Favorite D&D Edition
Original DnD
0.9% (1)
0.9% (1)
Advanded DnD (1e)
0.9% (1)
0.9% (1)
2nd Edition (AD&D2e)
9.3% (10)
9.3% (10)
3rd Edition (Original)
2.8% (3)
2.8% (3)
3.5 Edition/Pathfinder
33.3% (36)
33.3% (36)
4th Edition
5.6% (6)
5.6% (6)
5th Edition
39.8% (43)
39.8% (43)
This Poll does not have my answer
7.4% (8)
7.4% (8)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Let's Talk about D&D!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

I've never played, but I've always loved the manuals. I got some 1e ones (I think they are anyway) when I was a kid and have bought a few of the later editions too. Particularly loved the Deities and Demigods manual, but was disappointed that some pantheons had been cut from later editions. Think I've still got them in the loft anyway.

I started with 2nd Ed, and the first world setting I bought was 'Dark Sun' because I played the PC game and loved it equally.

Hmm, new question. This one applies to everyone too!

How often do you play and how long does such a session last on average?

We try for bi-weekly sessions of about 3-4 hours, but big boy responsibilities often get in the way, so in practice it's more like every three weeks/monthly. I think 3-4 hours is the sweet spot between long enough to get things done, but not so long that it gets hard for the GM to keep focus (without taking a longer break).

Or, we can just talk about the D&D Monk class. That's always fun.

Chimpzy:
Hmm, new question. This one applies to everyone too!

How often do you play and how long does such a session last on average?

We try for bi-weekly sessions of about 3-4 hours, but big boy responsibilities often get in the way, so in practice it's more like every three weeks/monthly. I think 3-4 hours is the sweet spot between long enough to get things done, but not so long that it gets hard for the GM to keep focus (without taking a longer break).

Or, we can just talk about the D&D Monk class. That's always fun.

We try to play once a week and usually play until 11pm up until 1am if we are actually into something.

We used to start around 5-6pm, but atleast with my current party of 2 who like to get food before coming over, usually starts 7-8, though we're heavy in the messing around.

However we're going to be starting a new campaign soon with the full group (5 total, 1 DM 4 players), but the 3 who have been playing a campaign with me DMing dont intend on stopping, so soon it might be twice a week for some of us.

As for Monk, coinkydink, I intend on playing a Monk in this new campaign. As I said earlier, a Goliath Tranquility Monk who tries to solve everything peacefully. Likely at the chagrin of my brother's character who wants to 'smite' everything and anything that goes against his views of our God. (The party is themed as worshippers of the same deity).

Chimpzy:
Hmm, new question. This one applies to everyone too!

How often do you play and how long does such a session last on average?

We try for bi-weekly sessions of about 3-4 hours, but big boy responsibilities often get in the way, so in practice it's more like every three weeks/monthly. I think 3-4 hours is the sweet spot between long enough to get things done, but not so long that it gets hard for the GM to keep focus (without taking a longer break).

Or, we can just talk about the D&D Monk class. That's always fun.

We play every Sunday, or at least try to. Three of us are authors so sometimes one of us is like "hey um I need to write this week instead" but we generally enjoy D&D too much to give it up. And as for how long the sessions go, again, we kinda enjoy the game way too much XD we play online (in Fantasy Grounds) because half of us live in the southern hemisphere and half in the northern, so sessions sometimes go from however early in the morning the southern hemisphere people wake up that day to however late the northern hemisphere people can stay awake at night. I think our record is about seven hours. It helps that we're all best friends of course.

As for monk, the first ever character I played was one! She was an eladrin with a mask covering the bottom half of her face styled like a Protoss (with psiblades in place of her unarmed strike) and I miss her a lot, though I was pretty bad at it, because it was my first time playing. I didn't really "get" ki points and how fast they recharge. I did once one-shot a goblin by throwing a dart, which I was pretty proud of :3 and when we were messing around with Fantasy Grounds and how the dice rolling worked, a Terrasque failed to beat my save DC to knock it prone XD I don't think I'll ever quite equal that feat

It just occurred to me...probably occurred to others already, but still...

Planescape Torment was Dark Souls before Dark Souls...

