| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Ozreth |
Posted - 27 Oct 2011 : 06:20:16
Thought it'd be interesting to see what people prefer to use when running their Realms. If it's a hodgepodge of systems try to vote on what it's closest to. If it's not a D&D game let us know what you're using. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ozreth |
Posted - 15 Nov 2011 : 04:32:27
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
AD&D 2E but with the feat and skill systems of 3.5/Pathfinder. I much prefer flexibility in my campaigns so I have my own variations on the classes and other rules.
That's funny because I use 3.5 without skills and with hardly and feats. I've started to feel like I might as well go back to playing 2e...
Do you ever feel like you might as well be playing 3.5?
Aside from feats, skills, and Thac0 everything else is mostly the same. |
| Seethyr |
Posted - 14 Nov 2011 : 13:56:47
Unfortunately I have this OCD urge to stick to canon, but since my game system of choice is 3.5 I just dont get past 1385 in the timeline until I can reconcile myself with the 4e changes. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 14 Nov 2011 : 08:05:45
AD&D 2E but with the feat and skill systems of 3.5/Pathfinder. I much prefer flexibility in my campaigns so I have my own variations on the classes and other rules. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 11 Nov 2011 : 01:12:34
I use GURPS 4e.
Much better fit than any version of D&D I've tried, and I've tried D&D Basic and Expert, AD&D, AD&D with Players' Option, D&D 3.0 and D&D 3.5.
I decided against trying D&D 4.0, given that what I saw of the pre-release materials appeared to suggest a game aimed at a very different market than me and anyone who games with me. Exploring the published books at the FLGS appears to bear this out. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 01 Nov 2011 : 15:19:20
Like Sage, my own hybrid system, which is is ever-evolving, but based on whatever edition is the latest iteration of D&D (until 4th). I use tables and charts from dozens of other games though (for instance, Aftermath had a hit-location system that was the best I've ever seen).
At this point, I decided to break-away from 'based on' and create my own system, using all the best parts of systems I liked (which isn't nearly as easy as it sounds). Since the fire I lost all my notes (including everything on my campaign world  ), so it will be awhile before I can even think about working on it again. I am still toying with a race-based system, rather then class-based, because I feel it is more realistic. Being defined by your 'job' never sat right with me (and this harkens back to OD&D). However, by creating three different tiers of feats I can simulate both without any sort of character class system and without the other usual alternative of a point-based open system.
Now that I think about it, I wonder if Monte Cook is looking for any help with 5e?  |
| Ozreth |
Posted - 01 Nov 2011 : 05:05:39
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
I've played the majority of my Realms games (and games in general) in 3e/3.5e, though I started in 2e and had some of my best games and favorite characters in that edition.
I liked the relative simplicity of 2e to later editions of D&D. The retroclone/OSR concept piqued my interest. Is there a definitive and widely available 2e retroclone out there that smooths over some of the more clunky aspects of 2e (I'm looking at you THAC0) and maybe introduces a few of the "progressive" aspects of later editions (where other classes had some abilities to look forward to at higher levels, besides spellcasters)?
Castles & Crusades is for you my friend. It is mostly AD&D (spells, flavor, xp gain, classes, items, no minis/maps needed, speed of battle, no skills or feats etc) with the nice parts of 3e (ascending AC, all classes get nice abilities as they level, d20 mechanic for almost everything, none of that different systems for different classes stuff...)
It's a very elegant/flexible system, yet pulls off being more rules light than most anything else. It is nearly %100 compatible with any D&D product from Basic up through 3.5 which is awesome because every sourcebook/module you've owned is still completely useable with little to no work (the only thing at all that you have to change for AD&D material is inverting the AC, which is as simple as subtracting the AD&D from 20).
It's run by two guys out of a small office and they do a magnificent job writing, printing, and distributing the books.
