All kinds of people play D&D from Metalheads to nerds. Older farts play older versions. I am an older fart, but I like the 3.5 Edition just as much as 1st Edition. If you play, what is your take on it? No, religious fanatics saying it is demonic please. Some of us go to church and read our Bibles despite your accusations! Thank you...
2007-02-16 16:36:14 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Games & Recreation ➔ Other - Games & Recreation
Hi. I'm an old fart too. I'm also a Christian gamer. I'm also more of an "old school" gamer. Briefly tried 3e D&D, and hated it. Seemed more like a video game or "roll" playing game.
My kids are getting into gaming, so I'm starting them with the BECMI (Basic, Expert, Companion, Master and Immortal) rules.
When they're ready, I'll let them try the 2nd edition of AD&D. I find it to be a much better game.
2007-02-19 21:33:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not as old as some of the old farts, but I've been playing since second edition, and have to say that I always hated second edition because of its reliance on charts and graphs to know what the hell was going on. Plus, the characters were cookie cutouts with little room for variance, even if you had every sourcebook available. It was far too constricting on the player, and wasn't something I preferred.
Around the same time, I was playing White Wolf's World of Darkness games, and enjoyed the system. It make roleplaying my characters more believable and fun, and I always wished that DnD would develop a system that mirrored that playability. Third edition and 3.5 actually did that, and made the game playable again, instead of being entirely about the dice. Plus, the game itself was simple enough to understand that new players could join quickly, which you couldn't do in the previous incarnations of the game. Truthfully, the easier system takes emphasis off of ROLLplaying, and puts it back on roleplaying where it belongs.
2007-02-20 18:13:46 · answer #2 · answered by baka_otaku30 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I'm an old fart who's been playing for, well, I could have started before it went Advanced, but didn't *quite* make it.
I was never really a fan of the old editions though, we played it because we didn't know of anything better. I went away for years, sold all my books, played other games. 3rd edition won me back
3.0/3.5 is more flexible by far than any previous edition, actually good enough to get me to play without protesting that I'd rather play GURPS or Hero System or some other game.
3.5 generated a lot of hate with it's early replacement of books we'd just bought a year or two before and it's nerfing of many of our favorite spells, but it does grow on one. In many ways, it's better than 3.0 in it's treatment of classes. The feedback from players after the release of 3.0 did result in a better, clearer game.
2007-02-21 08:51:25 · answer #3 · answered by leons1701 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I prefer 3.5, but I'm a bit biased. I started playing for only about a year before 3.0 came out, so I wasn't all that familiar with AD&D, but I will say that after a year of trying to learn AD&D, it was a relief to learn the much simpler d20 system they introduced with 3.0. With the release of 3.5, I was quite pleased to see some much needed changes implemented and I've been pretty happy since (with the exclusion of hating the unbalanced nature of the monk class).
My husband, who has played much longer and has experience with all the editions, agrees that 3.5 is the best he's played. As he has matured, he has found that he desired to play different and varied characters that would have been impossible with the original D&D and difficult with AD&D.
2007-02-17 12:05:24 · answer #4 · answered by d20rolla 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
3.5 is SO much easier to use/learn, I wish that was the set I'd started on.
2007-02-20 23:29:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