Topic: Anyone still play Pecil and Paper AD&D?

[KBF-Angel Slayer]

I am a big fan of Ravenloft.  However, I don't use the head set when playing online.  As a story driven game, I try to make it purely done by the written word, not the verbal communication.  If you are interested, take a read and let me know what you think...


http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163356555.msg1122572100.html#msg1122572100

[Nemesis]

Among the things I like about 3rd edition is the fact that + is always plus not -. 

Explaining to a newbie that Chain Mail is +5 AC and since it is +2 magical and he has +1 due to dex and a base AC of 10 that his cumulative AC is 5+2+1+10=18 is relatively easy.

1st and 2nd edition for the same thing.  Chain is AC5 add +2 for magic and get AC3  add +1 for dex and get AC2.  Adding = subtraction? 

Then to hit.  3rd Edition take your d20 roll add bonuses due to level, magic, strength (and any other bonus to hit from feats etc) and total them.  Any penalties being negative of course reduce the resulting roll.  For example a basic 3rd level fighter rolling 10 add +3 for level +2 for magic sword and +1 for strength.  He hits AC 16 or less.

For the equivalent in first edition you have to look it up in a matrix.  For 2nd it was slightly better but in both cases the adjusted number to hit bore no relationship to the armour class you hit.  (Those numbers would I believe hit AC 4 or higher rather than lower in 1st and 2nd edition)

Now ability scores.  What is the bonus for 15 strength?  Dex?  Wisdom?  In 3rd edtion it is all the same. (+2 in that case).   In 1st or 2nd it varies.  15 strength is no bonus but 15 dex and wisdom it is.

Of course if you have the old systems memorized it is easier to use them then move to the new system.  If you are just learning the new system is far easier.

So why is 3rd edion bad again?

[Skawpya]

the bad sides...
unless you go by the stock stats for monsters and generic npcs given, stating out encounters can take a while
at least some of the combat feats to be any good, require the use of a grid map unless the dm is a living computer who track who is where with facing and vector each round
the rest of what I consider downsides to the 3.0/3.5 material is a matter of source material, not mechanics.

[Dash Jones]

Among the things I like about 3rd edition is the fact that + is always plus not -. 

Explaining to a newbie that Chain Mail is +5 AC and since it is +2 magical and he has +1 due to dex and a base AC of 10 that his cumulative AC is 5+2+1+10=18 is relatively easy.

1st and 2nd edition for the same thing.  Chain is AC5 add +2 for magic and get AC3  add +1 for dex and get AC2.  Adding = subtraction? 

Then to hit.  3rd Edition take your d20 roll add bonuses due to level, magic, strength (and any other bonus to hit from feats etc) and total them.  Any penalties being negative of course reduce the resulting roll.  For example a basic 3rd level fighter rolling 10 add +3 for level +2 for magic sword and +1 for strength.  He hits AC 16 or less.

For the equivalent in first edition you have to look it up in a matrix.  For 2nd it was slightly better but in both cases the adjusted number to hit bore no relationship to the armour class you hit.  (Those numbers would I believe hit AC 4 or higher rather than lower in 1st and 2nd edition)

Now ability scores.  What is the bonus for 15 strength?  Dex?  Wisdom?  In 3rd edtion it is all the same. (+2 in that case).   In 1st or 2nd it varies.  15 strength is no bonus but 15 dex and wisdom it is.

Of course if you have the old systems memorized it is easier to use them then move to the new system.  If you are just learning the new system is far easier.

So why is 3rd edion bad again?

Actually I'm pretty young and was introduced to D&D.  AD&D and 1e I got in...oh about 2 minutes.  That entire THAC0 thing I understood in...oh about 15 seconds.  Maybe I'm a genius, or maybe those who claim they don't understand it are either lying or complete idiots who don't know how to balance a checkbook, understand how to give me change if something cost 3.49 and I gave them 4.00, or understand the basic principle of if I have 20 dollars and use 5 of them to buy something I'll have 15.00 left (of course if they REALLY are that bad at math, I'd LOVE to sell them items that cost 2.00 but give them only 15.00 in change, afterall, if they really can't subtract something that easy...they are REALLY screwed and I could cheat the heck out of them).

I learned 3e and it was confusing as heck.  If I wasn't playing with my uncle/cousin aka...family...arguments about whether someone got an AoO came up EVERY SINGLE FRICKEN session...NO ONE understood them really in 3e.  Then they had all the full actions, standard actions, and a heck of other items.  Then they have all these modifiers of which even I don't know half of which stack and which don't. 

