I want a generic DnD game.

[DungeonmasterCal]

I've proposed doing this to my group more than once. They prefer the complex home brew game we use. But from the DM's perspective (mine) there are days I'd rather just run a kick-in-the-door-and-steal-the-loot game. Sigh...not these guys.

 

[Wombat]

When was the last time you played generic DnD?

Hmmm, I'd say about ... 1977...

Once our group got ahold of Traveller and Judge's Guild material everything changed in our gaming, including our base assumptions on D&D. We started altering rules, monsters, etc., to fit our tastes and, since this was in the Old Days, we had no base campaign setting, so we were necessarily making our own. Never did Greyhawk, or Forgotten Realms, or DragonLance, or even City-State of the Invincible Overlord.

Just the people I have gamed with, though.

 

[Krieg]

Hmmm, I'd say about ... 1977...

I'd have to say the same thing. I don't think I've ever played a campaign that didn't incorporate stuff from outside the core books...even if that just meant using stuff from Dragon.

 

[D+1]

When was that last time you played a generic, classic DnD game? Throw out the houserule tomes, the campaign settings, and everything else non-core. Just get back to the basics... good RP, memorable NPCs, and an original campaign.

That would be when I first ran/played a published game setting - FR about 15 years ago I think, but my memory fails. Not that it has anything to do specifically with FR - it could have been Greyhawk. We just never RAN a game actually set IN Greyhawk.

But, that thing about throwing out the houserule tomes? I did that once. ONCE. I tried to run a 1E game STRICTLY according to the rules therein. It sucked. Really.

When was the last time you played generic DnD?

Mid-70's when I first played the game at all. If offered the chance to play in such a game I'd take it. If asked to run such a game I'd do it. But neither would be my first choice by any stretch. 3E is BETTER. And 3E is not how you seem to be describing "generic D&D".

In truth, what you want has nothing to do with the game setting or the rule set you're using. It has to do with your MINDSET and that of the DM running the game. When YOU accept the fact that the rules and the setting can be bent and broken as you see fit - then, grasshopper, you will find again the gaming enlightenment you seek. Your search lies not without, but within.

 

[Remathilis]

My current game (so close to being started) is a generic setting for the most part. It takes place on a lost continent of Oerth far away from the Flanaess. Everything "D&D" goes, from the PH deities to the Great Wheel, while giving me the freedom of making my own continent and kingdoms. I allow a bunch of additional D&D generic books (D&DG, XPH, CW) as is, and designed my area to accomidate them and anything else I think of. The only alternate rule I am using is Reputation from UA. So far, I'm proud of this world, which is "quintesential" D&D with enough spice to make the Dungeons MEAN something.

Lets see how it works out.

 

[WayneLigon]

Generally, all I use are the three core books. I'll take stuff from the X & X books, or a feat here and there but it all amounts to no more than a page of 'house rules' (which I don't really consider house rules, since I'm just noting what normal expansions are useful). I was considering starting a campaign with a greater degree of departure (perhaps using some of the alternate things in UA or some other core classes) but that's on hold for now. I might go back to it, or just develop another more normal setting.

Generally change in my game will come not from the rules, but in the setting information.

 

[dratz]

We are just using the 3.0 core books. I'm still running the Adventure Path series, and although we now have a grip on the rules, something comes up every session or two that is new to us. Our goup has a few of the splat books (Tome & Blood, Sword & Fist, Defenders of the Faith) but we haven't found a lot there to use.

I've never been too enamoured of all the crunchy bits that seem to be so important to others. I haven't used all the feats/spells/magic items/monsters in the core books, so I really don't need any extras, thank you. And with monsters able to take levels, I don't see much need of of specialized creatures (my players were shocked by a party of 10th level orcs because they were still expecting 1 HD monsters). To me (and our group), it is important to just sit down and play, without being encumbered by too many rules or options.

 

[tauton_ikhnos]

When was the last time you played generic DnD?

About the first time I played generic Gurps Fantasy II: Madlands, and realized that generic D&D represents only a very tiny slice of a really big fantasy pie, and that it wasn't even the best tasting slice. It's got nostalgia, but...

Forward! Onward! Into the breach, with naught but our knickers and a knock spell! Bring on the shadowlands, the rune-thaned cities, the blackened suns! Bring on the historical dramas, the steampunk aberrations, the spelljamming stars!

Variety. We loves it. Our precious.

And I realized that I liked the paragraph above enough that it needs to be in my sig. Sorry for the ego moment

 

[the Jester]

I run a 'generic' dnd (set in my homebrew) that uses almost completely unmodified 3.5 rules. (Of course, I have homebrewed add-ons like spells, feats, etc... but no changes to the existing system.)

My party has been having fun doing dungeon delves off and on for years. They're currently playing a 'Return to' style adventure where they're returning to a dungeon they'd previously cleared out- Return to Bile Mountain.

 

[francisca]

I run a very vanilla 3.5 game, which is on hiatus run now. The only house rules are: no 3.5 weapon sizing, the gnome favored class is wizard (illusionist), and I use the flat XP system from UA..

Currently, I'm running a pretty much by the book basic/expert game set in the Grand Duchy of Karameikos. the party hits B2 next week. can't get much more generic than that.