| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| combatmedic |
Posted - 17 Nov 2015 : 01:43:06
This has likely been done before, but which edition of D&D/AD&D (or which other game system) and which era/ period of FR do you prefer to run or play?
I am a partial to AD&D 2E rules with the early 1st edition setting materials as a baseline, and some changes that deviate from canon.
My previous experiences playing FR mostly fell into this category. I recall Evil Azoun riding a Thunder Lizard on an elf hunt, in one DM's game. I wish I could say that was me. But it was my buddy Travis.
Eeeeebil Azoun.
I ignore TSR/WotC metaplot, unless I' m playing havoc with it to throw off some players who are a little too comfortable with canon.
What about you guys?
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| JohnLynch |
Posted - 08 Dec 2015 : 09:30:15
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
At the end of the day either you enjoy playing on Toril with all its depth and history, or you don't. Whether you roll a 1d6 or a 1d20 and whether its a DC check or THAC0 is immaterial to my mind. I play for the roleplaying not for the rules.
The rules you use most definitely does impact the type of story you are able to natively tell (as in, the type of story that the rules help you tell rather than hinder you). It's going to be a lot easier to play ACKs and explore kingdom building rules than it would running a forgotten realms game playing GUMSHOE. Could you probably still play a kingdom building game? Sure. But the rules are going to be working against you rather than with you. |
| Khaelieth |
Posted - 07 Dec 2015 : 10:17:24
I've tried running a modified New World of Darkness ruleset for a Fantasy game on a lark. It was a lot of work converting it, and annoying once we realised how many dice rolls were involved. I actually quite like the old Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay rules, but they are a lot more brutal.
However, for my games, I think the survivability of characters in 3.5rd edition is excellent for the light-hearted, high-fantasy, American-style RPG. I do think non-class skill-based systems, as mentioned, are better in general, but I don't think it's as easy to master - everything has a time and a place. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 07 Dec 2015 : 08:43:55
I suppose for me I consider D&D to be the rulesystem itself rather than the setting. I used to find the two to be synonymous, but then fell out of love with 3.5 and so moved onto pathfinder and now ive moved onto something else.
I still play FR, and I reckon as long as there is a rule system that captures the magic and freedom of the setting then it doesn't matter what is used to play it. At the end of the day either you enjoy playing on Toril with all its depth and history, or you don't. Whether you roll a 1d6 or a 1d20 and whether its a DC check or THAC0 is immaterial to my mind. I play for the roleplaying not for the rules.
Saying that, I moved on from D&D and pathfinder because I found them to be an imperfect fit for FR (especially from hearing about some of Ed's characters where the ranger suddenly decided to learn spellcasting like a wizard and other characters suddenly developing new talents). In many respects both rulesystems still to confining for my tastes (despite them being one of the most sandbox rulesystems I've found). The class structures are too rigid, and in some cases the class definitions were just odd (for instance a barbarian seems to be lifestyle choice rather than a profession, whereas the fighter and wizard are the opposite).
|
| JohnLynch |
Posted - 07 Dec 2015 : 07:13:00
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Another question then. What reason is there that stops people from using a new system (I mean personally not theoretically, why do you not use another system), or conversely what would persuade you to use another system?
Systems I own:- Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition
- Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition
- Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition
- Pathfinder
- Adventurer Conqueror King
- Castles & Crusades
- Gamma World (edition based on D&D 4th edition)
- Labyrinth Lord
Here's a question: which of these games would you consider to be D&D? I could see an argument being made that all of them are D&D (although I would argue the point on Gamma World despite the fact it's blatantly based on D&D 4th ed). If that's the case then theoretically there's nothing stopping me from playing a non-D&D based game. However I've looked into GURPS and I've shied away from it. I'd certainly be willing to try OLD of What's O.L.D. is N.E.W. though. If you didn't want to make the arugment that all of these are D&D and only classified AD&D and D&D editions as D&D then I would happily play Forgotten Realms in any of them. I'd be willing to DM Forgotten Realms in Castles & Crusades only though (ACKs is a bit too retro and I've gotten it largely for all of the world building support, Labyrinth Lord I got because it's free and Pathfinder I'm taking a break from DMing). If someone else wanted to run an FR game in a different ruleset I'd be open to giving it a chance although I personally don't think Fate is a good fit and GURPS is far too crunchy for my tastes. |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 04 Dec 2015 : 19:52:46
I would say Dungeon World could work well with FR. |
| kysus |
Posted - 04 Dec 2015 : 09:14:53
I think for me its more of ease of use as both the d20 system and the 2nd edition system are already linked to forgotten realms i have a minimum amount of work to come up with games. My group once thought about using white wolf's d10 system to run a forgotten realms game but nothing ever came of the talks we had on it, i think there was just way to much work and time to put into doing something like that and noone in my group really has the time anymore to make those kind of adaptations. |
| combatmedic |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 14:44:46
B/X and AD&D 2e(without all the widgets added, just some optional rules chosen to work well in the given campaign)for me.
