PDA

View Full Version : Oldest age to learn a new edition?



ken-do-nim
2009-12-04, 06:41 AM
I just shake my head at 4E when I see the books in the store, and I think it's because it's shiny and new and I'm an old fuddy-dud. I was 30 when 3.5 came out, and that's the most recent version I got into.

I ask the Playground this: is there an age past which you just don't want to learn the latest & greatest edition anymore? As a corollary, who's the oldest 4E player in the house?

Kaiyanwang
2009-12-04, 06:58 AM
I'm 28 and my last edition is 3.5.

Simba
2009-12-04, 07:01 AM
I am 39 and stopped at 3.5. 4 is simply not my style. Maybe I'm just getting old :)

Temet Nosce
2009-12-04, 07:03 AM
Eh, I'm only 24 and stopped at 3.5 as well. I think it's less a matter of age than one of whether or not the system suits your playing style.

Kaiyanwang
2009-12-04, 07:04 AM
Eh, I'm only 24 and stopped at 3.5 as well. I think it's less a matter of age than one of whether or not the system suits your playing style.

I agree, but let's see what it will come out. Could be interesting.

Chrono22
2009-12-04, 07:05 AM
I've always had limited funds to devote to gaming. I almost never outright buy new games.
Why would I bother buying into a new edition, if the old one can do everything it can and more? That would be like formatting my computer so I can get Vista. Shiny and new are never good reasons to sink time and money into something.
I'm 22.

Smythen
2009-12-04, 07:38 AM
im 29 and was horribly long about switching to 3.x, and theres noway in H... im going to play 4e.

Samething with tabletop games. Warhammer 40k was killed when they made they changed the system.

They all switch versions to fit a younger and younger market and destroys the good fun for the "more" senior players.

Alcopop
2009-12-04, 07:40 AM
19 when I went to forth ed.
19 when I went back to 3.5 with open arms.
now 20.

Eldariel
2009-12-04, 07:41 AM
24 and sticking to 3.5. Same isn't true for many other systems though; not every update is a downgrade. If a 3.75 came out, I'd be all over learning the new rules.

Brendan
2009-12-04, 07:47 AM
Fourteen and I don't ever get close enough to 4e to be able to touch it with a standard issue ten foot pole. Ever.

dsmiles
2009-12-04, 07:50 AM
33, and switched to 4e when it came out. Also learned HARP about a year ago.

Guinea Anubis
2009-12-04, 08:00 AM
My Father plays 4e with my friends and I. I am 30 and he is 52, He has been playing since 1e and still have the first 3 D&D books ever printed.

Draxar
2009-12-04, 08:02 AM
27 year old 3.5'er here.

I've once heard it said that anything invented before you're 25 is something you view as a natural, normal part of the world. Anything invented between 25 and 35 is an amazing advance that will change and improve the world. Anything invented after you're 35 is unnatural, and just shouldn't be.

Maybe the numbers change for gaming – pre 20, 20-25, 25+

The Rose Dragon
2009-12-04, 08:06 AM
19, and not playing 3.5 Edition. Or 4th Edition. In fact, I'm annoyed by the assumption that D&D is the only game there is in this thread.

I play M&M and Exalted, mostly.

Alcopop
2009-12-04, 08:09 AM
19, and not playing 3.5 Edition. Or 4th Edition. In fact, I'm annoyed by the assumption that D&D is the only game there is in this thread.

I play M&M and Exalted, mostly.

This is essentually a D&D forum...

Temet Nosce
2009-12-04, 08:10 AM
19, and not playing 3.5 Edition. Or 4th Edition. In fact, I'm annoyed by the assumption that D&D is the only game there is in this thread.

I play M&M and Exalted, mostly.

The thread is specifically about editions though, which D&D is the most prominent example of (and implied to be what this thread is discussing in the Op). Do I (and I suspect much of the rest of the thread) play other systems? Absolutely, it'd take me a while to even recall everything I've played, but that's not really the topic.

