Whats your D&Dism?

[TrippyHippy]

Old D&D editions work in one of three scenarios:
* An experienced DM who can hold it all together despite all the little nooks and crannies
* Everyone is just in for some lighthearted fun
* You're in it for the nostalgia

If you're looking for something that is accessible, quick to learn, fast to play, internally consistent, balanced and flexible to accomodate a broad range of styles... Not so much

While there has always been an issue of internal consistency in D&D, I don't think that 4th edition was flexible or encompassing of a broad range of styles. While 1st edition was illogical in many of it's rules, the point is that it was much less heavily directed in play or as prescribed in the direction of its rules. Consequently, I personally found the older editions a lot more flexible in practice.

 

[Mattachine]

I will agree with mkill.

The game does have strong archetypes (classes, certain monsters), but ultimately, it is a game that can be run many different ways, to taste. Regardless of edition, it accommodates house rules nicely.

Also, though different editions have varied, D&D has generally been in the mid-level of complexity for RPGs of its time. Not as simple of Marvel Super Heroes, not as complex as Traveler. Even later editions with tactical combat had simpler systems than Runequest, Palladium, or others, but certainly more complex than Call of Cthulhu.

I guess what I'm saying is that D&D, for me, has always been the good game. Not always the best, but always good enough.

D&D is the Mario.

 

[Gamer McSmartypants]

...

 

[boredgremlin]

Clearly you are not considering your posting content clearly. What parts of "no edition warring" and "no insulting other members" didn't you understand. Try a 3 day ban to think about it

That was neither of those things.

 

[boredgremlin]

Old D&D editions work in one of three scenarios:
* An experienced DM who can hold it all together despite all the little nooks and crannies
* Everyone is just in for some lighthearted fun
* You're in it for the nostalgia

If you're looking for something that is accessible, quick to learn, fast to play, internally consistent, balanced and flexible to accomodate a broad range of styles... Not so much

I dont know about that. I played the hell out of AD&D 2nd edition and we didnt have too much trouble. You had to hand waive some spells and combat actions other then a simple attack. But just remembering the simple +2 -2 rule for miscellaneous actions solved a lot of that.

For most other stuff we used an opposed roll of some sort and everything played smoothly enough that we didnt switch to 3e until almost a year after it came out.

 

[Plane Sailing]

That was neither of those things.

If you want to argue about it, it's a seven day ban.

 

[Roland55]

If you want to argue about it, it's a seven day ban.

I'm more the "big tent" type. I began early, but somehow didn't form too many rigid opinions ... and practically no "deal breakers."

I say, let's wait ... calmly ... and see what WOTC comes up with.

Peace. Calm. Try it, you might like it.

 

[Lwaxy]

seem to have bothered to ask yet.
Invading an orc lair and killing the pesky bastards is a universal D&D experience. How we kill them changes, the races and classes that kill them change, the spells that make them easier to kill come and go. Even the weapons we off them with change (I'm looking at you 3e, double axe, double sword, double stupid crap etc. etc. ) but the basic theme of go in there and dice em up so they stop causing trouble never goes away.

No, I completely disagree. I have never allowed this type of stigmatization of any race as being only good or only evil in my games. Orcs are a well used character race over here (as are kobolds and goblins etc), and it is getting really boring to see adventures only about beating them up. Let's root out some evil elves, rabid human barbarians and sinister dwarfs instead.

As to the question, ability scores, skills (if used right) and feats (could be simplified though). The general premise that at level 1 you are already above the normal skill level of a commoner (you are supposed to be a hero after all).

But what I love most is the adaptability. You can take the basic rules of either edition, merge them with your house rules or cross edition and Pathfinder, and it works nicely. You can make your own classes, archetypes, races... it is the perfect building box for any world you want to play in.

 

[Lwaxy]

Could we have a thread where people say things they really liked about editions they don't play? Without sarcastic back-handed insults?

Or is that too much to ask from D&D fans?

Would be a good thread. For me it would be the rituals in 4e, which I house ruled into my games in a slightly changed manner.

 

[grimslade]

<Casts Circle of Edition War Protection 10' radius>
D&Disms.
Mind Flayers. Evil Chromatic dragons. Good metallic dragons. Tons of ruins and tombs filled with easily spendable coinage and a weird collection of monsters. Classes. 6 abilities. Spells and weaponry on different tracks. Wizards. Fighters. Band aids in a tin can ( clerics). Trap fodder (thieves) Magic Loot. Bohemian Ear Spoon. Bizarre polyhedrals for fiddly side rules. D20 mechanics for most action resolution. Elves. 8000 subraces of elves (snow elves, really?)
Paladin code enforcement issues. DM screens.

I would include Vancian magic, but I detest the term. Load, discharge, and reload works better for me. It is a D&Dism however. It needs to be there.

Hit points, saving throws, and armor class are all D&Disms. The terms, not necessarily the mechanics.
I know I will think of more.