D&D General What version of D&D are you playing?

[Kannik]

So the fact that only 45% are playing 2024 should be very telling.

Eh, I wouldn't read too much into it. In my monthly group we're a) only playing once a month and b) have multiple GMs and so about 2.5 campaigns being run in that stated once per month of playing. We just switched back to our Princes of the Apocalypse campaign which we began in 2018, so it is in 5e14, and the previous campaign was the Desert of Desolation that I was running that also started years ago in 2021. We're mid campaign -- we aren't switching rules. Others may be in the same boat.

Iffn' and when we start up a new campaign I'd assume we'll end up running 5e24 or a combo version of 5e14/24.

(And to be complete, in my weekly group we aren't playing any version of 5e at the moment.)

 

[haakon1]

If folks don’t like the way the poll was organized, you could do you own.

Maybe:
OD&D (all variants and editions including OSR & 3rd party)
Basic (all variants and editions including OSR & 3rd party)
AD&D (all variants and editions including OSR & 3rd party)
3e/3.5e (all variants and editions including 3rd party like PF1)
4e (all variants and editions including 3rd party)
5e (all variants and editions including 3rd party)
RPG that isn’t based off a D&D rule set at all
RPG that has D&D origins
Not playing RPG’s right now.

 

[kermit4karate]

Buying new stuff is what I'm talking about, including ongoing subscription fees. I can pretty much game for free with the stuff I've got, but it would be nice to get new things more often than I can right now.

My eyes are bigger than my stomach when it comes to games though. Even if I could get every game that got my attention, I'd never be able to read, much less play, most of them.

 

[kermit4karate]

I wish this poll had an option for "All of the above" because that might actually be closer to the truth for me. I picked 2024, but really, I play a hybridized version that incorporates elements from every edition going back to Basic.

 

[Kannik]

I understand that the "4e Essentials" line is there because folks think it's different....I just wish people would stop feeding that perspective.

I clicked them both to indicate we're using Essential stuff alongside the Pre-Essential extension.

(Though if we really wanted to get our selves twisted in to a knot, we are of course using the excellent Rules Compendium, so even if we didn't have any Essentials classes in our party, would we still be considered playing Essentials because we're using a book published under that line though the rules are core? Though if we then also chose a feat from the Essentials line... It's probably akin to 1e + UA to use the other example in the poll, though you couldn't play UA alone while you could technically play Essentials alone. Ah well, as I said, I clicked on both to be complete. )

 

[Micah Sweet]

My eyes are bigger than my stomach when it comes to games though. Even if I could get every game that got my attention, I'd never be able to read, much less play, most of them.

When I say more things, I'm talking about a real handful here. And I read more than I play in any case, so honestly reading and workdbuilding are my priority.

 

[Stormonu]

I wish this poll had an option for "All of the above" because that might actually be closer to the truth for me. I picked 2024, but really, I play a hybridized version that incorporates elements from every edition going back to Basic.

You can pick multiples, so if you're an "all of the above", check them all!

 

[kermit4karate]

You can pick multiples, so if you're an "all of the above", check them all!

Well, I only run one version...but it's a blend of the rest, with some Shadowdark thrown in for good measure.

The books are mostly loose suggestions for me now after ~40 years.

 

[Zardnaar]

It literally actually wasn't though.

Because you can, without changing anything, no house-rules, no conversion documents, absolutely nothing changed, play "original" 4e characters and Essentials-only characters at the same table. As long as you don't cross a class with itself, you can even hybridize an Essentials-formatted class with an "original"-formatted class without issues. Literally not one thing changed mechanically, except for having more options.

That's simply not true of going from 1e to 2e, and as far as I can tell, not even 2e+PO.

It's not a matter of anyone picking on anything. It's a matter of people just straight-up falsely saying that Essentials is in any way anything more than SCAG was for 5e. In the modern lingo, alternative subclass options for existing classes. That's literally all Essentials did. The new monster math predated it (it first appeared in MM3, prior to MV, indeed three months prior to the first Essentials book.) Themes predated it. Essentials literally did not remove nor alter a single existing mechanic of 4e. That isn't true of 1e->2e, which most folks agree is the single smallest edition jump the game has ever had, as far as I'm aware; I was unable to read when 2e came out so I couldn't really have known either way personally.

It would be like listing (using WotC's absolutely ridiculous year-based nomenclature because they're afraid to admit that 5.5e is, y'know, a revision):

D&D 5e (2014)
D&D 5e (2014) + SCAG/XGE
D&D 5e (2014) + SCAG/XGE + Tasha's
D&D 5e (2024)

Essentials is more like Tashas imho.

 

[Zardnaar]

Amazon probably sells more copies of the 2024 books every hour than there are total votes on this poll.

Well there's less than 200 votes all up approx 150.

Sample size is to small. Theres a reason political polls normally sample 1000 odd people.

65% approx are 5E.

Peopke make a lot of noise here. A few are not playing any edition though (cant find a group, preferred edition etc).