Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="evildmguy" data-source="post: 8317861" data-attributes="member: 6092">This is a complex question to me.&nbsp; A lot of answers have parts of mine but I am going to put them together.&nbsp; Up until 5E DND, I moved to the latest.&nbsp; The big move for me was 1E/2E to 3E.&nbsp; Yes, mechanically, very different and I liked it better.&nbsp; It was the tone that I liked better.&nbsp; 1E/2E was about challenging the players while 3E was about challenging the characters.&nbsp; That's an important difference to someone who DMed the lone wolves who were &quot;just playing their characters&quot; or the players who had all stats memorized and knew how to attack any given monster, even if the character shouldn't know any of that.&nbsp; Now, 3E/PF could get complex to make a fully statted NPC or improved monster but I was fine with that.&nbsp; What I like about more recent games is the advice they give.&nbsp; Modern design is generally better.&nbsp; I can't imagine playing a 1E/2E game without skills.&nbsp; While I grew tired of 4E, it did have some good ideas.&nbsp; (I personally think Paizo, after not liking 4E, basically built their own version of 4E.&nbsp; That's neither good nor bad, just my thought on PF2.&nbsp; I haven't moved to it and keep playing PF1 as my fantasy system.)&nbsp; 4E made monsters more manageable by only have the action stats, not everything.&nbsp; If a monster needed a skill it had it, if not, it didn't.&nbsp; What I don't prefer about 5E is that it seems to be back to challenging the players and a lot of DM fiat, which I don't prefer.&nbsp; 3E/4E/PF seems to give a more consistent feel between tables, which I like.&nbsp; I had some bad DMs under 1E/2E and 3E helped train them better, I think.&nbsp; 5E is back to a mixed back, changing from table to table.&nbsp; So that's DND.&nbsp; In other games, I prefer Alternity 1.0, although 2.0 fizzled for reasons.&nbsp; It's probably still my favorite system but I do think it needs to be simplified.&nbsp; However, I have yet to see a damage system as good as this one.&nbsp; Then other games vary.&nbsp; I like the ideas of V5 because they finally made rules to show that a vampire is a monster.&nbsp; I also liked Requiem over Masquerade.&nbsp; I don't play it often but like the later versions.&nbsp; I backed the new &quot;lite&quot; version of Exalted because I LOVE the world and ideas but the mechanics never worked for me.&nbsp; Mage and Hunter are fun games when they aren't so overshadowed by the bad guys.&nbsp; They are but not as much as previous versions.&nbsp; I only say that about Mage because my players like spell lists, not coming up with the spells as they go.I like the simplicity of some of the skills of Shadowrun 6E and would use that as a base but pull a lot from 4E/20/5E.&nbsp; Love the world itself and the lore.&nbsp; I have most versions of the SW game but most recently, I got the 30th anniversary and really like the simplicity of the original game.&nbsp; I would use that before the FFG one.&nbsp; I would use ideas from all of them, though.&nbsp; I suppose my second would be Saga Edition, then d20.&nbsp; I would be tinkering in all of them.&nbsp; Really, as I type this, what I realize is that I have always had a style of wanting to tell a shared story and want the mechanics to match that in whatever genre I'm playing.&nbsp; I'm also the type that thinks that more complicated is better than less only because it's easier to remove than to add.&nbsp; I do get the latest version of games I like to see if I like it more than the latest but I'm sure even if I don't play it, I will use something from it in my games.&nbsp; Good post and responses!&nbsp; Thanks!edg</blockquote>

[QUOTE="evildmguy, post: 8317861, member: 6092"] This is a complex question to me. A lot of answers have parts of mine but I am going to put them together. Up until 5E DND, I moved to the latest. The big move for me was 1E/2E to 3E. Yes, mechanically, very different and I liked it better. It was the tone that I liked better. 1E/2E was about challenging the [I]players[/I] while 3E was about challenging the [I]characters[/I]. That's an important difference to someone who DMed the lone wolves who were "just playing their characters" or the players who had all stats memorized and knew how to attack any given monster, even if the character shouldn't know any of that. Now, 3E/PF could get complex to make a fully statted NPC or improved monster but I was fine with that. What I like about more recent games is the advice they give. Modern design is generally better. I can't imagine playing a 1E/2E game without skills. While I grew tired of 4E, it did have some good ideas. (I personally think Paizo, after not liking 4E, basically built their own version of 4E. That's neither good nor bad, just my thought on PF2. I haven't moved to it and keep playing PF1 as my fantasy system.) 4E made monsters more manageable by only have the action stats, not everything. If a monster needed a skill it had it, if not, it didn't. What I don't prefer about 5E is that it seems to be back to challenging the players and a lot of DM fiat, which I don't prefer. 3E/4E/PF seems to give a more consistent feel between tables, which I like. I had some bad DMs under 1E/2E and 3E helped train them better, I think. 5E is back to a mixed back, changing from table to table. So that's DND. In other games, I prefer Alternity 1.0, although 2.0 fizzled for reasons. It's probably still my favorite system but I do think it needs to be simplified. However, I have yet to see a damage system as good as this one. Then other games vary. I like the ideas of V5 because they finally made rules to show that a vampire is a monster. I also liked Requiem over Masquerade. I don't play it often but like the later versions. I backed the new "lite" version of Exalted because I LOVE the world and ideas but the mechanics never worked for me. Mage and Hunter are fun games when they aren't so overshadowed by the bad guys. They are but not as much as previous versions. I only say that about Mage because my players like spell lists, not coming up with the spells as they go. I like the simplicity of some of the skills of Shadowrun 6E and would use that as a base but pull a lot from 4E/20/5E. Love the world itself and the lore. I have most versions of the SW game but most recently, I got the 30th anniversary and really like the simplicity of the original game. I would use that before the FFG one. I would use ideas from all of them, though. I suppose my second would be Saga Edition, then d20. I would be tinkering in all of them. Really, as I type this, what I realize is that I have always had a style of wanting to tell a shared story and want the mechanics to match that in whatever genre I'm playing. I'm also the type that thinks that more complicated is better than less only because it's easier to remove than to add. I do get the latest version of games I like to see if I like it more than the latest but I'm sure even if I don't play it, I will use something from it in my games. Good post and responses! Thanks! edg [/QUOTE]

Verification