Any Pony play Tabletop Game? (D&D / 40k / Warmachine / Other)

[Steel Accord 6,658]

Yes, I play Dungeons and Dragons. Love that game so much.

[nolongerabout 403]

I'm sorry, really I am, but for all those claiming that D&D 3.5 is the best version?

 

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

AD&D 2nd edition, without a doubt. 3 and up are mere imitations of what were the best editions ever made of the game.

 

To the question at hand;

 

Been a DM for eight years, played for more than ten. Pretty much everything from 5 to the original edition (Found a mint 1977 first edition set at a carboot sale, payed 50p for it. F*cking bargain), but most of my experience is with the aforementioned AD&D 2nd ed. Briefly dabbled in warhammer 40k but decided it was far too expensive. Like, WAY too expensive. Don't know how people can sometimes spend hundreds if not thousands of pounds on plastic fugurines.

 

Every cripple has their own way of walking, I suppose.

[Argumedies 1,748]

Been playing DnD for many years now, still do. I play mostly 3.5 but my favorite will always be 2nd addition.

 

I used to DM weekly groups at a card shop years ago but that guy sold it and moved away

 

I love RP gameing and have even started playing online useing Hero labs, Roll20 and Skype video.

 

Ive even started in creating my own custome RPG system based for a book series i read, hopefully in a couple of months well get a trial run to see if it works

[Christmasy Britty 2,553]

i have played Dark Heresy and D&D

[Brony Number 42 9,992]

AD&D 2nd edition, without a doubt. 3 and up are mere imitations of what were the best editions ever made of the game.

Yes! Thank you. I remember when 3rd came out and everyone thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. But if it was so good then why did they need 3.5? And 4th is just a table top computer game. And I HATE 5th. “Advantage” is a stupid gimmick. Reviewers already are making house rules for stuff they don't like in it.

 

The fatal flaw in 3rd and its derivatives is the broken feat system. If you have to ban certain feat combinations then the game is broken and shouldn't be played.

 

I am more than half way through getting a complete collection of TSR D&D. I have a 5th printing of the original white box. You should watch Spoony's stories about his rpg experiences.

Edited June 23, 2015 by BronyNumber42

[Razorwind 68]

I played Warhammer 2ed for long time, some D&D 3ed (I want 5ed so badly), Savage Worlds, Cyberpunk 2020, Neuroshima (polish post-apocalyptic RPG, you may know it from board game Neuroshima Hex), Wolsung (also polish, steampunk, but I think it appeared in US) and few other with names I can't remember.

 

I also play board games. In my house I have Arkham Horror, Blood Bowl: Team Manager (with Sudden Death), Settlers of Catan, Munchkin and some polish games you propably wouldn't know. They are either mine or my brother's (RPGs too).

[Derplight Sperkle 1,013]

I have played a few of the wahammer 40k RPs like Dark Heresy and Black Crusade as well as some D&D. I'm actually GMing a Dark Heresy game with some friends though it is in a hiatus at the moment because work gets in the way

 

I was also pretty big into heroclix for awhile then have been slowly losing interest in it.

[Twilight Dirac 720]

I'm sorry, really I am, but for all those claiming that D&D 3.5 is the best version? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AD&D 2nd edition, without a doubt. 3 and up are mere imitations of what were the best editions ever made of the game.

 

I will never understand the reverence shown for 2nd edition.  It was the first version of dnd I played, and I did get a lot of enjoyment out of it, but the fact of the matter is AD&D 2nd edition was and is a complete mess.  It seemed to be half a dozen almost unrelated systems stitched together.  d20 rolls for some checks, percentile rolls for others, roll under this score, roll over that score, consult this table.  3rd edition unified everything under a single intuitive system in such a way that you barely realize the elegance of the underlying mechanics unless you look back at older systems.  Roll a d20, add a number, see if it exceeds another, done.  Works for attack rolls, saving throws, ability checks, SR, you name it.  It is just so much easier.

 

And that is not getting into the obtuse saving throw system, arbitrary race class level limitations, bizarre dual classing system and numerous other problems this system had.  As much as I enjoyed 2e at the time, I could never go back to this mess of a gaming system.

 

 

 

Yes! Thank you. I remember when 3rd came out and everyone thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. But if it was so good then why did they need 3.5? And 4th is just a table top computer game. And I HATE 5th. “Advantage” is a stupid gimmick. Reviewers already are making house rules for stuff they don't like in it.

