@Chow. No offense intended. I was just thinking about my own experience. I started off playing well.... Basic. I then played Advanced and finally 2nd edition at the very tail end. My first (and only) experience with 3-3.5 edition was in Neverwinter Nights, Icewind dale 2 and ToEE (basically CRPGs). I know that, when I first tried it I hated it. it took a long time for me to get used to it. Ultimately I began to appreciate it. But I still consider "My" DnD edition to be Advanced-2nd edition.
And I suspect that a significant number of Baldur's gate players are old enough to have somewhat the same experience. Not that every single player is as old as I am and not that every player had the same experiences. But, I would believe that some people did.
Add to that the fact that subsequent generations of the game seem to have morphed into more PvP and less PvE, changing from playing a role in the party towards individual being able to 'Solo' (not to say this is "better" or worse, merely different) I can suspect that some older players may not think the newer rules have the same 'Feel'. Hence the nostalgia.
But My comment was intended as a joke and nothing more. No offense was intended to proponents of any version. It's all good.
None taken. Personally I started with 2nd edition, first through Eye of the Beholder, followed by Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale. Interestingly, I used to love 3rd edition when I tried it out in IWD2, and I still think it probably works better on a computer game than 2e does - but nowhere near as well on tabletop.
Pathfinder! Though I enjoy every version of D&D I have played--1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5. I'm looking forward to D&D Next, as I never tried 4th as my friends who game with me refused to.
A thought occurred to me to share with you guys some of the houserules of my 4E campaign, Daggerheads. Hopefully I'll have adequately explained them so they make sense to the uninitiated:
1. To curb some of the extra math involved with buffing spells, dazed enemies, etc. I more or less stole the advantage/disadvantage system from D&D Next. Any kind of effects that give you an extra +2 or better to your attack roll (flanking, Warlord buffs, etc.) will instead give you Advantage, and you roll two d20s (or three d20s if you would somehow normally roll two d20s) and take the best result. Similarly, a -2 penalty or worse gives you Disadvantage, and you'll roll two d20s and take the worse result. +1/-1 modifiers such as from charge attacks or various conditional feats function normally.
2. You have an Action Point every fight. You can spend an action point to gain an extra standard, move, or minor action. Normal rules give these out once every two encounters/skill challenges. Too much extra bookkeeping, I say!
3. You can use the Aid Another action to help other players with saving throws, where applicable, i.e. patting them down to help put out their burning clothes. Came up last night, when some PCs got set on fire, so I thought it was a good idea. I think the party's giant ram "familiar" was the only one who was not on fire at some point.
I'm pretty sure that's it, but I might be forgetting some more minor things.
Rolemaster.. loved the hit tables for crit was different for different weapon group and armor type. And there are lots of possibilities for customize the different classes. It was though tough to dm, but it's perfect for pc I think. Note: The Rolemaster that I am familiar with, was out at same time as AD&D2
@Bhaaldog I think the need to keep their publishing business open, are the driving reason to keep coming up with new editions. That they can potential improve their system, is only an added bonus.
No doubt part of the reason TSR failed was the 2E system was mature and complete, and new rule books weren't really selling anymore. They couldn't stay afloat with just new settings and modules. WotC clearly understands marketing better. Whether that's actually good for the game is a matter of taste.
An issue I sometimes have encountered with new editions of rulebooks is the question: Are the changes made to improve the game or are they made simply to force new purchases?
Yeah, since around the releases of 3e-4e it's quite obvious that WotC has been pushing out rules which support sales for their miniatures, grids, pre-made adventures, etc. When in fact you can run an (arguably better) game without any of them. I understand that they need to make a living but I think it's negatively affecting the game.
2.5 was the best for single player CRPGs, straight up 2nd was close behind. The success and longevity of BG and gold box games are proof of this. Other DnD CRPGs didn't come close.
I'm looking forward to D&D Next (which is kind of a stupid name for a game system, admittedly), but until then I adore Pathfinder. It combines the kit system from AD&D 2.5 with the customization of third edition. There's a bit of power creep, like there's always going to be with a system that thrives on producing new rules and supplements, but the flavor there matches the best parts of AD&D for me while keeping the rules fairly simple.
I'm looking forward to seeing what D&D Next offers, though. From the playtest, I think it will be an interesting evolution of concepts.
An issue I sometimes have encountered with new editions of rulebooks is the question: Are the changes made to improve the game or are they made simply to force new purchases? For example in another gaming system Warhammer, someone could spend several hundred pounds or dollars building an army then find they cannot use many of the previous models once a new edition comes out.
In D&D there is less competitive play and models are more interchangeable but it is still a potential consideration.
I think in many cases with 3rd and 4th edition, WotC's people were trying to patch up some holes in the rules that made the PCs feel less like fantasy heroes and more like a mook with a sword just waiting for a beholder or bodak to insta-kill them. For instance, 3rd edition introduced the feat system, perhaps inspired by the SPECIAL system's perks, that allowed characters to further specialize and mechanically differentiate one 3rd level Fighter or Rogue from another 3rd level Fighter or Rogue. It's another special thing you can do, a "feat" that normal people cannot accomplish. And, for 4th Edition, I think the best idea they had there was the healing surge system, something every player-character has an allotment of per day and can use freely outside of battle to gain back some HP, and use once per battle as a Second Wind if the party Leader role is dead or otherwise occupied. Because, after all, how often do we see the Fellowship guzzling potions or spamming Aragorn's Lay on Hands after a battle? Most heroes, regardless of genre, just need a breather before they're back in the fight.