As I said, 1e and 2e took me...before I was even 18...oh about 5 minutes to learn, and THACO and AC all of about 15 seconds.  3e combat system took us MONTHS to iron out, took me several hours of reading and trying to figure it out to learn, AND then I had to figure out the skills system.

What's even more stupid was that they limit the maximum DEX in armor.  Strenth goes up linearly instead of exponentially (either way) and a whole other slew of items for "balance" as opposed to none balance.  I used to like playing 3e, but it's gotten inane.  Especially when I figured that unless I was playing with my cousin/uncle, everyone I was playing with seemed like a rule...anyways I digress.

So though I can see that one might like 3e better, for this one who learned 3e, if you are a newbie, definately teach them some other system besides it.  The only system I've actually run across that was tougher to learn than 3e was Rolemaster.  Nothing was as tough to learn as 3e (edit: with as stated above, the exception of Rolemaster).

Now if you just want to play and not really know the rules, and let a Good DM rule you (such as...once again my uncle/cousin) then yes, it could be easy to learn to play...but to actually learn the rules...3e is dang tough for a player...much tougher than ANY system I've ever learned to play (once again with the exception of Rolemaster)...and that's coming from a newbie.

However it does appeal to some of the people of my age, the fast advancement, the gaining feats and skill points at each level...it's very fun, especially in computer games such as Knights of the Old Republic.  But then the computer handles most of the rules (some of which are houseruled anyways, for the game) for you.  The multiclassing, the equal advancement, and the min/max elements of the game are loved by many who play it.

And of course, if you buy into what WotC tells you, AD&D sucked, and no one liked it, no one will buy it again if they republish it in hardcopy, and they'd lose money, which is why they refuse to publish it anymore.  (though after experiencing AD&D myself, I'm not certain I agree with their sentiments.  I feel more like I'm playing an epic fantasy game akin to LotR or shannara, or otherwise when playing AD&D older editions.  I feel more like I'm playing a fantasy game like diablo, Baldurs Gate Dark Alliance, or Final Fantasy when playing the new D&D game.  I do like those games by the way...BUT, it is a different feel.  I think the dynamics of 3.5 are simplistic if you don't really want to learn the rules, but waaaay to complicated if you want to know what you are doing in order to get a character that can actually face the CRs they throw at you, and even surpass the CR creatures if you get the right equipment amounts as per the rules).

My take on it, as perhaps one of the newer players of the genre.  Unfortunately I don't have many of the older rulebooks except those I've been able to pick up here and there second hand, or read out of others.

I do have a full compliment of 3e books.  When they switched to 3.5 I stopped buying them.  I use the 3.5 rules with some groups but then I just use the SRD or use their books as I just thought the update was stupid...IMO.  Especially coming so quickly after 3e.  At the time I had a better allowance than most kids, and even I thought with what they did it was a waste of money.  IMO of course.

[Nemesis]

the bad sides...
unless you go by the stock stats for monsters and generic npcs given, stating out encounters can take a while
at least some of the combat feats to be any good, require the use of a grid map unless the dm is a living computer who track who is where with facing and vector each round

It does take time to flesh out encounters with feats and such.  Oddly enough it did when I was just learning 1st and 2nd edition as well.   With those I found practice allowed me to whip things together quite quickly, even on the spur of the moment at times.  I suspect that with the same level of practice with 3rd edition I could do the same.

In 1st and 2nd edition some of those "wing it" encounters became legends among our group and mostly no one else knew that I was winging it. 

the rest of what I consider downsides to the 3.0/3.5 material is a matter of source material, not mechanics.

Since the settling source material is mostly in forms where it doesn't really matter what edition you use I don't see that as an issue.  I have even used a 1st edition module as one 3rd edition adventure, just winging it.  It worked quite well.  (C1 I think)

[Dash Jones]

Sorry about my above post...probably came out too strongly.  Just REALLY tired of 3.x fanbois who try to tell me how easy 3e is to learn and then tell me how hard THAC0 was to learn...when either they've been playing since the early days of 2e in the early 90s or late 80s, or are new players who have NO idea about the rules in 3e and make pansy characters like a Monk/Bard and go along with anything that anyone says (like I tell one of them they should use daggers as their main weapon as daggers are the deadliest weapon around...and they'd actually believe me since I know the rules relatively well), OR know the rules but are so gigantically munchkin that they'd cheat if they think they can get away with it.