 

 

What precisely is wrong with continuously improving your product?  It is not like TSR released a single perfect version of dnd, AD&D 2e was the last of several editions made by TSR, and it was  nowhere close to being perfect.  3rd edition was probably the best thing to happen to dnd, 3.5 added small but welcome improvements to 3rd edition.  4th edition was admittedly crap, but 5e has made up for that, it being truly amazing.  

 

 

 

The fatal flaw in 3rd and its derivatives is the broken feat system. If you have to ban certain feat combinations then the game is broken and shouldn't be played.

 

I have never had this problem ever come up in over a decade of playing the game.  I suppose with all the splatbooks it is possible to come up with truly destructive feat combination, but in all honesty spellcasting has always been the most potent game mechanic in the hands of the players, regardless of the edition. 

Edited June 24, 2015 by Twilight Dirac

[Brony Number 42 9,992]

 

 

What precisely is wrong with continuously improving your product?

5th edition is not amazing. It is a rehash of the same, basic elements. It's a high fantasy game. Who cares if you're adding attack bonus or subtracting from THAC0? I HATE advantage. I analyze it in my blog “Statistical Analysis of Dice Rolls in Gaming” It is a dumb gimmick and it removes the ability to use strategy in combat. Now all you need to do is 1 thing to get advantage. Like it's so hard to add and subtract a couple numbers.

 

I watched a review where the person talked about how much he liked the critical system. Now, you get a critical if you roll a 20 and you don't have to confirm it. That is what 2nd edition rules were! And people are acting like it it's some new thing.

 

Other people have talked about cantrips being too powerful so they are house ruling those. So if it's so great then why are people making house rules?

 

I predict that in 6th edition you will have to confirm your criticals and people will talk about how great it is and how much better it is than 5th edition. It has reached a point of diminishing returns. They have reached the point where they can't do anything new with the game. They can only rearrange the existing elements and try to present it as new.

 

You can do a search for broken 3.5 and Pathfinder characters. There are only a couple things I tweak in 2nd edition. It's not perfect, nothing is. But I see no point in spending thousands of dollars on what is essentially the same game with different rules for rolling abilities. 

[Twilight Dirac 720]

5th edition is not amazing. It is a rehash of the same, basic elements. It's a high fantasy game. Who cares if you're adding attack bonus or subtracting from THAC0? I HATE advantage. I analyze it in my blog “Statistical Analysis of Dice Rolls in Gaming” It is a dumb gimmick and it removes the ability to use strategy in combat. Now all you need to do is 1 thing to get advantage. Like it's so hard to add and subtract a couple numbers.

 

All the editions are rehashes of a high fantasy game.  By this same logic I could say why even bother with AD&D 2nd edition, it is obviously a rehash of AD&D 1st edition.  The new editions make the game easier to play, more transparent, and give the players more options in terms of character building and the various actions they can take in the game world.  Progressive improvements that have been enjoyed by a great many people who are more than willing to pay for the rules updates (which is peanuts compared to WH40k).  

 

And THAC0 is the least of 2e's problems.  If THAC0 based calculations were used for everything, the transition from 2e to 3e would have been less dramatic.  But in 2e you were using THAC0 for attack rolls, consulting the save vs. wands on a table for a saving through, consulting the bend bars table for one strength check and using a strength based ability check for a different strength check, and this wears its welcome very fast.  3e is a system where you use THAC0 like checks for all these cases, only the check is additive instead of subtractive to make the arithmetic that much easier.  And at the end of the day that is what many of these rule changes were, something to make the players life that much easier without taking anything away from the game.

 

And I really don't get where your going with your statistics log.  It sounds like you are arguing that the rerolls will produce more average results, which is a mistaken application of statistics.  The rerolls will on average produce higher die roll results, almost doubling the chance that a 20 is rolled and reducing the chance a 1 is rolled by a factor of 20.  It is true you can't stack advantage, but advantage is still powerful enough on its own to warrant applying tactics to obtain it.

 

 

 

I watched a review where the person talked about how much he liked the critical system. Now, you get a critical if you roll a 20 and you don't have to confirm it. That is what 2nd edition rules were! And people are acting like it it's some new thing.

