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

[Johnnie Freedom!]

Long story short: I've been gaming off and on since the old days. I started with Earl Otus' red box basic set (didn't we all?) and dabbled a bit with AD&D 1e. Blah blah blah. Time passes and 3.0 comes out. When it does, I return to gaming (more a coincidence than anything; I didn't "leave because of Vampire and 2e" or something like that. ).

I find myself in the position of someone who wants to like 3.0/3.5 but keeps finding it difficult. Here's what I don't like:

Feats
Detailed tactical combat rules
Prestige classes
Too rules heavy
Gigantic stat blocks for NPCs/monsters, especially at higher levels

I've been wondering a lot lately if perhaps I would prefer an older version of (A)D&D. Something more rules-lite, faster moving, something where character stats and progression (new feats, prestige classes, skills, etc.) isn't such a huge factor.

Now I know the first suggestion that many of you will make is Castles & Crusades, but I'm avoiding C&C. The main reason is name recognition. I frequently try to recruit new players and I like having the D&D "brand" to do so. I don't want to have to say "Come play Castles & Crusades. It's...uh...just like D&D!" Frankly, I'm also a bit attached to the D&D brand. It moves me on some level. "Castles & Crusades" just doesn't do it. And, with all respect to the *real* old timers, I'm not into OD&D either.

As I see it, here's the options:

(1) Take up AD&D 1e.
(2) Take up AD&D 2e.
(3) Take up Rules Cyclopedia D&D.

A few comments on these options...
For one thing, I don't remember AD&D 1e at all. I was in grade 6 when I played it, and we played it for only a session or two. I know Basic/Expert D&D fairly well (what became Rules Cyclopedia), but to be honest, I'm not crazy about it. Although I like how rules-lite it is and how much nostalgia is attached to it (for me), I hate the "races as classes thing." Seems too limiting.

What worries me about *all* of these options is that I'm not sure how many players are out there for these versions of the game. I'd hate to find my "dream" version of D&D and then not find anyone to play with me! :\

Also, I love Planescape and Ravenloft (2e Ravenloft). I have a TON of stuff for these settings. That's one of the reasons I've thought of AD&D 2e.

Oh, and BTW, I'm not bothered by the illogical/cobbled together/whathaveyou nature of the mechanics of the earlier editions. In some ways, I almost like it that way...3.0/3.5 almost feels a little too polished and slick...I've heard the "videogame" analogy before, and that almost seems to fit. Strictly IMHO, of course.

Anyway, if you're still reading, thanks for following this ramble. I'd appreciate any advice or encouragement any of you can offer. I'm actually a bit discouraged, to tell you the truth. I'm going through a "gaming identity crisis" or something, as stupid as that sounds, and I need to find my way.

Any advice?

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Your best bet is probably 2nd Edition. At least there's a wealth of material. You could always give Hackmaster a try, too. I know you don't want to hear 'Castles and Crusades' again, but it really is what you're looking for I think. Paste the cover from one of the old blue books over it and pretend its D&D.

I honestly don't think 3rd Ed. is rules-heavy compared to 2nd. At least with 3rd, most of the rules are variations on 'roll a d20 and beat X', unlike 2nd where each rule seemed to have a different mechanic (Thac0 for combat, percentile for thieves' skills, high is good for this, low is good for that) that made playing Dragon Poker seem simplistic.

PrCs, especially, can be yanked from the game with zero negative impact. And if you start characters at first level, by the time they get to the point where they've got a dozen different feats, etc., they've grown into the system and it isn't that complicated. I've taught a lot of newbies how to play, and they almost universally grasp the basics of D20 faster than 2nd Ed. AoOs are about the only thing that takes them a long time to get used to, so I'll give them a lot of do-overs at first.

 

[EricNoah]

I've heard things about Rules Cyclopedia D&D -- if you can find a copy of that you have a complete game in a book.

3E lite is a little hard to do because of the interdependency between rules. Take out AoOs, for example, and there are several class abilities, feats, and monster abilities that kind of go out the window. Which isn't bad but you'd want to know up front how it all shakes out. But one way to simplify is, as mentioned, just kill the concept of prestige classes. Another (drastic) way to simplify is to prohibit multiclassing. However, as I understand it, a lot of this simplifying has been done in Castles and Crusades -- I know you weren't thinking of going that direction but from what I have read it really IS D&D with a different name.