So, just really tired of a LOT of the 3e arena...cause as i said, 3e was dang hard for me to learn, and truthfully 1e and 2e took me like NO time at all to understand.  I don't have the tables memorized (yes 3e has easier tables to learn and I have many of them memorized), but the concepts and basic rules I got down really quick.  So even if they don't mean it, when people tell me that 3e is really easy to learn, and from my experience..something in my just clicks because it definately wasn't like that in my newbie experience.  Actually 3e was pretty confusing for the first little while for me.  So forgive the above post if it seems a little...aggressive..

[Nemesis]

Actually I'm pretty young and was introduced to D&D.  AD&D and 1e I got in...oh about 2 minutes.  That entire THAC0 thing I understood in...oh about 15 seconds.  Maybe I'm a genius, or maybe those who claim they don't understand it are either lying or complete idiots who don't know how to balance a checkbook, understand how to give me change if something cost 3.49 and I gave them 4.00, or understand the basic principle of if I have 20 dollars and use 5 of them to buy something I'll have 15.00 left (of course if they REALLY are that bad at math, I'd LOVE to sell them items that cost 2.00 but give them only 15.00 in change, afterall, if they really can't subtract something that easy...they are REALLY screwed and I could cheat the heck out of them).

Some people just are not good at math.  Others don't have the confidence to do it in their head. 

One of my players in 2nd edition had been told all of his life that he was stupid and dyslexic and could not learn.  He wanted to play D&D.  We made him read the rules relevant to his characters.  We helped him where needed but only where needed.  We did that because it was quite plain that he was neither dyslexic nor stupid.  He learned 2nd edition but 3rd was easier for the basics.  Fighter and thief are his prefered classes in any edition.

He has since moved on and has moved his reading up to late high school level and is working on his high school equivalency.

I learned 3e and it was confusing as heck.  If I wasn't playing with my uncle/cousin aka...family...arguments about whether someone got an AoO came up EVERY SINGLE FRICKEN session...NO ONE understood them really in 3e.  Then they had all the full actions, standard actions, and a heck of other items.  Then they have all these modifiers of which even I don't know half of which stack and which don't. 

One of the things that I have observed is that the people who are most confused by 3rd edition are those who know 1st/2nd edition well. 

Attacks of Opportunity are one of the most difficult parts.  We started by ignoring it - on purpose.  But we found that with practice with the system it became easier and it has been used since to turn the tide in battles.  This is one of those elements added to simulate real combat somewhat more closely.

As I said, 1e and 2e took me...before I was even 18...oh about 5 minutes to learn, and THACO and AC all of about 15 seconds.  3e combat system took us MONTHS to iron out, took me several hours of reading and trying to figure it out to learn, AND then I had to figure out the skills system.

Again those I have seen with the most difficulty were thow who knew D&D from older editions.  My (then 9 year old niece) played Never Winter Nights and found the AC, to hit, skill and feat systems easy to understand.  Her advantage was no preconceptions.  Her father an "old" D&D player had a harder time.

What's even more stupid was that they limit the maximum DEX in armor.  Strenth goes up linearly instead of exponentially (either way) and a whole other slew of items for "balance" as opposed to none balance.  I used to like playing 3e, but it's gotten inane.  Especially when I figured that unless I was playing with my cousin/uncle, everyone I was playing with seemed like a rule...anyways I digress.

Even though I tend to play characters with dex rather than strength I found that I liked it.  That (like AoO) is for realism.  Try climibing a ladder for example.  Now climb it with a 40 lb pack.  Bend over with that pack on and pick up a piece of paper, are you as quick?  Ask a pregnant women about her coordination (be prepared to dodge a slap ).  It is one heck of a lot harder to dodge when your carrying extra weight.  In leather or no armour a high dex character might manage a duck/twist/turn to avoid an attack, in plate mail he couldn't even make that maneuver.

It also acts as an equalizer.  Under the old rules my 19 dex elf puts on plate armour and the 12 dex human is at a substantial disadvantage.  At low levels my elf would be invulnerable to another low level character whereas the 12 dex character would merely be hard to hit.  Add in the 3rd edition dex and my elf now has motivation to use lighter armour which keeps the ground more equal. 

