Have you decided to change systems?

[S'mon]

ORLY?http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/search.php?search_author=diaglo

According to that, looks like diaglo has posted on dragonsfoot precisely once in the months I've been a member.

 

[RFisher]

Is it really that unusual in your experience?

Nonexistant in my experience. I have never seen a player so concerned with the rules used that they left the group. In fact, I've seen gamers who bashed a system at every opportunity & swear up & down they'd never play that system happily start making a character the moment someone offered to run the verboten rule set.

I do know one gamer who would likely have left the group once we changed systems, but he realized our group wasn't for him even though we were playing a system he liked.

Although, I've very seldom seen an existing campaign switched to a different rule set, & I'm not a big fan of that. (If you want to switch rules, I think it is usually preferrable to start a new campaign.) Though I've never seen it happen, I would be less surprised by a player dropping out in that case.

Indeed, I've never seen a poster called Diaglo on the Dragonsfoot Classic forum, which is for OD&D (as well as for later iterations up to Rules Cyclopedia).

I think people who play the original game--either who started with it or who are beyond the stage of trying to figure out how to play it without blindly filling in all the blanks with experience from later editions--aren't that interested in discussing rules. The nature of that game--once you're comfortable with it--just doesn't lead to the same kind of rules discussions that later editions (even AD&D1e) do.

The game isn't only rules. There are other aspects of the game & aspects of community that don't really depend upon rules. & ENWorld is one of the best RPGamer communities around.

 

[Son_of_Thunder]

I think people who play the original game--either who started with it or who are beyond the stage of trying to figure out how to play it without blindly filling in all the blanks with experience from later editions--aren't that interested in discussing rules. The nature of that game--once you're comfortable with it--just doesn't lead to the same kind of rules discussions that later editions (even AD&D1e) do.

The game isn't only rules. There are other aspects of the game & aspects of community that don't really depend upon rules. & ENWorld is one of the best RPGamer communities around.

I believe this to be a very insightful comment. Thanks, I needed it!

 

[GlassJaw]

I play in a campaign with "casual" gamers so it's tough to sever all ties with 3.x, not that I necessarily want to though.

However, if I'm running a game, 3.x is certainly not my first choice. If I do end up running 3.x, it's most likely with some radical rules variants to playtest.

 

[Odysseus]

My big eye opener for 3.x rules was playing with other D20 systems. Traveller, Conan and Chuthlu. As much as I enjoyed the earlier editions of D&D , I wouldn't use anything but a D20 system now.

 

[Set]

We've played every franchise of D&D, Vampire (under three different rules-sets, if you include MET), Villians & Vigilantes, GURPS (a half-dozen genres and at least three rules-sets for that one as well), The Fantasy Trip, Paranoia, Toon, Trinity, Aberrant, Mutants & Masterminds, etc.

It's rarely a case of 'either, or' it's more often a case of 'and.'

We prefer 3.5 to other iterations of D&D right now (although we stuck to 3.0 for Damage Reduction and Face / Reach rules).

Other transitions, such as from GURPS 3rd to 4th, or Vampire the Masquerade to Vampire the Requiem, didn't go so well, and we have gone back a step on those two systems to a sort of 'GURPS 3.5' or Vampire the House-Ruled Masquerade intermediary phase (too many of us like playing stuff that doesn't exist anymore in VtR, for instance).

I personally prefer super-hero gaming to any other, which makes Mutants & Masterminds my top choice, but I'm not planning on switching away from 3.5 anytime soon, because that scratches a different itch.

The current dearth of gaming in my neck of the woods has nothing to do with table-top games and everything to do with the sweet seductive allure of online gaming. (Some of us are playing Lord of the Rings online, others World of Warcraft, and yet others City of Heroes / Villains. The dark side has triumphed...)

 

[diaglo]

Just to piggyback on that, Diaglo, I'm curious to know why hang out on enworld so much if "all other versions of the game are pale imitations of the one true game" or whatever. I don't mean anything negative by that, but like drscott, I'm curious about why an OD&D diehard would be interested in a d20/3.5 site.

i am and always have been a D&D fan. why would i not post or read posts/news about D&D?
i have been a member of this group since EN was doing his rumor stuff.
i'm a member of the TSR boards too.
i'm a member of Dragonsfoot
Mortality.net
Monte Cook
GitP
Nifty
HotHalflings
Randomlings
etc...

wherever D&D is discussed there is a good chance i'm there.


edit: besides the fact i actually play the newest editions too. read the story hour in my sig.

 

[diaglo]

Diaglo, I'm certain you've been asked this question a zillion times, but I must know: why?

it is my choice and preference.

 

[Wombat]

I haven't played D20 in a bit and the last time I did it was such an extreme variation that it barely counted as such. I never was overly fond of hit points, charcacter classes, levels, alignment, or armour class.

But having said all of that, I can still have some fun playing D20. It's sorta like McDonald's versus a real restaurant -- if I'm hungry and there is nothing else around, I have no problem eating at Mickey D's, but I would probably prefer somewhere else.

Currently, due to changes in my gaming group, we are going through a flux period. We ended up Ars Magica, a system I love, and have been experimenting with a number of systems and settings. Come September or October I will be reviving an old setting of mine (New Mavarga) under a new set of rules (7th Sea, heavy variant -- like the system, loathe Theah). In the meantime, we have played a homebrew system, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, a bit of (old) World of Darkness, and it looks like we'll be doing a bit of playtesting for a new system & setting one of my buddies has come up with.

I like coming back here because people talk about a number of topics beside D&D/D20/OGL, and the D20 threads that there are often come up with fascinating and unorthodox ideas and angles on the core mechanics. This is an incredibly friendly and welcoming site and it has been part of my nearly-daily routine since a little before 3e came out. I tend to post in fits and starts, but I have been made to feel welcome and have always enjoyed the comraderie of the community.

 

[Nebulous]

I like d20 because of how malleable it is. We play Arcana Evolved, and that's the only real 3.5 rules we play by right now. Of course, i do have some problems with D&D, but nothing unsurmountable. Actually, i would love to play Warhammer, Ars Magica, Runequest, Mutants and Masterminds, and any other number of games, but it just doesn't seem to happen.

I don't run 3.5 right now, but if i DID, i would use a pre-made campaign, probably Red Hand of Doom, and all of the free stat-blocks i already downloaded, and not even worry about micro-management or extreme prep-time.

Actually, i don't quite understand when people complain about DMing 3.5. What is the hard part? (really, i'm not being sarcastic) Is it figuring out the skills and feats for NPC's and monsters? See, crap like that i just wing usually, unless i know it's a monster the group is going to fight, and then i jot down the relevant feat or SQ. Or is it the burdensome troubles of high-level play (13th+) where combat can drag to a crawl?