Zaq
2009-12-04, 08:21 AM
I learned how to play D&D 3.5 when I was 20 or 21, and I'm currently 22. (I'm a newcomer, relatively speaking.) I might be persuaded to look at 4th ed once I have a block of spare time and access to some books without paying for them, but until there's enough books that I have more than two or three viable character options, I'm not touching it. I'm a self-avowed option whore and I always have been. I hear that the situation is greatly improving, though, so my main complaint (NEEDZ MOAR BOOKS) is not going to be relevant for much longer. That said, I've invested a lot of emotional and intellectual energy into 3.5, so as long as I have friends to play it with, it'll always hold a place for me.

The Rose Dragon
2009-12-04, 08:22 AM
M&M and Exalted both have two editions. Hell, some games have five or more editions.

Personally, I skipped to M&M right after AD&D 2nd Edition. Take that as you will.

GolemsVoice
2009-12-04, 08:22 AM
Our group (ranging from 18 to about 23?) decided to stick with 3.5 (when we're playing D&D). The two metres of books convinced us that we really didn't need a new edition.
We try to stay with the editions we began playing with and therefore have an extended library for. Like OWoD for our Vampire games. Our Shadowrun and WoD mortals GM uses the new editions, however, and since we mostly play one-shots, we can follw easily.

Optimystik
2009-12-04, 08:23 AM
19, and not playing 3.5 Edition. Or 4th Edition. In fact, I'm annoyed by the assumption that D&D is the only game there is in this thread.

Only, no. Main, yes.

I'd love to get into 4E, but likely won't until they make a CRPG for it. For all that naysayers have lamented about its MMO-ness, WotC seems unwilling to capitalize on the synergy.

EDIT: I'm 24

bosssmiley
2009-12-04, 08:23 AM
33. Last D&D system grokked was 3.5. I found D&D4E so antithetical to my personal gaming wants and needs that I recoiled all the way back to B/X D&D (released in 1981). :smallamused:

Satyr
2009-12-04, 08:24 AM
i asked myself the same thing when I started to find many newer editions of games somewhat lacking - not only D&D 4, but also nWod, 4th edition Shadowrun... all new games which seem to be inferior to their progenitors, at least to me.
On the other hand, the new edition of Earthdawn, published this year is pretty good, and certainly an improvement to the last one I owned and Gurps 4 comes even closer to perfection than the other editions of Gurps.

Perhaps, just perhaps, these games aren't anyworse than their progenitors, or any better either. But the older one got, the more the expectations grow as well and it becomes for another game to deliver.

Saintheart
2009-12-04, 08:27 AM
35, and appropriately enough, 3.5!

Glass Mouse
2009-12-04, 08:40 AM
20, and 3.5. I really don't feel like investing money and energy into a new system when the old one works just fine. Thankfully, both my groups feel the same way - and agewise, we range from 17-20 and from 16-20.

In my circles, I'm apparantly both old and conform :smalltongue:

Simba
2009-12-04, 08:45 AM
It seems to be that younger players lack the money while older ones lack enthusiasm to change editions.

And I have to take a look at Earthdawn, I own the original edition, including stuff they handed out when they first presented the system. I really liked the background and ran 3 campains there, but used different games systems bacuase that part was simply not good enough for my players and myself.

Acanous
2009-12-04, 08:50 AM
24 and 3.5.

I was optimistic when 4th was in the works, but really dissappointed with the "Streamlining" they did (Mostly eliminating the need for any form of roleplay). Lack of options and the "Magazine" look of the books did in the rest.

Even still, I might have given it more than a cursory read-through if my alt-gaming-group wasn't pushing it so hard. Very "4th is the best thing ever and if you don't play it you're not cool"

...you'd think they'd know better than to say that to a geek.

Anyhow, I might pick it up in 5 years or so once all the bugs are thoroughly ironed out and all the options are back. For now it's just been spoiled so hard it makes bad shellfish look appetizing.

