Attitudes to D&D

Looking at the posts that fly about this forum full of anger and rage (sometimes well hidden, but there) I was just wondering if there were many people in the same boat as me.

So does anyone else, like me enjoy ALL editions of D&D? None are flawless in my eyes, and some have glaring errors or omissions but I find them fun to play and can get a few good campaigns out of them at any time. My players will enjoy it and thats what counts.

Earlier editions have the benefits of being able to truly build up your character (beyond the realms of fairness) and later editions start slowly edging towards equality (which was a great draw for newer players). But the stories that we create around the framework can become eternally memorable no matter the edition.

The main reason I'm asking this... to be honest I'm starting to feel out of place without an axe to grind. Most of the posts about D&DN are seemingly factional edition wars set up in little skirmishes about key smaller points. 
No, you're not alone.

I've enjoyed games run in every edition (except OD&D - never played that ed.).  That said, 4e was not my favorite edition - even though one of the games I played in was great.  OK, I really don't like 4e....  I think that great game I was in using that rules set was great despite the rules.

My order of preferance for D&D rules;
AD&D (1st & 2nd)
3.x/PF
BECMI/Compendium
4e
OD&D - last only because I've never used or read this set & aren't going to do so.
I've played every edition of D&D (except the pre-Basic OD&D) and I love them all.  My order of preference is...

4th
1st
BECMI
3rd
2d
I fell the same. And it's very said. To me it all comes down to two things:
1) People fail to understand that the rules should serve the game. If that doesn't happen, ignore the rules.

2) There is no need to prove to everybody else how your way of playing DnD is 'right" and theirs is "wrong". It's very simple, pick the rules set you like best, use what you like, take everything else and mod until you happy with it!

I've enjoyed games that were ran in basically 2nd edition, 2nd edition w/ skills and powers options, 3rd edition, 3.5, and 4th. Ultimately they're all systems and I didn't find any of the systems wholey incapable of having fun while utilizing.


That said, 4th edition was the first one of that evolving line where I actually disliked the system comparitive to the system I used the times before. I liked 2nd edition. I disliked a fair bit of things in sklls & powers but I felt it added some very useful things as well and was easy enough to pick and choose from. I loved 3e and thought it was a wonderful evolution to the game. 3.5 was all the things I liked about 3e with a few things tweaked a bit for balance or made a bit more interesting. 4e however felt like a largely different system to me...not good, not bad, just massively different than what I came to expect when playing D&D. That didn't significantly keep me from having fun...but it did detract from my desire to play it as more than an occasional diversion, similar to how Cyber Punk, Werewolf, Exalted, and other systems over the years provided me with that occasionally distraction from the game I primarily played.

I enjoy all editions and I hope Next can stand on its own without being labeled an inferior verision of some previous edition of D&D.

The reason I feel out of place is I am waiting to see playtest material concerning tactical combat. The only rules I need out of the game are combat rules and since I always play with a grid the current playtest material don't really cut it. Along with that, the major points of contention on this board (5MW, attributes, alignment and magic) don't seem to be concerns of the designers so I find little reason to contribute heavily in those threads anymore.
I've only played 4e, and only a few times due to lack of group. However, I'm more fluff fan than anything and I've loved most of what I've read about older editions.
I enjoy them all for what they are.

OD&D/AD&D/2E were all great games if you wanted to play something with the threat of a very real death. I like a challenge, and those games required that you think your way through things.

3/3.5 was a solid system for playing an epic hero. Sooner or later you were going to die, but it would always be frigging awesome. The system also had a good deal of fluidity and could be modified to hell and back and still be usalbe. It also lended itself to non-combat oriented games -- which I think hurt the newest form of D&D

4e is a good game if you just want to go through a dungeon and kill stuff. The system if nice and balanced and it is easy to gauge encounters, and the level/equipment curve is nice and easy to follow... but if you liked finding non-combat solutions or if your games took you out of the dungeon then you needed to find a different system.
I really liked the flavor and feel of 1e and 2e.  The problem with 1e and 2e was there was a lack of flexibility in character creation and the math behind the game was not pleasant.

I have a soft spot for BECMI since that is what I started with.

