How many D&D editions are you interested in?

[Hunter_Maddox]

I changed my vote - to OD&D and B/X D&D, after my group imploded after our first & only session of Swords & Wizardry, after my RMU campaign ended I took a breather and began looking into B/X D&D and OD&D, I fell in love with OD&D soon after as I can do anything with it as the core. The only non OD&D or B/X D&D based games I'll run, are those in the Survive This line by Bloat Games & ICRPG by Runehammer Games; but I'll play in most others.

[willpell]

Why does this topic distinguish between all of the original box set editions, but NOT between 3.0 and 3.5?

[FaerieGodfather]

Surprised myselfy by only voting for two: AD&D 2.5 Player's Option and Rules Cyclopedia.

It's actually my efforts to kitbash them together that led to the ongoing development of my own simulacrum game, Sellswords & Godwars. I just want a simpler chassis upon which to hang the Player's Option customization mechanics.

[Tim Baker]

It's actually my efforts to kitbash them together that led to the ongoing development of my own simulacrum game, Sellswords & Godwars. I just want a simpler chassis upon which to hang the Player's Option customization mechanics.

I like the name. It has a nice ring to it. And that sounds like a fun mashup.

[Vile]

I've added (Blue)Holmes to my votes. For some reason I never bothered checking out Holmes assuming it was just an earlier version of the Moldvay / Mentzer race-is-class system; a choice I never liked. I was wrong. Holmes is different enough that I want to try it out using the BlueHolme revisited version. I want to do a one-shot with 5th level characters.

I'm interested in Holmes and the extrapolation that led to Blueholme, but haven't had the chance to run a game with it. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the experience, if you get the chance.

It may take a couple of months but I'll certainly do a write up about our experience.

Did either of you get a chance to try it out?

[shesheyan]

I've added (Blue)Holmes to my votes. For some reason I never bothered checking out Holmes assuming it was just an earlier version of the Moldvay / Mentzer race-is-class system; a choice I never liked. I was wrong. Holmes is different enough that I want to try it out using the BlueHolme revisited version. I want to do a one-shot with 5th level characters.

I'm interested in Holmes and the extrapolation that led to Blueholme, but haven't had the chance to run a game with it. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the experience, if you get the chance.

It may take a couple of months but I'll certainly do a write up about our experience.

Did either of you get a chance to try it out?

Sadly no. I don't see when I will be able since my group is on hiatus from rpgs for an unspecified period.

[Vile]

I've added (Blue)Holmes to my votes. For some reason I never bothered checking out Holmes assuming it was just an earlier version of the Moldvay / Mentzer race-is-class system; a choice I never liked. I was wrong. Holmes is different enough that I want to try it out using the BlueHolme revisited version. I want to do a one-shot with 5th level characters.

I'm interested in Holmes and the extrapolation that led to Blueholme, but haven't had the chance to run a game with it. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the experience, if you get the chance.

It may take a couple of months but I'll certainly do a write up about our experience.

Did either of you get a chance to try it out?

Sadly no. I don't see when I will be able since my group is on hiatus from rpgs for an unspecified period.

Ah, pity. Happens to my lot on a too-regular basis, too.

[Mike]

I started with B/X, and Expert/X1 was my introduction to the known world. It was formative and to me it is the canonical yardstick against which all else is measured.

I moved to AD&D1 as soon as I could afford the books, bought AD&D2 but never played it, and then left D&D for a while. When I returned it was to the Rules Cyclopedia and B/X and I played both. I then played 3.0 and flirted with pathfinder, but finally came home to B/X which has become my exclusive interest, mingled with OSR materials.

I ticked B/X as my one and only, but also ticked OD&D because I use it as an interchangeable rules expansion for B/X, and I ticked RC because I still have some interest in the discussions and use it as a monster manual in play.

I did not tick BECMI since I have never owned a copy or played it, though it seems essentially identical to the RC.

[shesheyan]

Currently none. Seems I've drifted away from D&D and Fantasy games in general over the years. I strongly prefer modern and sci-fi games. This trend started with D20 Modern and D20 Star Wars. I still have my 5e material in a box.

[pawsplay]

The Holmes and Moldvay books to me just don't seem complete to me, and 4e I never cared for. White Box has an intrinsic historical interest. The rest all still capture my interest from time to time.

[shesheyan]

Currently none. Seems I've drifted away from D&D and Fantasy games in general over the years. I strongly prefer modern and sci-fi games. This trend started with D20 Modern and D20 Star Wars. I still have my 5e material in a box.

Actually, there was an attempt on my part, when Star Frontiers, came out to shift to science-fiction campaigns but the group resisted that. The root of my desire to play science-fiction RPGs is certainly tied to the original Star Wars and Logan's Run movies, the Buck Rogers and Battlestar Galactica original TV series.

