Which rule set do you play with?

Remove all ads!

(I would set this up as a poll, but I'm slightly retarded.)

I ask because it seems like I'm the only person still playing 2E, although it is a strange hodgepodge of 2E, house rules, 1E & Unearthed Arcana.

I've downloaded the 3E core books (I refuse to give WotC any of my hard earned money), and while there are some things I like and have adopted as house rules (wizards receiving bonus spells for high int, clerics being able to swap out prepared spells for healing), I don't like it as a whole. I don't like the munchkin characters the books seem to encourage. Maybe I'm an fuddy duddy, but dwarven wizards? Not in my campaign, not ever. As someone who likes to multiclass for roleplay reasons (my characters always have complicated backgrounds), I really don't like the way multiclassing works in 3E--I think it's unnecessarily complicated and encourages min/maxing micromanagement rather than imagination. Actually, my main problem with 3E, other than the munchkinism, is that some things are way too complicated, and others they dumbed down to the point of uselessness. I've heard it been said by many that 3E is far easier to learn than 2E for a newbie, and that might be the case (although one of the people in my group is a tabletop virgin and had no problems learning 2E). But I find that the learning curve is actually steeper for a person who is well-versed in 2E. In other words, it's a much bigger leap from 2 to 3 than it was from 1 to 2.

Ironically, I think 3E rules are perfectly suited for cRPGs and it's my favorite system for those games. I guess it's because I don't RP as much in computer games, even though it's still important to me. Also, since the rules are largely transparent, I don't have to worry as much about them not making sense to me or not understanding them.

What about you guys? Am I the only dinosaur?

 

I'm playing in a 3E campaign, a 3E/3.5 Hybrid campaign and a 3.5 Campaign.

 

I play with 3.0, but I really want to join a 3.5 game because I want to be able to play a game that grows with its company and that is able to get feedback from many other players.

This is the advantage of the newest edition, and the serious disadvantage of second edition, because the original third edition is easily compatible with the revised edition.

Plus, you know... game balance, a low learning curve, and other things are always welcome in a game.

On a side note, I think that White Wolf (producers of role-playing games such as Vampire: the Masquerade, Werewolf: the Apocalypse, and Mage: the Ascension) is taking a curve toward this frame of thinking - an balance between "fluff" - lots of things on story, character, and plot, and "crunch" - things such as statistics, game rules, and game balance, with its new games, Vampire: the Requiem, and Werewolf: the Forsaken.

There is some complaint new editions bring with them things such as "munchkinism", but I will let Monte Cook, one of the designers of the third edition, do the talking on this one.

http://www.montecook.com/arch_anrant3.html

If I am your DM, I wouldn't mind your making a powerful character. If anything, I would encourage you to make a powerful character so that he or she can face challenges appropriate for his or her level. Third edition does much to prevent a character that easily wipes out scaled encounters.

If you are a DM, and you enjoy roleplaying, but think that making a character with high Strength and low Intelligence is powergaming and therefore a "bad thing", then that's your game. If you are a DM and enjoy dungeon crawls and hack-and-slash games, where the sessions are primarily fighting, and little conversation or plot is done, then that's your game too. You won't find me in either.

 

I prefer 2E to 3E - but probably wouldn't play in either. The two systems I'd most likely use are Shadows or The Pool

But I'm still quite happy to argue over the merits of 2E over 3E any day

 

I'm still playing chainmail - I am oldskool and hardcore!
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
Just kidding! I loved 1ed, 2ed was okay...But I think 3ed is the best. I like the flexibility of the new rulles, and the expanded skills and feats. It makes it so that no two characters/monster/or NPCs ever need to be alike. I love that!

 

I play a bit of 2E but am more or less playing mainly 3E/3.5

 

The only D&D rules I've played with were 2E and 3.5. There a lot of things I like about 3E, mainly skills and the new BAB/AC system (compared to the old THAC0/AC system, which I just couldn't understand for a long time). The new saving throws are more logical. 2E was simpler to learn (except for the afore-mentionned THAC0 thing), and I don't really like the fears system.

It was also pretty sad then WOTC killed all the old campaign settings with 3E... I liked Dark Sun and Planescape more than any other.

 

I'm the DM of three different campaigns: a pure 2E campaign, a 2E + skills and powers campaign and a 3.5E campaign.

I have been playing like this for a while, and I must say that I doubt I will ever start a 2E campaign again. The 3.5E rules are simply to good (and very flexible for my house rules).

 

I play 7th sea as GM, and that games uses completely differently rules, often referred to as Roll&keep, although it has been adapted to the d20 system, I and those I play with prefer 7th sea's old and unique rule system over anything else.