I did a review of the PHB awhile back: http://yeoldeblog.net/2011/06/01/review-castles-crusades-players-handbook/ |
| idilippy |
Posted - 01 Nov 2011 : 04:49:12
2e and my favorite parts of 3e lore, with Pathfinder and occasionally 2e for the system when I run the Realms. |
| Varl |
Posted - 01 Nov 2011 : 04:35:40
AD&D 2e, heavily house ruled to taste, but the core will always be 2e. |
| LordManshoon |
Posted - 01 Nov 2011 : 03:28:27
Currently using 4E, and loving the game I've got going. Most of my experience came with 3E/3.5, and I recall those games quite fondly, but when my group gave 4E a whirl, we found it was to our liking. |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 01 Nov 2011 : 01:34:29
I've played the majority of my Realms games (and games in general) in 3e/3.5e, though I started in 2e and had some of my best games and favorite characters in that edition.
I liked the relative simplicity of 2e to later editions of D&D. The retroclone/OSR concept piqued my interest. Is there a definitive and widely available 2e retroclone out there that smooths over some of the more clunky aspects of 2e (I'm looking at you THAC0) and maybe introduces a few of the "progressive" aspects of later editions (where other classes had some abilities to look forward to at higher levels, besides spellcasters)? |
| Matt James |
Posted - 01 Nov 2011 : 00:43:28
Currently in a 4e game, but I love AD&D 2e and 3.5. |
| Dewaint |
Posted - 31 Oct 2011 : 11:33:55
Most of the Sources I use are from 2nd Ed. But from a Rules perspective I find PF most appealing, with adds from 3/3.5 realms sourcebooks like Spells, Feats, Races and Regions. |
| Portella |
Posted - 30 Oct 2011 : 09:03:31
I havent played the realms for years, makes me sad, last I played was with pathfinder and was not in the realms. However my main realms rules set was 2ed I was to young and not even born on previous versions. I have played realms with gurps too for while. In brasil it took ages for us to get translated book so for ages and ages we only had the core books and hand full of book for faerun. Then I learned english ;) if I were to play again, which I very much hope so, I would play pathfinder or 4ed to see what it is all about. Other then that I wish they came up with a proper expansive mmo for faerun set ages in the past there is so much history in there they would have enough expansions that not even wow could match. I am still waiting for that mmo. |
| crazedventurers |
Posted - 29 Oct 2011 : 23:56:32
quote:
Originally posted by Ozreth
How are you liking S&W compared to C&C? Pretty different games I know, but still...I've considered looking into it but am too intrigued by C&C at the moment.
C&C is my preference at the minute, it combines the best of the OGL (ascending AC's etc ) with enough variety in the classes to make each interesting, and the siege check system is both simple and elegant at the same time.
I have not yet ran S&W, but it looks great and reads well - it is certainly something that would be easy to pick up and run at short notice for folks who wanted a quick one-off game, and definately one for introducing new and/or young players to D&D - very simple with single saving throws and ascending AC's and to hits - they have done a great job of capturing 0E, but with added sidebars of how to fit it into the OGL ruleset if you want to.
Cheers
Damian
ps for those in europe, you can buy the S&W complete here http://www.lotfp.com/store/index.php?route=product/product&manufacturer_id=13&product_id=77
excellent service! ordered mine on a sunday night and got it by thursday morning
|
| sleyvas |
Posted - 29 Oct 2011 : 20:01:16
I'm interested in the pathfinder concept, but I've yet to use it. However, I really liked what they did with 3.5. It was getting a little out of hand near the end comparing those prestige classes to earlier prestige classes, but I must admit, I liked it when they came out with the additional "core" classes that made sense (wu-jen, warmage, dread necro, beguiler, warlock, binder, etc...). I just wish they would have put more thought into some of the other "core" classes they came out with like the truenamer, shadowcaster, the incarnum classes, the psionic classes from complete psionic, etc..... some of these were great concepts, but the rules were broken... others the concept needed some better background, but the rules were pretty good. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 29 Oct 2011 : 18:33:21
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'd also love to see a breakdown between players of 3.x and Pathfinder -- I wonder if people are playing one ruleset or mixing the two.
