PDA

View Full Version : What Edition you like most.



Dr.Dead
05-01-2010, 10:16 AM
What Dungeons & Dragons Edition do you guys like most? Is it 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, 3.X, or 4th?

And why do you like that D&D Edition?


(example)
I like 3.5 Edition because it doesn't have 3 player handbooks have books like 4th ED does, It also have more of a verity of weapons and armor than 4th ED it also has live-stalk, It does not cause as many arguments as 2nd Ed or 1st Ed does.

I also have 80% of all the 3.5 books, and so do all my friends.

But I do agree with 4th Edition to have a spell book or just a book in general with the cleric because if you think about it how was the Holy Bible made.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
05-01-2010, 02:56 PM
Put me down for "1," with some homebrew rules added in, of course. I have found that the dark and grittiness that was the magic of dnd has increasingly been washed away with later editions. In essence, later editions of dnd have increasingly lost its magic, its allure, IMO.

Sascha
05-01-2010, 04:25 PM
I'm torn between Original and 4E.

oD&D is so nice and simple in what it does, and the relevant character stats easily fit on a single side of an index card.

4E is rather up-front with its intentions, and I lurve that in a game. Plus its alignment system is the closest to oD&D (and as such, can be pretty much completely ignored without mechanical issues). Also, the Raven Queen is just plain fun~

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
05-01-2010, 04:34 PM
I would have chosen 0E, but it wasn't a choice. But since you mention 0E, Sascha, put one vote down for me.

nytflyr
05-01-2010, 05:23 PM
I will have to say 3.5 with add-ons from Unearthed Arcana (Rituals, Action Points and Vitality & Wound Points). Its the only edition up to that point (well 3.0) that made sense to me. Prior to that we played Palladium Fantasy (1st edition), Warhammer FRP (1st edition) & Fantasy Hero.

MortonStromgal
05-01-2010, 11:22 PM
So I'm going to answer your question and then some.

2e or 3e for almost every RPG... Why?
1e usually has alot of bugs and the ideas are not that concrete yet.
2e usually has the best fluff but still going on wonky rules
3e usually cleans up the rules to make it fun for everyone

I usually like the cleaned up rules of 3e but all the fluff from 2e... You can apply this to 80% of non indie games out there.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
05-02-2010, 12:38 AM
I've noticed some others on these boards are mentioning other games, so, not to be outdone, i'll list a few more. Put me down for WFRP2E (1E is fine, too) and Traveller CT (Mongoose is close enought, too). What i loved about old school dnd was the fact that when a rule was needed, we just made one up to fit the scenario...and since it is extrememly rare for any two scenarios to be exactly the same, homebrewing rules when needed worked out just fine. Ah, good times!

cplmac
05-03-2010, 12:13 PM
For me it would have to be 2E. Of course, the reason for this is the fact that 99.99% of my gaming experience has been with it. This is the version that our tabletop group is currently using, but there are other members that may run some other games in the future.

wbrandel
05-03-2010, 12:27 PM
For me I would have to go with 1st ed. I always liked the simplicity of the game for both players and the DM. I also enjoy the wider verity of the equipment and the darker nature (darker to me) of the game as well as the combat rules.

stygianangel
05-03-2010, 05:21 PM
While I'm most familiar with D&D 3.x in terms of rules (mainly because that's what I was first introduced to), I've had a few encounters with the other versions: a short-lived 4e encounter or two, not counting one of my DMs switching from 3.5 to 4th for his game; a couple short-lived 2nd ed games; and a Basic (red box) 1st ed game that's still going on. From what I've seen so far, each edition of the game has their own strengths and weaknesses, so I can't really pick a favorite; I like them all. Same with the other roleplaying games I've encountered.

Morcant
05-06-2010, 07:28 AM
My favorite edition is B/X, with the Rules Cyclopedia for reference.

Robperez
05-14-2010, 05:12 PM
put me down for 2ed dnd this newer ones looked to me like stat crunchers most ppl that i've played 3rd tended to make stat driven characters vs 2nd everyone made fleshed out characters my .02 cents.

