I didn't know there were different versions of D&D. I just thought it was a game you played.

That said, I've never played it. I know nothing about it. I've never even Googled it.

It's hard enough for me to have a guy sit down and play videogames with me, you think I play tabletop games? LOL. I would LOVE to play D&D but I'm afraid my lack of nerd networking has failed me.

Thank you Commodore for mentioning me in the wringer. I would like to say though that I am hardly the best gamer in the world. Among my friends, Sakura, Beverly, Nick and Tim primarily, I have gotten slapped around fairly well by all of them in Brawl or Mario Kart (Bev is an outright demon in that game). Nick seems to take it the best, we even compete through Audiosurf for high scores on songs we both have in our library. He'll even ask me to send him an MP3 randomly to play and show it off through livestream. :) So I have been and am totally beatable! lol. (I also probably take far too much pleasure in winning/competing with said friends though... *sheepish*)

I think the worst humiliation one of my friends suffered at my hands was with a boss in DMC4.... He said he only survived this battle by using a ton of healing items and having pure luck on his side. So, I tooled with the controls for a few minutes to get the hang of the character, went in, and slaughtered the boss. He went through some series of emotions, disbelief, anger, denial, wtf... but later on he specifically employed me to get through a puzzle in God of War III for him due to my like of rhythm games. So being a good gamer against my male friends hasn't totally turned them away either lol. Ahh, and come to think of it, he also consulted me on tactics for taking down a bos in FFX.

I do have a lot of gaming experience under my belt, but I don't have nearly the time or attention for it as I used to. But yes, I can see both extreme ends being a bad thing for dating and relationships. I have heard of WOW breaking up couples before. sigh. :) I wish I could give you a good answer to this week's question... I'll have to go find my D&D buddies and force them to show me how to play the game.

As another note, I love being a viewer on games like Silent Hill 2 (Which my aforementioned wounded prided friend showed off for me once. I really liked that), and showing off for my folks playing Mario Galaxy. And there have been times that mom or dad has spotted something I hadn't because I'm focussed on fighting, not scenery. :) It is a great way to bond.

That preview picture for the video reminds me of that one Beyonce song...

Right DnD! I would have to say 3.5 is my preferred edition, it's not really based on hard math or game mechanics it's just what was played locally. I'm still rather green when it comes to DnD I've done a few campaigns here and there but really not enough to make any educated claims. I can however talk about Dark Heresy however and how I love and hate that game all at the same time but that's neither here nor there.

I still remember my first session...

No. No anecdote for you.

Commodore... you sexy sexist. You probably wouldn't want to be beaten at sports by women either. You can't help it though, to be fair. It's part of that whole Male dominance thing that exists in pretty much every form of mamalian life on this planet. Really when you look at it that way Humans are the odd ones out for having broken away from that mentality. You're just more in touch with your baser instincts.   

'bout time we get some more table top love! Alright... well then... ~rolls up sleeves~ lets get to it. 

Anyone who follows or checks in on the forums probably won't be surprised by my answer. However, I am going to take further time to really answer why I believe what I do. 

Technically I don't play ANY versoion of "D&D" anymore, I play and prefer Pathfinder. Which Is based on the d20 rules, and has been dubbed by some to be '3.75'. Given that, I'd have to say 3.5 over 4th. Here's why: 

3.5 has had a lot of time to cook up. Bringing both bad and good to the table in the process. A good GM however is key to this by just disallowing classes, equipment, or rules as they see fit. 

The selection of Feats, Classes, And Prestiege classes makes for a highly customizable and personalized characters. Also I won't lie, there is also the alure of already having bought so many books and learned so many rules. Not having to change that is a plus, all be it a minor one. 

I've played 4th ed. a few times. The rules are good, and the game is rather smooth and enjoyable. To me though, the rules and game play feel more akin to tabletop strategy games (like Battletech, or Warhammer) than they do of D&D. While I agree with some of the skills they've grouped up and dropped, I find that the system has made the decision to strengthen the table top combat aspect, at the cost of the social rp side of it. Yes I won't deny that the GM and the Players do play heavily into this aspect of the game. However, some people just want to play characters that they themselves don't have the ablility to act out. The redesign of the skills had caused people like this to suffer. 

Here's an example of what I mean; More often than not, I end up being the face in the party, the talker, the charmer, the double dealer... New campaign started up and I decided to try and be more behind the scenes, while our friend S was going to step up to the face plate. That's when we found out that despite how well spoken he is in life. Being able to act out and shmooze the guards... He could barely speak out his own characters name. Fortunately, 3.5 let the GM say 'give me a roll' because his character could do something he couldn't.