 

I reversal on one minor rule, in this case to improve game speed (a major focus of 5th) is hardly a reversal on the massive overhaul that occurred when they came out with 3rd edition.  Call me when they start making me save vs. death instead of making fort saves and I will start considering it a serious reversal.

 

 

 

Other people have talked about cantrips being too powerful so they are house ruling those. So if it's so great then why are people making house rules?

 

I think these people are still stuck in the old mindset where a first level wizard got one spell and then spent the rest of the day being worthless.  The cantrips are far from over powered, they simply allow a wizard to provide the party with a small amount of magical assistance without having to expend spell slots, which are on the whole fewer but more flexible than before.  Its a nice move away from Vancian spellcasting, which needed to happen.

 

 

 

You can do a search for broken 3.5 and Pathfinder characters. There are only a couple things I tweak in 2nd edition. It's not perfect, nothing is. But I see no point in spending thousands of dollars on what is essentially the same game with different rules for rolling abilities. 

 

I have no doubt they exist.  I have seen broken characters in every edition, including the sacrosanct second, and I have also seen broken builds in many non-dnd games (see WH40k again).  It is hardly a reason to go back to the archaic second edition.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Twilight Dirac

[Brony Number 42 9,992]

2nd ed is pretty much a copy of 1st. The rules are interchangeable. I don't think the newer editions are easier to play. Pathfinder is pretty complex. I actually like the more complex rules. I might say that Pathfinder has the best rules, from what little I have read of it, except for the (allegedly) broken feat system. But, again, it's not “better enough” to justify a reinvestment. 5th edition is not better. I don't understand this argument about making the rules easier to learn. The games aren't that difficult. Simplifying the rules takes away the tactical options. It is too simplistic. You might like Spoony's review on www.spoonyexperiment.com under his Counter Monkey videos.

 

I like how every action in 2nd ed is different. I like that attacking, thief skills, saving throws, turning undead, etc, had different rolls to make. For me, it makes everything feel different. Using the same roll for combat and for saving throws, or whatever, makes things feel too similar. Sort of like playing a video game where all you do is press A when the game tells you. For example, turning undead should “feel” different from making a melee attack.

 

 

 

 It sounds like you are arguing that the rerolls will produce more average results, which is a mistaken application of statistics

 

 

That is not what I said at all. I show that the “advantage” system does not scale linearly with roll difficulty, as I show in the plots. You lose the ability to fine tune the difficulty. It is just gimmicky. A % based system is arguably the best, since you can fine tune things to 1 in 100. But, as I said above, I like how everything uses different rolls so that it feels different.

 

I do agree that the Vancian magic system is dumb. My point is not that powerful cantrips are bad, but the fact that people change the rules means that the system is not as perfect as people like to claim. Personally, I don't like the idea that wizards can just throw damage causing spells at will during a fight. It makes it feel like a video game. That's also why I don't like characters that have breath weapons.

 

 

 

It is hardly a reason to go back to the archaic second edition.

 

Then why is Wizards reprinting 1st and 2nd edition books? I find that very ironic.

 

Bottom line for me, I wouldn't play 5th with a 10' pole. If I wasn't invested in 2nd then I might pick Pathfinder. If I found the system to be broken then I guess I'd just have to be satisfied with a broken system. There is very little I dislike about classic D&D, and those things are minor fixes. I also love the old art style in classic D&D. I like the painted pictures rather than the computer drawn ones. I like the game's light-hearted tone and feel. To me, Pathfinder seems way to serious and “gritty” and tries to take itself too seriously. Maybe that doesn't make sense but it's hard to explain. Every picture in the book is some video game style fighter in spiked armor with an impractical sword. It's like people in that setting go to school to become professional adventurers. Everything is over the top right away at 1st level. In classic D&D, becoming an adventurer was rare. It was like being a pioneer, rough and real. The art style reflects that, with a lot of basic looking armor and weapons. To me, that's what becoming an adventurer would feel like. You have a basic sword and crappy leather armor and you don't know what you're doing. Then, after a long time adventuring, you get that epic looking equipment.

[Twilight Dirac 720]

2nd ed is pretty much a copy of 1st. The rules are interchangeable. I don't think the newer editions are easier to play. Pathfinder is pretty complex. I actually like the more complex rules. I might say that Pathfinder has the best rules, from what little I have read of it, except for the (allegedly) broken feat system. But, again, it's not “better enough” to justify a reinvestment. 5th edition is not better. I don't understand this argument about making the rules easier to learn. The games aren't that difficult. Simplifying the rules takes away the tactical options. It is too simplistic. You might like Spoony's review on www.spoonyexperiment.com under his Counter Monkey videos.