[lookatroopa]

I've mostly played 3.5 and 5e, lifted a lot of material from AD&D 1e and 2e, am intrigued by the Mystara material in the Basic family of systems, and am currently preparing my first OD&D campaign. 4e is the only edition I really have any kind of negative outlook on (which I think lied moreso in what I perceived to be a dismissive attitude towards certain older aspects of the broader D&D setting than any slight in gameplay mechanics), but I want to give it another chance sometime.

[timemrick]

My daughter recently became a second-generation GM. She ran a one-shot of a rules-lite non-d20 game over Christmas break. Her high school started up a RPG club this semester, so after the first couple months, she started running her own D&D campaign (her first in any system). I gather the club is only playing D&D 5E for now; she's played some 3.5, but 5E is the only edition of D&D she knows well.

She still needs her own set of the core rulebooks, but our FLGS has marked down some of the box sets to only $100, so we'll probably pick one up soon to squirrel away for Christmas.

[Tim Baker]

My daughter recently became a second-generation GM.

That's awesome! Thank you for passing the hobby along to the next generation!

[shesheyan]

I've changed my vote to 5e (group play) and 2e (for solo play). I did contemplate 1e and did a Basic solo trial run but 2e is the edition I used the most since 1981. It is the edition with which I DMed my longest running campaign - 5 years with the same players. I can still remember where the rules are located in the books.

[Coronoides]

It would be good to split the 2e and the revised 2e with players options. I love 2e but never used the later.

[Havard]

It would be good to split the 2e and the revised 2e with players options. I love 2e but never used the later.

They were never officially considered two separate editions. PO is compatible with most previous books.

Might be worth creating a separate poll about this in the 2e forum though?

-Havard

[Coronoides]

It would be good to split the 2e and the revised 2e with players options. I love 2e but never used the later.

They were never officially considered two separate editions. PO is compatible with most previous books.

Might be worth creating a separate poll about this in the 2e forum though?

-Havard

If compatibility is the standard then you should lump AD&D 1e and AD&D 2e together. AD&D 2e was largely compatible with AD&D 1e, it was a true new edition not an entirely different game. AS with the other survivors of that era (Call of Cthulhu for example) new editions being compatible with older ones is the norm in the industry, D&D is the oddity. Compatibility isn’t a good measure. Fan-base is. There are many AD&D players who like 2e, use 1e materials with no conversion with 2e, but wouldn’t touch those expansions to the rules.

[talsine]

RC was what i started with, 2E is what i spent most of my time with, and 4E is without a doubt my favorite iteration. In fact, I'm convinced that if 4E hadn't been called D&D, a lot of the people who dislike it would vanish. I will admit that I have zero interest in anything pre-RC /2E, other than as historical oddities.

I have never really understood most of the OSR appeal. Stuff like S&W, LL, Lamentations, etc; just don't have enough crunch for me. They feel like almost proto-story games in that they are rules lite, but they don't have anything to encourage actual story play. i might just be thinking about it too much.

[Havard]

If compatibility is the standard then you should lump AD&D 1e and AD&D 2e together. AD&D 2e was largely compatible with AD&D 1e, it was a true new edition not an entirely different game. AS with the other survivors of that era (Call of Cthulhu for example) new editions being compatible with older ones is the norm in the industry, D&D is the oddity. Compatibility isn’t a good measure. Fan-base is. There are many AD&D players who like 2e, use 1e materials with no conversion with 2e, but wouldn’t touch those expansions to the rules.

I would have used two factors: Compatibility (1) and whether TSR regarded them as separate editions (2). However, looking at the categories of this poll again, I agree with you. When B/X and BECMI are given separate entries, 2e and 2ePO could easily be divided. I guess the reason Big Mac kept them this way is because we can only have 10 options in a poll.

-Havard

[Havard]

I have never really understood most of the OSR appeal. Stuff like S&W, LL, Lamentations, etc; just don't have enough crunch for me. They feel like almost proto-story games in that they are rules lite, but they don't have anything to encourage actual story play. i might just be thinking about it too much.

I would say you are indeed thinking about it too much. If you were to sit down and I play those games with the right people, I am sure you would have had a good time.

While some of it could be chalked up to nostalgia, I think we should not underestimate the value of being familiar with a ruleset. Once you know the rules well enough, it doesn't really matter whether other rules are somehow better. The rules you know and the aestetic that comes with it means you can sit down and play without giving the rules much thought. That is an amazing premise for a great gaming experience. However, a new rules light game still means I have to learn those rules even if they aren't that complicated and with elegant design. Many will choose the familiar over anything else.

-Havard

[shesheyan]

In fact, I'm convinced that if 4E hadn't been called D&D, a lot of the people who dislike it would vanish.

I would have tried it because I like trying new systems. I would have come to the same conclusion that I did after playing 4e regardless of what is written on the cover. There are good ideas in 4e. Edit : It is an elegant design, but at the end of the day, after running a campaign from level 1 to level 10, the head space required to run a game of 4e with all the powers, feats and monster special abilities is just too taxing for me as a DM. Don't misunderstand me. I like war games and play Infinity which is probably the most complex war game on the market these days. When I play a RPG it's to concentrate on the story telling and the avenues the players trigger in my mind with the actions they take. If a rpg ruleset requires me to constantly think about the rules and never fades into the background it's not my cup of tea.