4th ed is good, and it has it's place... That place just isn't on my shelf.

Now any of you out there who do play or want to get into D&D, I highly recommend Pathfinder. At it's core it is 3.5, just with a few things fixed and tweaked. I made a more in depth post about it in the Forums for anyone interested.

Hey, I will have you know I dont mind looing at your face at all.  Hell of a lot better looking than me, lol.  It also makes it easier for us to relate to you when you show your face.  Ya know, that whole human connection thing. 

On the note of the Video game dating.  I'll Have you agree with you on the pointo f the "you cant do this" person.  If someones going to say "You can't do that if you want to keep me around" then I would probably tell her, she's not worth it and dump ehr on the spot.  Maybe thats a bit harsh?  Well befor that part I would at least try to let her see the errors of ehr ways by saying somethign along the lines of "If you want this relationship to work, you have to accept my interests and embrace them instead of being a brat and inforcing your ideals."  I might leaveo ut the brat remark but either way.  I'm not the type of person who would try to cling on to people.  I mean I've lost many friends in my life (grew apart, moved away, etc etc.) yeah it hurts at first, but it's life and you have to get used to it.  I doubt I'd lose any sleep from dumping a girl who tried to inforce her way of thinking on me, especially when it conflicts with my interests.

I only started playing DnD about a year after 4th and because of that have nmo prior experience.  I have talked to some people who's played the older editions and  it seems kinda split.  My DM says 4th is so much better because it makes everything easier for him and the players.  On the other hands others hate 4th ed....and I dont get any reasons why.  I think its because they clump stuff together (like I think acrobats used to be like 3 different things).  Honestly, 4th ed is the best from what I understand and from what i've been able to gather of the older editions, 4th ed really is the best of them all.  I mean they streamline stuff so its easier for newcommers like me to come in and it makes the DM's role much easier.  Speaking from the lackluster experience I've had as a DM I would have to say it wasn't too hard to run the Encounters campains and the DM currently running Encoutners seems to have fun.  Though to be honest he does seem to hate the fact that we epicly Pown the campains. but thats besides the point Encounters ment for newcomers and my DnD group has the experience to back up. 

on a side note, other tabletop RPGS I have looked into a game called paranoia that seems humorious (A paranoid computer controls a city and you basically find creative ways to kill each other, gold).  Another game I want to play is Battle Tactic?  I think thats the name.  You pilot a giant mech.  Enough said.   there'so ne more RPG I recently learned about called Ironclaw (I think) and its basically a furry's dream come true.  considering Im a Furry my self I think I'd like it.  BTW i dont go out in costume. *Shifty Eyes*  

Hey, I will have you know I dont mind looing at your face at all.  Hell of a lot better looking than me, lol.  It also makes it easier for us to relate to you when you show your face.  Ya know, that whole human connection thing. 

On the note of the Video game dating.  I'll Have you agree with you on the pointo f the "you cant do this" person.  If someones going to say "You can't do that if you want to keep me around" then I would probably tell her, she's not worth it and dump ehr on the spot.  Maybe thats a bit harsh?  Well befor that part I would at least try to let her see the errors of ehr ways by saying somethign along the lines of "If you want this relationship to work, you have to accept my interests and embrace them instead of being a brat and inforcing your ideals."  I might leaveo ut the brat remark but either way.  I'm not the type of person who would try to cling on to people.  I mean I've lost many friends in my life (grew apart, moved away, etc etc.) yeah it hurts at first, but it's life and you have to get used to it.  I doubt I'd lose any sleep from dumping a girl who tried to inforce her way of thinking on me, especially when it conflicts with my interests.

