Edition Love

[HellHound]

Diaglo - I'm with you as a fan of OD&D over all other editions... well ALMOST all other editions.

For classic D&D feel, I way prefer OD&D. But As a publisher and writer, and as someone who likes to run games with a working / workable skill system, I love 3e.

I am nostalgic, but I'm also flexible, and I'm also loving the flexibility of the d20 system.

And I miss my old OD&D campaigns.

 

[hammymchamham]

well, since I started with 3rd edition, I have allegence to what I started to play...and the current edition

 

[Sammael99]

Does anybody agree with my insights into the RPG
community or am I an idiot full of sound and fury whose
ideas mean absolutely nothing?

My take is that ultimately, system is secondary. The groups I have games with have always put more emphasis on the setting than on the system. We stopped playing AD&D 1st because we were overly frystrated with the system, true, but more importantly because other games with more stable and interesting settings came out.

We came back to 3E because we'd been playing low fantasy or dark modern RPGs for a while and wanted something heroic. We probably wouldn't have moved back to 1E, but 3E fit the bill just fine : a lot more rational and a lot easier to grasp was just what we were looking for.

That being said, I majorly disliked the evolutions in Vampire. But it wasn't due to the system changes. It was due to the emphasis on certain elements of the background. VtM 1E was an angst-ridden, dark and wonderful game where you strived for morality because the alternative was too horrible to consider. In other words, it was Interview with a Vampire in a nutshell. VtM 2nd Ed. started on the road to slugfest where you had all these options for being a violent butcher with no effect to your sanity. It was, in other words, a lot more Lestat the Vampire. I stopped purchasing supplements around that time. In any case, the major system flaws in the WW games (mainly combat) never got fixed throughout the re-editions...

So all in all, I'd say that if a system isn't so horrible that it actually hinders the fun of roleplaying, I don't much care. The setting is so much more important to me...

 

[Ravellion]

I had some great fun in 2e, but I really like the options and simplicity of 3e... it's more versatile, yet simpler. I tried to go back to 2e, but the combat rules were horrific to my playing/DMing style... I especially hate:
Beginning of round
Dm: Intentions people!
Me: I'll try and kill the Orc
Other Player: Can I get to the other Orc?
Dm: No.
Other Player: I'll try Rav's or c as well then.
(Initiative is rolled)
Other player: I roll a 20 and kill Rav's orc
Orcs initiative: Orc hits Rav
DM: I'm sorry Rav, but your foe has gone down already. You do nothing for a combat round (ONE WHOLE FRIGGING MINUTE!)

Ummm... Yeah... sorry about that. needless to say, I really like 3e.

Rav

 

[Katerek]

khyron

I agree with you in part. I no where you are coming frome anyways, I have seen the same reactiona dn behavior you are talking about far to many times to discredit your theory.

Is it universally true? Of course not, but there are few things that are.

I think that in many cases, that this type of behavior is more of a reflection of personality type more than anything else.

Also, I feel that this behavior is no different than those individuals out there that only drive Fords or Chevys or whatever.

Brand Loyalty is something that has really become prominent, at least here in America. I dont understand it, but I bet it would make for one hell of an interesting research project.

 

[Psion]

Some feel absolute loyalty to the edition of system X
that was current at the time they started palying system
X regardless of its flaws. Others display the same
devotion to the current edition of system X regardless of
its flaws.

Some don't happen to see your alleged flaws as flaws. 1e adherents blow hard with complaints like "it's just not D&D" (or at least as they remember it.) Well AFAIC, it doesn't have to be "as you remember it", and even back then, people used to complain about the precise sorts of things that diehards are willing to call virtues, such as class/race restrictions.

So in short, don't be so quick to point the finger at people for being blind to a supposed "flaw", because ultimately, just what constitutes a flaw is up to the people playing the system. If having dwarf monks and wizards contributes to your game, then it is obviosly not a flaw to people playing the game, now is it?

 

[Mallus]

The best campaigns I ran were 2nd ed. and the best I played in was a hybird 1st/2nd.

That said, I really like the 3rd ed. system. I find it clearly superior {though hardly flawless}. I look at FRPG's as rules for simulating fantasy novels. And the flexibility at the core of 3e {with regard to class} fixes my one huge problem w/the earlier systems: that characters cannot respond to their life experiences and change career {unless their human w/ high stats}. A lot of my favorite characters from fantasy cannot be modelled by ed. 1 and 2 without discarding the rules.

Also, the general design philosophy of increasing choices {again, in terms of character development} really works for me.

Blind adherence to any product is silly {either out of nostaglia or pure branding}. And a great campaign can be made from any rules set. But I think 3rd ed. is a better rules set.

 

[belegost]

I started with the boxed set and moved to 1st edition soon after. There is no question that I'm nostaligic regarding the old systems, but I love 3rd edition and play it exclusively right now.

I don't think I ever resisted an edition change - I made the move to 2nd edition when it came out and enjoyed it. As long as the new editions were released a decade apart, it felt refreshing just to change pace a bit.

I tend to think (perhaps naively) that those people choosing to stay with 1st or 2nd edition do it because it is a better set of rules for THEM and not because they started with the system. I know two people that began playing in 3rd edition and now play 1st edition exclusively.

I, despite my 1st edition beginnings, am enjoying the 3rd edition and many of the well written d20 publications.

 

[Davelozzi]

I started with regular D&D (red box basic), then moved to AD&D 1e for the increased options, and for the seperation of race & class.

When 2e came out, I saw it as a big improvement and embraced it - I liked the increased options of specialty priests and specialist wizards and the like. I liked the class books at first but felt that they quickly went down the tubes.

I bought the Player's Options books and liked a lot of the ideas but never had a chance to use them so I can't say how well they would've worked in play (except for a few elements of the combat system that made it into a campaign that I briefly joined as a player).

Around this time, I started to become a little more aware of other games out there on the market, and fell in love with Alternity.

When 3e came out, I was excited about some of the changes but felt that not enough had been done. Consequently, instead of jumping into it, I decided to make my own rules set combining the best elements of all 3 editions and Alternity.

After wasting over a year postponing the campaign because the rules weren't ready, I decided to scrap the project and just use 3e, as the conversion work was too much of a hassle.

Since then, 3e had been working great for me & my group.

So to sumarize, I guess I fit more into the group that favors the current edition over the one I grew up with, although the reasons have less to do with me thinking it's a better system, and more to do with wanting to use the system that's compatible with the adventures and other materials now being released.