Possibly dumb poll: Playing vs. Running D&D Editions

[Obryn]

I'd happily play one shot of any of the above. But for I'm not interested in devoting "semi-regular" to anything on this list other 3E (either side is great).

Yeah, I figured that most everyone will play almost any game for a one-shot. People who wouldn't are statistical outliers - probably folks who feel extremely passionately for or against some game system. They're out there - but I think they're a tiny minority even on forae where people are relatively passionate about their gaming.

It's only when you get into a moderate time commitment that things get clearer.

-O

 

[MerricB]

The dip for 2e surprises me, too, since it basically plays like 1e and had a crapload of fun settings.

I wonder if a lot of people are thinking of "2e as itself" instead of "2e as we modified it"?

I am not even remotely surprised to see tons of people willing to play 3e - that was, after all, the game that birthed this very site, and still tons of fun to play in.

Indeed.

As an aside, I intentionally left out OGL games, d20 Modern, SWSE, and so on... Almost everyone will find at least one of those appealing. I was a lot more curious about D&D itself.

An excellent thought!

Cheers!

 

[BryonD]

Ah, but I've been spending a lot of time reading threads complaining about 4e!

I guess whilst a lot of AD&D DMs saw 3e as a backwards step, a lot of 3e players see 4e as a backwards step. Meanwhile, the player/DM thing is reversed otherwise.

Cheers!

Well, that nearly 40% still wouldn't want to run the new game and, as of right now, slightly more people would prefer playing 3X to the brand new 4E is rather telling. Heck, even if 4E playing takes the lead, that three months in it isn't completely dominant is telling.

But that is not incompatible with the people who do play it being more willing to DM.

 

[SenseiMike]

Ah, but I've been spending a lot of time reading threads complaining about 4e!

I guess whilst a lot of AD&D DMs saw 3e as a backwards step, a lot of 3e players see 4e as a backwards step. Meanwhile, the player/DM thing is reversed otherwise.

Cheers!

Personally, I've never considered 3.x as a backward step. Some things I weren't too pleased with, but at least it was fairly customizable to my tastes. But I see this comparison to the complaints about 4E and I find the premise to be wrong. 4E is a different game with many of the trappings of the previous editions but locked into a different paradigm, all of which stems from an overriding altruistic approach to the game that believes that players only surmounting obstacles that are specifically tailored to them is the only way they're going to have fun.

Pg. 28 of the DMG, under the little segment Tips from the "Pros" details how one of the game's writers, James Wyatt, played a game with his 9 year old boy, who promptly took control of the game. He said that he was going to find a trap around a statue, set it off, take some damage, and there would be a treasure there guarding it. This quaint form of indulgence is the fundamental premise that guides everything there is about 4E. It seems to me that the boy knew full well that his father wasn't going to kill off his character, that no matter what kind of trap he might lay for him the rules do not include any trap that would be particularly debilitating or deadly. From the specific tailoring of the classes toward an interdependently rigid paradigm of Defender, Striker, Controller, and Leader, to the banning of instant death traps and the general forbiddence of placing encounters next to high cliffs in case the PCs should happen to fall to a grisly demise.

There are a ton of other problems I have with the game, but this is where it all begins. To me, High Adventure involves High Risk, a concept that, surprisingly, seems to have eluded Wizards of the Coast. Mechanically, there are other problems that someone else months ago pointed out (the premise of Encounter Powers, the weakness of the Wizard, etc.), but there are concepts that I would adopt for my own game should I decide to go strictly for a battle-mat model.

My primary game that I and my players currently play is Legend of the Five Rings, Revised 3rd Edition. It's too bad you didn't have that one up there on the poll, because this game will put hair on your chest.

 

[RFisher]

I checked everything up to and including “RUN a D&D Rules Compendium/BECMI/BX Game”.

I might run 1e, 2e, or 3e; but I think I’d have to make enough changes that it would really be more of a variant rather than just some house rules.

 

[BryonD]

I have fond memories of everything but OD&D (which was before my time).

I have very fond memories of 1E myself, with less experience with the other early versions. But to me a lot of that comes down to how new and cool the very idea was.

I see early D&D as being easily the biggest jump forward in gaming ever. It was the genius that started it all and, back then, that was what we had so we (I) loved it.

But since then many different games have come along and greatly refined the concept to better serve whatever niche was desired. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that.

Saturn V rockets were awesome as well. I certainly hope they don't go back to using them....

Same with 1E. I'd greatly enjoy some nostalgia one shot play. But for me, that is as far as it goes. There are simply better games to play now.

 

[BryonD]

Personally, I've never considered 3.x as a backward step.

I saw it as a huge forward step. (with some issues for certain)

But, I wouldn't call myself an AD&D DM. I was one for quite a while. But long before 3E came along I had abandoned D&D for games that did the job I wanted much better.

I've never seen myself as a D&D player. I'm a gamer. For the past 8 years, D&D was the game I played. I still play the same basic game. It is just called Pathfinder now.

 

[Wormwood]

. . .

 

[Wormwood]

To me, High Adventure involves High Risk, a concept that, surprisingly, seems to have eluded Wizards of the Coast.

I believe it is far more likely that such a paradigm was considered and ultimately rejected as a primary design goal, rather than being merely overlooked.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

I'd play 4E, and depending on the playstyle and level 3.5 as well.
I'd run 3.5, or 4E. I know this seems a little tunnel-visioned, but these versions are where I like my game and playstyles.