I only started playing DnD about a year after 4th and because of that have nmo prior experience.  I have talked to some people who's played the older editions and  it seems kinda split.  My DM says 4th is so much better because it makes everything easier for him and the players.  On the other hands others hate 4th ed....and I dont get any reasons why.  I think its because they clump stuff together (like I think acrobats used to be like 3 different things).  Honestly, 4th ed is the best from what I understand and from what i've been able to gather of the older editions, 4th ed really is the best of them all.  I mean they streamline stuff so its easier for newcommers like me to come in and it makes the DM's role much easier.  Speaking from the lackluster experience I've had as a DM I would have to say it wasn't too hard to run the Encounters campains and the DM currently running Encoutners seems to have fun.  Though to be honest he does seem to hate the fact that we epicly Pown the campains. but thats besides the point Encounters ment for newcomers and my DnD group has the experience to back up. 

on a side note, other tabletop RPGS I have looked into a game called paranoia that seems humorious (A paranoid computer controls a city and you basically find creative ways to kill each other, gold).  Another game I want to play is Battle Tactic?  I think thats the name.  You pilot a giant mech.  Enough said.   there'so ne more RPG I recently learned about called Ironclaw (I think) and its basically a furry's dream come true.  considering Im a Furry my self I think I'd like it.  BTW i dont go out in costume. *Shifty Eyes*  

Paranoia is hella fun Dragon.

How ever Paranoia, I find, fits into the same category as some other RPGs, like Toon. Great for one off adventures. SUPER fun... but really no good for a long term ongoing campaign, Outside of D&D my favourite systems are Shadowrun (I fucking LOVE that setting, if it wasn't a table top RPG first, i'd of picked it for my video game settings) and Earth Dawn.

The thing I love about Shadowrun is that it's a classless system.  Granted when you make a character you tend to fall into one of the predetermined archtypes, but there's no reason you cant mix and match. Really All a bad ass street sammy needs to be a crack decker is a datajack and the nuyen to get a decked fairlight. 

So I was at work (GameStop) the other day (Sunday), and a guy came to trade in his 3DS. He said "it is giving me headaches so my girlfriend told me to trade it in." I started processing the trade-in and talking to the guy. Not trying to be too presumptuous or anything - but sadly being realistic because oftentimes people don't know too much in terms of video games - I asked if he tried adjusting the 3D or outright turning it off. Turns out he was quite aware of that feature and used it... he got headaches not because of the 3D, but because of how much he played it. I guess he played it for hours and hours on end. He loved the heck out of his 3DS. His girlfriend made him trade in the 3DS and *all his other video game items.* So of course I teased him a little bit while also feeling sorry for him. And no, I wasn't acting as "the snooty GameStop guy," we were getting along fairly well. LOL, when I told him about this DS group I was in a few years back that had several very attractive gamer girls as members, his eyes lit up a starving man staring at a buffet. Poor guy. ;-)

As for SonicRose's question about being guys being beaten by girls in video games... Yeah, it can be hard at first. It's probably because it's so rare that when it happens, it's easy to take it as a sign of inadequacy. There's probably more to it, but that's definitely a component. From the look The Commodore's had when he mentioned it, I can bet it's on his list, so I won't go on about it too long here. I had a gamer girlfriend once. She was quite good. She'd beat me at games sometimes, and yeah it was embarassing, but I knew in my mind that I shouldn't be embarassed, so I pushed through it and learned to deal with it. I taught her how to play Street Fighter Zero 2 and after a while it became one of her favorite games. She got better than me at it, and eventually was able to beat me *at least* 2/3 times. Other than that, we mostly played games she was more familiar with, so she naturally had an advantage in those. And in ONE, she used some annoying and cheap tricks I wasn't willing to resort to *glares through the internet at her*. ... I still get her back in Joy Mech Fight from time to time, though. Try as she might, she can't beat my Sukapon. ;-) Sum of it is that a man should man up and either get better or accept defeat well. Preferably both. I think I got this mentality from the Smash Bros community; "no Johns!"

====

As for the issue of which version of D&D is the best, I've only played D&D twice/in two different ways. I've played NWN2, which is based on the 3.5 ruleset, and when I was a kid as an extra on the set of... um... something, I don't remember... I played a little bit with someone who brought his book. Or did he just find it there and was already familiar with it...? It was strange, that being set up already at the school... I died fairly quickly because I didn't understand how to play the game. I have *read* the 3.5 ruleset twice I think, and made 3 characters other than my NWN2 character. But those games never really happened, sadly.

If I can guess, I'd say I'd like 3.5 better. I don't mind more complicated rules; in fact, I prefer realism and strategy at multiple levels that can coexist together, and that seems to be what 3.5 is all about. Since 4.0 is more combat-oriented, I'd assume that an effort was made to make all classes relatively equal in combat. This is fine for a video game where other issues aren't taken into account or fun to play, but what makes P&P games so unique is that roleplaying/etc. CAN be explored. Putting points into Lore or Tracking might do next to nothing in most video games, but for a live DM it can make or break the efficacy of a character. That's where 3.5 was special; in that the classes were balanced, but only when taking the entire game into account (making it more realistic). Additionally, I think I'd prefer the more nuanced combat of 3.5 to the clear-cut combat of 4.0.

