Why do people still play older editions of D&D? Are they superior to the current one?

[ccs]

in what ways are 3.5 and 3rd better than 5th?

If you like lots of options then 3/3.5/Pathfinder v1 are the systems for you. Overall there's:
*Dozens of classes.
*Nearly any race can be made into a character race.
*About 3x as many skills, rules for them all, & you assign pts to them as you level - so you end up customizing wich skills you have & how good you are at each (though many peoples skill lists end up looking very similar)
*Upwards of 1000+ feats
*Alot more spells
*Many many times more monsters
*Defined rules for how to make & buy magic items.
*There's ALOT of support material written for these systems - settings, region books, adventures, etc
*Working psionics systems (I personally don't count that as a +, but if it floats your boat....)
*Direct PDF support for Pathfinder. Whatever Paizo prints you can get from them in PDF form without jumping through hoops.

IMO, between 3/3.5/PFv1? There's almost nothing you can do in 3/3.5 that you can't do at least as well with PF.

Can you convert monsters, adventures, various rules from 3x/PF1 into 5e? Sure. I do it all the time in our Thur game.
But if you've got a group willing to play 3x/PF you don't have to go to that effort.

and would it be worth it for me to learn the older versions?

If you've got other people willing to play it, absolutely.
If you're thinking of converting something (say an adventure or monsters) from it into 5e then I'd recommend being familiar with the PHB/DMG/MM for 3.5 or the Core Rulebook + Bestiary I for PF. It'll make the task easier if you know what's being talked about rulewise.
For ex: I have a friend who ran a module series from AD&D 1e for our 5e game. He'd never read or played 1e, so he had a tough time translating the stat blocks (especially the AC & Saves). I had to sit down & translate stuff for him.


As to why people still play previous editions?
*They like them. Or they like the current system less.
A perfect example of this is everything vs 4e. The vast majority of gamers simply didn't (and still don't) like 4e. At the time they wanted more 3x. But that's not what WoTC decided to try & sell.... It's WHY Pathfinder exists & has sold so well. Others simply went & played something else altogether. And after 4 years of not making the $ they'd hoped to, WoTC retooled the game into 5e - wich is doing much much better.

*$ - Unless you've pirated the PDFs, you could have spent ALOT of $ on books. Many people aren't real fond of flushing that kind of investment.

*The people they play games with are more willing to play ____ than they are 5e.

Myself? I prefer AD&D 1e, Pathfinder v1, & 5e. I'll happily play any of those 3.
Right now, of the two groups I play with, one prefers PFv1 & the other 5e.

 

[Retreater]

I can have fun with other editions. Last night we played Keep on the Borderlands with Labyrinth Lord with my old college friends visiting for the weekend. I also run regular 4e games, which I find better balanced and a better designed game than 5e. 5e is what I play when I want to introduce new players to the hobby, as D&D is what most people think of when they think of rpgs.
But in my opinion, 5e is nowhere near the pinnacle of great game design.

 

[Immortal Sun]

I'd say there are obvious reasons, like you have an existing game going and converting is hard. Or, you just really like XYZ addition.

But also, you can do different things in different editions. 3.5 is a little more LEGO-like, lots of fiddly bits and pieces to put together. 5E is more like Duplo, still bits and pieces, but less of them. 4E by comparison is lincoln logs, it's got similar elements, but totally different style and results. Older editions play differently as well.

I mean, you might as well ask why everyone isn't driving the newest car.

 

[(un)reason]

There are vastly more supplements for previous editions, and it looks like that will be the case for a long time with 5e's glacial release pace. That means more options for both players and DM, especially when using all the various 3e compatible 3rd party games released using the OGL. A ton of books written by a whole bunch of different writers at different companies allows for a lot more play variety than half a dozen all released by the same small group of writers and editors.

 

[Celebrim]

First, before I answer your question, the most important thing to realize about RPG's is that your processes of play are more important than your rules. That is to say, how you choose to play the game actually dominates over the experience of play compared to what rules you use to adjudicate the dicey stuff. You can play basically the same game with every edition of the game.

So beware arguments that revolve around how the rules force some particular process of play on to the game inevitably, especially if the person is not talking about 4e, which is the edition where the designers most tried to entwine the process of play and the rules together and most tried to tell the table how to play the game. (Certainly other editions have done so, as there are notable 'how to play right' comments in the 1e and 2e DMG, but they were mostly ignored.) While it may be true that the rules tend to cause groups to think about play differently, how you play D&D in any edition is very open ended.

The main reason that that people stick with an edition is familiarity. That is to say, once you are really comfortable with a system, it's just a lot easier to turn out content and run it smoothly than it is to pick up a new set of rules and map everything you did in one edition over to a new edition. Add to that that groups may have a lot of money invested in an edition, and they just don't have any reason to move.

Notalgia can be an important and related issue. While the 1e rules are kludgy, inelegant, incomplete, and often downright incomprehensible, the very fact that I spent 15 years playing the game that way gives me a warm glow when thinking about them.

And there are a lot of attractions still with 1e. The very incomprehensibility gives the 1e game a certain arcane appeal, as if its very lack of clarity contributes to its mysterious air. Reading a 1e rule book is less like reading a rule book than it is like reading a guide to some fairy tale world of which mortals have only a dim report. The vast majority of 1e tables not only evolved unique processes of play, but they evolved unique house rules that contributes to the particular flavor of the table. It's an organic and very modular play style, and it has almost all the defining IP of D&D. It's extremely basic character generation means its pretty quick to roll up a character, and equally quick to stat out unique foes. And it's the only system which has an attempt to model the effectiveness of medieval weaponry versus different types of medieval armor. It also has one of the best balances between casters and non-casters straight out of the box, as spell options are limited, casting in combat quite restrictive, and non-casters are vastly less squishy at high levels of play, balancing well with the M-U's ability to create dramatic effects.