I've played a bunch of D & D, but the rules have never been so strictly enforced that I know the difference between editions. So there is no preference, because the DM can just pick and choose between the best of each. In the last game, the DM liked this whole thing from 3.5 about letting the players describe a long journey, using their skills to describe what they did at each leg (and whether it was done successfully), so he spliced it into a 5. game.

maninahat:
I've played a bunch of D & D, but the rules have never been so strictly enforced that I know the difference between editions. So there is no preference, because the DM can just pick and choose between the best of each. In the last game, the DM liked this whole thing from 3.5 about letting the players describe a long journey, using their skills to describe what they did at each leg (and whether it was done successfully), so he spliced it into a 5. game.

5th seems to want to be very open to homebrewing compared to past editions, which I find is a strength. I do think they tried to make 5e a chameleon so that regardless what edition you liked before, you can like 5th, and it seems to work. The main competitor seems to be 3.5 and thats likely due to a mix between the vast amount of published content 3.5 has, and the desire for stricter/higher number stats, since 5e sorta flattens things out.

I had to give the edge to 3.5/Pathfinder, because I've played that the most, though I've played a lot of 4th Ed, and honestly had a lot of great character moments there.

I haven't PLAYED 5e, but I'd like to. I've got more than a few concepts.

One of which is a Paladin, Oath of Devotion. Very much what a Paladin is said to be in-game (as opposed to what typical D&D players associate with "PC Paladin"). Shiny, kind, merciful, honorable, will give of herself to protect the helpless.

Also she's a Tiefling.

She sees no contradiction, necessarily, but she DOES feel as though she must be better than most because of her heritage.

Kyman102:
as opposed to what typical D&D players associate with "PC Paladin"

You mean a zealot without common sense, following the rules arbitrarily without actually understanding them, attacking anything evil (or perceived as such) on sight and without mercy, and generally frequently forgetting that the "Good" part of "Lawful Good" is just as important as the "Lawful" part?

Yeah, those are joy to have in your games.

Almost as fun as Chaotic Stupid players. Unless you enjoy basically having Kharn The Betrayer on the team.

Kyman102:
Tiefling Paladin

Sure, why not. The contradiction can make for some good roleplaying opportunities.

I mean, we have a Lawful Neutral Succubus Favored Soul in the party.

Chimpzy:
Hmm, new question. This one applies to everyone too!

How often do you play and how long does such a session last on average?

We try for bi-weekly sessions of about 3-4 hours, but big boy responsibilities often get in the way, so in practice it's more like every three weeks/monthly. I think 3-4 hours is the sweet spot between long enough to get things done, but not so long that it gets hard for the GM to keep focus (without taking a longer break).

Or, we can just talk about the D&D Monk class. That's always fun.

Game night has been every Saturday (more or less) for the first 20 years, with each session lasting about 6 hours, usually starting around 8 PM and lasting till 2 in the morning. Earlier sessions used to be longer, some all-nighters, and there were some weeknight games as well, but my personal routine now, and for the last ten years or so, is every second Saturday night.

I like using monks as a DM, but I despise monks as player characters. I don't like the idea that a martial artist can kill monsters with their bare hands. Even if descriptively their attacks are wreathed in glowing energy or fire, I generally don't like it.

I'm not convinced of DnD. The gameplay is kind of boring, slow and convoluted and the storytelling is never going to be good because it is four or so people pulling the story in all kinds of stupid directions. I mean, it can be alright, but it can't really stand up to reading a good book or if you want to play a game together, just playing Imperial or any other game.

Pseudonym:
I'm not convinced of DnD. The gameplay is kind of boring, slow and convoluted and the storytelling is never going to be good because it is four or so people pulling the story in all kinds of stupid directions. I mean, it can be alright, but it can't really stand up to reading a good book or if you want to play a game together, just playing Imperial or any other game.

I get what you're saying, but the one running the game, the DM, is expected to be the one telling the story(per se), and the others are just playing characters in the tale.

Some books are great, true. Personally, I've never played any other game, be it digital or tabletop, that has been as fun as roleplaying, and D&D in particular.

Pseudonym:
I'm not convinced of DnD. The gameplay is kind of boring, slow and convoluted and the storytelling is never going to be good because it is four or so people pulling the story in all kinds of stupid directions. I mean, it can be alright, but it can't really stand up to reading a good book or if you want to play a game together, just playing Imperial or any other game.

You clearly have never played with a good group (or rather a group that suits your tastes).

Books are boring, cause its set in...well, ink and paper, but fuck that! Freedom and choice and no walls! Maybe your DMs sucked and didnt let you impact the world, or your fellow players sucked cause they wanted to do what you didnt or didnt want to do what you did, but get a DM who lets you play your way and players that play similar, and it will be awesome, I promise!

Ever want to do something in a game but couldnt cause an invisible wall, or the game's rules, or because you cant kill just anyone? Well then have I got a game for you!

the December King:

Pseudonym:
I'm not convinced of DnD. The gameplay is kind of boring, slow and convoluted and the storytelling is never going to be good because it is four or so people pulling the story in all kinds of stupid directions. I mean, it can be alright, but it can't really stand up to reading a good book or if you want to play a game together, just playing Imperial or any other game.

I get what you're saying, but the one running the game, the DM, is expected to be the one telling the story(per se), and the others are just playing characters in the tale.

Some books are great, true. Personally, I've never played any other game, be it digital or tabletop, that has been as fun as roleplaying, and D&D in particular.

Depends on the DM and group. I want to tell my player's stories. Its why I do alot of one on one campaigns with my brother since he is the only of my group who wants to tell his own stories, but I leave alot of gaps in my world with the intent on letting my players fill them in.

Unfortunately most of my other players are either less creative, or less assertive, so I end up having to dictate alot of the story, but I intend on trying new ways to change that.

Saelune:
Depends on the DM and group. I want to tell my player's stories. Its why I do alot of one on one campaigns with my brother since he is the only of my group who wants to tell his own stories, but I leave alot of gaps in my world with the intent on letting my players fill them in.

Unfortunately most of my other players are either less creative, or less assertive, so I end up having to dictate alot of the story, but I intend on trying new ways to change that.

Oh most definitely. Several of the other groups I played in liked to have stories practically read to them by the DM, but other groups wanted a sandbox to run around in, and the DM to barely provide descriptive commentary (and targets).

When I said the players were just to provide characters in the tale, that was rather unfair, as many a time a player's ideas or input outside of their character has helped define or determine some element or encounter detail.

Saelune:
As for Monk, coinkydink, I intend on playing a Monk in this new campaign. As I said earlier, a Goliath Tranquility Monk who tries to solve everything peacefully. Likely at the chagrin of my brother's character who wants to 'smite' everything and anything that goes against his views of our God. (The party is themed as worshippers of the same deity).

I've had a look at the 5e Monk and so far it seems far better designed, with mechanical abilities that match the way the fluff describes them.

Because the 3.5 Monk didn't. The fluff describes them as highly mobile unarmed warriors who can flit into combat to deliver a fast beatdown, then jumps back out of range, and uses inner strenght and discipline to enhance their body. But in practice, while the Monk has a lot of interesting abilities, they don't synergize enough to be any good at that kind of playstyle. Not out of the box, at least. Doesn't help that there are other base classes who can easily beat the Monk at its own niche in some or all respects.

Chimpzy:

Saelune:
As for Monk, coinkydink, I intend on playing a Monk in this new campaign. As I said earlier, a Goliath Tranquility Monk who tries to solve everything peacefully. Likely at the chagrin of my brother's character who wants to 'smite' everything and anything that goes against his views of our God. (The party is themed as worshippers of the same deity).

I've had a look at the 5e Monk and so far it seems far better designed, with mechanical abilities that match the way the fluff describes them.

Because the 3.5 Monk didn't. The fluff describes them as highly mobile unarmed warriors who can flit into combat to deliver a fast beatdown, then jumps back out of range, and uses inner strenght and discipline to enhance their body. But in practice, while the Monk has a lot of interesting abilities, they don't synergize enough to be any good at that kind of playstyle. Not out of the box, at least. Doesn't help that there are other base classes who can easily beat the Monk at its own niche in some or all respects.

I've had little real experience with Monks in any edition. The most I did was a Monk/Rogue/Shadow Dancer in Neverwinter Nights, but he was totally ninja, which was neat.

Maybe I should try to go back and play a Monk in a 3.5 campaign just to see for myself.

Saelune:
Maybe I should try to go back and play a Monk in a 3.5 campaign just to see for myself.

That said, there's ways of making a monk that is much better than the actual Monk. Like the Tashalatora route. It's a feat that makes Monk and Psychic Warrior lvs stack for the purposes of unarmed damage, flurry and AC bonus advancement. Psychic Warrior has lots of powers that can make unarmed fighting better by giving extra movement, bonus damage and such. The psionic powers are also easy to refluff as being Ki-based. The basic concept is actually sort of similar to what they did with the 5e Monk.