Also, 4.0 seems to take a step back in terms of game content. So many less types of this or that, fewer of that, only X many classes, etc.. Some of that will come back over time, but only by shelling out a lot of money and probably in a lot of cases by sacrificing what was great about them to begin with in their import into the new ruleset. Also from what I understand, the *universe* of 4.0 is different; with different gods and planes and stuff. I like continuity and I thought the old set-up was very interesting.

Well, having witnessed a couple of different incarnations of good ol' D&D, I think I'm pretty sure about my pick regarding this week's question:

I started playing way back in AD&D under the tutelage of my older brother for a couple of years. At that time, I knew the game solely from the point of view of a player (a young one, at that). A while after 3rd Edition came along, we made the change from 2nd to 3rd, only to revise it to 3.5 not much later. That was also the time when I started trying out the job of the DM myself for a bit, with small steps first, bigger steps later. Up to this point now, I've been both playing and DMing 3.5 very regularly and intensely, and have gotten used to the system pretty well.

However - along came Pathfinder. Alright cutting to the chase: I vote Pathfinder (or "D&D 3.75", as we've already mentioned) for the best D&D Edition up until now. Since the inception of the game, then AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder and finally 4th Edition, Dungeons and Dragons has steadily been reworked, refined, and also streamlined. The problem is: whenever things are changed, complex things made easier, supposed "problems" being solved, there are those cheering and those raging. And I have to admit: it's a thin line. Streamlining the dice system, the skills, classes, etc., makes the game much easier for the DM and the players, and much more accessible for newcomers. However, all those complex quirks and details of older editions often have a special place in the hearts of veteran players, and for everyone shouting "4th Edition makes everything so much easier!", there's another person answering "...and much less interesting." And I have to agree: the saving throw system of AD&D, or the skill system, all have a very distinct nostalgic feel, and might even make the game more immersing, more realistic, more complex - in a good way. However, in retrospect, they ARE confusing, maybe unneccessarily so, and sometimes quite irritating, especially for inexperienced players.

I agree with what has been said before: 3.5 had a very nice balance between complexity (concerning prestige classes, feats, and general customizability of the characters) and streamlined rules, making gaming easier for newcomers and veterans alike. The interesting thing is: often times, you don't see every flaw of a system while playing it, but rather once a new edition comes along and introduces changes, making you think "Hm, that's right, this is much more enjoyable than how we played before".

Pathfinder, for me personally, encompasses that feeling perfectly. 3.5 was and still is very enjoyable, very playable and has a dear place in the heart of our gaming group - but Pathfinder cleans up a couple of nasty flaws, making the gaming experience less frustrating, while still keeping the customizability and general "feel" of 3rd Edition D&D. Plus, it's still close enough to 3.5 to be almost completely compatible with things like Prestige Classes and races from 3.5

I won't say much about 4th Edition, because I haven't played it myself and don't intend to do so in the near future, because it seems to me like it's been a bit too much streamlining and killing a lot of the flavour of older editions. While 3.5 and especially Pathfinder have, in my opinion, found the balance quite perfectly, 4th Edition is too much in the direction of streamlined action RPG for my taste.

Rant over. ^^

On this ringer, 19:00 minutes in I almost feel offended. Of course, you have the right to think whatever you want but to basically say you can't respect people who are more introverted and prefer to explore their own imagination and be by themselves are somehow intrinistically inferior to "type A" personalities that want to have more social experiences.... well I find that disgusting and intolerant. Maybe you love talking to and meeting people commodore. I generally don't. I suppose I should be ashamed of prefering solitude many times. :(

Oh well huh?

D&D 2nd edition. bye...

I wouldn't know since I played D&D a couple of time (it was before the 4th edition came out) and is not for me but can see why other people like tabletop/pen and paper RPGs.

4th edition, because it is the first attempt at making the game more user and beginner friendly, which is a important thing to increase the community, it opened the door for everyone who likes to play DnD to play DnD without any problems, any high end role playing skills and such.

So yeah. :)

dbj123, I think he meant people who make excuses for themselves about social situations because of video games. If you're an introvert, you're an introvert. Video games won't change that by themselves.

I don't know, Commodore... that's like making us pick which child should die from those "dollar a day sponsorship" commericals. They all have their nuances.