Satyr
2009-12-04, 08:51 AM
And I have to take a look at Earthdawn, I own the original edition, including stuff they handed out when they first presented the system. I really liked the background and ran 3 campains there, but used different games systems bacuase that part was simply not good enough for my players and myself.

The system is pretty much the same as ever, but more streamlined and elegant to play than before. It is no reinvention of the wheel, but the system is less clunky and, as far as I can tell, faster to play.
And do I understand you correctly? You made a conversion of the Earthdawn background for another system? Which systenm, and do you want to share?

oxybe
2009-12-04, 08:53 AM
24, started with 2nd, got 3rd, upgraded to 3.5, playing 4th.

will i get 5th ed? yes. for the same reason i got GURPS & nWoD: i like playing with people, new and old.

most new D&D players will be 4th ed players... at least in my area as there's only one set of 3.5 books left in the FLGS of the three they had (two of which were bought by my 3.5 group players who hadn't upgraded from 3.0 and were tired of borrowing books). it's to be expected. 3.5 is out of print and unsupported by the parent company, 4th ed is still in print and is the supported product.

i've never had a problem RPing in any system... most of my hurdles lie more in the group & GM running it then the system itself.

... then again, i started my computer days with Windows 3.1, then 95, 98, 2k, XP and since yesterday, Windows 7. and i'll probably get the next version too.

and my video gaming started with the Atari at my aunt's place, then my NES, SNES, PS1, PS2 and our PS3. and i can see myself getting a PS4 or XBox3 or the next nintendo system.

never too old to learn, maybe too set in your ways, but never too old.

Draxar
2009-12-04, 09:08 AM
i asked myself the same thing when I started to find many newer editions of games somewhat lacking - not only D&D 4, but also nWod, 4th edition Shadowrun... all new games which seem to be inferior to their progenitors, at least to me.
On the other hand, the new edition of Earthdawn, published this year is pretty good, and certainly an improvement to the last one I owned and Gurps 4 comes even closer to perfection than the other editions of Gurps.

Perhaps, just perhaps, these games aren't anyworse than their progenitors, or any better either. But the older one got, the more the expectations grow as well and it becomes for another game to deliver.

A new edition always represents a change. The question is whether they've changed that bit which you've really loved.

D&D 4E: Too generic for me. Good tactical combat simulation, but things like magic being easy in combat, difficult outside, and the removal of options unless they're specifically tied to your class.

nWoD: System isn't bad. Some of the mechanical changes to individual games aren't bad. But they've ripped the heart out of two of the games – Requiem has lost the Camarilla-Sabbat war, the Antedeluvians/Noddism, Golconda and the possibility of taking on non-human morality. Awakening has lost the technocracy (the bad guys who are the good guys), and paradigm (where dynamic magic is all about how you think you do magic). Forsaken isn't too bad – it's actually different to the previous game rather than like the old one with much of the interesting bits ripped out, Promethan fails to inspire me, Lost looks like it could be good.

Exalted 2E: I really love the tick system, it's an interestingly different way to do battle. Things have gotten a bit crunchier, mostly I think that's a good thing. Suffers from some poor writers, and for a long time, lack of errata fixing those writers' mistakes. The errata now seems to be flowing, so it's looking good.

Shadowrun 4E: I'll be honest and say I wasn't really into shadowrun 3E. I miss the lack of the rolling metaplot of the ages. But I like that your attributes have become more important, rather than just being subdivided in derived stats, and determining how cheap you could raise skills. Plus, they much more go with the "Let's let players do interesting things" – the rules for playing AIs, drakes, Free Spirits, and so forth, all seem much more built on the basis that someone might want to play these, and they should be able to have fun doing so.


19, and not playing 3.5 Edition. Or 4th Edition. In fact, I'm annoyed by the assumption that D&D is the only game there is in this thread.

I play M&M and Exalted, mostly.

It's a D&D dominated forum. And 4E is still the most recent major update to a gaming.