So though I can see that one might like 3e better, for this one who learned 3e, if you are a newbie, definately teach them some other system besides it.  The only system I've actually run across that was tougher to learn than 3e was Rolemaster.  Nothing was as tough to learn as 3e.

Don't forget that you can ignore some rules if everyone consents.  If AoO is more trouble than its worth don't use it.  My group initially used our old initiative system.  We later moved to the d20 version when we were more comfortable.

Now if you just want to play and not really know the rules, and let a Good DM rule you (such as...once again my uncle/cousin) then yes, it could be easy to learn to play...but to actually learn the rules...3e is dang tough for a player...much tougher than ANY system I've ever learned to play...and that's coming from a newbie.

I've done that in a couple of games (Chill and some Time Travel game) as a player.  I drove the other players nuts by guessing well about the rules and details of what was going on.  It was fun.

As an analogy take two 25 year old drivers.  One has only driven standards and the other automatics.  Have them change cars.  the guy now in the automatic drives away easily.  The guy in the standard is going to have trouble.   Old D&D players (like myself) are like the guy now in the standard.

One key thing that I did when learning each form of D&D was learn one class at a time.  Start with fighters then theives.  After that work on the spell casters with 3rd edition I would do bards first.  You learn a subset of the rules for fighters that is needed for all classes.  Then with each class you learn the rules specific only to that class.

And of course, if you buy into what WotC tells you, AD&D sucked, and no one liked it, no one will buy it again if they republish it in hardcopy, and they'd lose money, which is why they refuse to publish it anymore.  (though after experiencing AD&D myself, I'm not certain I agree with their sentiments.  I feel more like I'm playing an epic fantasy game akin to LotR or shannara, or otherwise when playing AD&D older editions.  I feel more like I'm playing a fantasy game like diablo, Baldurs Gate Dark Alliance, or Final Fantasy when playing the new D&D game.  I do like those games by the way...BUT, it is a different feel.  I think the dynamics of 3.5 are simplistic if you don't really want to learn the rules, but waaaay to complicated if you want to know what you are doing in order to get a character that can actually face the CRs they throw at you, and even surpass the CR creatures if you get the right equipment amounts as per the rules).

I liked all 3 editions of (A)D&D.  Each has its own good points. 

The right equipment and a good team in all forms of D&D allowed characters to do some amazing things.   I could give many examples from 1st and 2nd edition. 

I do have a full compliment of 3e books.  When they switched to 3.5 I stopped buying them.  I use the 3.5 rules with some groups but then I just use the SRD or use their books as I just thought the update was stupid...IMO.  Especially coming so quickly after 3e.  At the time I had a better allowance than most kids, and even I thought with what they did it was a waste of money.  IMO of course.

Part of the 3.5 was to try and clear up things like AoO and sneak attacks.  I agree though that they shouldn't have brought them out so quickly.  It would have been better to put those two clarifications in the warriors book and the theives book while also publishing them on the internet.  They do (or at least did) have articles online specifically to clarify some of the elements that are either more complex or poorly explained.

[Nemesis]

Actually 3e was pretty confusing for the first little while for me.  So forgive the above post if it seems a little...aggressive..

I didn't have any objection to your post.

One thing that I have noticed with a great many people, something they know well and for a long time, they forget how hard it was in the beginning. 

The hardest systems to learn are those that are almost like what you already know. 

In SFC1 I kept trying (because of SFB experience) to fire my D7 bow phasers straight aft.  It took a while to adapt to the fact of that rule being changed.  Many was the time missiles got through because my 3 bow phasers didn't fire aft when I reflexively assumed they did.    With time I adapted and in many ways prefer SFC to SFB.

Myself I have adapted to 3rd Edition and prefer it.  But if I had a chance at a 2nd edition game (given that my 3rd edition game is suspended) I would take it and enjoy it.

[Dash Jones]

The problem with your explanation is that those who learned and thought 3e was easier learned 1e/2e first apparantly.  I learned 3e first.

Also, when your neice was nine, ask her if she knew which magics could stack with which magics, and which feats could stack with what feats?  Or ask her which defines the differences between partial cover and full cover, what those bonuses are, and how they stack with the Dodge feat, the spell Blur, and the spell Mirror Image?

Though your niece may be a genius, in general, most people who say 3e is easier will give someone a pure blank look on their face when asked questions like that.  Or how many bonuses can give you an AC bonus, and how many stacks can you do of them?

