New to site. What edition are most people here using for RL?

[DocBeard]

I prefer 4E because, frankly, while the system can be broken it is a lot less outright rewarding to the types who use math tricks and typos to go 'lol no' at the DM all of the time.

Also because I really love just making monsters straight up.

[d'Ysmaul]

Currently playing with a non-D&D system, because I needed a break from d20.

But if I was using d20, I'd be going 3.5/Pathfinder.

Because I stole all the PDFs and own the books, so that's what's cheap.

[Don Fernando]

I've tried 3rd and 3.5 but didn't like it at all, so I should be the only person in the planet who's still using 2nd Ed. I just stayed in the past...

[HuManBing]

2nd Ed Ravenloft had a huge array of modules and products put out for it. Anybody who's a fan of Ravenloft will probably be a de facto 2nd ed. collector - even if they're not actually running the game in that edition.

[Don Fernando]

Yeah but I'm still running Ravenloft with 2nd Ed rules. I am not using anything 3rd or 3.5.

[lostboy]

Well I play in Neo's Shattered City campaign (4E) and I was in his 3.5E Eye of Anubis campaign as well.

Honestly.... Outside of combat I couldn't really tell very much difference at all between the two systems. True the games are charcter and rp heavy and Neo and Isy do a lot of work (read Dm related thankless toil) behind the scenes, so the mechanics don't really factor all that much anyway.

In combat, well I dislike the kewl powers focus of 4E, but then again I don't have to complete quadratic equations to work out my attack modifier or damage bonus like I did in 3.5. There's less scope for making a lame charcter in 4E but as mentioned it is a bit unrealistic (see alhoon's ninja arguement previously) etc etc for any number of pros and cons

Frankly just as a player its a bit of a meh choice for me, I can ignore the mechanics most of the time and just enjoy the ride but I certainly don't see any reason why 4E and Ravenloft should be incompatible.

Saying that I don't DM in 4E , so can't give you much on that...

[ewancummins]

2nd Ed Ravenloft had a huge array of modules and products put out for it. Anybody who's a fan of Ravenloft will probably be a de facto 2nd ed. collector - even if they're not actually running the game in that edition.

I agree. It's originally an AD&D 2E world, after all. The first two modules (AD&D 1E) form the core of the setting, but they weren't really conceived of as belonging to an actual campaign setting. The late 2E hardback Domains of Dread is the most polished AD&D presentation of the campaign setting, but the original Black Box will always be my first Ravenloft love. The Van Richtens guides range from pretty cool to freakin' awesome. My personal faves are Ghosts, Created, and Werebeasts.

I'd happily run RL with AD&D2E, but I prefer 3E because of the online hypertext SRD and other free and easily accesible resources. I don't guess that most of my players (aside from Skybolt and maybe Jmaytr) have anything like my AD&D collection.

[Sareau]

3.5-never did get into 2E and 4E is too cookie cutter-plays like WoW

[Baron Zamedi]

Me and my group still use AD&D as our regular play system, we have a huge collection of both ravenloft and non-ravenloft AD&D books, I quite like AD&D, mainly because it's very simple most of the time.

Having said that I personally like D20 better just because I think it is a little more realistic and thats something I enjoy in a game, and from all the D20 rules systems out there Paizo's Pathfinder is the one I like the most and the one I'd play all my games with.

I have had little incursion into 4th edition and even if I wouldn't go as far as to say the system is unviable for use with the Ravenloft setting, it wouldn't be my system of preference, I think that the multiple powers and cinematic feel of it would deter from the proper atmosphere of the setting by portraiting really powerfull characters with little weaknesses and thereby little to fear to.

[doctor-evil]

Definitely 3.5/Pathfinder. Although I use some rules and creatures from D20 Call of Chthulhu (sanity rules; deep ones etc) and the Aquebusier class from Kobold Quarterly magazine.

I have the pathfinder rulebook as an iPhone App, and can look up rules on the fly whenever. Plus the pdf versions of pathfinder products save money and trees for supplements you'll not use everyday.

[NeoTiamat]

Well, I have run one good length 3.5E campaign (The Eye of Anubis) and I'm running a good length 4E campaign (The Shattered City) right now, which Lostboy alludes to.

I tend to find 3.5E to be a much more elaborate, complex system, capable of doing more within the confines of the system, but infected with a great deal of math and a penchant for rules-breakdowns and balancing issues (Polymorph, anyone?). 4E is much simplified and streamlined, much faster to create characters/monsters and much harder to break the system, but you won't get quite the variety of 3.5E.

I would however quibble with views that 4E is somehow power-inflated compared to 3E. While combat powers are often more impressive, particularly for fighters and rogues, a lot of spells got the axe. Anything that could formerly break campaigns has either been vastly reduced in scope (mind control), shoved off to very high levels (most scrying), or both (divination).

Ultimately though, I find that in a classic high-plot, high-characterization horror campaign, the actual system matters rather little. Lostboy hits the nail on the head there.

[sPtJanly]

Amazing response, its good to feel welcome!

Pathfinder has definitely peaked my interest, so I think Ill just stick with what I know of 3-3.5 for running this summer game. Unless my DM decides to run our main RL game I will let you guys know in September how my run went.

[Greywolfe]

I am only the 3rd person in the thread to confess to using AD&D 2ed for Ravenloft.

[sPtJanly]

There is a lot of good 2nd edition material to use.

[Dion of the Fraternity]

For what it's worth, I also play Ravenloft this way: