D&D General Still Rollin' - Older Editions You Still Play

[CleverNickName]

Essentials isn't a new edition, so it's pretty annoying to have it included here, but not have things like Skills & Powers, Unearthed Arcana, Book of Nine Swords, or Tasha's Cauldron of Everything as separate choices.

Naturally, I voted 4e.

Yeah, I know. And if I  hadn't included it, someone would say it should have been included! FWIW, I agree with you-- it's not a separate edition from 4E, and neither is the Rules Cyclopedia separate from BECM, etc., but I tried to err on the side of inclusion.

At least this way, folks who agree/disagree can have the option of voting for one/both.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Essentials isn't a new edition, so it's pretty annoying to have it included here, but not have things like Skills & Powers, Unearthed Arcana, Book of Nine Swords, or Tasha's Cauldron of Everything as separate choices.

To be fair, a number of people didn't try 4e until Essentials was released, and for some, it was their first experience with D&D thanks in part to the public Encounters program. And, unlike the other supplements you mentioned, it is capable of being played as a standalone product rather than an addon ruleset. So for this particular poll, I believe the distinction has merit. (And I checked both. )

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To be fair, a number of people didn't try 4e until Essentials was released, and for some, it was their first experience with D&D thanks in part to the public Encounters program. And, unlike the other supplements you mentioned, it is capable of being played as a standalone product rather than an addon ruleset. So for this particular poll, I believe the distinction has merit. (And I checked both. )

I mean, I guess? It's just very frustrating because while it can be played by itself, it is an add-on. It's just a fully-featured add-on, as it were. But people make all sorts of grandiose claims (usually disparaging and false) about it BECAUSE they claim it's a "new edition" in exactly the same way 3.5 was, that 4e "only lasted two years" etc. etc. I know I'm touchy about this topic but like...at least this one specific thing I can say purely objectively, without any fear of contradiction, that Essentials emphatically was not a "new edition". Giving concessions to folks who say objectively false things about 4e is...well, as I said, pretty annoying. Even if it was some folks' first impression of 4e, and thus felt to them like "the new edition"...it really was all 4e.

 

[schneeland]

Not playing any D&D right now. But I'll probably play/run at least a few sessions of Dolmenwood (so effectively B/X) once the books are out.

 

[aco175]

I seem to have sold or given away the old books and kept the 5e books. I'll likely get rid of the 5e books by next summer since we will most likely switch to 5.5. I want to add another one like A5e or ToV as options, but have not yet.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I mean, I guess? It's just very frustrating because while it can be played by itself, it is an add-on. It's just a fully-featured add-on, as it were. But people make all sorts of grandiose claims (usually disparaging and false) about it BECAUSE they claim it's a "new edition" in exactly the same way 3.5 was, that 4e "only lasted two years" etc. etc. I know I'm touchy about this topic but like...at least this one specific thing I can say purely objectively, without any fear of contradiction, that Essentials emphatically was not a "new edition". Giving concessions to folks who say objectively false things about 4e is...well, as I said, pretty annoying. Even if it was some folks' first impression of 4e, and thus felt to them like "the new edition"...it really was all 4e.

Oh, I am with you on the frustration and touchiness. I get that. But I am advocating for those who neither disparage nor denigrate it. There are simply those whom (I was surprised to learn) first tried DnD when Essentials came out, not even aware which edition it was or what had come before. For them, Essentials was just DnD and it was all they needed to play.

To be honest, I kinda envy those people being unburdened and oblivious to the drama, heartbreak, and scrutiny that old hands like ourselves had to (and sometimes continue to) endure.

 

[Stormonu]

I'm only actively playing 5E, but I'm constantly reading through my older edition books (and actually buying a few older ones - an Unearthed Arcana reprint from 1E to save wear and tear on my original, The A0-A4 Slavelords compilation and Eberron 5 Nations which I somehow missed back in the day)

 

[GrimCo]

Currently only 5e. But i voted other. In 2 weeks i'm joining new PF1 campaign. Pf1 is just 3.75 in my opinion.

 

[Zardnaar]

2E and frankenclones. Still play 5E.

This year played 2E, C&C and 5E.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I picked "I'm not playing D&D, any edition," but I don't feel that answer is 100% accurate.

I began playing in the 2e era, around 1993. I discovered a bit later that what I was playing was actually a fusion of 1e and 2e; I had no idea there was a difference for a long time. Around 1998 I discovered the Rules Cyclopedia and used some aspects of it in my games as well - I loved the Weapon Mastery rules. I played 3e and 3.5, skipped 4e mostly by accident because I was playing Pathfinder, came back with the NEXT playtest, played 5e for a few years, discovered DCC and fell in love, and started playing that.

The thing is, I use stuff from D&D in my games all the time. Adventures, equipment, monsters, settings, Advantage/Disadvantage (sometimes), races, the list goes on. So while technically I don't play D&D, I play a game derived from it and use a lot of its material in my games.