Why is it easier to get a +2 Divine, +2 natural, +2 Supernatural/Enhancement bonus to a waeapon then a +6 weapon, what is the price differential and why is it preferred by lower level characters.  Why would my Wizard with craft Arms and weapons want to create something with that type of bonus instead of a straight +6 bonus?

Questions like those which are used pretty much by most I've played with, show why newbies who rely on the DM to give them the essential equipment and make the game easier, can understand 3e better supposedly, but in truth have NO idea how the game really works.

I'm betting your 9 year old neice could have learned just as easy with another system (heck I was pretty young myself) if you hand fed her. However that you let her choose feats and skills probably makes her enjoy it better, but since she doesn't know the ins and outs of the system, her characters might not be up to par with the CR ratings unless you either give her awesome equipment by handfeeding it to her, OR you lead her on about which feats and skills you'd suggest.

For example, our level 15 characters do an average of 60 to 90 points of damage a round (and that's considered LOW by many 3e players, not at all min/maxed...) on average.  Most players who don't understand what they can and can't do by the rules have characters doing damage much lower than that, and players who understand the rules better than I have characters doing damage MUCH higher than that (we're talking damage in the hundreds).

Heck, most of the new players unless they are min/max'ers don't have anything but a rudimentary grasp of the system from what I've seen if they were new as I was.  The basics of 1e and 2e were easier for me to learn, and every one of the newbies that I've played with that weren't old timers from 1e or 2e, if they actually learned the rules instead of being handfed by the DM, took a dang long time to learn the rules.

Which is why when we finally tried out an older system, we really can't understand all those gripes about it.  Some had taken it for granted and continued the same gripes, but once we actually sat down, took five minutes (really, it took us about that long to grasp the basics, and without kits the characters in older editions seem to be a LOT less powered as in the core rules, unless one used the DMG 2e rules for class building), we found it was so much easier to understand than 3e on our going around we couldn't believe how much people complained about it.  We then figured people either made things up, accepted for granted people knew what they were talking about (like we did before we actually looked at the older rules), OR were so disenchanted with 2e that they'd say anything about it.

Seriously, THAC0 was REALLY simple to figure out.  BAB is just about as simple as long as one doesn't start tossing in feats.  It's the feats that make Attack bonueses in 3e a major pain, along with the stacking of various bonuses that didn't really exist prior to 3e (that we've found, it's not in the core rules of AD&D at least).

On the otherhand, in 2e we do find the Options books and Complete books rather stupid as well as they make 2e waaaay more complex and hard to understand.  To this day I can't really understand Skills and Powers or Combat Options for 2e, which is supposedly where 3e got it's skills and feats options.

In my experience, with newbies, it's exactly the opposite of yours.  The only time that it was slightly like yours was with my uncle/cousin, and that's probably because he introduces players using the basic set and somehow has a way of teaching it that makes it seem a little simpler.  But then again, because he uses the basic set he limits their options at firsts, so they don't get the full blast of the rules until they gain a level or two at which point he then opens it up.

But then, he's American, so maybe that's the difference too.  Perhaps 3e is designed with the American Psych in mind whilst the older editions appealed to a much broader audience all over the world.  Which could easily explain our differences of how we veiw the editions.

I do think that 3e is MUCH more popular in the US than overseas in Europe...and 3e is practically non-existent in Asia.  They do have some of the older D&D editions being played (though harder to find) but in some ways they are easier to find than 3e...which could be where the entire difference is.  A difference of culture and mindset.

We go for the artistic, you guys go for the statistic.

Hypothesizing of course.

[Dash Jones]

Actually 3e was pretty confusing for the first little while for me.  So forgive the above post if it seems a little...aggressive..

I didn't have any objection to your post.

One thing that I have noticed with a great many people, something they know well and for a long time, they forget how hard it was in the beginning. 

The hardest systems to learn are those that are almost like what you already know. 

In SFC1 I kept trying (because of SFB experience) to fire my D7 bow phasers straight aft.  It took a while to adapt to the fact of that rule being changed.  Many was the time missiles got through because my 3 bow phasers didn't fire aft when I reflexively assumed they did.    With time I adapted and in many ways prefer SFC to SFB.

Myself I have adapted to 3rd Edition and prefer it.  But if I had a chance at a 2nd edition game (given that my 3rd edition game is suspended) I would take it and enjoy it.

