I apoligize if this topic is out of place, but I was a little curious.

I have been snoping around here for a few days, and I was wondering what games everyone here plays now, and how long? Do you still play Basic/First/Second Edition? Do your gaming habits affect your collecting habits?

I personally play a 3.5 game weekly, but it seems like some people here have some hostility towards the newer edition. I have to kind of balance what I collect against what new stuff I need.

I would agree that 3e is abusable, but no more so than most RPGs. The core books are fine for balance and keeping things in check, as long as you as a DM remains informed.

I tend to be incredibly skeptical of anything that comes out of a non core book, because some of them seem less well play tested.

The real key is checking the players and making them aware of what you think is out of hand. If the players go ahead and get to min-maxy, then the game provides ALOT of baddies who are efficient at de-powering them, if necessary.

I feel, in general, the overall efficiency, simplicity, and coherent nature of the system avails it, whether it gives to powergaming or not. I have "converted" a number of 1e and 2e players by showing them how much cleaer and more dynamic the new system is. Additionally, teaching a new person has gotten far easier.

I don't actually play anymore.  I picked up the 3.0 books cheap thinking I might start, but was truly horrified with what the game had become.  For the past 10 years or so I've been locked in a room working on a campaign world.  I like Deadlord's skills system concept, even though I personally never had a problem with classes.

One of the key differences in the world I was building is the basic premise that munchkinism could be avoided/downplayed by making combat more realistically deadly and therefore undesirable.  Also, level progression was slowed exponentially (logarithmically?  I forget).  Magic was scarce. It was a mean world to live in, the focus being on developing an actual personality.  Sadly, we never finished -- after more than 10 years in development, not a single character ever played.

I only game vicariously now, by offering advice to those who contact me about their campaigns.  I follow their logs occasionally.  Unfortunately I don't have time for anything else -- committed to too many projects.  But I'd love to play 1E if I could!

My problem with 3.0 and 3.5 is a double-edged sword.  The game was clearly designed after a huge amount of player and DM feedback was received.  But since players outnumber DMs, the designers seem to have focused too strongly (much too strongly) on player empowerment.  Feats, skills, prestige classes, etc. give players options they love, and involve them in the game much, much more.  That's the good part.

The problem with all of that detail is that you can plan a character out from level 1 to 20 (30?  40?  The progression is too quick now), with every little perk, class, and ability you want to discover along the way.  It's then just a question of railroading the DM into meeting your agenda.  My own players (who I miss dearly) were wonderful, and willing to accept DM decisions with grace.  We had arguments after the session sometimes that made me a better DM.  But the new crop of players, every time I try to start a 3.0 (now 3.5) campaign, I try to put controls on the process to bring out the best qualities of the old game that have been lost.

My dissertation:  "Experience progression is going to be halved.  To compensate, awards for teamwork, problem solving, and role-playing will be given according to merit.  Prestige classes do not come automatically, you have to find an appropriate mentor in the game world and provide a serious quest or service to receive training.  Feats and skills can only be acquired if you've performed actions that would logically lead toward that ability in the last few gaming sessions, so creative thinking is again strongly encouraged.  Any questions?"

The reactions usually range from "Psheah, right!" to hysterical laughter.  The DM's Guide may say that the DM still has authority, but the players have so many pieces of candy dangled in front of their faces that are level-dependent that they now have a focused agenda on steering the DM where they want to go.  I think 3.5 is a great game for players -- if they're not nostalgic for the more measured and challenging game of times past.  But for DMs, especially long-standing ones, it's pure pain.  So I don't think I'll be playing again until the game changes dramatically.  I can't find new players that want the old paradigm.  Maybe I'll try C&C when I have the time.

One of my players ran a lengthy OD&D campaign until some months ago.

stormber wrote:They just entered G3 Hall of the Fire Giant King.

Ahh, fond memories.   And, as a player, just when you thought it was about to end...

Shingen wrote:Deadlord's ideas have merit, and I really think they are cool. I was at GenCon for the 3.0 release announcement, and one of the things the designers talked about was the "Sacred Cows," those things you have ot have to be D&D. These included the 6 standard scores, character classes, and the basic races. To preserve continuity and creative lineage with the older versions of the game, they kept these things in.

One of the things we aimed for in differentiating our world was the removal of the basic races (humans, elves, etc) entirely.  It wasn't a sacred cow to us at all.  

We invented five new races, which referred to themselves collectively as humans, for sanity's sake.  These would be "the good guys".  The bad guys  -- anything rivalling "humanity" is evil in their terms of reference --we called humanoids, collectively.  We pretty much did away with alignment, as it's a relative concept.  Oh, and in pseudo-Dragonlance style, there were little to no high-level priestly abilities.  The gods made the universe, got fairly bored, and ditched the place.  

I'd still say it was D&D.  In fact, my writing was referred to as "Gygaxian"  by one critic, but I'm not sure if that was meant in a good or bad way.

Deadlord36 wrote:Uhhh, sorry about that. Someone just handed me a Scarab of Insanity.

That's just on loan, I'll be wanting it back.  

One of our first games when I was a kid, the DM told us we found a coffer (what's a coffer?  We all thought it was a coffin) full of "Frank-incensed."  We spent a good amount of time trying to figure out who would butcher Frank and put his pieces in a box, whether the pieces were undead, and what had made him so angry.  Being sliced up and shoved in a box, I guess.

Ohh, "frankincense," the rare Biblical spice, gotcha ... we had a good laugh a few years later.  Being attacked by Frank the Sliced Up Zombie in the Coffin was much more fun, though.