Which (D&D) gaming system do you prefer

[SilentThief]

basic, 1st edition, and 2nd were close enough in design to be interchangable, as in regardless of which version your character came from, they would fit in a mod of any of them. 3rd did a total re-write of the system and  thus the old characters would be completely out of sync with (and overpowered by) a mod for characters of the same level but in 3rd edition rules.

oh yeah, and as for original topic I prefer 2nd with a bit of customization. should be 2.5... :p

ST

[Vix]

I like 4e for the tactical aspect of play.

I like Basic, 1e, & 2e for the less rules and "powers" encumbered style of play which lends itself to more narrative role-play.

I currently am in love with Cortex ruleset used by Margaret Weiss productions on many of their games, including the recently cancelled Marvel Heroic Roleplaying. The system works well for Fantasy games (or any other style) with a little hack work. I've run two fantasy games using a self-created hack of the Marvel Cortex system with a few tweaks.

[GoldBoxFan]

I like 2nd edition due to the boxed sets. I also keep some rules from 1st edition. I never liked rangers or paladins casting spells though.

EDIT: As far as THAC0, it has a maximum of 20 and minimum of 1. Even adjusted.

[Bart Jackson]

Was out of town for a few days and look at all the activity!

OK, the reason I said AD&D combat was a pain was due to the table on page 38 of the player's handbook.  This is called "Armor Class Adjustment".  This table tells you which weapons do well or poor for each armor type (the AC on the top row is BASE AC for the armor only).  So a fist is -7 to hit vs plate mail and shield, and a 2 handed sword gets a +2 vs same base armor.  As DM, you have to try to figure out which "base armor" each monster has (the MM tells you a few of them).   My campaigns did it right for a couple years, but it became too burdensome so we just dropped that table completely.

On a side note: what was the draw to 2E?  That was my least favorite.  I heard if you bought all the books (skills and powers, etc) the game was a lot better.  Was that it?

[Milos Gulan]

Yes, but also basic rules were good enough too. I started with 1e and 2e was released after 2 years and we just switched to it. It was very cool and easy, AC problem is totaly not worth mentioning if you play on table top and know how it goes. And yeah there are some rules that go really into details like speed factor of weapons (counting initiative for every weapon in fight can be hard), then that thac0 adjustments for piercing, slashing and bludgeoning type of weapons and so on. But if you go fast and easy with 2e then it can be really cool.

Also my thoughts about Non weapon proficiencies that they are cool to have and we always used them in our games. But i knew they were just optional and 1e didnt used them so for faster game that too can be skiped.

For Skill and powers and other rulebooks they are expansions which really adds to the game, but thing is that sometimes they have some penalties and things that i think are best to not really follow. So most of the time you can take things from the books and do what works best for you and the rest just ignore. For example if you have kit for wizard and it says that wizard has to have int 17 or that he has to take some NWP or that he have to fight demons to pass level ect, just skip those thing and ignore them as you always can make exceptions to the rule if needed. Also for example dwarven clerics needs exclusively to be dwarves, or dwarves can't be paladins ect, i just think you can always make an exception and use what you like and in game explain how did it happened and why. Like for example Drizzt drow becoming CG follower of Mielikki and ranger things like that. 

Anyway 2e and 1e are for me still best as they had that wonderful feeling of table top RP-ing, later somehow things got out of control though there are some good things in newer editions too

[ProphetSword]

OK, the reason I said AD&D combat was a pain was due to the table on page 38 of the player's handbook.  This is called "Armor Class Adjustment".  This table tells you which weapons do well or poor for each armor type (the AC on the top row is BASE AC for the armor only).  So a fist is -7 to hit vs plate mail and shield, and a 2 handed sword gets a +2 vs same base armor.  As DM, you have to try to figure out which "base armor" each monster has (the MM tells you a few of them).   My campaigns did it right for a couple years, but it became too burdensome so we just dropped that table completely.

You may be the first person I've encountered who actually used those rules.  I don't know anyone who bothered with them.

[Bart Jackson]

You may be the first person I've encountered who actually used those rules.  I don't know anyone who bothered with them.

That's what I meant when I said by the book.

I had several DMs before I became a DM, and they all used those rules.  That is probably because AD&D was brand new when we started playing it.  So we didn't have anyone with experience to tell us how burdensome that table was.  We learned and stopped using it.

[Milos Gulan]

Yeah those might be used when you really want to go into details

[nologgie]

OK, the reason I said AD&D combat was a pain was due to the table on page 38 of the player's handbook.  This is called "Armor Class Adjustment".  This table tells you which weapons do well or poor for each armor type (the AC on the top row is BASE AC for the armor only).  So a fist is -7 to hit vs plate mail and shield, and a 2 handed sword gets a +2 vs same base armor.  As DM, you have to try to figure out which "base armor" each monster has (the MM tells you a few of them).   My campaigns did it right for a couple years, but it became too burdensome so we just dropped that table completely.

You may be the first person I've encountered who actually used those rules.  I don't know anyone who bothered with them.

We used those.     Some DMs didn't, but most of us did.  Not many monsters were ruled to have 'armor types', but the adjustments played an important role in weapon selection.  We all had the tables on our cheat sheets.

[GoldBoxFan]

You may be the first person I've encountered who actually used those rules.  I don't know anyone who bothered with them.

Me and the other 3 DMs of our group all used them. We bought weapons with lots of pluses to hit. You needed every advantage you could to survive 1st level.

[ProphetSword]

They're definitely rules that I'm glad went away.  Let's just say that.  I have enough things to track in modern systems.

[Milos Gulan]

Hm i like the idea but i never could use them effectively. They are just too complicated to calulate and concentrate on playing. Same goes for encumberance rules, i never used that lol though i have tried and it can be used probably (i did in my system though) but then people have problems with reality http://chickgeek.org/encumberance-rules/

[ProphetSword]

Encumbrance is definitely another rule I hand-wave.  As long as my players aren't trying to carry around a large stone statue on their backs, we can usually figure out a way to make things work.  And the players seem to appreciate it.  They appreciate a lot of things, actually.

I spoil a lot of players for other DMs because I (correctly, I feel) teach them that it's a game and we're all gathered together to have fun.  My job as DM is to involve them in a story and help interpret the rules so that everyone is treated fairly.  My job is also to provide them with challenging content and rewards that match those challenges.  My job is not to find ways to screw them over or cheat them out of hard-won rewards, nor is my job to act as some kind of tyrant that tells them what they can and cannot do with their characters.   I hate playing with guys like that.  I'm not lord of the table...I'm just a player too, with a different role.

Anyway, I got off topic.  It's probably because the 4th of July has forced us to cancel our weekly game, so I guess I'm missing it.

[Vix]

OK, the reason I said AD&D combat was a pain was due to the table on page 38 of the player's handbook.  This is called "Armor Class Adjustment".  This table tells you which weapons do well or poor for each armor type (the AC on the top row is BASE AC for the armor only).  So a fist is -7 to hit vs plate mail and shield, and a 2 handed sword gets a +2 vs same base armor.  As DM, you have to try to figure out which "base armor" each monster has (the MM tells you a few of them).   My campaigns did it right for a couple years, but it became too burdensome so we just dropped that table completely.

You may be the first person I've encountered who actually used those rules.  I don't know anyone who bothered with them.

Oh, my friends and I used those rules, until, like Bart, they got too burdensome and dropped them.

[Milos Gulan]

Right still i like having that feeling that things are challenging in the game but too much details can slow game down. Anyway it is good to have good players and GM that know how to make game better and more fun i am missing those too.