Plus, Exalted's 2E was more of a refinement of the previous, whereas 4E is a very different way of doing things than 3E. More similar to nWoD/oWoD, though there they can be somewhat viewed as different games beyond their different editions, because they've been so changed.

Simba
2009-12-04, 09:12 AM
And do I understand you correctly? You made a conversion of the Earthdawn background for another system? Which systenm, and do you want to share?

First we adjusted the original WoD rules, using Vampire as the basis. It worked well, actually.

The second try was the testing stage for our own system and went bad, bad, bad.

The third campain used WoD rules again, but with a different system for spells and powers, one we invented ourselves.

And, even though I am willing to share, I have to say no because those things are lost to the ravages of time. It was in the last millenium when we did those things, you see?

Kol Korran
2009-12-04, 09:14 AM
i'm 30, and like both 3.5 and 4E, for variosu reasons. just recently learned shadowrun 4E, starting to play it soon.

Asheram
2009-12-04, 09:16 AM
I'm 23. Started with 3.0 when I were 17.
Went over to 3.5...don't remember when, but when it came out.

Were really excited about 4e, but when I saw the amount of streamlining and some completely ridiculous abilities... I went back to 3.5.

It might take a while for 4'th edition to... forgive the expression... "mature". But when it does, I'm willing to have another look at it.

pasko77
2009-12-04, 09:26 AM
I'm 23. Started with 3.0 when I were 17.
Went over to 3.5...don't remember when, but when it came out.

Were really excited about 4e, but when I saw the amount of streamlining and some completely ridiculous abilities... I went back to 3.5.

It might take a while for 4'th edition to... forgive the expression... "mature". But when it does, I'm willing to have another look at it.

Same story, and I'm 32. Started with 3rd, really loathed 2nd, expecially for the lack of possibilities. When I saw 4th ed, I turned my head in disgust.

RebelRogue
2009-12-04, 09:37 AM
I'm 34 and actually the edition that took me the longest to get into was 3.5, mostly because the guys I played with at the time stuck to 2nd (and we played mostly Werewolf: The Apocalypse in those days anyway), but I did love it once I converted. With 4th I was heavily into D&D again, so I was eager to get into that. I like 4e, but still play lots of 3.5.

In the end, I think what you prefer has little to with age, as is more or less evident in this thread.

TheLaughingLich
2009-12-04, 09:57 AM
19. Group played D&D 3.5 for about 8 months starting when I was 18, agreed it didn't effectively suit our purposes, and tried several other systems, eventually settling on BESM 2e. D&D 4e discussed but not tried.

Leolo
2009-12-04, 10:06 AM
I switched to 4E at the age of 28, but I do not think that i would have switched 10 or 5 years ago.

When i was younger some things was less important to me, like game balance or the effort new players have to invest to learn the game. Some other things where important to me, like social encounters or narrative descriptions of player actions. But i never really thought about how i could improve my game regarding this topics.

From my point of view it is easier to learn a new edition if you have more experience. You will perceive helpfull rules faster, and be more able to adjust what you do not like.

It is not as if experience prevents anyone from learning something new. In fact - it helps.

Ormur
2009-12-04, 10:07 AM
I was introduced to 3,5 after 4th edition came out since my friends only play that. From what I've heard they've both gathered up a huge pile of 3,5 books and they dislike 4th edition.

I'm so conservative myself that I don't see myself voluntarily changing editions. I have a hard enough time upgrading to newer editions of the video games I play. I've always been like that and I'm just 21.

daggaz
2009-12-04, 10:11 AM
I'm 32 and I just switched back to 2.0 from 3.5.

erikun
2009-12-04, 10:46 AM
I'm 30 and have recently picked up D&D 4e, Muntants and Masterminds, Shadowrun 4e, Jadeclaw, Geist: The Sin-Eaters, and an old copy of Mummy: The Resurrection. I find the idea of being too old to learn something new to be rather strange. Sure, you could be too old to want to learn a new system, but that's not the same as being unable to do so.