[Havard]

In fact, I'm convinced that if 4E hadn't been called D&D, a lot of the people who dislike it would vanish.

I would have tried it because I like trying new systems. I would have come to the same conclusion that I did after playing 4e regardless of what is written on the cover. There are good ideas in 4e but at the end of the day, after running a campaign from level 1 to level 10, the head space required to run a game of 4e with all the powers, feats and monster special abilities is just too taxing for me as a DM. Don't misunderstand me. I like war games and play Infinity which is probably the most complex war game on the market these days. When I play a RPG it's to concentrate on the story telling and the avenues the players trigger in my mind with the actions they take. If a rpg ruleset requires me to constantly think about the rules and never fades into the background it's not my cup of tea.

Do you really have to know all the rules though? The way I run D&D, I make it the job of the players to know how their abilities, spells and such works. During my very brief attempt at running 4E, I handled powers the same way.

I see 4E as a very elegantly designed game, but it focused mainly on aspects of gaming that neither I nor my players are very interested in, so we didn't use it much.

-Havard

[shesheyan]

In fact, I'm convinced that if 4E hadn't been called D&D, a lot of the people who dislike it would vanish.

I would have tried it because I like trying new systems. I would have come to the same conclusion that I did after playing 4e regardless of what is written on the cover. There are good ideas in 4e but at the end of the day, after running a campaign from level 1 to level 10, the head space required to run a game of 4e with all the powers, feats and monster special abilities is just too taxing for me as a DM. Don't misunderstand me. I like war games and play Infinity which is probably the most complex war game on the market these days. When I play a RPG it's to concentrate on the story telling and the avenues the players trigger in my mind with the actions they take. If a rpg ruleset requires me to constantly think about the rules and never fades into the background it's not my cup of tea.

Do you really have to know all the rules though? The way I run D&D, I make it the job of the players to know how their abilities, spells and such works. During my very brief attempt at running 4E, I handled powers the same way.

I see 4E as a very elegantly designed game, but it focused mainly on aspects of gaming that neither I nor my players are very interested in, so we didn't use it much.

-Havard

Considering that 4e monsters have large stat blocks with several unique abilities it require an almost perfect understanding of the rules. It gets more demanding for the DM as the level of the campaign rises. The monsters have more and more powers and special abilities to track and the DM needs to know his rules to play them properly. When preparing my dungeons above level 5, I felt like I was studying for a masters degree !

[talsine]

In fact, I'm convinced that if 4E hadn't been called D&D, a lot of the people who dislike it would vanish.

I would have tried it because I like trying new systems. I would have come to the same conclusion that I did after playing 4e regardless of what is written on the cover. There are good ideas in 4e but at the end of the day, after running a campaign from level 1 to level 10, the head space required to run a game of 4e with all the powers, feats and monster special abilities is just too taxing for me as a DM. Don't misunderstand me. I like war games and play Infinity which is probably the most complex war game on the market these days. When I play a RPG it's to concentrate on the story telling and the avenues the players trigger in my mind with the actions they take. If a rpg ruleset requires me to constantly think about the rules and never fades into the background it's not my cup of tea.

Do you really have to know all the rules though? The way I run D&D, I make it the job of the players to know how their abilities, spells and such works. During my very brief attempt at running 4E, I handled powers the same way.

I see 4E as a very elegantly designed game, but it focused mainly on aspects of gaming that neither I nor my players are very interested in, so we didn't use it much.

-Havard

Considering that 4e monsters have large stat blocks with several unique abilities it require an almost perfect understanding of the rules. It gets more demanding for the DM as the level of the campaign rises. The monsters have more and more powers and special abilities to track and the DM needs to know his rules to play them properly. When preparing my dungeons above level 5, I felt like I was studying for a masters degree !

4E stat blocks are less complicated than most other stat blocks i have encountered, including for 5E because everything that you need is there. Unlike, say, 3E or 5E which have stat blocks full of spells (many useless) that are not listed there and instead must be referenced in another book. This is a complaint about 4E I still don't personally grock.

I also never assume I have to understand everything my players can do, its their job to track their abilities and not mine as the DM, i have to do everything else. It might help, but even then, most powers are simpler to understand than your average spell since they are not written using Natural Language (omg, i hate natural language. I just need to know what the ability does. if you want to add fluff, please make sure it is completely separate from the rules text. Ambiguity is awful in mechanics.) This also allows them to be re fluffed on the fly the way you want, cause it isn't defined in the text as specifically part of the spell. In 3E every fireball is the same. In 4E it doesn't have to be you could describe it how ever you want and the rules don't care cause the fluff isn't written into them.

As for the comment all the way up about playing something and liking it anyway, in thoery thats true, a good group can make anything fun, but I have played all of the games I mentioned, and i don't continue to play them because the mechanics don't interest me, and the artificially limit who and what my character is and what they can do. Not my jam.