Having personally played D&D 3.0, Pathfinder, AND 4th Edition, I would have to pick 4th Edition. Why? Because the only way our great hobby will survive is by getting new people to play... and no other system has gotten new people to my table better than 4E. If you say that 4E is too streamlined and that no system will ever come close to the AD&D books you bought your freshman year of high school in 1986, who knows? You might be right. But at this rate, it looks as though your version will die with you. The other arguement is that 4th Edition is just a MMORPG on paper. Kids these days play a lot of video games and spend a lot of time on the internet. This is completely unavoidable! The guys who put together 4th Edition took this into account when they designed the new system. I am okay with that.

Preferences aside, now...

I played a one-nighter Pathfinder game with some friends on Memorial Day, and Sevena (who loves her some Pathfinder) asked me the next day what I thought of the game. Sam (who was our DM) loves to role play his games as much as possible. The more he can keep the dice and character sheets out of his games, the better. To be honest, I had a blast. I was so engrossed in the plot of the whole thing that I completely forgot about the mechanics. The only things I really referenced were my AC, Perception Skill, pretty common stuff, y'know? Nothing really Edition-specific. And it was when I reflected on this that I came to this conclusion...

"The more you ROLE PLAY instead of ROLL PLAY -- you will find the differences in mechanics become inconsequential."

Side note: how much of our partiality to one system is tied to how much money we have invested in it? Because I can tell you this right now... when Fifth Edition comes out, Wizards can kiss my 4E ass... unless they are sending me free stuff by that point. Ha.

Shameless plug: Check out my D&D Blog at www.4etransmission.com

Bruce

Woo first comment ever! Anyway,

Ah the age old question of which edition is the best. I've thought about this a lot actually, but let me start by saying that of all the editions I've played it's more about the people you play with than the rule set. I've had just as much fun in 2nd ed games as I've had in 4th ed. But anyway that's not the question what is the question is which edition is best and I'd have to say 4th rules wise.

With it's powers it adds a lot of variety to combat rather than "I whack it with my sword" and with the way hp and dying works allows for better survival odds at lower levels. That's not to say the game is easy (just ask my players mu ha ha *ahem*) as some of the monster's can drain your hp quite fast. Another thing I like about 4th is the skill challenge system. It can be used as a montage with a bit of a challenge and exp. Also with variant rule set I use in my games it makes my players have to use the skills creatively. I suppose you could do that in 3.5 but in my gaming experience it was never called for.

Another thing I think makes 4th ed better is that every level you get something whether it be a power or a feat or a class feature you never really get Level 5 fighter syndrome where all you get for the level up is hp so there's that. Also wizards were done much, MUCH better with the at-will powers. Who likes being able to cast 1 spell per day in comparison to magic missile at will. Plus you can play a dragonborn......'nuff said.

I do tend to favor the older editions, mostly second ed, as far as fluff goes, like the complete fighter book and the complete guide to dwarf's. I guess I can't really hold that against 4th and 3rd as they do have their own verisons of it. Ha ha score one for  nostalgia.

But all in all I like all edition of d&d, from the step and die of 1st ed to the at will magic missiles of 4th. Plus d&d is good and all, but 7th sea(non-d20, don't even get me started on that) and Shadowrun is where it's at.

Hi everyone. I haven't got anything to add this week but I just wanted to thank The Commodore for another episode of Weekly Wringer.

My house was raided by Armed Police which is why I could not comment much. Belive me, this is VERY RARE in the United Kingdom. I am probably more likely to to have a plane crash into my house than this happening. Police in my country don't even carry guns!

BTW, everyone calls The Commodore; "Commodore". Show some respect! It's either "Commodore128" or "The Commodore". Right?

Thanks for the mention. I'm aware that there are plenty of hot girls that play video games, but the population density of South Dakota just doesn't play in my favor mathmatically I'm afraid. Luckily, I found a wonderful woman who I love and that, even though she herself does not play games, understands that it's something I love. She does occasionally watch me play the more cinamatic and story driven games, Xenosaga being the main example since she doesn't have to read everything.

As for getting beaten by a girl, it wouldn't really bother me so long as it's due to her skill and not dumb luck button mashing. It wouldn't be as bad as getting beaten by a little kid, that's for sure. Talk about a blow to my ego. I consider myself to be rather proficient in fighting games. Not pro tournament level, but I can hold my own pretty well. So I'm in an arcade playing Tekken Tag when this kid, probably 8 years old, comes up and asks to play with me. I agreed and decided to take it easy on him the first round so he could at least feel like he was competing. I didn't land a single hit. So I decide to get serious and manage to land a few hits before losing round 2.