 

Incidentally, 3e, 3.5e and Pathfinder a pretty much interchangeable.  Pathfinder is basically in third party distributed version of 3rd Edition Dnd, and came about because WOTC unwisely dropped support from 3.5e assuming everybody would adopt 4e to fill that gap in the market.  If you like Pathfinder, you would like 3.5e, it is pretty much the same system minus some additional polish that Paizo added.  And I will agree that either 3.5e or Pathfinder are ultimately the most complex and detailed versions out there, yet still easier to play then 2e due to much clearer and better consolidated underlying rule mechanics.

 

5th edition was created more for speed in play in mind than detail.  It sacrifices some of the detail found in 3.5e and Pathfinder make the game play faster.  Generally the trade offs are pretty favorable, you don't really lose that much in terms of details for the gains in play speed.  Pathfinder, 3.5e and 5e are all really good systems, and I still play games using all three because each has different merits.

 

Incidentally, I have seen Spoony's review.  I used to be a close follower of the Spoony Experiment and watched most of his videos until he switched over to mostly recapping professional wrestling stuff, something I have no interest in and not even he can make interesting.  I can understand some of his objections, most related to things like art style, but not most of those related to game mechanics.  He was getting nostalgic for things such as not having max HP at first level and having 1 hp characters that died if they took any damage at all, and organic character creation.  As much as I like Spoony, those are absolutely terrible rules that were rightly confined to the dustbin.

 

 

 

I like how every action in 2nd ed is different. I like that attacking, thief skills, saving throws, turning undead, etc, had different rolls to make. For me, it makes everything feel different. Using the same roll for combat and for saving throws, or whatever, makes things feel too similar. Sort of like playing a video game where all you do is press A when the game tells you. For example, turning undead should “feel” different from making a melee attack.

 

But there is no actual benefit to running the game like this.  You actually have more flexible and customization with 3rd edition when running a unified mechanic along with easier and more transparent play.  In most cases the statistics of looking something up on a table and rolling can be replicated with a d20 plus modifier that fits on ones character sheet, accelerating play and giving the player a clearer idea of what he is doing without actually altering game mechanics.  A lot of the mechanics in 2nd edition are just needlessly obfuscated.  

 

And this isn't even getting into the weirder stuff, such as saving throws.  It is fairly intuitive what the fortitude, reflex and will saves represent in 3e and on wards.  But what the heck is a 2e save vs. wands?  Why would a certain spell result in a save vs. wands instead of a save vs. spell?  Why would a particular creature be vulnerable to save vs. wands?  When would I want to force a save vs. wands over a save vs. spell or a save vs. death?  It is this kind of obtuseness that makes me never want to go back to 2e.

 

 

 

I do agree that the Vancian magic system is dumb. My point is not that powerful cantrips are bad, but the fact that people change the rules means that the system is not as perfect as people like to claim. Personally, I don't like the idea that wizards can just throw damage causing spells at will during a fight. It makes it feel like a video game. That's also why I don't like characters that have breath weapons.

 

But most people don't change the rules, only some.  I know the idea of having unlimited cantrips (first introduced in Pathfinder actually, but nothing I would really consider an effective combat spell in that system, only the utility stuff was worth taking) can be weird when you are used to having first level wizards throw their one spell and then be borderline useless as they are forced to fight with darts or a quarterstaff, but this really improves the game.  The wizard player is allowed to contribute in a much more meaningful way at low levels, where the cantrips are the most helpful.  As a tradeoff, high level casting has been reduced in power.  It is an attempt to get rid of the linear warrior / quadratic wizard problem, and keep everybody more or less functional throughout the game.

 

 

 

Then why is Wizards reprinting 1st and 2nd edition books? I find that very ironic.

 

Because there are enough holdouts who do not want to play anything past 2e.  But I honestly think this is more along the line of a misplaced sense of nostalgia than anything else.  Between 3.5e, Pathfinder and 5e you have all your dnd bases covered, I see no reason to go back to this system for any kind of campaign I would run or play in.