Fist of the Forest and Unarmed Swordsage are also pretty popular.

Man, I just keep blabbering on, don't I. Should probably stop before I start tearing into the 3.5 Fighter, Hexblade, Knight, Samurai, Soulknife and Truenamer.

Chimpzy:
Hmm, new question. This one applies to everyone too!

How often do you play and how long does such a session last on average?

We try for bi-weekly sessions of about 3-4 hours, but big boy responsibilities often get in the way, so in practice it's more like every three weeks/monthly. I think 3-4 hours is the sweet spot between long enough to get things done, but not so long that it gets hard for the GM to keep focus (without taking a longer break).

Or, we can just talk about the D&D Monk class. That's always fun.

Right now, running a 7th Sea game on Sundays, playing in a PF game on Saturdays, and running a solo Deathwatch game when I can. Generally I try to keep the sessions to 4 hours. As you've said, it's kind of the sweet spot.

And lets not talk about the DnD Monk. The Unchained Monk in PF is great though. As is the brawler. Normal Monk....eh.

Chimpzy:
Almost as fun as Chaotic Stupid players. Unless you enjoy basically having Kharn The Betrayer on the team.

Honestly I'd rather have a Kharn the Betrayer than a Lawful Stupid Paladin. Kharn is bound to be more effective simply due to the fact that he won't lose his class features by acting like a douchenozzle.

Also his chainaxe.

Welp, just played DnD a bit ago, and ended up having to pull a side quest out of my ass cause my brother's character wanted to visit the local Mages Guild.

The guild was in shambles, just three mages under level 3. The two PCs ended up looking for their Mentor (not to save them but to potentially find some neat magical stuff). They ended up finding a vortex of wild magic that caused local creatures to gain elemental abilities.

They ended up summoning a Unicorn via the wild magic, which immediately sensed they were evil and attacked freaking out the Wizard they were looking for. They killed it, took its horn and blood and got into a fight with the Wizard.

Oh, and earlier (though I planned this) they reluctantly gained the service of a non-magical bard who sucks at poetry, but serves as a translator since they do not speak the local tongue.

My main setting for the past couple of years has been Pathfinder, but I've played nearly all the editions of D&D save for 1st and 2nd. Right now I'm doing 3 different campaigns weekly, with an oracle who's basically sick of everyone's shit ( and has a massive habit of throwing "I told you so" every chance he gets) on Fridays. That campaign is a homebrew thing. Saturdays I'm in a group who is running and tracking official Pathfinder Society scenarios, and I'm playing a gnome barbarian who spouts Arnold references whenever possible. Then Sundays I'm in a group that's running the Second Darkness adventure path, and I'm running an alchemists who's smart as hell, but has 0 common sense (8 WIS), so he's basically a perfect mad scientist, who's begun to dip into some...eldritch things.
Times be interesting lol

TheFinish:
And lets not talk about the DnD Monk. The Unchained Monk in PF is great though. As is the brawler. Normal Monk....eh.

Aye, t'is a pity. I rather like the concept of the Monk. But it's 3.5 incarnation works poorly.

Could be worse tho. You could play a Truenamer.

Honestly I'd rather have a Kharn the Betrayer than a Lawful Stupid Paladin. Kharn is bound to be more effective simply due to the fact that he won't lose his class features by acting like a douchenozzle.

True. Both are still a liability in the party tho.

IMO, the Chaotic Stupid character still narrowly beats the Lawful Stupid Paladin on the annoyance scale, because there's a high chance the player is one of those who just want to live out a juvenile fantasy, taking any opportunity to steal, murder, screw over their fellow players and generally being an obnoxious git, justifying their behavior with "that's just what my character is like".

They never fail to drag down the experience miserable for everyone, so it's become a bit of pet peeve.

Chimpzy:

IMO, the Chaotic Stupid character still narrowly beats the Lawful Stupid Paladin on the annoyance scale, because there's a high chance the player is one of those who just want to live out a juvenile fantasy, taking any opportunity to steal, murder, screw over their fellow players and generally being an obnoxious git, justifying their behavior with "that's just what my character is like".

They never fail to drag down the experience miserable for everyone, so it's become a bit of pet peeve.