Crom on his Mountain
05-14-2010, 09:21 PM
Right now I'm wavering between 2e and 3e. 1e was too cookie cutter, the only difference between my fighter and your fighter was that yours had a sword and mine had an ax. 4e is too gamey and has way too much of an anime feel. 2e had great fluff and was DND's creative peak, but 3e allows me to make any kind of character I want without being too horrible; there was absolutely no reason to wield a rapier instead of a longsword in 2e. But 3e requires a ton of house rules to get the classic fantasy feel I look for instead of super heroes with double bladed longswords.

If I could ever strike a perfect balance between the feel and power level of 2e and the customization of 3e I would have the absolute perfect game system for me.

Q-man
05-15-2010, 08:10 AM
I have to put my vote in for 4E. The combat and other rules are simplified that they don't interfere in the game, which frees you up to focus on the RP. Perhaps I just have a short attention span, but in previous editions every time I had to look up some rule I was hurled out of the immersion and had to find my way back in. Granted we could have just ignore the rules in the previous editions to get that same effect, but there was always someone who would vaguely remember that 1 vague rule and insist that we enforce it.

The new way they produce monsters is also fabulous. Back in the previous editions I'd find my self poring over the monster manuals to find the right set of them for an encounter. With them all being into various categories (skirmisher, brute, elite, etc) throwing together an encounter only takes a few minutes

You can blame the appreciation on the simpler rules on my stupidity and short attention span, the bottom line for me is that it allows me to focus more on the story being developed during the sessions rather than fumble with books.

MortonStromgal
05-16-2010, 05:10 PM
Nothing wrong with liking 4th edition. Heck I like some of the changes and I'm not a fan of 4e. Getting rid of threat ranges and changing the whole spells per day thing were both moves that I think went in the right direction.

TheYeti1775
05-17-2010, 03:22 PM
It would either be 2E or 3.5E.
With a heavy leaning towards 3.5E.

I like how it functions.

tesral
05-19-2010, 01:22 AM
Once again I will say 0 Edition. Without the 1973 edition of D&D there would be none of the others. And perhaps not even RPG as we know it.

cplmac
05-20-2010, 06:03 PM
Once again I will say 0 Edition. Without the 1973 edition of D&D there would be none of the others. And perhaps not even RPG as we know it.

Good Point!

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
05-20-2010, 06:55 PM
Seconded!

MortonStromgal
05-21-2010, 09:57 PM
And perhaps not even RPG as we know it.

I wouldn't go that far. When I first got started I did more roleplaying with Battletech than I did with D&D. Though at the time I really didn't understand what roleplaying was. I think it would have evolved eventually from wargaming.

tesral
05-21-2010, 10:55 PM
It did evolve from war gaming. However it was firmly in place by the time Battletech hit the stores. I didn't say it would not exist, I said it wouldn't exist as it does.

Role-playing has been part and parcel of every child's life from the games of let's make believe. RPG is just make believe with a framework of rules to handle random events and prevent "yes I did!" "No you didn't!" arguments. LARPing if anything is closer to the form we played as kids back in the days before video games and computers. A towel pinned to your shirt made you Batman, a baseball cap a ball player, and a hat and tin pistol a cowboy. As a child 80% of my summer was spent outside. The rest was curled up to a book. Make believe was our most important game ,and I never really got over it.

MortonStromgal
05-22-2010, 10:55 AM
I just mean that if D&D had not come out someone else would have done it eventually.

tesral
05-22-2010, 01:22 PM
Yes. I think it was an idea whose time had come if you will. However if it had started elsewhere we could be looking at a much different flavor.

It was what it was.

Lord Soth
05-22-2010, 01:33 PM
I'll stick with 2e, simple character construct, multiple options of magic, and classes, not to mention the number of settings it provides. 3.x gets more into character depth and provides a wide range of source material for original material, be it classes, races, etc. 4e; well it has nice art work and is easy to teach; and you can always find someone running a game of it somewhere! :biggrin:

DF344
05-27-2010, 11:52 AM
3.5 all the way. So many possibilities! Min-Maxing to the extreme!

Law
05-28-2010, 08:24 AM
My experience with and interest in D&D is very limited, but I'd have to vote for 3.5. All you need is the PHB and the SRD, and you are ready to go. I like that.

froglegg
08-19-2010, 05:18 PM
1st Edition AD&D..........Errr....... No B/X.......Mmmmm..... No BECM...... ....Nuts! I cant make my mind up!!!

