1E/2E/OD&D, 4E, and finally 3E

[InVinoVeritas]

I read the 4e PHB, and felt that the system was so much more a game than a world, that it completely changed the feel. Very different, but maybe not what I'm looking for.

I still love 3e/3.5e. I'm running (well, limping) a 3.5e Ravenloft game online right now that is very heavy story, and the rules still aren't getting in the way.

That said, making up new creatures was still even easier in O/1/2e. You want a creature that does something bizarre... it does it. End of story. It certainly would have made some things in my game simpler. However, I've recently cracked open all my old books, and... 1e is still poorly structured (but I did roll up a cool half-orc Fighter/Assassin). 2e starts out great and devolves into a pile of lackadaisical goo by the end of the 90s. OD&D is simple, straightforward... sometimes committing the sin of omission instead of commission. Still, most of it is solved with some handwaving.

You get lots of well-laid-out crunch in 3e, and I like that. A rule system should cover a lot of ground, simply, and still leave you the chance to build on it or not. (AoO is a breeze if you've ever played Blood Bowl!)

So, for me, it's 3e, then O/1/2e, then 4e.

 

[SableWyvern]

I'm currently tracking down 1E core rules

Are you aware that there's a lot of 1E stuff available on pdf from the ENWorld store?

EN World PDF Store - D&D (older editions) - RPG PDF downloads

 

[RFisher]

Nah. 3e (3.0e even) sent me back to Basic(s) long before 4e came out.

 

[Luce]

I like 2ed the best. Part of it might be that it was my first exposure in D&D, but I believe it is also its "plug-and-play" rule modularity(there are a lot of subsystems and variants, but those are not integrated in the system); great settings(Planescape, Dark Suns ...); as well as general feel of heroism without loosing sence of danger (to give example from an official adventure (Ex Keraptis Cum Amore dun 77 8-12l adventures have a chance to defeat 25l suel lich, but still have to be careful about gas spores) My initial disappointment with 3rd edition stemmed from trying to convert my existing campaign and getting frustrated with the differences of feel, especially how monster power scale was rearranged and magic becoming too assessable for my tastes. Once I started a new campaign I realized that 3ed especially with 3rd party products is also very good. From what I have seen 4ed seem interesting game, but for the time being I feel no reason to try it. When the latest edition was announced, I took my old game books and started to plan that Planescape campaign I have always wanted to run.

 

[BryonD]

4E has renewed my energy for 3E.

Probably 60% because it has pointed out to me how much I had and was really taking for granted and 40% because the realization that 4E is here and what it is has made many people re-consider 3E and lots of new spins on things are around. So you get new fresh spins on the same awesome mechanical base.

 

[Dwarf Supreme]

See I love 3.5 complexity.

Same here. Having witnessed the evolution of D&D, (started playing in '76 with the original rules) I prefer having more complexity. Each edition appealed to me at the time, but I prefer 3.0/3.5. I think skills and feats work far better than non-weapon proficiencies did with AD&D. I've dug out all of my Spelljammer stuff and I'm working on converting it to 3.5. I can't wait to spring it on my group! 4.0 may be a "better" system, but I really have no desire to play it, especially when I consider how much I've invested in 3.5.

 

[taichara]

In an amusing fit of prescience, I'd made the decision to return to 2e a scant two months before 4e was announced. I like 3e well enough, but it's quite frankly too time-consuming, balance obsessed and packed with Godzilla-sized statblocks for my comfort. 2e gives me everything I want, and room to tinker with what I want.

Between 2e and finally scavenging up a copy of the Rules Cyclopedia, I don't think I'm much concerned about 3e or 4e (even if thematically Pathfinder has a certain appeal, I can borrow theme).

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Nah. 3e (3.0e even) sent me back to Basic(s) long before 4e came out.

Same for me. I started growing dissatisfied with 3.0, never bought 3.5, and started looking at other systems around that time. I bounced around for a while before falling in love with little-brown-book OD&D, which I had never played, back in day (I started with Holmes and moved immediately into AD&D).

 

[Betote]

My first D&D was AD&D 2e, and I loathed it. It was just a bunch of rules that made no sense, and everything working so differently was very clunky. Also, it felt very cartoony to me.

When 3e came out, I didn't fear I would like it less than 2e... It was nearly impossible! And what I found was a streamlined version of Rolemaster. I kinda liked it, but I was more into rules-light games back then (I mostly ran Fudge or Risus, with the occasional Call of Cthulhu). The game wasn't bad (although still a bit clunky for my tastes), but it wasn't until I came upon an issue of the Dungeon Magazine (the one with "the Devil Cage" module) that I dared to run it. I loved it, it was a very streamlined although very complete system. People kept saying it was a total mess in the higher levels, but I have yet to run an adventure with PCs above 7th level, so it was something that happened to other people.

Then the announcement of 4e came out. I was utterly uninspired by its first previews, and the designers saying it had so much to do with Bo9S and Star Wars Saga Edition (two books I don't like ruleswise) made me even more leery. Now it's out, and it isn't half as bad as I had feared. Nevertheless, For my campaign games I prefer more detail and less "gamisms", so 3.x (now PFRG) is still my campaign game of choice. But it was never a matter of "3.x or other edition". It was 3.x against RuneQuest, Rolemaster or, perhaps, Warhammer.

Now, for pick-up games, I have two choices depending on what I want to run. If I'm more onto roleplaaying and make-believe, I take my RC or LL. If I want to go dungeon bashing, I take 4e. And if I don't want dungeon fantasy, there are still a lot more games out there (I have a burning desire to try out Dark Heresy, and I have a cliffhanger on a "Lost meets the Cthulhu Mythos" game that I plan to put and end to someday).

 

[RFisher]

I think skills and feats work far better than non-weapon proficiencies did with AD&D.

I suspect most of us would agree with that. My impression is that most old-schoolers don’t use NWPs.