I really liked the flexibility of 3e.  The math broke down outside of the sweet spot (5th to 12th level or so) and some of the feel from the earlier editions seemed to be lost but it was a great game.  It also allowed me to experiment with a lot of different styles of games and characters.

I think the math of 4e was much better and the fluff for 4e was really interesting. In play the heavy tactical nature of the combat felt more like a table top mini game than D&D to me and the match was heavily weighted towards combat balance and that did not give me the feel I was looking for in D&D.

So far 5e is giving me some of the feel of 1e and 2e and maybe some BECMI, the flexibility of 3e or at least what looks like that flexility but without the need to spend hours creating characters or leveling up those characters, and some of the math improvement of 4e.  It also seems to be geared to let me run low magic or high magic games with the same system - earlier editions did not really allow that without a lot of tweaks since the math was built with the magic items and magic required.

I don't really understand the hate I have been seeing in these and other forums, unless it is just resistance to change and general edition warring. 
I've played them all, and use different versions with different gaming groups. My home group, a bastardised mixture of 1, 2, and 3; online 3.5; Colorado group was 4 for a while. We stick to D&D as a brand, but the edition can vary. It's the story and the player and character interaction we're interested in, not the edition number on the book cover.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

I've played every edition of D&D (except the pre-Basic OD&D) and I love them all.  My order of preference is...

4th
1st
BECMI
3rd
2d

Out of curiosity, how come 1st and 2nd are so far apart? Heh, I cant tell the difference between them.

I've played every edition starting with Basic and 1st.

I've enjoyed myself in every edition except 3/3.5.  Maybe the groups or the DMs had something to do with it, but I do feel like the rules had a big influence on the playstyle, and it just always seems to turn into a kind of game I couldn't get into.
If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.
I think most of the readers of this forum are probably multi-edition players. The Xvengers (where X=your only and/or overwhelmingly favorite edition) may be a little more passionate about pushing for what they see as the "best" form of D&D, but I don't think they are the overwhleming majority of the playtesters. Those who prefer a specific edition of D&D are likely to stay with their favorite, as has happened at every new release, and that's fine. I hope they continue to contribute to the playtest, because it can only help Next be the best it can be, even if they don't plan to adopt it once it's finished.

I began with BECMI and 1e, and enjoyed them immensely despite the haphazard organization of material. D&D felt (and was) deadly in those days, and getting your character to even 5th level was something of an accomplishment. I skipped 2e (which came out right about the time I got married and was both working and going to school), and didn't pick up D&D again until 3e, when my children were old enough to start playing. 3e felt a lot more complicated in some ways, but it really cleaned up the basic mechanics (the d20 system) and we played our characters almost to epic level. (I also liked the cross-genre compatibility with d20 Modern/Future, Omega World, and Star Wars.) We switched to 4e (when the 3vengers were what the 4vengers are now ), and enjoyed it until we got to about 8th level, where HP-grinding combat just took so long it stopped being fun for us. (And yes, we tried a bunch of house rules, but nothing helped.) As DM, though, I loved 4e with the Compendium, because I could whip up strings of encounters really quickly.

I expect that whatever 5e ultimately becomes, it will do its best to combine features that were enjoyed by players of each edition. It won't satisfy any of us completely, and some perhaqps not at all, but I am having a blast with the playtest and looking forward to seeing Next evolve into whatever it becomes.
Out of curiosity, how come 1st and 2nd are so far apart? Heh, I cant tell the difference between them.


No half-orcs.  No monks.  A ridiculous non-weapon proficiency system (which is the best of the three skill systems offered).  Weapon specialization that absolutely penalized generalist fighters.  Other than the shift from attack matrices to THAC0, and the improved initiative system, I felt that almost every rules change between 1e and 2e was a mistake.

The only thing I prefer about 2e over other editions was the bard.
Fans of ALL of D&D Unite!  Also, I've played almost all of them (save BECMI).  I prefer 2e and 3e the most, but I still love 4e and 1e quite a bit!  I won't deny, the nerd rage and seeing posters acting like children is more than grating on the nerves.

Crazed undead horror posing as a noble and heroic forum poster!