AD&D 1e is also good, but I tend to use the books more as source material and references than as my core system of choice. The DMG is useful with all editions.
I have never played the original edition of D&D, the LBBs. I would, though, if somebody I knew were running. Maybe over on OD&Ddiscussion.
I am tempted to buy Holmes, but i don't know that I really need another Basic set.
BECMI?Mentzer is very good, but I have found that upper (Companion and Masters) tiers of the the 1-36 scale never comes into play in games that start at first level. It's rare to see anybody get far into double digits. Immortals never happens, IME, unless you start out as uber high level characters. Otherwise essentially the same as B/X or Classic.
I ran and played 3e for several years. It works well, but is a bit too crunchy for my liking.
Pathfinder added some fiddly bits and smoothed out some rough spots. Otherwise, it looks just like 3E. But that was the design intent. It's a set of house rules for 3E, done up as game. Thus "3.75."
I have no experience of 4e beyond flipping through a couple of the books. People tell me it is well-made but that combat can be slow. Not having played, I cannot give my own opinion. Production value on the books looks high.
I have not seen 5E/Next. Might be great, but it must be one of two things:
Similar to an older edition.
Don't need it, have the older edition or can acquire it at low cost.
Brand new system.
Don't want it, as I like older systems and am happy with what they do. House rules are fun. I can tinker to make my own CM edition if need be.
---
But if 5E/Next materials are easy to convert to D&D/AD&D, then I might buy modules and supplements. A certain degree of backwards compatibility could make the game line more attractive for guys like me.
I convert between B/X and AD&D2E pretty often.
|
| Irennan |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 13:47:49
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Well I found similar things that irked me about various editions and so I made my own rules to try and solve the things I didn't like (although I kept hit points but made attacks more damaging if you are tactical - but that was purely for fairness because most players don't want to be killed by a single incident of bad luck like an arrow in the neck or a failed save on a killing spell so I went with no insta deaths).
Oh, I still have hit points too. But in my game they are just enough to take something like 2 or 3 standard attacks, depending on how thogh the character is. Defenses are reliable enough, and there are also a few ''oh sh**'' abilities to avoid insta death (that may come from stuff that is more powerful than an arrow or a sword slash). If I were to consider ''effective HPs'' (actual HP divided by the chance to successfully defend an attack), I'd say that PCs are a bit too survivable, if anything.
Using a different dice than d20 (like 3d6) helps with reducing randomness, even if math gets a little bit more messy, and bonuses to checks have a radically different weight than they have in a d20 system (so they must be assigned to classes by keeping that in mind).
quote:
I've done the first draft and it's due back from the editors tomorrow and I'm wondering how best to get people interested. A few have said they don't want to have to learn new rules (I presume through reading which is boring) so I'm thinking about running gaming session workshops so people can get familiar with them by playing.
That's true. We did something similar as well. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 03 Dec 2015 : 08:58:33
Well I found similar things that irked me about various editions and so I made my own rules to try and solve the things I didn't like (although I kept hit points but made attacks more damaging if you are tactical - but that was purely for fairness because most players don't want to be killed by a single incident of bad luck like an arrow in the neck or a failed save on a killing spell so I went with no insta deaths).
I've done the first draft and it's due back from the editors tomorrow and I'm wondering how best to get people interested. A few have said they don't want to have to learn new rules (I presume through reading which is boring) so I'm thinking about running gaming session workshops so people can get familiar with them by playing. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 23:59:38
quote:
Originally posted by Artemas Entreri
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
2)Hit points bags. I didn't like that in D&D defense is mostly passive, and that (mechanically) characters just stand there and exchange big blows, unless they have to save vs a spell. I also didn't like that at a certain level, some classes could take like 20 arrows and still go on like np, and I couldn't bring myself to think of HP as ''stamina'' either, otherwise attacks and other actions would cost HP as well. I didn't like to think of HP as a weird mix of morale and other stuff, because I think that there are better tools to mechanically represent those. I wanted a system in which characters have the tools to avoid being hit, and where the way to survive is avoiding being hit through various means (dodging, parrying, armor, magical barriers and so on), codified through different mechanics. Once the enemy gets a neat hit in, it has significant repercussions (GURPS does this, for example).
Unless someone was going for a "called shot", we always used a body chart labeled with numbers (1-20) to determine where either a player character or an enemy was struck. That way taking max damage from an arrow in your neck will probably kill you even if you have 100 hit points.
It sure made for some intense and nervous fights at any level! 