 

 

 

Bottom line for me, I wouldn't play 5th with a 10' pole. If I wasn't invested in 2nd then I might pick Pathfinder. If I found the system to be broken then I guess I'd just have to be satisfied with a broken system. There is very little I dislike about classic D&D, and those things are minor fixes. I also love the old art style in classic D&D. I like the painted pictures rather than the computer drawn ones. I like the game's light-hearted tone and feel. To me, Pathfinder seems way to serious and “gritty” and tries to take itself too seriously. Maybe that doesn't make sense but it's hard to explain. Every picture in the book is some video game style fighter in spiked armor with an impractical sword. It's like people in that setting go to school to become professional adventurers. Everything is over the top right away at 1st level. In classic D&D, becoming an adventurer was rare. It was like being a pioneer, rough and real. The art style reflects that, with a lot of basic looking armor and weapons. To me, that's what becoming an adventurer would feel like. You have a basic sword and crappy leather armor and you don't know what you're doing. Then, after a long time adventuring, you get that epic looking equipment.

 

This is really more or an artistic complaint than a game mechanics complaint.  Other than the large halfling heads in the 5e books and the 3e iconic wizard's clothing, nothing in the books particularly bother me, and I buy dnd books for game mechanics first and art second.  And even if I did buy the books for the art, I would still play whatever system had the best rules, I could always buy the 2e books to appreciate the art even while playing 5e rules if I was so inclined. 

Edited June 25, 2015 by Twilight Dirac

[Brony Number 42 9,992]

I hear a lot of people complain about making broken characters in 3rd. People go on and on about these kinds of minutia, with not much talk about the game's setting. And why not talk about 4th edition? I have more respect for 4 than 5. 4 is just a table top war game, which is its own set of games. But why would you keep 3.5, Pathfinder, and 5 ? It seems to me that they all just do the same thing, so why not keep the one you like best. Give me an example of a broken 2nd ed build, not using magic items.

 

I do think Spoony hasn't made enough material lately. I love his stories of how he ruins people's games just by following the rules. As I said in my blog, I don't like random rolls for characters, and I defend “power gaming.”

But what the heck is a 2e save vs. wands?

The answer to this is so obvious that I don't think I need to explain.

It is an attempt to get rid of the linear warrior / quadratic wizard problem

So no more awesomely powerful wizards? I would rather start weak and become strong. It's more epic that way. I don't think characters should be Superman at 1st level.

 

By your logic, the best game every would have one big number on your sheet. You roll a d20, if you roll higher then you win. Wow, that's fast!

Edited June 25, 2015 by BronyNumber42

[Honsou 399]

iron Within OP.

 

Never forgive, Never forget.

 

I play (if you recognized the battle cries then redundancy ahead)

 

Dark Angels, Iron Warriors. WH40k.

 

I have a little bit of WH30k and I attempted Battlefleet gothic, but could find no one to play with.

 

I despise fantasy and LotR.

 

If you're interested I'm trying to start a PH30K RP up. Feel free to drop by and offer suggestions.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Honsou

[Brony Number 42 9,992]

Does anyone remember Hero Quest, from 1991? I have a complete set.

[Fluttershutter 2,142]

I actually love reading books about that kind of stuff. D&D, Warhammer 40k, World of Darkness. But they seem complicated as hell to play and I have nobody to play with.

[Twilight Dirac 720]

I hear a lot of people complain about making broken characters in 3rd. People go on and on about these kinds of minutia, with not much talk about the game's setting. And why not talk about 4th edition? I have more respect for 4 than 5. 4 is just a table top war game, which is its own set of games. But why would you keep 3.5, Pathfinder, and 5 ? It seems to me that they all just do the same thing, so why not keep the one you like best. Give me an example of a broken 2nd ed build, not using magic items.

 

Its been around 15 years since I have played 2nd edition, but off the top of my head a telepathy based psionicist can cause all sorts of problems because non-psionic opponents were virtually defenseless in psionic combat, and I vaguely remember an undead hunter kit/class thing being a problem.  A lot of the non-standard races such as pixies were also kind of ridiculous if you used them.

 

More to the point though, have you ever actually played any of these editions, or are you just reading about all the weird stuff people come up with on some internet forums, because it sounds like you are reacting to a bunch of topics you have read on a dnd character optimization forum and not to how the actual game plays.  I browse several dnd based forums and in my decade and a half of playing 3e, 3.5e and pathfinder I have never actually encountered the more over the top stuff people come up with on these forms.  Even the most power gaming among us usually just get somewhat higher ACs, spell DCs and have a better spell selection; nobody goes around using metamagic rods to stack three metamagic feats on a single spell (which requires a high level caster in any case) or anything of that sort.  There is a huge difference between the way the game is described in these kinds of theorycrafting threads and the way it is actually played.

