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

[tvknight415]

The simplicity of B/X using the 3.x mechanic, with the adventures of 1E set in the beautifully detailed world's of 2E... all presented in a RC styled (1 book) format.

I'm not asking for much, am I?

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Original D&D or 1e AD&D, for me. I can't really pick just one. And besides, there's a lot of AD&D in my OD&D, and a lot of OD&D in my AD&D.

 

[nogray]

4e for me.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

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

As we didn't play 2nd - we used 1st for basic cosmology - and Good and Evil didn't play nice. It was a war. Also the gods were above any mortal abilities (we used the DDG as stats for an avatar). These were how we ran our cosmology - not D&D standard by any means, but what we came up with in 1st.

Much of the concept and the base ideas of Sigil & Plansescape were the opposite of that. The Lady of Pain could not deny the God's entrance and such. Philosophies that were not tied to alignment were not part of what we approached - and the GvE always was more important to us the LvC. So the idea of lawful evil and lawful good banding together against Chaos just didn't make sense to us.

In short for the things that were created to make Sigil/Planescape unique and something different were exactly the opposite of our ideas of what the outer planes should be.


Aethsteically I disliked the Cant, I disliked the factions, and I disliked the Lady of Pain. Not much to get into with all of that something I wanted to avoid.

We tend to play D&D to have clear cut bad guys and good guys (same reason we play super hero RPGs). Not a whole lot in shades of gray - the world has enough moral ambiguity, we game to get away from that. Planescape was just too much shades of Grey.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

...and the GvE always was more important to us the LvC. So the idea of lawful evil and lawful good banding together against Chaos just didn't make sense to us.

I can sympathize. Law vs. Chaos is a petty conflict compared to Good vs. Evil. Even when a DM can provide a coherent explanation as to what exactly Law and Chaos mean.

Also the gods were above any mortal abilities (we used the DDG as stats for an avatar).

FYI, this is standard fare for PS. Every time the gods (aka Powers) are mentioned in a PS book, there's always some comment like "...and only a berk'd think of crossing a Power, because everyone else knows that any one Power has more power in his pinky finger than any ten mortals have."

 

[The Human Target]

4th.

She has her faults, but we're still together.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

1st Edition AD&D is still the version that best accomplishes what I want the game to be and to allow me to do. Actually started with Holmes basic which worked okay when I was just a player but as I got deeper into the game it was a good thing that 1E came along. 2E was fine but loses a certain something that 1E had and thus is not the version I prefer. I definitely drank the 3E kool-aid when if first came out but it definitely takes the game in directions I don't care for. I can play it and run it without getting bent out of shape - but it's still not the edition I prefer. 4E... Well, I lost a lot of interest in it before it even came out; lost the rest when I actually read it. I still have never played it, though I'd be willing to give it a try just to see (unlikely since I'd have to seek out a 4E game to do so and that just ain't gonna happen), but at this point have no interest WHATEVER in EVER running it.

 

[TwoSix]

4e, hands down. 2e wins for settings and splats, though.

 

[Virel]

I always say AD&D or 1st ed AD&D and that's mostly accurate for my 1e/2e AD&D hybrid game. Some of the 2e fluffy stuff is used but most it's 1e in attitude. The demi-human level limits aren't used nor are a few other items.

 

[Umbran]

I prefer the one that's got the group I like to play with playing it - so long as I have that, I can find my fun in the rules.