Edit: Once again in the post right above this one I did probably get a little hot under the collar once again.  3e was my learning D&D system, and probably more recent than most of the old guys on this board.  However, I don't hate the system like some, don't love it, but there are systems I dislike ALOT more...as I give an example of one below.

I play 3e when with my uncle/cousin, but otherwise avoid it nowdays, at least currently.  Of course, finding D&D games period outside the states for me can be tough (add to that that my mother thinks it's devil worshipping and you can figure out another obstacle when I'm visiting them why it's a little difficult to play, peace in the family and all), and when I do, it tends to be smaller groups.

I have to admit I never tried SFB either until I had played SFC.  In fact I had no idea SFC was based on SFB until I discovered the Taldren Forums!!!

SFB isn't the easiest system to learn either I don't think.  Even harder to find someone to play with too.  I had to cajole one of my cousins in Texas to play it with me, and they weren't really a happy player to say the least, but it was all I had.

I can hop down to the local hobby shop and play 3e anytime I want to however.  In the states it seems finding games that aren't 3e are a Lot harder currently (though when visiting in texas most of the games I found were actually either 2e or hackmaster...I'll tell you one thing...I might like the older editions now that I've tasted them...but I CAN'T STAND HACKMASTER!!!!!)

[Nemesis]

Different people different experiences. 

I wouldn't think that it is the North America vs Europe element.  More likely just the natures of the individuals involved.  My group of friends may have aptitudes that yours lack and vice versa.  It could even be something as simple as having someone in each group with a particular aptitude for one system or the other to assist the others in "getting it".  One thing that just occured to me.  My friends pretty much all like "resource games" like Civilization, Master of Orion etc. shoot em ups are liked much less.  It could be that resource orientation works well with 3rd Ed.

Yes my niece is quite bright.    That isn't just the uncle talking it is her marks.  She did have the advantage of growing up in a gaming household and starting with games at an early age.  She wants to join the campaign if it gets going again just to kill the halfling trader the players ran into last time.  She wasn't playing and still found him too irritating to live.  I modelled him on the Mr Hainey character from Green Acres.  I bought the DVDs just to get the character right.  I think it worked.    Obviously I also have fun with the roleplaying side as DM. 

My self I prefer the roleplaying side.  I always try to give my character some type of disadvantage.  Some times the character gives it to himself (Dex 4 1st edition Cleric). 

A 2nd edition fire elementalist who was terrified of contact with water (made the sea voyage interesting ). 

A 2nd edition dwarf fighter/psion who had just come out of thousands of years of suspended animation (needed DMs consent of course) and knew no modern languages.  The other players had a lot of trouble communicating with him and even more figuring out his class.  He kept doing things a fighter couldn't do.    He would have told them if they asked (using the right magic to talk to him of course) as he was LG and had no clear reason not to tell them.

A 1st edition character that had some trouble with dying.  Elf thief/mu(LN) - Gnome ft/th(CG) - Elf ftr/th (CN).  Then wished back to life instead of reincarnated.  Wished back with all the memories abilities and physical form of the 1st identity.  But the personality of the 3rd.  A CN with all the memories of the LN and the gender got reversed along the line.  Became rather unbalanced. 

1st edition th/mu (complex history) ended up with the sword Black Razor from White Plume mountain.  The way I played it was that the more the character was boosted in HPs and to hit the more irrational and enthusiastic for combat it became.  The character was normally played as a calm rational deep thinker.  The other characters wouldn't let me use the sword except when they called on my character to use it.  They were afraid if my character were boosted to far that the ability to discern friend or foe would be lost.  The aggressions and irrational behaviour isn't part of the sword I just thought it would be fun to play it that way.. but only the DM and I knew that. 

I haven't actually played 3rd edition only DM'ed it. 

I never tried Hackmaster but had some fun with Marvel Super Heros.

[Dash Jones]

Mr Hainey character from Green Acres.

I have to admit, I've never seen Green Acres, that's probably the only part of your post I don't really understand.  Got the rest of it, but dont' really know the Green Acres Characters.

 I couldn't stand Hackmaster.  I get some of the humor, but playing it as a game...soooo not fun in my book.  I don't know why some people love it so.  Everyone around the table seemed to be having a great time...everyone but me that is.

[Nemesis]

Mr Hainey character from Green Acres.

I have to admit, I've never seen Green Acres, that's probably the only part of your post I don't really understand.  Got the rest of it, but dont' really know the Green Acres Characters.

