Who still plays older versions of D&D?

[Mark CMG]

These results surprise me.

 

[diaglo]

These results surprise me.

i haven't been able to make it to Chicago or the OD&D(1974) result would be higher.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

Why did WotC call the 2000 edition "Dungeons & Dragons, Third Edition", you ask? In the highlighted portion of your text you answer your own question.

I was thinking the exact same thing. But I guess when ya gotta rant ya gotta rant

I play 3.5 now, we did a Rules Cyclopedia game a few weeks ago and it was less than exciting (everyone in the group died from food poisoning - yes everyone!). I did, of course, have great fun with the old systems back in my youth but probably won't be going back anytime soon.

 

[harmyn]

.....I play 3.5 now, we did a Rules Cyclopedia game a few weeks ago and it was less than exciting (everyone in the group died from food poisoning - yes everyone!). I did, of course, have great fun with the old systems back in my youth but probably won't be going back anytime soon.

From the sounds of your experience it had nothing really to do with the edition at hand but instead the encounter that was used. I am working off the base assumption that your characters all ate poisoned food as opposed to bad potato salad (as no rules edition really covers such things). In 3.5 if your characters eat a poison that deals 3d6 or 2d10 con damage primary and secondary (such poisons do exist in the game) and fail their Fort save, they die. I would have to argue that the DM simply didn't plan out that encounter well. Even in the RC there were varied strengths of poisons, some only knocked you out, others weakened you temporarily, some gave save bonuses.

If your decision to not go back is based off other rules issues or lack of items you like that's fine, everyone has their favored toys to play with. But don't let your decision rest on that one poorly done encounter.

 

[Jupp]

Add to this that dying from poisoned food is probably the most unheroic death one could imagine Your DM should have been bound, gagged and beaten with a large, fat, stinkin' trout, regardless the edition of D&D you've played there

 

[Psychic Warrior]

From the sounds of your experience it had nothing really to do with the edition at hand but instead the encounter that was used. I am working off the base assumption that your characters all ate poisoned food as opposed to bad potato salad (as no rules edition really covers such things). In 3.5 if your characters eat a poison that deals 3d6 or 2d10 con damage primary and secondary (such poisons do exist in the game) and fail their Fort save, they die. I would have to argue that the DM simply didn't plan out that encounter well. Even in the RC there were varied strengths of poisons, some only knocked you out, others weakened you temporarily, some gave save bonuses.

If your decision to not go back is based off other rules issues or lack of items you like that's fine, everyone has their favored toys to play with. But don't let your decision rest on that one poorly done encounter.

Hey - I was the DM and it was a strict Rules as Written game. The party was 5th level and I haven't seen a poison I would throw at 5th level characters that does 3d6 CON damage.

It does show that going by RAW sometimes rose is the only colour you need.

 

[Akrasia]

Hey - I was the DM and it was a strict Rules as Written game. The party was 5th level and I haven't seen a poison I would throw at 5th level characters that does 3d6 CON damage.

It does show that going by RAW sometimes rose is the only colour you need.

Fine. You've made it clear that you don't like the RC. Thanks for crapping in the thread. (Thanks too for implying that the only reason why people like the RC is because of 'rose coloured glasses' -- which is complete rubbish, btw.)
:\

 

[harmyn]

Hey - I was the DM and it was a strict Rules as Written game. The party was 5th level and I haven't seen a poison I would throw at 5th level characters that does 3d6 CON damage.

It does show that going by RAW sometimes rose is the only colour you need.

So under the new rules you would never dream of using a poison that does 3d6 con damage on 5th level characters although they do exist and can be used against characters of that level, but under the old rules you would happily force an entire party into a save vs. poison or die scenario. Hopefully it was at least a weak poison that gave a bonus (as many did in those rules). Sorry, just not seeing it. The old rules didn't use CR levels, it used common sense and I recall no low level module that required an entire party to eat poisoned food then make a save or die. That sounds like a homemade adventure --- and those are typically the best IMHO. However you are the one that created a killer scenario, not the rulebook. In a 3.5 game your villain would have used that Black Lotus poison on them to gain the same effect since it was apparently the villain's desire to kill all heroes involved.

Feel free to prefer the new rules, you are allowed to. I am not saying they are a bad thing. Far from it. I have happily run several campaigns using 3.0 and 3.5, just don't blame the Rules Cyclopedia for the results of a scenario you forced the players into and then claim it only happened that way because of the rules edition used.

 

[Oryan77]

I run a lot of 2e modules with Planescape fluff...

....and convert them to 3.5

 

[kitsune9]

I've played all the versions

I liked playing all the versions, but I play 3.5, though I think 3.0 was my favorite, but that's a matter of personal taste.

I know if they come out with a 4.0, I'll start buying books for that and playing that version instead unless Hasbro gets involved and makes it stupid or something.