It also has a ton of problems that will probably force you to keep houseruling for decades.

Right now I play 3.X and I've really never been happier with any RPG system I've played than my houseruled version of 3.X D&D. While 5e doesn't seem like a bad system, and I'd play it, I probably would never run it because I'm just so comfortable with my 3.X rules. If I played 5e, I'd almost certainly soon find problems I had with it along with things I'd like and wish I could steal. The advantage and disadvantage concept for example, is simultaneously the mechanics I most envy about the 5e design because its so elegant, and the mechanics that I think I would be most frustrated with where I playing 5e.

 

[Raith5]

I think 5e can be expressed as 'Greatest Hits Edition' in many ways. .

If you play previous editions for 'education' (rather than fun), I think the value of doing so is that it will give a you a better sense of the strengths and limitations of 5e. I have played all the editions of D&D and I think 5e's success is capturing the good elements of many editions, and really streamlining everything, even though it did indeed cut back on the options for PCs (compared to 3e and 4e). Playing previous editions also can enable you to draw in good game elements or ideas from previous editions.

 

[Zardnaar]

Older editions do certain things better. 3E/Pathfinder/4E has more options, AD&D is more gritty, 2E has a lot of settings that don't translate well to 5E, B/X you can build a domain and be a ruler and work your way up to King/Queen.

Generally I like 2E, 5E and B/X clones and ye olde classic adventures. B/X and 1E adventures are mostly compatible with each other.

If you want a gritty low magic setting 2E might be a good idea or if you like settings and levers. if you like grittier dungeon hacks 1E might be your thing, clean and simple rules that is grittier than 5E well B/X. Opitons options and more options 3E/4E.

It depends on what your preferences are or even mood. Sometimes I want to play 5E, other times OSR. Mostly its about your friends and hanging out playing D&D edition doesn't matter. The latest edition is easier to find players for, 4E being an exception there when Pathfinder took over.

 

[Morrus]

Different editions have very different "feels" to them. Some people prefer a certain feel.

You could think of it like music - various artists might cover a certain track over the decades. They'll all be great, and each will suit the time they were recorded, but some people will prefer certain version to others, even though it's basically the same track.

 

[GreyLord]

Hello everyone,,
This is kind of a general question, and I know that, but I see lots of people playing 3rd edition and even more 3.5, but why do they play those instead of 5e? I'm fairly new to 5e as a whole, and I'm just wondering, in what ways are 3.5 and 3rd better than 5th? Is it simply for the feeling of playing something original? Or does 5e do something terrible that can only be done correctly in past editions? Just genuinely curious, and would it be worth it for me to learn the older versions?

Your Question in the Title and your question above are two different questions.

In answer to the Title...

Why do people still play older editions of D&D? Are they superior to the current one?

Yes.

The answer is absolutely...but whether that answer holds true for someone is also entirely opinion based and reliant on EACH individual.

Thus, while some would not agree...for many, with whatever edition or version is their favorite, if it is not 5e, then they would probably say yes.

However, there is not a single solitary edition that this could be applied to.

For example, I love OD&D (w/Greyhawk...has to have Greyhawk to qualify in this for me), AD&D, BX, and BECMI. I prefer them FAR above 3e. If I had to go to a desert Island and could only bring one or two editions with me, I would choose any of those older versions before 3e or Pathfinder.

Which is what makes your actual question

Hello everyone,,
This is kind of a general question, and I know that, but I see lots of people playing 3rd edition and even more 3.5, but why do they play those instead of 5e? I'm fairly new to 5e as a whole, and I'm just wondering, in what ways are 3.5 and 3rd better than 5th? Is it simply for the feeling of playing something original? Or does 5e do something terrible that can only be done correctly in past editions? Just genuinely curious, and would it be worth it for me to learn the older versions?

An absolute

NO

For me.

Even though it may be a YES for someone else. I HIGHLY prefer 5e over 3e currently. In my opinion, it is FAR superior.

However, that may not apply to those who love 3e or Pathfinder. Some things they may feel that 3e did better than 5e could be...

No bounded accuracy.
No limited to level 20
Spellcasters are seen as more powerful
System mastery grants rewards to those who understand it
More classes and subclasses to choose from

And that's just the beginning or tip of what they might come up with. I think it is FAR more than simply whether one wants to learn another ruleset or not, I think many 3e players (and AD&D, and many other fans of other editions) simply just prefer the strengths of whatever editions is their preference.

The same would go for those who put 5e as their favorite. 5e is an extremely popular and well designed edition, and so anyone would also be justifiably right to say that there are no advantages (for them in their opinion) of any other editions over 5e...that 5e is the best and their preferred version.

There is no single ONE right answer to your questions, though I think the original question found in the topic is more open ended than the one you actually asked.

 

[Zhaleskra]

4e brought on a lot of changes that I didn't like, as I know what I like in a game. 5e claims to be able to emulate any previous edition of D&D. As far as I'm concerned, after being put off by 4e, that was too little, too late.

Also, when you've been a gamer long enough, you eventually have to ask yourself "How many times am I going to buy "the same" game?"

That said, I have discarded any idea of going back as far as AD&D2E. While I'm familiar with its warts, those warts are far easier to notice now than they used to be to ignore, and that's a problem for me.