 

 

Some good pointers for the fellow hobbyist!:

  • KEEP D&D ALIVE, END EDITION WARS!
  • RESPECT PEOPLES' PREFERENCES
  • JUST ENJOY THE GAME!
By the way, I did not mean to imply that 2e was a bad game.  I loved 2e, and probably spent as much time playing 2e as I did any other edition.  On my ranking it's at the bottom, but that still doesn't mean I disliked it.  I just didn't like it as much.
By the way, I did not mean to imply that 2e was a bad game.  I loved 2e, and probably spent as much time playing 2e as I did any other edition.  On my ranking it's at the bottom, but that still doesn't mean I disliked it.  I just didn't like it as much.

Interestingly, everything you hated about 2e, I saw as an improvement at the time.  In hindsight, I might not have removed quite so many options, but I still think 2e was strictly better than 1e.
If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.
I have played all versions of D&D released by TSR as well as 3e. 
  I have enjoyed each version of the game and find that I see strengths in each one.

    My preferences in order are:  
 .AD&D 1e
 .AD&D 2e.
 . BECMI
 .AD&D 2.5 Skills and Powers
 .Molvay's, Basic & Expert
 . WOTC D&D 3.e
  
I just realized how much money I have spent over the last 25 years.... Yikes!
By the way, I did not mean to imply that 2e was a bad game.  I loved 2e, and probably spent as much time playing 2e as I did any other edition.  On my ranking it's at the bottom, but that still doesn't mean I disliked it.  I just didn't like it as much.

Interestingly, everything you hated about 2e, I saw as an improvement at the time.  In hindsight, I might not have removed quite so many options, but I still think 2e was strictly better than 1e.


Each to his own!
Doc. Necrotic has it right. All the infighting is very discouraging and hurtful to the play test process- It needs to stop now.
                               "Edition wars kill players- That kills D&D"
I honestly wasn't expecting this many responses, its nice to see...  Thanks people.
"Edition wars kill players- That kills D&D"



Oh I like that.

My first D&D experience was Baldur's Gate (on the PC), but my first tabletop was 3e. Eventually played 2e, though (albiet with a poor DM).

So, I'd rank them:

4e
Iron Heroes
d20 Modern
3e
2e

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
Tough call.

Let's see.

3e -for customization between fighters of same level and rogues that chose where to specialize their skills (in PHB)

2e- for anti magic dwarves and dangerous magic, complete series, and settings galore

1e- for the dark and awesome DMG

4e-for the removal of 3e skill bloat, emphasis on the power of reflavoring

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Phoenix I would respectfully suggest getting away from stigmatizing language like "not true dnd" it tends to be a cause of folks getting their backs up and less likely to want to talk abou our hobby in a constructive fashion.
 
Phoenix I would respectfully suggest getting away from stigmatizing language like "not true dnd" it tends to be a cause of folks getting their backs up and less likely to want to talk abou our hobby in a constructive fashion.
 


Seconded.  Not only does it make it seem like there's no room in the discussion for any opinions that disagree, but it goes against the core design philosophy of Next.  If that's really your attitude, then Next will disappoint you, and quite honestly I see no reason for you to be accommodated in its design.

If 1e really is "true" D&D, then be happy and play that.  Don't attempt to force us to do the same.


And yes, I do like all editions of D&D.  That I've played, at least - I've still got a hole in 2e, though I'd absolutely welcome the opportunity to play it.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Looking at the posts that fly about this forum full of anger and rage (sometimes well hidden, but there) I was just wondering if there were many people in the same boat as me.

So does anyone else, like me enjoy ALL editions of D&D? None are flawless in my eyes, and some have glaring errors or omissions but I find them fun to play and can get a few good campaigns out of them at any time. My players will enjoy it and thats what counts.

Earlier editions have the benefits of being able to truly build up your character (beyond the realms of fairness) and later editions start slowly edging towards equality (which was a great draw for newer players). But the stories that we create around the framework can become eternally memorable no matter the edition.

The main reason I'm asking this... to be honest I'm starting to feel out of place without an axe to grind. Most of the posts about D&DN are seemingly factional edition wars set up in little skirmishes about key smaller points. 



The only thing sadder is that I have no time machine to bring contemporary gamers to know and understand my attitude towards this game.  It is hard to explain my love for the game, Chainmail.  I wish players could see this rpg called Dungeons & Dragons as a collection of artifacts, not bullets for battle.