Although I suppose you can't learn one after dying. I guess THAT would be too old. :smallwink:

Kaiyanwang
2009-12-04, 10:51 AM
.
Although I suppose you can't learn one after dying. I guess THAT would be too old. :smallwink:

Try Voodoo. And in case, let me know.

Cyrion
2009-12-04, 11:05 AM
I started with D&D at 10 or 11, switched to AD&D at 12 or so, went to 2E at 30, 3.5 at 41 and have avoided 4E because it looks like it's lost the flavor I like rather than because it's a new system. In general, I only resist upgrades if they introduce more problems than they fix or if they try to fix things that weren't problems in the first place.

ken-do-nim
2009-12-04, 11:05 AM
My Father plays 4e with my friends and I. I am 30 and he is 52, He has been playing since 1e and still have the first 3 D&D books ever printed.

I think your father wins the thread :)

*****************************************

I think part of my problem is that I've learned so many editions & variants of D&D that I may be just tapped out. Most people on this forum assume there is just 1E, 2E, 3.0E, 3.5E, and 4E, but there's lots more.

Gorbash
2009-12-04, 11:22 AM
I'm 22 and I've been playing 3.5 since it came out in 2003 (damn, who would have thought it's been almost 7 years) and now we alternate between Pathfinder and 3.5. I don't like Pathfinder that much, but everyone else in the group does, so I had to compromise.

Weimann
2009-12-04, 11:30 AM
At the age of 222, I've played a few campaigns of Drakar och demoner 6e (Dragons and Deamons, in translation, I think it's a mostly Scandinavian system). That was back when I was about 17, though. I've also read through the core books to D&D 3.5e, D&D 4e and Exalted 2e (and Risus, if that counts, but I was thoroughly stricken by the simple beauty of it). However, I seem woefully unable to get someone to actually PLAY with (and as a side note, I think that 4e gets a lot of undeserved criticism).


I ask the Playground this: is there an age past which you just don't want to learn the latest & greatest edition anymore?I think there are always a generation shift in players between editions. Some don't want to bother with the new rules, simple as that, and that can be quite independent of age.

Still, a person of a certain age will likely be less inclined to jump on new editions, for a number of reasons. They might have other things that interest them more than roleplaying, such as work, family or work around the house. They might feel that the time investment is too big for a too small gain, if there is indeed any gain at all.

That's also an important aspect; is there any incentive to learn the new system? Where you might read a source book for the fun of it back when you had loads of free time, you might not be so inclined to do that now. Back then, elves and dwarves were awesome, but now, you've seen it all before.

All in all: I believe there's a fall-off, yes, but it's not directly bound to age, but rather to factors that traditionally increases as age increases.

Marshall
2009-12-04, 11:54 AM
Age 8: Learned D&D, basic Set
Age 9: D&D, Expert Set
Age 11: Gamma World
Age 13: AD&D, 1st edition
Age 14-17: Star Frontiers, Marvel Super Heroes, TMNT, Gurps, Top Secret, Mechwarrior
Age 18: AD&D 2nd Edition
Age 18-23: Bushido, Traveller, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk 2013, Palladium Fantasy, Rifts, MERP, RoleMaster, Talislanta, Champions, Cthulu, Stormbringer, More GURPS.
Age 24-36: The vast majority of my gaming is WHFB, 40K and MTG. I read the 3.0 books and hated them. I spend some time with all of the Storyteller games, though.
Age 37: D&D 4.0
Age 38: Pathfinder

SimperingToad
2009-12-04, 11:55 AM
Started with Holmes at 10, went to AD&D at 11 as it was being released, then to AD&D 2E when that was released, and the same with 3.0 and 3.5. Looked through the 4E rules, and declined.

To me, it's what you had fun with the most that has the staying power. Sold my 3E books this past year as it no longer was fun, and only kept my AD&D 2E core. I'm back to the most fun I had with my D&D experiences, AD&D. The magic is still there.