I thought of something similar as well, but it's not just the hit points issue that made me choose to no longer use D&D: the game doesn't do some things that my players enjoy in combat, and that require an active defense mechanic. There's a certain satisfaction when your acrobatic meleer dodges multiple arrows while rolling to cover, or while advancing towards the enemy position; just like there's satisfaction when a duelist parries the enemy blow, only to use the opportunity to lock the enemy's weapon and disarm the adversary, or stuff like that. |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 23:29:59
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
2)Hit points bags. I didn't like that in D&D defense is mostly passive, and that (mechanically) characters just stand there and exchange big blows, unless they have to save vs a spell. I also didn't like that at a certain level, some classes could take like 20 arrows and still go on like np, and I couldn't bring myself to think of HP as ''stamina'' either, otherwise attacks and other actions would cost HP as well. I didn't like to think of HP as a weird mix of morale and other stuff, because I think that there are better tools to mechanically represent those. I wanted a system in which characters have the tools to avoid being hit, and where the way to survive is avoiding being hit through various means (dodging, parrying, armor, magical barriers and so on), codified through different mechanics. Once the enemy gets a neat hit in, it has significant repercussions (GURPS does this, for example).
Unless someone was going for a "called shot", we always used a body chart labeled with numbers (1-20) to determine where either a player character or an enemy was struck. That way taking max damage from an arrow in your neck will probably kill you even if you have 100 hit points.
It sure made for some intense and nervous fights at any level! |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 22:26:16
quote:
Originally posted by Rymac
I guess the "why" for me is that I still tend to think in 2e rules mindset.
I'm happy playing Pathfinder, and I think it (and 3.x) is a great ruleset -- but I "grew up" in 2E, and tend to think in those terms. |
| Rymac |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 22:20:47
I guess the "why" for me is that I still tend to think in 2e rules mindset. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 22:08:16
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Another question then. What reason is there that stops people from using a new system (I mean personally not theoretically, why do you not use another system), or conversely what would persuade you to use another system?
As others said, I think that D&D is the system of choice for many because it is ''mainstream''. D&D and spinoffs have the most visibility, can be easily found in shops and so on.
As for your other question, there are a few reasons why I wasn't satisified with D&D:
1)If you have a rather particular character concept in mind, you don't have the adequate tools to play it from the get go. You have to build it through feat chains, weird combos of PrCs, while going through many splatbooks (and that is, if you own them, otherwise you're SoL). Sometimes, you don't even get the feeling you're looking for, and have to refluff the mechanics background as well.
2)Hit points bags. I didn't like that in D&D defense is mostly passive, and that (mechanically) characters just stand there and exchange big blows, unless they have to save vs a spell. I also didn't like that at a certain level, some classes could take like 20 arrows and still go on like np, and I couldn't bring myself to think of HP as ''stamina'' either, otherwise attacks and other actions would cost HP as well. I didn't like to think of HP as a weird mix of morale and other stuff, because I think that there are better tools to mechanically represent those. I wanted a system in which characters have the tools to avoid being hit, and where the way to survive is avoiding being hit through various means (dodging, parrying, armor, magical barriers and so on), codified through different mechanics. Once the enemy gets a neat hit in, it has significant repercussions (GURPS does this, for example).
3)I wanted skills (like athletics, acrobatics and so on) to have more importance in defining characters.
4)I wanted a system that had classes, but not as rigidly as D&D has them (as in, there are class-specific features, but most abilities are tied and can be obtained by specializing in skills)
5)I wanted larger creatures to actually pose a threat, be difficult to face and appropriately resistant. In D&D, you have huge creatures that have less STR than your next fighter... |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 22:00:02
I haven't got any issues per se, I was just wondering what people use and why.
I've used 3.5 then pathfinder for years myself but recently the flaws have niggled me a lot.
I suppose you could call it market research. |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 21:24:11
I wouldn't use a new (or different) system because I'm comfortable with the system I'm using. I tweak it if needed, but have no interest in learning and getting used to a whole new set of rules, not to mention buying a whole new set of rule books. |
| Eilserus |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 21:21:36
2E has been pretty much ingrained in my head since childhood, so ease of use. 3E was just too much to learn (couldn't stand having to look everything up and be slowed down and I'm probably just getting old) and didn't even bother with 4E. Going to try 5E rules soon, but if we don't care for it, back to what we know, 2E. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 21:19:16
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Another question then. What reason is there that stops people from using a new system (I mean personally not theoretically, why do you not use another system), or conversely what would persuade you to use another system?
I have no interest in trying a new system because I'm quite satisfied with Pathfinder.
I also have no interest in buying yet another set of rulebooks.
Another factor is how well the rule system reflects character concepts. As a D&D setting, most of the FR characters more-or-less fit into the rules that existed when the character was created.