 

[Nightfall]

*shakes his head* I can understand 3 out of 4 of those...but FEATS?!! Come on. Who REALLY wants to go back to weapon proficioncies and non weapon proficienies?!

Anyway that's my gripe for the eve.

My advice, just take what you want and go. Me, I'm sticking with 3.0/3.5 modified.

 

[Samothdm]

Just because you're playing C&C (not that you are, but if you did) doesn't mean that you can't recruit players using the D&D name. "D&D" is akin to d20 kind of like "Kleenex" is akin to "facial tissue". When's the last time that you told someone you were going to the store to pick up a new box of facial tissues?

If you find that you really want to like 3.0/3.5 (as you stated), then just pick up this game but recruit players telling that you're playing "D&D lite" or just "D&D with house rules". I mean, who doesn't use house rules anyway?

I would agree that 3rd is actually (IMO) less hard to learn and remember than 2E specifically because of what Rodgrigo pointed out (in 3E, everything is "roll high on a d20 and beat the DC or AC). That's so much easier than all the 2E mechanics.

Don't want PrCs? Don't use 'em. No harm, no foul.

Feats may be a little trickier if you really don't want them, but I think maybe C&C has some suggestions for that.

 

[Byrons_Ghost]

I know Basic/Expert D&D fairly well (what became Rules Cyclopedia), but to be honest, I'm not crazy about it. Although I like how rules-lite it is and how much nostalgia is attached to it (for me), I hate the "races as classes thing." Seems too limiting.

Well, at the risk of getting analytical, it's probably easier to change the one thing you don't like about this system than to cobble together a bunch of elements from other systems.

So, ditch the races-as-classes thing, and import the races from 3e (or whichever edition you prefer). Players can now choose an elven magic-users, a halfling cleric, whatever. Either come up with the races based on what they got in Basic, or use the 3e races as is and give humans some advantages as well, like a couple extra proficiencies. Or come up with some human "subraces" that the player can choose, similar to choosing clan in Oriental Adventures (though now that I think of it, that just gave an extra feat and skill, so it's sort of the same thing).

Sure, you'll only have 4 or 5 basic classes to start out with, but later people can branch into paladins and druids and all that sort of thing. If you can track down the old Gazetteers, there's different classes in some of them, like merchants, variant clerics, etc.

That's my suggestion, anyhow. I've even considered it before- I like 3.5, but it does get cumbersome at times.

 

[caudor]

Since you stated that you like Planescape and Ravenloft, I suggest you go with 2e as well. There is lots of 2e material and some even free in .pdf format (check WotC's website).

There's nothing wrong with playing the version you like. Go for it.

 

[T. Foster]

Come over to the Dark Side (1E AD&D). You know you want to

As for how hard it is to find 1E players: although not many active 'lifestyle gamers' (i.e. the kind of folks who post on message-boards, or are likely to answer ads in game-stores) still play 1E, and tend to look down on those of us who do, among inactive/former gamers 1E is still by far the most widely recognized and popular version of the game, because a LOT of people played it, or at least remember others playing it, from back in the 80s when they were kids and teenagers, and D&D's 'fad years' (roughly 81-85) fall squarely in the middle of the current 'nostalgia wave' of folks in their upper 20s-30s (look around -- 80s nostalgia is big, and getting bigger as people who grew up in the 80s are getting older, entering 'true adulthood' with careers and families of their own). You're much more likely to convince such people to play 1E by framing it as a nostalgia trip than to convince them to play some slicked-up and geekified "New Coke" version framed un-ironically. Sure, it'll require a little proactive effort and convincing, you won't be able to just post an ad on a game-store bulletin board and wait for responses (since, surprisingly enough, people who haven't played an rpg since 1986 don't tend to spend a lot of time in game stores (unless perhaps they're there buying HeroClix or Yu-Gi-Oh cards for their kids...)), but it'll be worth the effort. And, honestly, wouldn't you rather play with a bunch of casual non-gamer friends than some random strangers with questionable hygiene and odious personal habits who happened to answer your game-store ad?

 

[Pramas]

I'd recommend the D&D Rules Cyclopedia. It'll give you the D&D feeling without the complication of 3E. The Gazeteer series also has some cool campaign options you can take advantage of.

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

Hackmaster is something you might find a lot of fun.