If you are having fun, there really is no reason to go to a new edition.

Muyten
2009-12-04, 11:58 AM
Well I'm currently 33 and playing 4th. Started playing OD&D at age 12. Moved onto AD&D 2nd edition at age 17 and on to 3rd when it came out. Same goes for 4th.

As a GM there is no way in heck I'm going back to 3rd edition but as a player I like both 4th and 3.X for different reasons.

Tome
2009-12-04, 12:12 PM
I'm 20 here. I started out on 3.5 when I was 16 or so and had a good look at 4e when it came out. I didn't like the looks of it (Not enough crazy out of combat stuff) but I still keep an eye on it.

Not that I don't play other systems too. Exalted 2e, M&M 2e, nWoD, Eclipse Phase and so on. Mostly I tend to stick to the latest editions, usually because I haven't been gaming long enough to have started on the older ones and thus lack any sort of shiny nostalgia associated with them.

I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be upgrading to 4e any time soon though.

Behold_the_Void
2009-12-04, 12:22 PM
23 right now, made the switch to 4e when it came out, have not looked back. Simpler though the general build mechanics are, I find the system to be far more in keeping with my personal design philosophy in terms of balance and general game flow.

Started on 3.0 about 2 years before 3.5's release, didn't really switch to 3.5 until I got to college, though most of my gaming to that point was a bit limited since I was the only one who had the books and my friends only had a vague idea of how the game was played.

Nowadays though I mainly work with Valor, the for-publication system my roommate and I are making which allows for a lot of flexibility and options but still retains balance among the PCs, as well as having a more dramatic and fighting spirit-based approach to in and out of combat roleplay. The system really suits my desires for a game the most, which is appropriate since I am one of the designers.

Harr
2009-12-04, 12:29 PM
I'm 32, and funnily enough age seems to have had the opposite effect for me than for the majority of people here... I've been playing 2nd edition and 3.5 since they each came out respectively.

Were I younger, I'm sure I would have gotten all stuffy and preachy about 4e and refusing to play it for this or that reason. I can totally see myself having that attitude five or six years ago... and yet, nowadays I feel I've grown enough as a person that I can stop taking myself that seriously and realize: It's a game... and like any game, the only thing matters is the people you share it with.

So turns out my friends all like 4e, so that's what I play these days. Even though it wouldn't be my first choice.

And you know what? I enjoy it just fine. We always have a blast :smallsmile:

To answer the OP's question, is there any age when I can see myself refusing to learn the future new edition? To that I can say certainly and absolutely never. When I have kids, I will play the system that my kids will like to play, even if it's a new horrible thing that I can't understand. And when I have grand-kids, I will play the game that my grand-kids will like to play. And that's the way it's gonna be.

Simba
2009-12-04, 01:01 PM
Age 8: Learned D&D, basic Set
Age 9: D&D, Expert Set
Age 11: Gamma World
Age 13: AD&D, 1st edition
Age 14-17: Star Frontiers, Marvel Super Heroes, TMNT, Gurps, Top Secret, Mechwarrior
Age 18: AD&D 2nd Edition
Age 18-23: Bushido, Traveller, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk 2013, Palladium Fantasy, Rifts, MERP, RoleMaster, Talislanta, Champions, Cthulu, Stormbringer, More GURPS.
Age 24-36: The vast majority of my gaming is WHFB, 40K and MTG. I read the 3.0 books and hated them. I spend some time with all of the Storyteller games, though.
Age 37: D&D 4.0
Age 38: Pathfinder

Wow, you still remember all that? i could not name all the systems I have tried if my life depended on it. it's been 22 years now, after all.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-12-04, 01:05 PM
I started with D&D at 10 or 11, switched to AD&D at 12 or so, went to 2E at 30, 3.5 at 41 and have avoided 4E because it looks like it's lost the flavor I like rather than because it's a new system. In general, I only resist upgrades if they introduce more problems than they fix or if they try to fix things that weren't problems in the first place.

