundly different; for instance, I use rules from both when running 3.5.
Remathilis
Legend
Well, I voted "no", but its more nuanced than that.
I have 0% desire to play 1e. I missed it the first time, it holds no nostalgia for me. If I wanted to go back to an AD&D iteration, it would be 2e.
That said, I be more inclined to run/play in a BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia game, but probably for only a few games or a module or two. I don't think I could make a campaign of it, or at least a primary game of it.
If I going to try to go back to pre-2000 style D&D, I'd most likely play Castles & Crusades, if for nothing else the upwards scaling AC.
I am currently playing and running 4e, and playing (and soon to be running) 3.5. I don't see enough of a difference to warrant 3e and 3.5 as separate, as 3.5 is clearly a superior revision of the former. I'm not keen on the Pathfinder revisions, but a few might make it into my house-rules doc.
I have 0% desire to play 1e. I missed it the first time, it holds no nostalgia for me. If I wanted to go back to an AD&D iteration, it would be 2e.
That said, I be more inclined to run/play in a BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia game, but probably for only a few games or a module or two. I don't think I could make a campaign of it, or at least a primary game of it.
If I going to try to go back to pre-2000 style D&D, I'd most likely play Castles & Crusades, if for nothing else the upwards scaling AC.
I am currently playing and running 4e, and playing (and soon to be running) 3.5. I don't see enough of a difference to warrant 3e and 3.5 as separate, as 3.5 is clearly a superior revision of the former. I'm not keen on the Pathfinder revisions, but a few might make it into my house-rules doc.
Last edited:
Mishihari Lord
First Post
Definitely. It's the only version of D&D I'd be willing to play at this point.
cougent
First Post
Yes, yes, and YES!
My primary reason for playing D&D is to have fun. Actually that is a primary reason for most social things I do. AD&D is a ton of fun mainly because it has gaping mechanics holes that the (good) DM has to fill in. This makes for some very creative, interesting, and amusing situations IME. Even a so called "bad DM" can create an interesting and amusing situation. For me a good game depends far more on good people and good times than good game mechanics.
I was tempted to quote treebore from above, because with the right people, I would play almost anything, even 4E, but that has not happened yet.
My primary reason for playing D&D is to have fun. Actually that is a primary reason for most social things I do. AD&D is a ton of fun mainly because it has gaping mechanics holes that the (good) DM has to fill in. This makes for some very creative, interesting, and amusing situations IME. Even a so called "bad DM" can create an interesting and amusing situation. For me a good game depends far more on good people and good times than good game mechanics.
I was tempted to quote treebore from above, because with the right people, I would play almost anything, even 4E, but that has not happened yet.
thedungeondelver
Adventurer
Without a moment's hesitation.
Well, I might pause to select a handful of minis, grab my dice and my PLAYERS HANDBOOK. Then I'd be off to wherever this game was being hosted.
As it is, I DM AD&D for my group, but none of them have seen fit to reciprocate (despite loving the games I run).
Curses.
SteveC
Doing the best imitation of myself
Honestly, no. Like a lot of people here, I played AD&D to death when I was younger, and when I was finished with it, I was really finished with it: it didn't have anything more to offer me.
It's kind of funny to type that, since I have always thought of myself as a "good GM can make anything fun," sort of person, but a couple of experiences recently have convinced me that if I'm spending too much time fighting the system, I should really be playing something else.
Now the rest of you, go have a good time, I'm just speaking for myself!
--Steve
It's kind of funny to type that, since I have always thought of myself as a "good GM can make anything fun," sort of person, but a couple of experiences recently have convinced me that if I'm spending too much time fighting the system, I should really be playing something else.
Now the rest of you, go have a good time, I'm just speaking for myself!
--Steve
I don’t think I’ll ever understand turning down a game because of the system. If I enjoy a GM, I figure I’m going to enjoy the game more if he’s using the system he wants to use. Even if it isn’t my first choice.
FWIW, I’ve never actually seen weapon v. armor, alignment languages, or psionics used in a 1e game. (Although, personally, I’d love to try the weapon v. armor sometime.)
FWIW, I’ve never actually seen weapon v. armor, alignment languages, or psionics used in a 1e game. (Although, personally, I’d love to try the weapon v. armor sometime.)
Similar Threads
