Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Stormonu" data-source="post: 8554098" data-attributes="member: 52734">Having a hard time distilling my older edition experiences down to a sentence or two, but here goes:B/X:&nbsp; This was the game I essentially started with at a young age in school.&nbsp; Because of the attitude of other, older games I came away with the impression this was “a kid’s game”, to be abandoned as soon as you could afford the 1E rules.&nbsp; It always confused me why they put out product to such high levels, and I’d like one day to try and run a BECM(I) campaign.&nbsp; This was the game that wasn’t afraid to be goofy or silly - I waver on liking it and cringing at it in alternating moments.1E:&nbsp; This was the rough stuff, DM vs. the Players.&nbsp; It was the DM’s duty to smack the players down, and the player’s duty to outwit the DM - kinda like Stalig 13 in many ways (Which may explain modules A3 &amp; A4).&nbsp; Rules were, in the end, and absolute mish-mash of a conflicted mess, everything was experimental.&nbsp; I probably despise this edition the most because it made me a very adversarial DM.2E: The sanitized game.&nbsp; This was the game of good vs. evil.&nbsp; Your characters were supposed to be the good guys, the rules were cleaned up and organized.&nbsp; There was tons of creativity with campaigns, but at the same time magic was smacked down or ignored in favor of the mundane.&nbsp; Rules wise, if I ran a retro game, this would be the ruleset I’d probably end up using, but ignoring the rules advice antiquated mindset.3E: Rulapolooza.&nbsp; Options, options, options.&nbsp; To the point that you couldn’t do anything unless you had a feat or class ability that covered it.&nbsp; The game got bogged down in rule details.&nbsp; It also fed into the “fighters drool, wizard rules” problem, exasperating it from previous editions; either you had access to magic, or you sucked.&nbsp; Also, monsters were built like characters, and since you could use the rules to “level” them, they could get damn scary.&nbsp; After 10th level though, this game just broke - the Epic level handbook (as well as Deities and Demigods) turned me (further) off from high-level play.&nbsp; It was really the edition that voiced why I hated high-level D&amp;D.4E.&nbsp; TL;DR didn’t like this edition (even after 3 attempts)[spoiler]Showcase fights.&nbsp; Big battles strung together by a thin veneer of plot.&nbsp; Everything changed, a string of dead sacred cows left in its wake.&nbsp; Won’t say much more than there is nothing I will miss from this edition.[/spoiler]5E.&nbsp; The Goldilocks edition.&nbsp; Not too hot, not too cold.&nbsp; Not too much one thing or the other.&nbsp; Very malleable and easy to work with prior edition material.&nbsp; It’s greatest strength is that it doesn’t lean too far into any direction, but that’s also its greatest failing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Stormonu, post: 8554098, member: 52734"] Having a hard time distilling my older edition experiences down to a sentence or two, but here goes: B/X: This was the game I essentially started with at a young age in school. Because of the attitude of other, older games I came away with the impression this was “a kid’s game”, to be abandoned as soon as you could afford the 1E rules. It always confused me why they put out product to such high levels, and I’d like one day to try and run a BECM(I) campaign. This was the game that wasn’t afraid to be goofy or silly - I waver on liking it and cringing at it in alternating moments. 1E: This was the rough stuff, DM vs. the Players. It was the DM’s duty to smack the players down, and the player’s duty to outwit the DM - kinda like Stalig 13 in many ways (Which may explain modules A3 & A4). Rules were, in the end, and absolute mish-mash of a conflicted mess, everything was experimental. I probably despise this edition the most because it made me a very adversarial DM. 2E: The sanitized game. This was the game of good vs. evil. Your characters were supposed to be the good guys, the rules were cleaned up and organized. There was tons of creativity with campaigns, but at the same time magic was smacked down or ignored in favor of the mundane. Rules wise, if I ran a retro game, this would be the ruleset I’d probably end up using, but ignoring the rules advice antiquated mindset. 3E: Rulapolooza. Options, options, options. To the point that you couldn’t do anything unless you had a feat or class ability that covered it. The game got bogged down in rule details. It also fed into the “fighters drool, wizard rules” problem, exasperating it from previous editions; either you had access to magic, or you sucked. Also, monsters were built like characters, and since you could use the rules to “level” them, they could get damn scary. After 10th level though, this game just broke - the Epic level handbook (as well as Deities and Demigods) turned me (further) off from high-level play. It was really the edition that voiced why I hated high-level D&D. 4E. TL;DR didn’t like this edition (even after 3 attempts) [spoiler]Showcase fights. Big battles strung together by a thin veneer of plot. Everything changed, a string of dead sacred cows left in its wake. Won’t say much more than there is nothing I will miss from this edition.[/spoiler] 5E. The Goldilocks edition. Not too hot, not too cold. Not too much one thing or the other. Very malleable and easy to work with prior edition material. It’s greatest strength is that it doesn’t lean too far into any direction, but that’s also its greatest failing. [/QUOTE]

Verification