Bad players hiding behind the alignment system to spoil everyone's fun is a sad state of affairs indeed (the third kind of problem player is the "True Neutral must balance everything" player, who kills babies every time he saves a town because UNIVERSAL BALANCE.)

But hey, at least the game doesn't encourage being a douche. Unlike 1st Edition's experience rules...

I love me some 5e.

As an aside, I strongly recommend some of the mechanical bits from Adventures in Middle Earth (sorry if this has been mentioned earlier). Specifically, the Journey rules and how magic items become more powerful the longer a PC owns it and gets more familiar with it. Very cool.

Also, AiME is a great example of how you can run D&D without spell lists.

TheFinish:
Bad players hiding behind the alignment system to spoil everyone's fun is a sad state of affairs indeed (the third kind of problem player is the "True Neutral must balance everything" player, who kills babies every time he saves a town because UNIVERSAL BALANCE.)

However, sometimes players like that can be salvaged, mostly ones new to the hobby who don't realize actions will eventually get consequences.

the December King:

JUMBO PALACE:
New question- Anyone have any particularly interesting or creative character backstories? I am very into the roleplay aspect of the game and trying to understand these characters' motivations.

I've been playing D&D in one form or another for 30 years now, and I've seen me some stuff I thought was really clever... but most of it was done by other people!

I guess one of my favourite characters currently is a Blackscale Lizardfolk named Alag'Har. He's a renaissance warrior- attempting to learn and master many combat styles, as he has a dedication to weapons, warfare and martial arts... but it's not because he's a war-mongering monster... he's writing a book on combat and battle in the lands he's visited!

He was raised by humans in a special exchange program designed to ease relations, and so now he appreciates many aspects of human culture- cooking and food, eating from bowls or plates, music, sleeping at night (in beds), etc. I've been enjoying deciding what influences have been made from his adopted family, and what is deeply ingrained into the reptilian genes (and that there was a brief period between birth and adoption that also may have had a profound effect).

I have a similar character although he was an NPC in a game in which I am the DM.
Argarok - a blackscale lizardfolk Samurai. Essentially Katsumoto from The Last Samurai if he were a lizardfolk. leads an entire tribe of samurai/oriental culture lizardfolk. One of my players was that character's adopted son, a poison dusk lizardfolk ninja.
"Father I am ninja!"
"Son I am dissapoint."

TheFinish:
And lets not talk about the DnD Monk. The Unchained Monk in PF is great though. As is the brawler. Normal Monk....eh.

The monk is only bad in bad editions. In 4th and 5th it's great.

So, how often do you guys play DnD? And what method(s)? (In person, roll20, fantasygrounds, tabletop simulator etc)

Currently I play once a week in person, and thats how I have always played it, though sometimes there are long breaks for whatever reason. Though soon I will be playing twice a week, since the full group is going to play again, but the partial group that had been playing want to keep playing my campaign, as do I. Though I wish a day would be set. The partial group has been meeting on wednesdays. The full might be Tuesdays but I dunno.

I want to start trying online via Roll20 soon. I want to experience other players and other play styles...and to play more.

The plan is bi-weekly 4 hours sessions, but in practice, it's really more once every 3 weeks or month. We play in person, partly because we enjoy the game more that way, partly because we usually also like to have a drink or eat out afterwards.

I play in too many. I have a weekly 5e game, a weekly VtM game, a bi-weekly Dark Heresy game, and a bi-weekly GURPS game that I run.

EDIT: The 2 weekly games are in person and the bi-weekly games are online over Discord.

crimson5pheonix:
games are online over Discord.

Our group has tried several times to play D&D online in some way or another, but in the end we always quickly returned to in-person.

It's not that we don't see the merits of online play, but because our sessions are also quality time to share as friends. Chat about how life's been going, complain about our jobs, joke around during breaks, grab a bite and/or drink afterwards, and so on. You can do most of that in a Discord, but it's not the same.

Chimpzy:

crimson5pheonix:
games are online over Discord.

Our group has tried several times to play D&D online in some way or another, but in the end we always quickly returned to in-person.

It's not that we don't see the merits of online play, but because our sessions are also quality time to share as friends. Chat about how life's been going, complain about our jobs, joke around during breaks, grab a bite and/or drink afterwards, and so on. You can do most of that in a Discord, but it's not the same.

True, but it would be difficult with those groups because the players are separated by continents.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here