While I've not DM'ed Pathfinder, we have played it in our group. Our DM for Pathfinder has a really fun campaign going that we visit every so often and he allows most elements of v3.5 into the game. My character, for example, has Pathfinder elements (Swashbuckler class, Rogue class, talents and so forth) as well as v3.5 elements (Swordsage class, maneuvers, stancs, feats, magical items) but it has been pretty seemless in terms of the differences. Skills were easily transferred over and I even had more to utilize over all.
Gameplay is about the same but certain aspects are easier like using the Combat Maneuver system instead of Grapple vs. Str-check or a check with varying conditions depending on roll (like missing the DC by more than X has a worse effect, which I hated).
Classes also seem a bit stronger overall, though I don't think this increase is enough to even the caster vs. non-caster disparity that exists within that system. It's a step in the right direction though. |
| Ozreth |
Posted - 29 Oct 2011 : 17:38:36
Also I should have put this in the general FR chat and considered what people prefer to play in as well, not just run. Oh well. |
| Ozreth |
Posted - 29 Oct 2011 : 17:37:30
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
C&C for me, although as i have treated myself to Swords and Wizardry Complete I might start up a side campaign using S&W for the current PC's henchmen and see how it plays out
Cheers
Damian
How are you liking S&W compared to C&C? Pretty different games I know, but still...I've considered looking into it but am too intrigued by C&C at the moment. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Oct 2011 : 14:59:10
quote:
Originally posted by Ozreth
It's looking exactly like I expected so far with mostly 2e and 3.x ha. I'm a 3e man myself but am looking to start running with Castles & Crusades. It's got 3e's streamlining with 2e's simplicity and flavor. Good stuff.
The results are interesting, but the numbers are still too small to draw any real conclusions.
I'd also love to see a breakdown between players of 3.x and Pathfinder -- I wonder if people are playing one ruleset or mixing the two. |
| crazedventurers |
Posted - 29 Oct 2011 : 10:02:45
C&C for me, although as i have treated myself to Swords and Wizardry Complete I might start up a side campaign using S&W for the current PC's henchmen and see how it plays out
Cheers
Damian |
| Ozreth |
Posted - 29 Oct 2011 : 06:20:08
It's looking exactly like I expected so far with mostly 2e and 3.x ha. I'm a 3e man myself but am looking to start running with Castles & Crusades. It's got 3e's streamlining with 2e's simplicity and flavor. Good stuff. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 28 Oct 2011 : 22:47:04
Pathfinder as well. =) |
| Seravin |
Posted - 28 Oct 2011 : 15:54:37
AD&D 2ED, I'm old school like that and my favorite products are all 2nd edition. |
| GRYPHON |
Posted - 28 Oct 2011 : 14:54:46
Modified Microlite... |
| Thauramarth |
Posted - 28 Oct 2011 : 08:27:44
Mostly AD&D 2E, with some modifications (the Players' Options books, some things from OD&D, AD&D, and 3E; in particular switching the whole rolls system to Difficulty Class based rolls). |
| Nilus Reynard |
Posted - 28 Oct 2011 : 06:47:53
AD&D 2E. |
| Halidan |
Posted - 27 Oct 2011 : 15:21:54
Pathfinder, along with some WotC and third-party 3.5 rules (mostly for magic items and PrC's) to suppliment where the basic Pathfinder book didn't go. |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 27 Oct 2011 : 14:12:37
AD&D 2nd Ed all the way baby! |
| Diffan |
Posted - 27 Oct 2011 : 14:08:54
While I've used multiple editions of D&D to play in the Realms, I feel 4E is the best way for me to convey the story I want to tell to my players and how they interact with the campaign world. I don't, however, have problems using other editions as I greatly enjoyed v3.5 and Pathfinder too. |
| Marc |
Posted - 27 Oct 2011 : 08:48:18
Like Sage, but not so many different games, probably AD&D 10 %, 4E 10 %, the rest is 3.5, Pathfinder, Arcana Evolved and some houserules to bind them together. |
