Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alynnalizza" data-source="post: 1748215" data-attributes="member: 18630">Hmmm...1st Edition: Like opening a present on your birthday. It was intersting, new (to me), and made the raced different from one another. (No Star Trek feel, where all is equal.) Most of my memories are nostalgic, as a 10 year old, finding a hobby was great. Lost interest right about the time UA, Wilderness Guide, and Dungeoneer's Guide came out. (Though I did love some of the crunch in the Dungeoneer's Guide.) Groups ended up being a good mix of races, with a good range of weaponry. DM had good control of game, able to really fine tune the game to his/her liking without toooo much griping.2nd Edition: Loved it! Still wish I played/ran it. The feel for me was more Epic. When the players reached 12th or 13th level, after 2 years of playing, it created such a backlog of stories that to this day, are still talked about. Some of the Complete Handbooks turned me off, but as DM, I had full say as to what was allowed. (BTW, I love the Complete book of Elves, and my players really avoided playing elves in my campaigns because of the penalties I insisted they role-play out.) Group mainly ended up being Human, Half-elf, or Dwarf, with the occasional player willing to attempt to play an elf. A very good range of weaponry. I still yearn for the day when creating a fighter, you had to contemplate taking that 2-hd sword or polearm BECAUSE of the speed factor. DM still resumed a good amount of control, though the balance between player control and Dm control was starting to balance. 2nd Edition Players Options: I consider this a different version of the game. A distrubing one in many ways. Players REALLY started to min/max the sub abilities. 'What I rolled up a 15 str, I place 17 in muscle, and 13 in the other one... I don't need to carry alot anyways.' This reared its ugly head in my games with the Release of S&P. Weapon Groups and Similiarities, while an okay premise at the time, really didn't fly to well in this version of the game.3rd Edition: Not really liking it. My players are enjoying the game, and enjoy the character creation phase. They do like all the options now available to them. From a DM point of view.... A Freaking nightmare. I limit my games to Core Rules only. I think with all the options out there, it is even worse the the Kits from 2E. I do like the fact that not all monsters are the same within its own type, but I have been playing that way since 1E anyway. I have found myself actually using houserules more in this version than I did in 2E. though not as much as I did with 1E. While I call 3E a nightmare, I do admit that my players are more into the game, and I find myself pleased with it. However, there is this deep gnawing feeling in my stomach when I think about 3E tooo much. Not sure why.3.5: Not playing so no comment.So my rankings: 2E, 1E, 3E, 2E<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />O.  Played some Basic D&D, but not enough to really comment. The only game I would refuse to sit in on would be a 2E<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />O game, the rest all have enough merits to be enjoyable from one side of the table or another.</blockquote>

Verification