I'm looking forward to D&D Next (which is kind of a stupid name for a game system, admittedly), but until then I adore Pathfinder. It combines the kit system from AD&D 2.5 with the customization of third edition. There's a bit of power creep, like there's always going to be with a system that thrives on producing new rules and supplements, but the flavor there matches the best parts of AD&D for me while keeping the rules fairly simple.
I'm looking forward to seeing what D&D Next offers, though. From the playtest, I think it will be an interesting evolution of concepts.
There are two reasons to why I prefer 3.5 over Pathfinder. The first is the ridiculous amount of rulebooks and customization the former has, and while it's all technically compatible with PF, it tends to be unbalancing and make things weird, and most DMs are not particularly into the stuff.
The second is, ironically, the immense amount of unique features all classes get, in particular the stuff everyone gets on level 20. This is because it really discourages multiclassing, which I normally like: every class has something I would miss on high levels, that I'd otherwise like to have.
@Chow Personally, I think that's necessary. It was always stupid how multi-classing was generally always the best way to go in any given edition. Pathfinder and 4E improve on that, I think, with the former making single-class high levels attractive, and the latter making it so your multi-class isn't as significant a part of your character and may not meld at all with your main class if you choose poorly.
I'm looking forward to seeing what D&D Next offers, though. From the playtest, I think it will be an interesting evolution of concepts.
I've read through the Next playtest packet, but I haven't ran a game with it yet. So far it seems pretty promising. It really emphasizes that the rules aren't set in stone, and are just guidelines. It provides several different rule options for different aspects of the game (for example the Mixing Potions optional rule is quite amazing). I'm not sure whether these options are just for playtest purposes. IMO the Magic Items section is one of the best Docs in the packet, providing 'ideas' instead of rules.
In general it seems very intuitive and well thought out. There are some aspects that are unnecessary like Backgrounds and Specialties, but I think they're optional and are meant for newer players. Either way, they nudge players into making interesting characters. I assumed Next is just a temporary project name. Can't really make a judgement til it's released, but I might end up buying it.
Comments
And I suspect that a significant number of Baldur's gate players are old enough to have somewhat the same experience. Not that every single player is as old as I am and not that every player had the same experiences. But, I would believe that some people did.
Add to that the fact that subsequent generations of the game seem to have morphed into more PvP and less PvE, changing from playing a role in the party towards individual being able to 'Solo' (not to say this is "better" or worse, merely different) I can suspect that some older players may not think the newer rules have the same 'Feel'. Hence the nostalgia.
But My comment was intended as a joke and nothing more. No offense was intended to proponents of any version. It's all good.
1. To curb some of the extra math involved with buffing spells, dazed enemies, etc. I more or less stole the advantage/disadvantage system from D&D Next. Any kind of effects that give you an extra +2 or better to your attack roll (flanking, Warlord buffs, etc.) will instead give you Advantage, and you roll two d20s (or three d20s if you would somehow normally roll two d20s) and take the best result. Similarly, a -2 penalty or worse gives you Disadvantage, and you'll roll two d20s and take the worse result. +1/-1 modifiers such as from charge attacks or various conditional feats function normally.
2. You have an Action Point every fight. You can spend an action point to gain an extra standard, move, or minor action. Normal rules give these out once every two encounters/skill challenges. Too much extra bookkeeping, I say!
3. You can use the Aid Another action to help other players with saving throws, where applicable, i.e. patting them down to help put out their burning clothes. Came up last night, when some PCs got set on fire, so I thought it was a good idea. I think the party's giant ram "familiar" was the only one who was not on fire at some point.
I'm pretty sure that's it, but I might be forgetting some more minor things.
Note: The Rolemaster that I am familiar with, was out at same time as AD&D2
WotC clearly understands marketing better. Whether that's actually good for the game is a matter of taste.
I'm looking forward to seeing what D&D Next offers, though. From the playtest, I think it will be an interesting evolution of concepts.
The second is, ironically, the immense amount of unique features all classes get, in particular the stuff everyone gets on level 20. This is because it really discourages multiclassing, which I normally like: every class has something I would miss on high levels, that I'd otherwise like to have.
Personally, I think that's necessary. It was always stupid how multi-classing was generally always the best way to go in any given edition. Pathfinder and 4E improve on that, I think, with the former making single-class high levels attractive, and the latter making it so your multi-class isn't as significant a part of your character and may not meld at all with your main class if you choose poorly.
In general it seems very intuitive and well thought out. There are some aspects that are unnecessary like Backgrounds and Specialties, but I think they're optional and are meant for newer players. Either way, they nudge players into making interesting characters. I assumed Next is just a temporary project name. Can't really make a judgement til it's released, but I might end up buying it.