I'm having a gamer identity crisis. Please help.

[Piratecat]

I'd give Basic/Expert a try myself.

It's funny; I played 2e for a decade, and loved it because of the wonderful games we had. I think that's despite the rules, not because of them. I liked 2e a lot at the time, but I played one 2e game at a con last year and it was like nails on a blackboard. I have no interest in going back to non-weapon proficiencies and the like. Bleah.

This seems weird because these things never really bothered me the whole time I played it. Maybe I'm just used to a unified mechanic now; I can handle a simpler game, but not one that feels horribly restrictive.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

In general, I find it easier to remember if I need to roll high or low in a situation that it is to remember what feats, skills, synergies, conditions, etc... go into the modifier.

d20 has a simple unified mechanic: d20 + mods. But the devil is in the details of the mod. Sometimes determining what mods apply require stopping the game and thumbing through a 300+ page book. d20 (at least D&D 3.x) is *not* any simpler than previous editions of the game (and by extention, HM) simply because it uses a single mechanic for just about everything.

This is not 'Nam, Francisca. This is D&D. There are rules.

I think they're both complex in different ways. It's just been my experience that *inexperienced players* find d20 easier to work with. Plus, in general, if you forget some modifier or something (how often do even experienced players forget their 'Dodge' bonus?) it does't have that great an impact on the game.

 

[francisca]

play something you haven't yet.

play the Original.

Someday, I will sit down with you and play the Original. You going to make it to GenCon next year?

 

[diaglo]

Someday, I will sit down with you and play the Original. You going to make it to GenCon next year?

i'm hoping.

 

[francisca]

I think they're both complex in different ways.

Absolutley, I'd say it's a "pick your poison" proposition, only it isn't poison -- it's high adventure goodness. But I think you get the drift.

It's just been my experience that *inexperienced players* find d20 easier to work with.

Part of the reason I started the Basic/Expert game was to see if this very supposition is true. I've seen this argument right here on ENWorld for a couple of years now. I brought in some new folks to kibitz on both my 3.5 homebrew, and my B/X game.

In each case (3 different people, with varying backgrounds, but no experince with tabletop RPGs), after observing both of the games, they chose Basic/Expert over 3.5, citing the simpler rules (read: 64 pages vs. 320), generally quicker resolution of combat, and less stopage in-game to reference something in a rulebook.

In particular, the two people who value the fluffier "interaction with the game world" over crunchy combat, said that 3.5 seemed more like an exercise in cold, calculated combat rather than roleplay, and was more about the rules, rather than "the game", if you take my meaning.

(Here is the part where I quash the edition wars that could erupt from this thread.)

Now, is this scientific? Nope.

Would the results have been different if they watched a game run by some other DM? Quite possibly.

Am I claiming that Basic/Expert is superior to 3.5? Nope.

Am I trying to tell you how/what to play? Nope.

See the link at the bottom of my sig for more thoughts on the matter.

edit: Dude! Where my sig? Here is the relevent link.

 

[francisca]

I'd give Basic/Expert a try myself.

The past two years I promised/threatened/attempted to run a Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert game at GenCon. Maybe next year. If you make it, and I run the game, you are welcome at my table.

 

[Voadam]

Rules cyclopedia if you are comfortable with dropping races as classes and creating race stats as in 1e/2e/3e. Balancing humans is the toughest part.

Otherwise the differences between 1e and 2e are minor, the way bards are a class, the removal of barbarians, monks, and assassins as classes and cleric/druid spheres in 2e.

Any of your RC/1e/2e modules can be played straight with any of the rules sets with almost no problems.

I used stuff interchangeably for more than a decade, its only in 3e where it gets tough to convert.

From a simple rules perspective the basic D&D stat modifiers are much cleaner than 1e or 2e.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

(a bunch of stuff Francisca said I mostly agree with)

You are definitely going to see 'fluff over crunch' with the older stuff, at least until the 3rd ed. rules become second nature to the players and mechanics starts to fade into the background. And 3rd Ed is absolutely more combat-oriented in terms of mechanics.

A lot depends on where your players are coming from. Most of mine come from backgrounds where the absence of stuff like AoOs, disarming, sundering, etc., would be noticed and missed. Not that they don't 'get' roleplaying, just that they tend to be a tactically-minded.

I do think 3rd Ed has a gentler learning curve so long as you start at 1st level, when players don't have a lot of the feats and such that start adding complexity. Start 'em at 3rd or 4th, or advance them faster than they are ready for, and it becomes much worse.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

Johnnie, if I were you, I would play AD&D 2e. I still play 2e and sometimes basic/expert. Honestly, I've never understood the venom that some d20ers express towards 2e. The irony, of course, is that when 2e was current, they all played it and enjoyed it. Then out comes d20, and suddenly they say, "Man, 2e SUXXORS!1!" Whatever.

As far as finding people to play with, in my experience it boils down to this: there are two types of D&Ders, edition fanatics and nonpartisans. The edition fanatics will either love 2e (if that's their edition of choice) or hate it. Most edition fanatics these days are d20ites, and they'll hate 2e and won't play it even if you bring in a live stripper for your game sessions.

On the other hand, nonpartisans are D&Ders who, while they may have a preferred edition, pretty much just want to play. They recognize that "All D&D is D&D" even though some versions may be better than others in certain respects. If you run a 2e game, they will come. If it's a good game, they will stay.

The big question is: how many D&Ders are edition fanatics, and how many are nonpartisans?

Hmmm...that might be a thread all on its own.

 

[rogueattorney]

Johnny F:

Don't try to keep pounding a square peg into a round hole. If you're not having fun play a different game.

I play and love B/X D&D. I understand the hesitance given toward the 7 basic classes. Pesonally, I think that they offer a nice starting point for players. If they are interested in playing something different, it is so easy to ad hoc something in a couple minutes. For example, a dwarven thief... keep the dwarven detection abilities, saving throws, infravision, languages, and other "racial" abilities. Use the dwarven xp chart. Give him d6 hit points per level. Basically a tougher thief that advances a bit slower. There is also an insane amount of supplementary material out there, with all sorts of class options.

R.A.