Johnnie Freedom!
First Post
Here's the poll. Sorry for splitting it into two posts--my bad.
If you were to play a version of pre-3.0 D&D, which would it be?
Feyd Rautha
First Post
This was a close call for me. I chose 1st edition, but I have always been ga-ga over Rules Compendium/Basic DnD.
ghettognome
First Post
It ended up being 2e for me, but I like 1st too, though I didnt know it as well. Too bad this pole didn't include other rpg settings since d&d molded them. I would vote for Alternity. 
Akrasia
Procrastinator
I think the Rules Cyclopedia version of D&D is the best one ever produced. The core rules are simple and fun enough, but there are plenty of optional rules (e.g. skills, unlimited demi-human progression, weapon specialization, "death's door" rules, etc.) that you can adopt as you see fit. It is far friendlier to tinkering than 3.x, and much more streamlined and coherent than 1st or 2nd ed. AD&D. (The Basic/Expert rules, though also good, lack all the additional options that RC includes.)
Although not an OOP version of D&D (and not even a fully "in print" one yet!), you might want to check out TLG's "Castles and Crusades", which is heavily inspired by pre-3.x D&D (while using the d20 mechanic). A lot of people who play OOP versios of D&D were involved in its developement (not me!), so it has a lot in common with pre-3.x versions of D&D, while being in print.
Finally, if you are interested in pre-3.x versions of the game, I would strongly urge you to check out Dragonsfoot.net, as it is a site devoted to OOP D&D (they also have forums for C&C, Hackaster, and Savage Worlds). Gary Gygax, Frank Mentzer, Steve Marsh, and a few other important people from the "early days" of D&D often post there.
Good luck!
Although not an OOP version of D&D (and not even a fully "in print" one yet!), you might want to check out TLG's "Castles and Crusades", which is heavily inspired by pre-3.x D&D (while using the d20 mechanic). A lot of people who play OOP versios of D&D were involved in its developement (not me!), so it has a lot in common with pre-3.x versions of D&D, while being in print.
Finally, if you are interested in pre-3.x versions of the game, I would strongly urge you to check out Dragonsfoot.net, as it is a site devoted to OOP D&D (they also have forums for C&C, Hackaster, and Savage Worlds). Gary Gygax, Frank Mentzer, Steve Marsh, and a few other important people from the "early days" of D&D often post there.
Good luck!
Rodrigo Istalindir
Explorer
2nd edition, but I thrive on complexity and my players are pretty good about not abusing the things in 2nd Ed that were so easy to abuse.
Besides -- Planescape.
Besides -- Planescape.
Last edited:
Particle_Man
Explorer
1st ed., but Moldvay/Cook is a very close second.
1st ed. is the only system of those listed above that grants the illusionist a spell-list which has spells that no one else has access to.
Luckily C&C will rectify this.![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
1st ed. is the only system of those listed above that grants the illusionist a spell-list which has spells that no one else has access to.
Luckily C&C will rectify this.
Last edited:
Barendd Nobeard
Explorer
1st ed - because I have most of the book and a lot of the modules.
jester47
First Post
I know its been asked a thousand time before, but what makes M/C Bas/Ex different from the later B/X/C/M rules that eventually made up the Rules Cyclopedia?
I don't have my copy with me, but does anyone recall if the RC has rules in it for using the races as races rather than classes?
Aaron.
I don't have my copy with me, but does anyone recall if the RC has rules in it for using the races as races rather than classes?
Aaron.
Similar Threads
- Poll