 

Case in point would be the feats you keep on calling broken.  Ever play Fallout, either the old isometric ones of the new FPS based ones?  Do you like the perks feature in those games, because that is exactly what feats are in dnd.  Just extra little touches to help round out your character and further separate him from other characters of the same class.  They do things like grant a free attack if you kill an opponent in melee (cleave) or allow you to fire into melee safely (precise shot).  Useful but hardly broken.

 

 

 

The answer to this is so obvious that I don't think I need to explain.

 

But it's not obvious.  It would be obvious if save vs. wands was triggered by wands, save vs. spells was triggered by spells, and save vs. death was triggered by something that causes death.  But all sorts of things that are not wands to force a save vs. wands, same with save vs. spells and save vs. death.  For instance, often a spell will force a save vs. death or a save vs. petrification.  And why would wands be a separate save from spells anyway, a wand is just an item that fires spells. 

 

 

 

So no more awesomely powerful wizards? I would rather start weak and become strong. It's more epic that way. I don't think characters should be Superman at 1st level.

 

The problem is not starting weak and becoming strong.  Everybody starts weak and becomes strong in every edition, including 5e.  The problem is the variation in relative power in between classes.  In 2e, a level 1 wizard is dead weight while the level 1 fighter does all the heavy lifting.  At level 20, the fighter is dead weight as the wizard is rewriting the rules of reality.  It is perhaps fitting narratively that a high level wizard completely outclasses as a fighter given the bending the laws or reality is going to beat stabbing something with a sword, but from a cooperative team based gameplay perspective it is counter productive.  All the player characters should be able to contribute in at least approximately equal fashion across all levels, otherwise you end up leaving some of the players out of the game.   Third edition addressed low levels to some extent by giving wizards the ability to wield crossbows and a couple of other additional weapons, introducing bonus spells (so a level 1 wizard could now cast a grand total of two level 1 spells) and adding cantrips.  Pathfinder went further by making cantrips at will, although neither address the high level dominance of casters.  5e addressed both ends of the spectrum, making the wizards useful at level 1 and the fighters useful at level 20.

 

 

 

By your logic, the best game every would have one big number on your sheet. You roll a d20, if you roll higher then you win. Wow, that's fast!

 

3.5e, pathfinder and 5e actually all have more "numbers" than 2e.  The classes all have a wider range of skills, abilities and statistics than in 2e.  The difference is in the way the statistics are used.  Everything the player needs know about his character save the descriptions of spells, feats and special abilities are on his character sheet.  When the player needs to make a skill check, ability check, or any other sort of statistical check, he need only consult the correct number on his sheet, roll a d20, and add that number, with the difficulty of said check being determined by the monster they are fighting or the campaign (known to the GM).  The player never needs to consult tables or sift through rule books.   So it is not like anything has been taken away, on the contrary much has been added, but it is organized so much more efficiently that the game actually runs faster despite these considerations.  Its like having all the contents of your room that which were originally dumped into one huge pile sorted into drawers and cabinets in a logical fashion.  Nothing has been removed from your room, you just know where to find it all now.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Twilight Dirac

[Draxon 214]

My friends and I play D&D every Friday.  We just started our first 5e campaign a few weeks ago; we had been using 3.5 up until this point.  On our second session of this campaign, my character died, which I think is a new record for us.
 

Since we always get thrown into ridiculous situations, I eventually started bringing a voice recorder to our sessions, and if we did anything really funny, I would upload those parts to SoundCloud.  I haven't uploaded anything in a while, but you can check them out here.  I think my favorite is The Smith-off.

 

I moved 300 miles away from everyone back in August, so we play on roll20.net, now, and use Skype to video chat.  It works out pretty well.

[Brony Number 42 9,992]

because it sounds like your reacting to a bunch of topics

Sorry, but I have a policy of not responding to bad grammar.

But it's not obvious

The saves are an abstraction. The newer saves might make more sense. I don't see it as something that makes the game unplayable.

3.5e, pathfinder and 5e actually all have more "numbers" than 2e

How can that be the case? You said 5e is simplified compared to 3.5, so how can they be compared in that way?

