What do you dislike about 1E?

[francisca]

3e is a more complex game. 1e might have had rules problems but it was easier for the DM to hand wave them sine 1e was a DM friendly game. 3e being a player friendly game makes the rules more up frant and harder to hand wave. 3e also has new rules that should have been in the core books printed in the other books. 1e didn't have that problem as there just wasn't that many other books out there aside from the modules.

Now this is not to say it is impossible or that no one does it. I've used onlky the core books for a 3e game and know of others who have too. In most of those games I've seen players not so much complaining but commenting on using the other books. In 1e I never had a player comment about using one of the other books.

I guess that answers it for me too.

 

[Crothian]

This is the nub of it: is 3.x a better game?

This might be the problem. I'm not just talking about D&D and its many versions. When I say games have improved in the past 20 years, I'm talking across the board of RPGs. To just compare the editions of D&D invited edition wars and those never end well.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I see your point now, Crothian. I may not agree entirely, but I do see the point. I don't tend to have the same problems with 3E, but I can see where such issues would come into play. However, for me, I am enjoying 3E much more than previous editions. I had fun in 1E and 2E, but 3E does exactly what I want from an RPG.

Kane

 

[Kanegrundar]

This might be the problem. I'm not just talking about D&D and its many versions. When I say games have improved in the past 20 years, I'm talking across the board of RPGs. To just compare the editions of D&D invited edition wars and those never end well.

Never end well? How about never end AT ALL.

Kane

 

[francisca]

Never end well? How about never end AT ALL.

Kane

Quoted for truth.

 

[Storm Raven]

Temptation and need to get them. All of the rules are not in the core books. Complete arcane has the rules for sneak attack and spells for instance something that is not covered in the core books but can come up ijn a normal game.

No, Complete Arcane has clarifications that, if you read through the rules in the PHB, you could figure out on your own.

Temptation doesn't prevent you from running games just out of the three core books. It doesn't even come close to making it difficult. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "the need to get [other books]". Did WotC take your dog hostage and threaten you bump him off unless you get their latest release?

 

[diaglo]

Quoted for truth.

i've been steadily fighting it for years...


diaglo "at war with the other editions since their introduction" Ooi

 

[Storm Raven]

you have to be living in a box or on a desert island with no internet connection... which i guess does explain Storm Raven's angst... not to see or at least hear about other books.

I didn't say the other books don't exist. I said their existence doesn't prevent you from running a campaign using only the core rules. I've done just that, a couple of times. I've also run campaigns using material from other books. But the mere existence of more options doesn't prevent any one from limiting their options to a set minimum.

the same was true back in the early days too.

Which was the question. It was posited that it is harder to run a game using just the core rules now, as opposed to back in the days when previous editions were king. The fact that this was an issue in the "old days" goes a long way towards disproving that argument.

 

[diaglo]

No, Complete Arcane has clarifications that, if you read through the rules in the PHB, you could figure out on your own.

that's the same argument i have been using for years.

OD&D (1974) had all the rules you needed if you could figure them out on your own.

 

[Crothian]

Never end well? How about never end AT ALL.

Kane

They end, just not satisfactory. But the threads end, usually with a lock and thrown away key