John

Alviaster22
08-19-2010, 08:17 PM
I like 3.5 but I prefer to DM fourth ed because it really puts alot more emphasis on the dm and how they unravel their storyline.

SDJThorin
08-19-2010, 10:05 PM
Here's my 2 cents, in order of preference:


2e -- mostly because I have all the books and have been playing it steadily for more than 20 years and having a blast with it, but then I also have a lot of house rules. (Note: no books allowed at the table is one of the rules, exception being the players spell lists)



0e & 1e tied -- they were cool and I had a lot of fun with them, but never had the books back then, I've got a bunch of them now, but no one around here plays them.



3e (all flavours) -- I can't really stand this version. Way too many min-maxers play it and whenever I did play, people always seemed to get bogged down in the combination of their feats and talents -- not focused on RPing. (My favourite dumb-ass quote from a convention DM was "I'm sorry but your PC isn't optimized enough to be used in MY game. You can sit there and watch but you don't get to play with THAT!" Then he loudly mumbled, "Why do you amateurs even bother coming out." -- At the time I had been gaming for 2 decades)

I haven't bothered with 4e -- I gave up buying DnD after Ha$bro bought it. The exception was the Star Wars: Saga Edition -- it works for me for some reason, but then we've customized it a fair bit :)

Now I spend my money on the small press games -- got to help out the little guys. They're the only ones that seem to care about their customers these days :)

Webhead
08-20-2010, 07:16 PM
Favorite Edition?: AD&D 2E
Why?: Nostalgia primarily. That and the fact that my favorite D&D campaign setting (Dark Sun) was a product of 2E.

Crom on his Mountain
08-23-2010, 04:32 AM
Limiting myself only to the core Dungeons and Dragons games and not giving consideration to the many semi-D&D D20 products or the retro-clones for older editions:

1: 2nd Edition: The balance of power was right, wizards were the most powerful class but had enough limitations to make all the other classes still useful. People didn't have it in their heads that all classes had to be equal in a fight, thieves weren't expected to be as good at combat as fighters because that's not what they did. The PHB and DMG had tons of optional rules that allowed a DM to tailor a campaign to his tastes without extensive houseruling. Kits allowed for more variety of characters than was seen in 1st Edition.

2: 3rd Edition: Finally allowed you to make pretty much any character you could envision and is by far the tightest rules system of all editions. The customization was without peer for pretty much any class based game. The removal of caster limitations from earlier editions (casting time, study time, etc) caused them to really skyrocket in power and caused serious balance issues at mid to high levels though. And they finally got rid of exceptional strength, I HATED exceptional strength.

3: 1st edition: An improvement over basic, but characters were still shackled by limited options. The only difference between fighter a and fighter b was one had a sword and one had an axe.

4: Basic: All the problems of 1st edition (except exceptional strength), but more so.

5: 4th edition: I hate 4th edition. The only things I can think of that I like are surges (i've used similar rules for years) and ritual casting.

---------- Post added at 02:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:29 AM ----------


(My favourite dumb-ass quote from a convention DM was "I'm sorry but your PC isn't optimized enough to be used in MY game. You can sit there and watch but you don't get to play with THAT!" Then he loudly mumbled, "Why do you amateurs even bother coming out." -- At the time I had been gaming for 2 decades)

If I was already sitting at that table with character in hand I would have bailed from that game. That quote tells me everything I need to know about his campaign style and reveals himself to be an amateur.

tesral
08-23-2010, 12:54 PM
3e (all flavours) -- I can't really stand this version. Way too many min-maxers play it and whenever I did play, people always seemed to get bogged down in the combination of their feats and talents -- not focused on RPing. (My favourite dumb-ass quote from a convention DM was "I'm sorry but your PC isn't optimized enough to be used in MY game. You can sit there and watch but you don't get to play with THAT!" Then he loudly mumbled, "Why do you amateurs even bother coming out." -- At the time I had been gaming for 2 decades)

Yea, you give them that that sad sorrowful "you poor pitiable thing" look. Boy, don't teach your Grandfather how to suck eggs. And yes I would have left his game as well.

Rather reminds me of the new player who thought he had it mastered. His character had died twice in two session. The upkeep was getting steep. I chided him more in fun than not that he needed to stop doing that. Petulant he replied "Wait until it happens to you again." I informed him that in two and a half years of playing that game, my character had never been into negative hit points. Yes, his jaw dropped.