Naturally, this lead to some more quarters from me and the selection of my best character. A couple dollars later and I hadn't won a single round. I think I was about 14-15 at the time, so I had been alive almost twice as long and had certainly been playing video games for much longer than him and I didn't stand a chance. Granted I suck with an arcade stick compared to a d-pad, but if this kid had been any smaller he would have needed something to stand on just to reach the controls. That's definetally not as bad as getting beat by a girl.

D&D is evil. If you don't believe me, you can ask Tom Hanks. If you don't believe me, then just check this out.

Volt, that's actually one of the things they did in Pathfinder with the class resesigns, It's really really rare to find a 'dead level'

The first time I played D&D, mainly out of curiosity, it was the 3rd edition.  I was able to get a campaign going with some kids at the day-care I went to (one of the adults put in charge of us was the DM, and many times was called a satanist by our parents) with me as a fighter.  It went on for a few months before we all got borred and stopped.

Later, I was able to get back into D&D when I found out most of my friends played.  We had a a campaign going (I was a cleric) and I also started a second campaign with some other guys as the DM.  It was through this campaign that I discovered my interest in writing, trying as many imaginative ways possible to shape the established rules and create rules of my own around my narrative.  Once I tried to figure out a way to work a time machine into my campaign, but my players could take anything seriously after that, so I ended up scrapping the idea entirely.  (Both of these were on 3.5 by the way.)  After about 6 months of I ended leaving my cleric game, although my friends have kept it going to this day.  About 9 months later I lost interest in my DM game.

Later I would watch a friend of mine be the DM in a Pathfinder campaign.  After winning a national writing award at school, he let me be active DM for a few sessions.

I have recently made an effort to get back into D&D by doing 4th edition with some friends (im a wizard).  I actually introduced a lot of my friends to D&D with this game.  It has been going on for about a year now.

After giving my experiences with the game I will now give my oppinions.

I like how 4 made the game more accessible to new players so it was essier to get mor of my friends involved, also lessening the chances of me getting dissinterested again.  Also the fact that it's more combat orriented gave battles more varaiety, and also made the Diablo-style action rpg fan inside me leap with joy (especially being a wizard and all).

But the lore and story of the 3.5/Pathfinder universe was so amazing.  The forth edition is still lacking in th content a little, but hopefully that will change soon.  Overall I think the old story set up was better.

Also my hardcore rpg side still loves the complicatedness of 3.5.  Im one of those guys who likes to calculate the chances of critical hits and misses in Final Fantasy and Pokemon and stuff.  I know it was kind of a pain but I loved it.

So my final verdict?  Its a tie between 3.5 and 4.  3.5 is where i go to get my hardcore D&D fix, while 4 is where I go to just have a good time with my friends.  3.5 keeps me interested with its stories and custimization, while 4 keeps me interested with making it easier for me play with my friends and just letting us go in and have a simple, fun adventure.

Also Pathfinder as a close second....

And Neverwinter Nights as a close third....

*First off I would like to say I have not read the comments I don't have much time and I've got a lot buzzing in my mind anyway.

HSomething I thought of for my comment last week, I've been thinking about it over the week. I don't think I was really in love with the girl, I think I was in love with the idea of the girl. I am terrible at living with people that arn't allready used to me etc. etc. and I don't know how she was in normal life, maybe she was so god damn ugly I would not be able to stand her, or maybe she was a bed hog (Well actually I can't stand the idea of sleeping in the same bed with someone or even the same room. My brother says I am a terrible sleeping uhh.. companion)

UAs for being beaten by a girl thing, I don't know if that is worth a full episode to, but maybe it could be a shorter episode, or maybe there is more to it than I thought. But when I play games online, I get beaten a lot in some of the games I play. In some of the more normal games like Counter-Strike I got beat all the time in the normal mode. I mostly played mods but that dosen't matter. Same thing for Team Fortress Classic (In Team Fortress 2 I am sort of a badass, people think of me as 'That fucking Medic that always melee kills me') And in both games Counter-Strike and TFC there was a girl gamer who I became friends with (One more than the other) In TFC her name changed but the one I remember was Pronz. I played Medic in TFC, but in TFC (For those that don't know) Medic is the second fastest class, so I spent most of my time going for the objective instead of killing people. I'd heal if someone near was hurt but I didnt play the fasted class because he was so weak. And Pronz played Engineer and her Sentries and Grenades always killed me. She told me that "My nades just love you!" I took this like "Damn, I suck at this game!" But I made it fun with making fun of myself. Samething in Counter-Strike, Lola Haze, she wasn't as good at the game as Pronz was, but she was still better than me and it was the same thing. Damn I've said a lot about this subject allready. I guess I should wait for when you actually ask us to say anymore. And yes, I can allready see someone saying "Gee, Ninto, you allready disprooved yourself in one paragraph!" Well these are just stories not really much insight on the topic.