Obviously, though, if I was interested in playing a Jedi, I'd look at the Star Wars RPG ruleset -- because that ruleset would have been written with that character type in mind. If I wanted to play the pilot of a giant stompy robot, I'd look at BattleTech rules, for the same reason.
I'm getting the impression that you have issues with the D&D rules and think another ruleset would be better... |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 20:32:46
Another question then. What reason is there that stops people from using a new system (I mean personally not theoretically, why do you not use another system), or conversely what would persuade you to use another system? |
| Rymac |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 19:52:00
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
But why favour a DnD system over other systems. I know a few have tried the fate system and there are others as well, but it seems to me that most people play FR using one of the DnD systems and I was wondering why. Have people that favour DnD systems even tried other systems.
Beyond D&D, I gave Alternity a shot, as a generic sci-fi setting, and then when Star Drive and Dark Matter came out, I looked into and played those briefly. I really digged the Dark Matter setting. It's "X-File-ish" tone was really cool, especially the occult elements. I love Lovecraftian horror!
Then there was Green Ronin's Mutants and Masterminds. The Superhero RPG hit at the right time when Superhero movies were at their ascendant.
I didn't heavily play 3/3.5e. I focused on the Forgotten Realms books with the intent to backwards convert. I borrowed elements and took them back to 2e. Examples: No Alignment restrictions for rangers was one the made sense. (Although we didn't lift alignment restrictions for Paladins.) The streamlining of multi- and dual-classing made more sense as well. But for me, D&D wasn't D&D without calculating THAC0!
|
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 19:51:15
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
But why favour a DnD system over other systems. I know a few have tried the fate system and there are others as well, but it seems to me that most people play FR using one of the DnD systems and I was wondering why. Have people that favour DnD systems even tried other systems.
For me personally it's simple exposure. D&D has always been associated with the Realms and other settings. I've never even heard of the Fate system you mentioned. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 17:22:17
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Have people that favour DnD systems even tried other systems.
I used to favor D&D 3.5e (for about 1 year), and have tried 5e (for a brief time). However, I preferred to develop a system on my own (while also drawing some inspiration from other systems) with my players' feedback.
It works for us, so we don't use D&D anymore. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 17:16:26
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
But why favour a DnD system over other systems. I know a few have tried the fate system and there are others as well, but it seems to me that most people play FR using one of the DnD systems and I was wondering why. Have people that favour DnD systems even tried other systems.
A large part of it is the simple fact that since it's been in print, the Realms has been a D&D setting.
Until recently, D&D was always the big name in RPGs. It used to be that all other RPGs put together still didn't compare to D&D's market share. This is no longer the case, but they do still have the name recognition.
So that's why most Realms players play D&D -- it's a D&D setting, and D&D was the RPG that most players used for a long time. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 15:55:21
But why favour a DnD system over other systems. I know a few have tried the fate system and there are others as well, but it seems to me that most people play FR using one of the DnD systems and I was wondering why. Have people that favour DnD systems even tried other systems. |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 15:13:17
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
I wonder if there is a reason that people tend to run FR using only different editions of the DnD rule set. Is it out of habit, is it because it the two have been parcelled together since the beginning. Is it because other systems do not approximate the fantasy classes or magic very well. Or is it just because people like that particular system above all else warts and all.
I'd have to think it's because most of us tend to favor one edition/rule set above the others. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 08:37:54
I wonder if there is a reason that people tend to run FR using only different editions of the DnD rule set. Is it out of habit, is it because it the two have been parcelled together since the beginning. Is it because other systems do not approximate the fantasy classes or magic very well. Or is it just because people like that particular system above all else warts and all.
|
| kysus |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 08:16:06
Im currently running a 3.5 edition game set at 1365 dr in the dalelands specifically Highmoon. While 3.5 edition is the main ruleset i use, im also fond of 2nd edition and wouldnt mind running a game using that every now and then. |
| moonbeast |
Posted - 28 Nov 2015 : 08:12:12
Am prepping for a 5th Edition Era campaign…. starting 1490, just right after the Sundering activity is over. This gives me some leeway to directly throw my Players into one of the APs if I choose to do so (e.g. Tyranny of Dragons, Princes of Apocalypse, etc). More likely I will start them at the lower levels with my own non-epic adventures, essentially shorter adventures borrowed from from earlier D&D (e.g. Village of Hommlet, Steading of the Hill Giants, etc) but obviously converted to the current 1490s era. |
| pedro2112 |
Posted - 28 Nov 2015 : 06:16:32
I am running a 5th Edition FR campaign set in 1489 DR, in the Sword Coast/Neverwinter area. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 21 Nov 2015 : 14:34:12
My campaign is set before the ToT, but I have no problem using any element that I enjoy in that time, or homebrewing some parts of the setting. We use a set of homebrew rules, even if we played 3.5e/PF for the first year or so, and we tried 5e for a couple months. |
|
|
