Which D&D edition do you *really* prefer?

[Jhaelen]

For me it's 2e background material and 4e rules.

 

[Li Shenron]

3.0 for me...

I would like to say 5e, but they are not a complete game yet, and also I have the feeling that I will be disappointed by next iteration of the playtest rules.

3.0 is far from perfect, its main drawback for me is that it still has plenty of unnecessary complications which make the game slower to prepare and run than I would want it to be, but I prefer the core rules clearly over any other edition. If I also consider non-setting specific supplements, then 3.0 wins even by a larger margin (but that's because for my tastes supplements have an average negative effect on their edition, so the more supplements the worse).

If I consider also setting-specific supplements then it's not so obvious since AD&D had more imaginative settings, but I haven't actually read many of those books to be sure.

 

[Desdichado]

If I consider also setting-specific supplements then it's not so obvious since AD&D had more imaginative settings, but I haven't actually read many of those books to be sure.

Everyone always talks about the great settings from 2e. And while I don't disagree that there were some cool ones, at the same time, where's the love for the OGL settings? Freed from many of the constraints that limited TSR, a lot of third party guys have really managed to raise the bar in terms of innovation and imaginativeness in setting design, IMO. I think the golden age of D&D settings was the middle to late part of the 2000s, when the OGL had been put through its paces, and the remaining publishers were winnowed down to folks who really had something great to offer the market, and the means and method to do so.

Although granted... they weren't "official" D&D settings, which I guess maybe makes them not count or something.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

4th Edition.

TL;DR:
4e.

 

[Li Shenron]

Everyone always talks about the great settings from 2e. And while I don't disagree that there were some cool ones, at the same time, where's the love for the OGL settings? Freed from many of the constraints that limited TSR, a lot of third party guys have really managed to raise the bar in terms of innovation and imaginativeness in setting design, IMO.

Good point, but I cannot speak for myself because those few which I've seen personally either weren't good, or were good (Midnight, Kingdoms of Kalamar) but not particularly original.

Also, there is a question whether to judge an edition by the best books published or by the average... if you judge by the best then 3ed + OGL had so many published altogether that it probably is an unfair advantage, but if you judge by the average then having many more publications may actually be a disadvantage.

 

[billd91]

Everyone always talks about the great settings from 2e. And while I don't disagree that there were some cool ones, at the same time, where's the love for the OGL settings? Freed from many of the constraints that limited TSR, a lot of third party guys have really managed to raise the bar in terms of innovation and imaginativeness in setting design, IMO.

There may have been a lot of them, but that may also work against seeing a lot of people call them out as being particularly good. Relatively few people have common experiences with each of them compared to when there was only one major source of AD&D campaign materials.

 

[Psion]

3.5 as houseruled to ignore more matt-centric rules they added between 3.0 and 3.5.

Really, 3.5 had figured out a lot of things about the system and started to do many things right. But 3.0's approach to size and cover worked better for me, since I am sort of one of those "mind's eye" sort of players.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Everyone always talks about the great settings from 2e. And while I don't disagree that there were some cool ones, at the same time, where's the love for the OGL settings?

Pretty much agree.
The non-FR areas of toril were cool. For complete settings.. not so hot about.
I disliked Dark Sun and Ravenloft - they were too dark for my taste.
Planescape left me completely cold. I didn't like it's assumptions and I found the cant hard to read.

Spelljammer however is one of the best setting ever made.

For the D20 stuff - Nyambe was excellent, Dawnforge had some cool elements, Midnight was a bit too dark for me, but I loved the conceit of "this is LoTR 100 years after Sauron won" feel. Monte's Diamond throne was one of my favorite settings - then if you move one - You get Golorain, and I really really like how that one was set up. It really grabs me.

 

[wingsandsword]

3.5 as houseruled to ignore more matt-centric rules they added between 3.0 and 3.5.

Really, 3.5 had figured out a lot of things about the system and started to do many things right. But 3.0's approach to size and cover worked better for me, since I am sort of one of those "mind's eye" sort of players.

I will certainly agree there.

3.5e was best overall, but it clearly was more complicated in the math and technical details than 3.0e

Now, I understand why, in theory, they did this. I played plenty of 3.0 with powergamers who took 3.0e and broke it hideously through multiclassing combinations, poorly worded class abilities and spell descriptions, and other rules loopholes, but in making a game powergamer-resistant, they increased the typical player and GM math workload and in some other ways made classes less fun for players (preventing front-loading was good for beating some insane multiclass combos that were out there, but it made players wait several levels for class abilities that seemed like key aspects of their class.

3.5 had an advantage on 3.0e in the supplemental materials generally being better, and the rules were mechanically more sound, but with a group of friendly, relaxed players who weren't going to intentionally break the game by rules lawyering, I would probably actually prefer 3.0e, with maybe some favorite bits of 3.5e supplimental crunch retrofitted and some of the better (non-math-impacting) 3.5e rules changes brought back along with it.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I usually say that 4e is my favorite edition, rules-wise, but to be more accurate the Complete 4th clone is my favorite. DMing C4, I have a grand total of two house rules: 1) hex map for battles, and 2) no XP.

Fluff-wise, my favorite is a homebrew world that's a blend of many different things -- the Dying Earth, Exalted, the First Law trilogy, a little Planescape thrown in for good measure, and even a couple original TS ideas.

Planescape left me completely cold. I didn't like it's assumptions and I found the cant hard to read.

I'm curious which assumptions you didn't like.