SDJThorin
08-24-2010, 04:12 PM
If I was already sitting at that table with character in hand I would have bailed from that game. That quote tells me everything I need to know about his campaign style and reveals himself to be an amateur.

:lol: The guy didn't realize that 3 of his 8 players were my friends... we all got up and left after that little remark and reported his antics to the convention staff. Luckily there was another game that had a kind DM willing to take on 4 more players. :lol:


Yea, you give them that that sad sorrowful "you poor pitiable thing" look. Boy, don't teach your Grandfather how to suck eggs. And yes I would have left his game as well.

Rather reminds me of the new player who thought he had it mastered. His character had died twice in two session. The upkeep was getting steep. I chided him more in fun than not that he needed to stop doing that. Petulant he replied "Wait until it happens to you again." I informed him that in two and a half years of playing that game, my character had never been into negative hit points. Yes, his jaw dropped.

Ya, I was an old fogey then at 29 :lol:

I've had players that just didn't get it either and thought that RPing was just a form of video gaming... Must Level up, Must Kill EVERYthing, Must be Centre of Attention!

Some eventually learn, with various levels of help, and others... well... they find like minded people, and play it their way... for them that's gaming, but that's just not my cup of tea.

I guess that's why I like 2e most... even after the splat books... most things were left to the player and the DM to discuss and put into play if good reasoning could be put forward, but there was enough to get you started and thinking.

3e limits that by having hundreds if not thousands of feats, traits and skills to choose from, and a bazillion combinations! :lol:

That's why I'm so very excited about the Dresden Files RPG (a Fate derivative). It gives you sample "Aspects" but specifically states that they are samples and that the DM and all the Players as a team need to come up with their own Aspects and what they mean for every PC you create... way more creative and way more fun to work with! Not to mention the books are sooo very pretty and funny as hell to read!

tesral
08-24-2010, 09:21 PM
Ya, I was an old fogey then at 29 :lol:

I meanr that GM's game. I have 34 years of RPG under my belt. I know how to stay alive.

Webhead
08-25-2010, 12:04 AM
That's why I'm so very excited about the Dresden Files RPG (a Fate derivative). It gives you sample "Aspects" but specifically states that they are samples and that the DM and all the Players as a team need to come up with their own Aspects and what they mean for every PC you create... way more creative and way more fun to work with! Not to mention the books are sooo very pretty and funny as hell to read!

Aye. It's Dresden Files *and* it's FATE. A combination virtually made of win. I've said this before elsewhere (I believe it was on these boards...I have such terrible memory) but the game mechanic of "Aspects" is one of the most awesome ideas I've seen come from an RPG in a long, long time. It requires a sort of "eureka" moment for a player to really "get it" and realize how powerful and inspirational they are for a game, but once that moment hits they are a thing of unequaled beauty!

Sorry...back to D&D...my favorite element of 2E was the "Kits". A way to customize your character, mostly through fluff, with a few minor perks sprinkled in. Just the right amount of "cool incentives and uniqueness" without the game-crippling, show-stopping obnoxious one-upsmanship of what they ultimately became in 3E...Prestige Classes...blech!

fmitchell
08-25-2010, 03:12 AM
Call me crazy, but I've always admired Basic/Expert/Rules Cyclopedia/whatever. It's more organized and user-friendly than Original was, and not as complex as AD&D, 3.x, or 4.x. Yes, the Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling classes are weird, but they're logical extensions of OD&D. It's the basis for Labyrinth Lord, which first got me interested in "old school" gaming, and Lamentations of the Flame Princess, the first D&D-like game in harmony with my current tastes. (The infamous "Carcosa" supplement started off well, and then got gratuitous, in several senses of the word.)

My next choice would be a slimmed-down derivative of 3.x, e.g. Call of Cthulhu d20, Omega World, True20, Midnight, or The Spider-God's Bride from Xoth.net. Give me fewer classes, maybe one or zero, and streamlined rules. There's also the Peryton Fantasy Role-playing Game, which tosses out feats and skills for direct attribute checks (plus 1/3 of your level) and a new mechanic called knacks: do something well enough, or often enough, and you can choose to get a bonus on it when you reach an even-numbered level.

tesral
08-25-2010, 09:54 AM
Call me crazy, but I've always admired Basic/Expert/Rules Cyclopedia/whatever. It's more organized and user-friendly than Original was.