Green Acres is about a lawyer who goes out to the country to become a farmer. His socialite wife is not amused. 

Every step of the way Mr.  Hainey the local salesman/conartist is there to "help" the Lawyer.  The farm has a house suitable for burning down.  Soil that is "depleted" at best.  A tractor that was made by a company that broke up 50 years ago and the tractor was old then.  Whenever something goes wrong Mr. Hainey has a "solution" of the same quality as the farm.  Everyone in the show is always being conned by Mr Hainey and being mad as heck when it turns out that it was only a deal for Hainey.  All that and Mr Hainey isn't even in every episode. 

That should give you an idea of the show.

The halfling ended up tied up in the baggage car.  But he did get a promise from one of the PCs to do a deal in the future.  Since the PCs were in their own past at the time the player involved thought that the deal had (from his point of view) already occured (to his detriment).  History however has been altered by this meeting and that deal never happened.  If the campaign restarts they will meet him again and it will be up to them to try and get a good deal from a professional con artist.  But he does have something they need .

I have never used the time travel thing before but have reason to do so with these characters.

[762_XC]

Gamma World was pretty cool. Post-apocalyptic fun.

[AlienLXIX]

I am a lover of AD&D myself but I have to tell you that when WoTC decided to put out 3.5 and make me pay out the nose for it AGAIN, I dropped it.  I can't stand to buy from a company that does that to it's fan base.  MMMMM might be the reason why I don't LARP that much anymore since White Wolf changed the whole freaking world!  Makes almost no sense.  Anyway now a-days Ferret is running something called HARP made by Iron Crown.  Really good game and once you get to know it it's pretty easy to learn.  We've got our boys playing it and quite a few of our family and friends into also. 

Who has played RoleMaster?  HARP is a lighter rule system but pretty close to RM.

Here is Iron Crown.

And here is what HARP is all about.

These are great games and I'd be happy if you just check em out!

[Commander La'ra]

The problem I had with 2nd Edition was that they didn't hack away all the silly stuff 1st Edition had in it.  Level Limits?  Alignment restrictions?  Bah!  Naturally our house rules did away with all that crap.

3rd Edition is the better system in my opinion.  It's simpler, it has a skill system that makes sense (Nonweapon Proficency slots?! I got your slot right here...), wizards come closer to being worth a damn, etc...

...but in the end, there's better games out there.  The White Wolf d10 system is my groups favorite.  We just converted our D&D campaigns over to that system and have been loving it.  Less time rolling more time playing, and a short combat encounter is about five minutes, not half an hour.

[Dracho]

Remember D&D's main competitor, RuneQuest?

[FPF-DieHard]

I am a big fan of Ravenloft.  However, I don't use the head set when playing online.  As a story driven game, I try to make it purely done by the written word, not the verbal communication.  If you are interested, take a read and let me know what you think...


http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163356555.msg1122572100.html#msg1122572100

Ever use the "Masque of the Red Death" 1890s setting?

[likkerpig]

Remember D&D's main competitor, RuneQuest?

Oh ya!
Loved that system... until Avalon Hill? (I think) got ahold of it. It was simple to learn before that.
Sure died a lot easier in Rune Quest though... but it didn't take long to make a new character. Musta lost 7 or 8 elves in "Big Rubble" alone...
A guy on a horse was bad news... a guy on a horse with a lance was REAL bad news!
You learned quick to buy the best helmet you could.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

I am a lover of AD&D myself but I have to tell you that when WoTC decided to put out 3.5 and make me pay out the nose for it AGAIN, I dropped it.  I can't stand to buy from a company that does that to it's fan base.  MMMMM might be the reason why I don't LARP that much anymore since White Wolf changed the whole freaking world!  Makes almost no sense.  Anyway now a-days Ferret is running something called HARP made by Iron Crown.  Really good game and once you get to know it it's pretty easy to learn.  We've got our boys playing it and quite a few of our family and friends into also. 

Who has played RoleMaster?  HARP is a lighter rule system but pretty close to RM.

Here is Iron Crown.

And here is what HARP is all about.

These are great games and I'd be happy if you just check em out!

Loved RM/MERPS!!!

Basicly, that is basicly what AD&D has turned into... Rolemaster without the rolling to determine the damage!!

Roll the dice, add your 'to hit' bonuses and see if you pass their armour rating....

Remember, 66 is the magic number!!!