GANYWAY... For this week's wringer, erm, I can't say anything at all. I am not a table top gamer. It seems fun, but I have noone to play with. If I got the chance I'd atleast try it. As for having thigns about Table top games, I don't mind it. I like it actually even though I don't play any. It gives me some insight on a topic I have no expirience in.

*Oh and next week, the e3 thing I'll have much more to say. Since this was posted on day 3 of e3 I've allready seen things like the WiiU, I've got a lot to say but I don't want this to be like the beaten by a girl paragraph. I can wait.

Edit:Allright read the comments and thought of a few more thigns to add...

The not being social because of gaming thing I probably have, but I also have asperger's syndrome, which apparently means "You're smart but not social" when most of the symptoms of asperger's syndrome show the person is incredibly stupid. Like mixing up words like Mouse the animal and Mouse the computer tool, or there, their, etc. even though I feel like I'm good with those things.

Sonicrose, your DMC4 story reminds me of this time I was visitng a friends house. They had 4 kids, two younger (My age) and 2 older. I was more friends with the older ones because they were into video games. They had Wario Land 2 and had gotten to the final boss. I saw the cart and asked if I could play it. And the brother (Younger, maybe 13? Sister was maybe 14? And I was maybe 5-8) and showed me they were on the final boss and were stuck and played it for me and lost. I asked if I could try and he laughed, handed me the Gameboy Color (I miss the good old GBC) and he walked off figuring I'd lose too. I beat it on my first try. I played Wario Land 3 and 4 and even though I hadn't gotten far in either I still had a feel for the controls. They came over in shock and I asked if we could start over so I could see the whole game, but he didn't want to delete the game since they wanted to 100% it.

sheefo, why did the POLICE come to raid your house? I'd expect robbers but police?

Having little D&D experience outside of 4th ed (I've made a wizard for 3.5, and thats it), I'm not the best equipped to answer this question.

3.5 looks a lot more versatile, with many more options (the spell list for wizards compared to 4th ed is much more expansive, at least it was the last time I checked), but also seems heavily convoluted and complicated due to that.

4th ed is heavily streamlined, almost to the point of making the game mundane and boring.

If I were to have to pick one of them to play, though, I think I would go for 3.5. I may never have played it before, but the various options make me feel it would be a more enjoyable experience (If I could ever figure out what all the things on my sheet mean...)

@Ninto55: Thanks for the interest. They suspected me of having a firearm in my house because someone from the US sent a package to my address with a Glock magazine (clip) inside.

The thing is, I have an Airsoft Glock replica which caused a bit of trouble, but it was legal since it is essentially  a very expensive BB-gun.

After all of that they said it was not illegal to have the Glock magazine and asked if I wanted it!!! LOL!

I wish guns were illegal in the US. We'd all be better off.

@Mr. K: No you don't, believe me. You don't want your nation to become a total pussy like my country. I wish guns were legal in the UK.

100% of the bad guys have guns and 0.01% of the cops have guns. That's England for you.

That's pretty strange, Sheefo.

In my country (Germany), guns are illegal for the general public, but the police is allowed to carry them, depending on the situation though. You won't see a police officer carrying a gun while going after a noise complaint, but you might see them when there has been a terror warning or maybe something less dramatic along those lines.

Are you sure that UK police doesn't carry guns?

@Topic:

It's true that the variety of spells, feats, classes, races, etc. in D&D 3.5 is VERY convoluted. The thing is, as with every other game, those players who followed the edition since its early days have the advantage of getting all those extras bit by bit, rather than a new player having to chew through all of that all at once. My advice would be: start slow, using the core rulebook and maybe one or two accessories, then work your way up. Once you're familiar with all the information in there, with all the abilities and feats and options, start using other books as well, maybe depending on what your gaming group consists of (Have an elf? Use "Races of the Wild", for example. Or a Wizard could always make use of "Complete Arcane" & "Complete Mage")

That way, you basically imitate what the experienced players have done, chewing through one book after another while they were still produced regularly, instead of trying to include every little accessory book there is at once. ^^

Now that I think about it, didn't I suggest this question in the Wringer suggestion forums?