Dude that would not be hard. 0D&D was an organizational mess par excellence.

I never went Basic/Expert myself. By the time I was aware of it I was firmly into AD&D.

Weibrath
08-28-2010, 06:35 PM
I'm going to have to go with 2nd edition myself.

IvanMike
09-01-2010, 12:35 AM
none......................

With a disclaimer..........

I played a bunch of 1e and "classic/basic" with a good helping of OD&D back in the day. These days I decided to go ahead and pick & choose rules (just like we always did, but more) to "get it right". The older versions are all a mess, but they are so robust that you can house rule them with abandon without them collapsing like a house of cards.
http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/showthread.php/17022-Ninglan?p=147583#post147583
pretty much sums up my rules - mostly classic, with some 1e goodies thrown in - a pretty standard mix really and not all that house ruled when you look at a lot of other systems.
3e and up give you some interesting ideas to think about, but (to me) they're D&D only in that they own the name. Notice I didn't say they suck, or that anyone who likes them is stupid, etc. I don't particularly care for them, but that's NOT a nostalgia thing or "one true wayism". Rather the underlying ideas and goals of the game have been altered so radically that its not a game I like to play.

Hangman
09-14-2010, 12:59 AM
I guess that's why I like 2e most... even after the splat books... most things were left to the player and the DM to discuss and put into play if good reasoning could be put forward, but there was enough to get you started and thinking.
My thoughts exactly. I always felt the older editions had the most imagination to them; the newer ones are becoming more defined. They offer choices, but the choices in Basic were endless when they weren't written down anywhere.

I think I will go with AD&D 2nd Edition. I figure it's like a polished 1st Edition, with all the best squeezed out of the Dragon magazine and a decade of play testing.

3rd Edition (especially 3.5) just seemed like a money grab to me. The rules were alright, but I couldn't see the point. It's not like D&D becomes outdated and needs a new look for the new generation, is it? D&D 4e seems like more of the same, but now it's "balanced" and simplified to pablum. And now I'm frothing myself into a berzerk rage just thinking about it... LOL

Sascha
09-14-2010, 08:45 AM
It's not like D&D becomes outdated and needs a new look for the new generation, is it?
There is an argument to be made for presentation.

tesral
09-14-2010, 11:27 AM
Presentation has its points, but it is nothing without the content. A very pretty empty box is still empty. As much as I like a good looking book, I'll reiterate this as often as necessary to get the point across. "Spending money in the art department is no assurance of quality content." I'll keep beating the drum until the world is deaf or listens.

Sascha
09-14-2010, 07:05 PM
Art is only part of presentation. I was actually referring to the language used to communicate game concepts (the content), and the intended audiences of the various products; neither are consistent over three and a half decades of D&D, thus the argument that the presentation, by necessity, changes to reflect that.

tesral
09-14-2010, 10:19 PM
Yes, I dare say they have dumbed it down with every edition. Zero is total confusion and takes a pure genius or a crazy man (not that there exists a fraction of a difference between the two) to find any meaning in it. AD&D is a disjointed, bloating ego in progress. Second, I do believe that presentation wise is the best edition, not necessarily the best game. It is the easiest read, but is still litered with Tsrish. Third reads like stereo instructions, and Fourth like a first grade primer. I expect that fifth edition will find a soul mate in "Candyland" for raw complexity if the trend continues.

Sascha
09-14-2010, 11:48 PM
Eh, intellectualism shouldn't be a requirement for the hobby. More power to folks who write accessibly. If anything, the WotC editions actually *added* complexity to the game (regardless of how one views the necessity of said complexity), so I'm not sure the "dumbed down" argument holds much weight beyond edition elitism.

In the end, we're all just folks sitting around a table pretending to be elves. Make of it what you will.

tesral
09-15-2010, 01:42 AM
The concept of 3.x as a simpler edition was blown by ten years of more rule books. 2ed was getting as bad. There were every bit as many "kits" as prestige classes.

The problem is they scrub the system down to something simpler, then break it with tons of added exceptions. I prefer the scrubbed down leaner system. Keep system at a minimum and play the game.