 

If Pathfinder isn't broken, then it might be the best system. I am opposed to any simplification, and that is what they did with “advantage.” So 5e is out of consideration for me. For 2nd vs 3.5, I don't think 2nd is unplayable and I see no reason for people to abandon all they have invested in that just to buy a whole new set of books. At the end of the day, the game experience isn't different enough to warrant that. On a point by point comparison, Pathfinder is probably better. I hope it dominates over 5e. I hope the complex systems win over the simple ones. I realize that I'm mostly nostalgic for the classics, and I'm not really in the “community” any more. D&D died for me when it got bought by the company that made Magic. It made me bitter that a fantastic role playing game got beat by a stupid card game.

 

As a different point, I hate the White Wolf games. I played a tabletop Vampire game for a semester. My god it was boring.

Edited June 25, 2015 by BronyNumber42

[Twilight Dirac 720]

 

 

Sorry, but I have a policy of not responding to bad grammar.

 

Really?  One now removed grammar mistake over the course of many paragraphs and you are going to go all grammar Nazi on me?

 

 

 

How can that be the case? You said 5e is simplified compared to 3.5, so how can they be compared in that way?

 

Simple, 3.5e is more complicated than 5e which is more complicated (yet far easier to actually play) than 2e.  Choose the level of complexity as you see fit.

 

 

 

For 2nd vs 3.5, I don't think 2nd is unplayable and I see no reason for people to abandon all they have invested in that just to buy a whole new set of books. At the end of the day, the game experience isn't different enough to warrant that. On a point by point comparison, Pathfinder is probably better.

 

This is quite understandable, it can be quite expensive to switch to a newer edition.  I lost all my 2nd edition books thanks to moral panic over Columbine and had just entered college when 3e came it, so it was an equal investment for me regardless of which edition I choose, so there was nothing holding me back from picking up 3rd edition.  However, if you are interested in Pathfinder, all the rules are available free over the internet through the Pathfinder OGC, so you can pick up the system without paying a dime.

 

 

 

D&D died for me when it got bought by the company that made Magic. It made me bitter that a fantastic role playing game got beat by a stupid card game.

 

To be fair, it appears the TSR was doomed anyway for reasons of their own making.   WOTC has done an excellent job with the dnd IP they have picked up, putting time and effort into it to ensure its long term success.  Considering the way many companies out there, such as EA, flip IP, what happened with dnd was really better than anything that could have been expected.  

 

 

 

As a different point, I hate the White Wolf games. I played a tabletop Vampire game for a semester. My god it was boring.

 

Agreed.  I could never get into the whole vampire thing. 

[AmberDust 1,116]

I play Pathfinder, which is basically just D&D 3.5 I'm a Magus.

[Brony Number 42 9,992]

Really? One now removed grammar mistake over the course of many paragraphs and you are going to go all grammar Nazi on me?

It's a big pet peeve of mine. Anyway, I have played 3.5 for one semester and I have read some Pathfinder. I don't buy these games and don't have any desire to play them. So, yes, my knowledge is limited. I like to watch the reviews. I keep hearing about how 3.5 is broken.

I lost all my 2nd edition books thanks to moral panic over Columbine

That sucks man, I'm sorry to hear that. It pisses me off when people blame entertainment and inanimate objects for the evil acts of psychopaths.

To be fair, it appears the TSR was doomed anyway for reasons of their own making

That was my understanding too. I find the history of the game fascinating.

 

No, I have no interest in learning Pathfinder. Would you agree that playing these games is a formative experience, which goes beyond the technicalities of the rules? I started with Heroquest back in 1991 or so. I got basic D&D black box and fell in love. AD&D 2nd edition and D&D were being made, so that is what I got into. Nothing can top that whole experience. This was the mid to late 1990s when everyone was goth (emo kids, you're doing it wrong). So Vampire was becoming popular, and so was Magic the Gathering. I can't stand those games. I love the high fantasy of classic D&D, not the pretentious “story telling” of White Wolf. Shut up and roll some dice!

 

I will concede that Pathfinder is probably the best system, even though I prefer the artwork and insanity of classic D&D. Some of the modules were a trip. I will stick with the game I love and let the kids today have their games where you can't die no matter how many saves you fail.

Edited June 26, 2015 by BronyNumber42