Question of the Day, September 9, 2010

[Arkzism]

i did get a bunch of 4th edition stuff lately so i will give it a chance, but i play 3.5 and that is my preferred

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

AD&D Represent!

 

[AvsJoe]

I voted other because I have never played D&D, though I always wanted to.

 

[Eleima]

3rd Edition was the starting point for me (thank you Baldur's Gate)

Umm Baldur's Gate was second edition. The first third edition game was Icewind Dale 2.

I don't like 4th, a fighter is barely any different then a mage as they both get spell-like abilities every level. 3rd edition is made easier with a computer, but 4th edition is just a mockery of an RPG in order to cash in on the dumbed-down WOW/XBL crowd.

I should've been more specific when I wrote that, I guess. Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn is the true starting point for the long-lasting relationship between RPG's and me, and if I recall correctly, BG2 was 2nd edition with a bit of 3rd edition rules thrown in, right? Looks like I'm not as up-to-date on those rules as I'd like to be. =/

 

[Kris015]

Other - I don't play D&D

 

[vonklaude]

3.5.

It is expansive and creative. At times a challenge to DM, but also preserves well the best parts of the feel of D&D. The splat books get a bit hairy.

I gave 4th a chance, but I agree that it tries to do what computer games do, when it should be trying to bring out imagination and choice. 4th goes partway toward, but falls short of, embracing some important contemporary RPG design (which is often now better found in Indie games). Maybe 5th will be better, or even 4.5 (4th essentials) might drift it a bit closer to good. Is that likely? 4th is a bit munchkinny (some 3rd splatbooks are *very* munchkinny!)