True D&D is not the version.  True D&D is this model:

DM - Players - Fun

versions and rules come in somewhere around the question "Who's bringing the chips and what system we playing?"

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

I started with the basic and expert boxed sets.  Isle of Dread with the weird salamandery critters that lived in the volcanic vents of the last dungeon were great, Dinosaurs and KING KONG feel of that were AWESOME.

Moved in to AD+D initially cause "Hey its ADVANCED that MUST mean its better" (hey I was an obnoxious middle schooler) and I loved stuff in that.  World of Greyhawk boxed set, t1-4, gdq1-7 AWESOME.

Loved some of the stuff in 2e and kept some of the stuff from 1e (I never fought a baatezu in my life but killed a fair few devils).  Over all liked how things were streamlined to make more sense in 2e and LOVED some of the options that came out.

3e initially was another improvement with more streamlining and making stuff make sense.  Eventually I got bogged down in some of the  problems (they were problems for me anyway) in the game but when it first came out I really liked it.

 4th edition let me get back to having fun again that I lost toward the end of playing 3e and I havent lost it yet (although there are serious issues that I could see fixing especially for other folks playstyles)

Everyone was DnD and I had fun with each of them.

edit Miladoon YOU sir have hit what  "True DnD" is and I will even throw out yet one caveate it's not even necessarily DM-Players-Fun.. Am I the only one that remembers the random dungeon creation rules in the back of the 1st ed dmg.  Between the time I started in middle school and REALLY getting to play when I went away in college there were many times when I had no one to explore dungeons with so I made them up myself and ran my hero through solo.  Not ideal but it was better than nothing for a geeky maladjusted teenager.
 
The edition wars are not as simple as liking all editions or not liking all editions.  It is a simple support issue.  I don't think the edition wars would have ever happened if 3rd edition players were still going to receive support for their products in equal ratio.  That is the root of the problem.

Yes there are simple solutions, like just play without support, (like I do for Alternity, and occasionally TSR MARVEL), convert the new support to old support, etc. That does not solve the problem for those that like the rules support.  That is why so many did not stick with 3.5 and went to Pathfinder after the transition.

So when a company radically changes a game you have been playing for years, to make it essentially a different game, the fracturing occurs.  No new adventures, no new fluff, no new crunch.  It all goes to the new edition.

Seriously, why would anyone care about what version of D&D someone is playing?  Well it takes players away from the favored edition I suppose, but there are plenty of choices on the market.

The edition wars happened because one game is supported and the other is not.  I see the 'edition wars' in the last case as a road that LEAD to next.  There is very little I like about 4e over the other editions, and I protested with my wallet.  It seems like in this iteration WOTC listened to the fractured market.  Though the edition wars on the surface are negative, it lead to a positive step for D&D as a whole.

Some people are going to be upset, like the last edition change.  In my case at least, I feel with Next the design can really only make D&D a better game for me than that which is currently on the market.  Things in 3rd edition needed to be fixed for many people.  Many of those 3rd edition or prior players did not like the fix.  Maybe if NEXT incorporates those fixes into NEXT in a more acceptable way, those people will like the fixes.

I didn't like when they changed 2nd edition.  I resisted it for about 2 months.  When I played it I loved it.  When 4e was released I was enthusiastic, I played it and the enthusiasm wavered.  I gave it months, and realized it was not for me.  You cannot know if you will like a new edition until you play it. 

Perhaps I liked 3rd edition because of my enthusiasm with ALTERNITY while playing AD&D.  Perhaps I disliked 4e because I was hoping it would follow in SAGA's Footsteps.  I don't know. 

For me I had to make the decision, stick with 4e a game I don't like so I can get the fantastic support (Which it has been), or stick with 3rd edition, the one the designers have told me is wrong, and I will not get any support.  That is when protest arises.  Bring back my old game, I don't want the new. 

As a disclaimer I DM 4e on a regular basis for the organized events in my store, and everyone has a blast.  Including me.  it is still not the game system I enjoy.  I would much rather run Pathfinder for those people, but I get my comics on wednesday for a penny each if I run encounters and laire assault for them

When I run encounters with the mostly new people, my job is to sell the idea of roleplaying, and despite my feelings on the system I give them the same experience I would give Pathfinder players, except the adventures are nto my own. 







CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
To add a bit of meat to my OP... I am very hopeful for the direction of 5E its rough around the edges because its young. But there are a lot of positive signs and the games I have played thus far have been fun.

And fun feels like D&D. 
I started with 2nd edition in college and played it all the way through. We also did a little Cthulu, Warhammer 40K, and Heroes system (then called Champions). But D&D was what we mainly did an we played at least once a week. I had a blast.

After I graduated I found out some friends were playing 3.5. At the time I had no idea what that meant. I joined in because it was D&D! I liked the refinements to the system and things were good. I had lots of fun, but I didn't like the system mastery requirement. I didn't like that it was possible to think up an interesting concept and have the character be useless. I didn't like the the HUGE disparity of options for martials versus casters. eventually I got around this by creating characters simply through interesting multiclass mixes of the "good" and "almost good" classes.

I still play with the same group (accounting for a couple of subtractions and some other additions) and we have switched to 4E. It is my favorite system. I like that I don't have to second guess my character concepts to eliminate martial classes so I'll actually have something to do. I like that I can play ANY class and not have to worry. I like that there are tons of options for EVERYBODY.

I fully admit that I edition war, but only DEFENSIVELY. When someone starts posting their opinions about it like great pronouncements of world truths, or puts up one of the standard misconceptions about the system as some accurate account I get hot.

I hope that next can be what the designers have said. I hope it can be the edition for all. I hope they can bring back the cool stuff from the past without loosing the most recent good stuff. The most recent playtest packet has seemed to take steps to being that game. However I see no reason to allow some 4E hater to bitch away options and ideas from 4E simply because they don't like them. I will always offer a contrary opinion.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a nice little self created divide here. Shame there can't be more acceptance instead. I feel that is where the future of the game should be.

All this vitriol, pushing away, retroactive retaliation, and preemptive striking needs to stop.

I keep trying but some won't let things go. Will you?

 

Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus. Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.

Not many middle of the road people around here, they have agendas, to work in reasonable conversation forces you to get bombarded by these people pushing agendas forward.

Old tsr still has more people running those editions, ad&d 2ed dms in todays world out number all wotc dms combined. Though majority of players wanna play wotc d&d. They simply don't wanna play older editions due to many assumptions they have and they don't wanna give in, this leads even decent folks to jump in on the rage wagon(tsr gamers are plenty, we have more then whats needed for dms to handle our players).

I don't know what to tell you, I doubt next is gonna draw tsr dms into the wotc d&d group, I have moved on, I feel now I run a different game then wotc pen and paper games(I run 2ed and have for 20 plus years). I stopped being angry, I don't see rift gms here fighting over anything, I and other tsr d&d dms are so far apart from the wotc gamers that I think it's simply better to just view the two as different games in the complete sense.

Tsr d&d and wotc d&d both have elves but it pretty much ends there, wotc d&d is not better then tsr d&d, they are simply different companies who made very different games. Comparing tsr d&d to wotc d&d is like comparing rifts to wotc d&d.

Mentioning here that you prefer wotc d&d over tsr d&d is like taking the time out to say you like 3rd ed more then rifts(pointless to even state). I say you all stop worrying, keep your wotc gaming, no ones gonna take it from you, stop ditching on our game(wotc d&d is not better, it's simply a different game).

Wotc just uses the title of our game, shame but they want money! so I get it but I am sick of hearing their groupies lip off about real d&d.
Also I noticed people call a opinion sharing a simple annoyed feeling on something as nerd rage or getting called a troll for simply sharing a opinion the majority do not agree with.

Agendas will not being going away any time soon.



Can I count as a TSR DM because I run Alternity and Marvel Super Heroes FASERIP on a regular basis ;)

I would happily go back to running AD&D I have thought about it, but I like 3rd edition.  If AD&D was going to be published and supported again I would probably change in a heartbeat.



CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
Looking at the posts that fly about this forum full of anger and rage (sometimes well hidden, but there) I was just wondering if there were many people in the same boat as me.

