Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sebastian Francis" data-source="post: 1846708" data-attributes="member: 25370">Have you considered an earlier version of (A)D&D? Right now I'm primarily running 3.0, but due to all the stuff we're discussing in these threads, I'm thinking of running an AD&D 2e game next.  In spite of how much some folks dislike 2e, I find it quite a simple system.  No feats, no prestige classes, no tactical minatures-based combat, fewer spells, fewer classes, simpler class abilities, far fewer numbers, stats, and rules to keep track of. I know 2e isn't for everyone--some people find the somewhat arbitrary mechanics annoying (i.e. Characters have a special stat just for breaking down doors  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> ) but I love it.  Or there's Rules Cyclopedia D&D, even better.  Due to the referendum on this forum, it's the next rules set for our group's major campaign.Other than AD&D 1e, which I've always found rather dense and arcane, I'd have to say that previous versions of D&D/AD&D are *much* rules-liter and *far* easier to DM, especially at high levels (which aren't usually as high anyway  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ).It's true that *any* system can become tactical and munchkin heavy.  But some (cough 3e cough) are more likely to go that route than others).</blockquote>

Verification