Basically the same progression and opinions for me, though the ages are D&D at 6, 1e at 7, 2e at 9, 3e at 12, currently 19.

ken-do-nim
2009-12-04, 01:12 PM
Basically the same progression and opinions for me, though the ages are D&D at 6, 1e at 7, 2e at 9, 3e at 12, currently 19.

6? I'm impressed. My daughter is 4 right now, and I have a hard time seeing her able to play even a watered down version of D&D at 6. So kudos to you!

ken-do-nim
2009-12-04, 01:13 PM
I'm 32, and funnily enough age seems to have had the opposite effect for me than for the majority of people here... I've been playing 2nd edition and 3.5 since they each came out respectively.

Were I younger, I'm sure I would have gotten all stuffy and preachy about 4e and refusing to play it for this or that reason. I can totally see myself having that attitude five or six years ago... and yet, nowadays I feel I've grown enough as a person that I can stop taking myself that seriously and realize: It's a game... and like any game, the only thing matters is the people you share it with.

So turns out my friends all like 4e, so that's what I play these days. Even though it wouldn't be my first choice.

And you know what? I enjoy it just fine. We always have a blast :smallsmile:

To answer the OP's question, is there any age when I can see myself refusing to learn the future new edition? To that I can say certainly and absolutely never. When I have kids, I will play the system that my kids will like to play, even if it's a new horrible thing that I can't understand. And when I have grand-kids, I will play the game that my grand-kids will like to play. And that's the way it's gonna be.

And kudos to you! So maybe I have got it backwards. Instead of trying to get my daughter into this game and that game, I should simply instill a love of games and let her get me into games.

erikun
2009-12-04, 01:58 PM
At the age of 222...
Dang man, you deserve an award for making it this long. :smallamused:

Another_Poet
2009-12-04, 02:06 PM
I ask the Playground this: is there an age past which you just don't want to learn the latest & greatest edition anymore? As a corollary, who's the oldest 4E player in the house?

My mom turned 58 last week. About one and a half years ago, she played D&D 3.5 with my then-wife and I for the first time. She had never before in her life played any RPG.

She really liked it, and has since played several games of D&D with me and various friends, as well as an indie space advanture game. She currently plays in one of my PbP games which uses a homebrewed, rules-lite system. (For her, learning how to use an internet forum was harder than learning a new RPG).

Her characters tend to be very violent and aggressive and often put the KODT to shame. But she has fun and is a good roleplayer :)

I know that a non-gamer learning an RPG for the first time is not exactly the same as an experienced gamer learning a new edition, but many of the hurdles (this isn't like other games/I'm used to something else/how do you do that again?/that doesn't make sense) are the same. I'm impressed that she picked up the rules and she can skin a living goblin's legs* in my games anytime.

*true story

Tyndmyr
2009-12-04, 02:13 PM
27. Love 3.5, strongly dislike 4e.

Then again, my usual group rejected 4e as a whole after playing with it for a few months. We've got members ranging from 18 to 50-something.

Chaelos
2009-12-04, 02:14 PM
I'm 23, and, until my friends wanted to play a 4E game four months ago, I fully intended to stay a 3.5 guy. I still prefer 3.5, but trying something new hasn't killed me. I rather think some of the elements of 4E could be successfully incorporated into 3.5 to make a better game than either.

Frankly, because D&D is such a social game, what age people stop at seems to be mostly based on what their friends want to play.

Gamerlord
2009-12-04, 02:21 PM
All I'm saying about my age is that you can find it on a d12, started 3.5 around 8-9, and recently converted 100% to shiny and new 4e. Sometimes I consider trying a new system, but I never find the resources to bother.

Zovc
2009-12-04, 02:23 PM
When I was, like, 13 I bought a 3.0 starter kit thing. I never bought any books until the 3.5 PHB, then the DMG, then the Monster Manual.