~goes off to check~

Enh.. I suggested Pathfinder vs. 4th ed..., close enough ;p

@Jekyll Jonze: My mother is from Germany, which makes me German :) She said that where she grew up there were annual shooting competitions and I have seen police patrolling Hamburg with firearms.

In the UK, only farmers can own a shotgun and it has to be above a certain length, hold a maximum of three rounds, stored seperate from ammunition and locked in a safe fixed to a wall. Bloody stupid if you ask me.

It's strange how the SAS (best special forces unit in the world) belongs to the wimpiest nation. I belive Tony Blair traded all our arms for Libyan oil. Every country in the world mocks our police officers. Fuck this country.

Deutschland über alles :)

...Sorry for going off topic!

i have to go with the 4th eddition and its mainly because lets face it, not that many people play D&D or are willing to try one of the main reasons is because to them its too hard to learn how to play. so when 4th eddition came out with more simple ways to play i found it more easy to get them to play and my friends basicly hate anything besides shooters so i think that says something they liked all the races and classes though most of them were half elvs witch was a little anoying but within a hour or so they figured out how to play, made characters and started playing and now every weekend we play D&D.             

so i think the 4th eddition is the best so far

  Let me start by saying I rly enjoy the weekly wringer and every thing you guys do here at clan of the gray wolf. I am glad and honored to join your community.

As far as witch D&D is the best that is kindof hard. I have personally played two versions of D&D. They are versions 3.5 and the Advanced D&D Ravenloft. So i guess it comes down to playablity and appeal to everyone in your party. The last time i actually had a group of ppl who played (about 3 years ago) we rly enjoyed the Ravenloft cause we liked the horor aspect it set and how it allowed us to see the game in a new light. It added a lv of darkness the made the game fun. That also could have just been our setting and story as well. On the other hand i also rly enjoyed 3.5 cause it is the one i started with. it was not, for me anyway too difficult to pick up and play. So I guess for me it is WHO you are playing with and what everyone likes more than the version that you are playing.

I see a problem with D&D is that it is hard to get ppl to play. who have never played befor. most likely becuase it is still considered a very very nerdy thing. It could also be that the game takes a long time to set up and play. Me i love the table top setting as much as I do the computer based or console based gaming.

Not to mention the fact that most ppl now days dont want to sit around a table, and play a board game in general. ( even checkers or chess ) The reason i think for this is the fact allot more ppl are into video games now and it might actually be more efficient for ppl to pop in wii sports or another party game to have multiple ppl play a game in the same room. Rather than a board game, like D&D.

I guess there could be an agruement about MMORPG's but i rly dont think it is the same experiance as having ppl in your house playing a game so i dont count it.

Once again I am glad to see that there are ppl out there keeping the old things alive and still playing table top and retro games. again i am honored to join you all on the clan of the gray wolf.

Wow Sheefo, that is really really really dumb. (And yeah sorry for going of topic but hey, its D&D and some of us like to make a comment every week, so...) All of those protections, if someone like a kid is going to go to school and shoot everyone he would still be smart enough (If he is old enough to not be killed by recoil) to get the gun and the ammo. Illegal items will be optainted no matter what, like drugs in the US. Some are caught but some get away. And those that get away could use them on some innocent person and noone would ever know. Besides with illegal guns people get guns under the table and when there is a murder the police find the bullet and try to trace it, BUT HAVE NO GUN STORES TO CHECK. That is just dumb. Here we have plenty of rules to keep whoever has a gun under check to make sure if they do something bad we can catch them. Today I was talking with my mom and one of her friends about how pussy the entire world has gotten with how people have fun. In the 80s people were able to get away with much more. My mom b arely wore a seatbelt, she sat upside down. My mom and  her friends would go to the airport lay down at the edge of the run way and see plains fly 10 feet from their faces. They would steal their parents cars and go on a joyride, the cops would find them and ask them to follow them home, they tell the parents what they did and its up to the parents to decide what to do. My moms friend says that because of all the shit wars we've gotten into they have to find ways to get money and so they put more rules on fun so people break the law and they have to pay fines. Most people in this world are either stupid, pussies, insaine, or smart. Going in order from most to least.