So does anyone else, like me enjoy ALL editions of D&D? None are flawless in my eyes, and some have glaring errors or omissions but I find them fun to play and can get a few good campaigns out of them at any time. My players will enjoy it and thats what counts.

Earlier editions have the benefits of being able to truly build up your character (beyond the realms of fairness) and later editions start slowly edging towards equality (which was a great draw for newer players). But the stories that we create around the framework can become eternally memorable no matter the edition.

The main reason I'm asking this... to be honest I'm starting to feel out of place without an axe to grind. Most of the posts about D&DN are seemingly factional edition wars set up in little skirmishes about key smaller points. 


It's up to us as posters to change that tone. 

 

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

I started with the black cover AD&D, made the jump to 3E as soon as it came out, worked my way back through the older editions one at a time when we found them at used book stores, spent a summer rebuilding 3E in my own image, converted Saga to a fantasy RPG and then made the jump to 4E and never looked back.

My list looks like this;

4E
Converted Saga
2E AD&D
3E
Everything else

It's not a coincidence that that order closely follows my own opinion on ease of DMing.
Formerly Batshido, Captain America of the 4vengers
I only have extensive experience with 3.5 and 4e, and while I play 4e now, I really like 3.5. (I'm sure other editions are fine games, I just only have so much time.) The fact that I like both editions doesn't mean that I think either is at all flawless. Additionally, like a lot of people, I initially went through the sort of mental thing where you parse "New edition! Some stuff is different!" as "There's something wrong with what you like!", and basically didn't give 4e a fair shake at first before eventually coming around to it - I believed many of the things that I now see as annoying or frustrating misconceptions about the system. After several years of actually using the system, I have no shortage of things that I wish were better about it, of course.

It is slightly bothersome to see critiques of 3.5 - critiques I came to as a result of playing with and DMing in and loving the system for a long time - taken as attacks by some 4e player high on haterade. I hate teleport because I've done the "it's warded with the protection from adventure-skipper spells combo package" dance too many times, not becaue I want to beat down on an edition that I genuinely love and still have great memories of.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I've played:

Basic
AD&D (2nd Edition)
3rd
4th

====

The only one I gave up on was 4th as I will not play RPGs with a grid.

There are a handful of other things I disliked about 4th - but that's no different than ANY RPG I've played (other than Shadowrun - and ONLY the current edition of that game).

I can play any RPG that doesn't have an incredibly strong leaning toward tactical war gaming.
It is not my intention to discount your posts in any way but I'd like to point out that 1e, 2e, and ,3 also have rules for grid play. 3.e is very grid oriented for the rules for A.A.O.'s. I have played less grid in earlier editions personally but sure enough 1e. even has measurments written in inches so you can use a tape measure or ruler to play out simulated combats on a table.
But your opinions denigrate others and are against the design goals of Next.  They should not be incorporated into Next's design.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition


So does anyone else, like me enjoy ALL editions of D&D? None are flawless in my eyes, and some have glaring errors or omissions but I find them fun to play and can get a few good campaigns out of them at any time. My players will enjoy it and thats what counts.



I'm with you.  There hasn't been an edition of D&D yet that I didn't think was fun.  However, for the first time ever, 4e was a step backwards in the fun department for me, so I went back to 3.5.  I enjoyed 4e, but not enough to stay with it. 

Also, not everyone who seems angry, actually IS angry.  Sometimes it's just people responding to a bad post in kind, without actually feeling any kind of animosity. 

My preference order is...


3rd
BECMI
4th
2nd
1st          
My order of preference is:

4E

2E (the edition I started with)

3.0

3.5           
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
By the way, I did not mean to imply that 2e was a bad game.  I loved 2e, and probably spent as much time playing 2e as I did any other edition.  On my ranking it's at the bottom, but that still doesn't mean I disliked it.  I just didn't like it as much.

Interestingly, everything you hated about 2e, I saw as an improvement at the time.  In hindsight, I might not have removed quite so many options, but I still think 2e was strictly better than 1e.



I'm in the same boat.  Rather, I never liked half-orcs or monks, so I didn't mind the loss, and as poor as the non-weapon proficiency system was, it was a lot better than the no system at all that 1e had.  So while I liked both editions, 2e ranks higher for me than 1e.  2e also had more spells and magic items.
Sign In to post comments