I have the most experience with 3.5, and have read the most about 3.5. I also like that the 3.5 SRD is published freely online. It makes sharing and teaching the game a lot easier. I feel like 3.5 is far too convenient to switch from, but most of the people I know seem to be interested in how streamlined 4.0 is.

The little bit of poking around with 4.0 has yielded mixed results. I don't feel like I have very much control over my character aside from what powers I choose, but the system is very straightforward and plug-and-play. I suppose that's the real draw to it.

I'm 19. I prefer 3.5 to 4.0, but it looks like most of the games cropping up in the nearest hobby shop (65ish miles away) are all 4.0--that's good for the owner, seeing as people will probably buy books from him, but it makes most of my experience with 3.5 useless.

Belobog
2009-12-04, 02:47 PM
21 here, and I usually keep to 4.0 these days. I still play 3.5, it has its draws, but my circle of guys likes 4e, so we tend to circle the wagons exclusively around that now. Started with the old 2e computer when I was around 10, and though I've never actually beaten one, I love them to death.

Aside from that, I know a lot of other systems, but I can never get anyone to play them. It was a surprise when the gang learned 4e, even, as they were very vocal about not touching it and that they didn't have the time to learn.

Matthew
2009-12-20, 09:25 PM
I was probably 25(ish) when I really started to learn D20/3e, though I had a passing familiarity with it prior to that. I took the time to red through D20/4e and I gave it a go, but it was not to my tastes. On the other hand, there are plenty of other games I would be willing to learn and play now at 30, so I do no think age is the issue. With D&D (and War Hammer) it is more the annoyance of having to learn new rules to what is marketed as the same game, but better. Something about it, I recently realised, just rubs me the wrong way.

Asbestos
2009-12-20, 09:53 PM
24 here. 1st system I ever played at all was 2nd, mainly thanks to the Baldur's Gate series. First system I ever owned books for was 3rd (Iron Kingdoms FTW!) and now I play 4e, which I am significantly invested in. Last group I played with I was easily the youngest, DM was in his 50s. Only 'edition' related issue that ever arose was that the DM kept thinking that my Wizard's spells proved OAs, simply because they were spells.

I also play some SW Saga, but only started it after I got into 4e. Its a very fun system.

tcrudisi
2009-12-20, 10:01 PM
In one of my 4e gaming groups:
Four players who are early to late 40's
Another who is 35ish
Myself, who is 28
And a kid of the DM and one of the players, who is 10.

In another group, we have a mid-40's player.
In another group, we have a 37 y.o. player.

Of these groups, 2 of them exclusively play 4e. In the first, we exclusively play 4e at that game, but they will sometimes branch out and play other MMOs (for instance, at conventions).

sofawall
2009-12-20, 10:09 PM
I'm young enough that I first got into D&D when 3.5 just came out. Stayed with it, so far.

Krazddndfreek
2009-12-20, 10:34 PM
Same here:smallbiggrin:

Freejack451
2009-12-20, 10:57 PM
I have played Rifts, Shadowrun 1st Editon, DC, Marvel; D&D 1st 2nd 3rd 3.5; Slay, Mutant Chronicles, and many other random short lived rpgs (compared to the other staples). You are never to old to learn. With the coming of online computer rpgs, the style of new rpgs has changed. I think 4th editon d&d is a good example. I am 33 and have bee playing scince I was 9.

I miss my 2nd D&D Necromancer/Death Priest, as well as my 2nd Editon Specailty Pirest of Lathandar.


Freejack

Mushroom Ninja
2009-12-20, 11:09 PM
I know a guy who started playing 4e at 47.

Numinous
2009-12-21, 11:49 PM
Were I younger, I'm sure I would have gotten all stuffy and preachy about 4e and refusing to play it for this or that reason. I can totally see myself having that attitude five or six years ago...

I'm 42, and I endorse this comment :-)

Except in my case I would have had that attitude 15 years ago.

I changed to 4e when it came out. Like others I'd be happy to play in 3.x again, but never to DM it.

Chris