D&D Red Box vs. AD&D 1st vs. AD&D 2nd vs. D&D 3.0 vs. D&D v.3.5

[Lanefan]

The great things about the various editions as published are:
1e: The adventures
2e: The settings
3e: The rules

Fortunately, I can (and have) tap the two previous editions for materials. This sort of question is really asking what rules you are most interested in; for me it's 3e without a doubt. But really, if you think about it, I'm playing all 3 editions -- just tapping the best aspects of each.

I've gone the other route: I run 1st-Ed. (with 25 years of modifying included free of charge) and have stolen ideas from 2nd-Ed., 3rd-Ed., and pretty much anywhere else I find 'em. So I suppose in a way I'm also playing several editions all at once.

Lanefan

 

[RFisher]

When the RC came out, I'd pick it up everytime I'd pass a book store, but I never bought it. I played more sophisticated games now.

I played a on-a-lark AD&D2e game & was surprised at how simple yet satisfying it was, but I still found it obsolete.

When 3e came out I was excited. This was the D&D I'd always imagined creating myself. The best of AD&D1e & the RC along with those "modern" improvements from Gurps, et al.

But, month by month, I became more & more dissatisfied.

I read Gygax's tales of the early days in Dragon magazine. They made me want to game more than anything had done in a long time. I sought out more tales & found some of Kuntz's recollections. Then Michael Mornard's. (& a couple of others)

Following Gygax led me to Dragonsfoot. I wondered, why would these people be playing a game I gave up as hopelessly obsolete c. 1990? I tried to find out.

I started to remember the wonder I had early on, before I started to find faults with the game.

I discovered a new ways to look at old things. Ways that I liked! I started to ask, "Why is the point of this rule?" instead of "Why is this rule broken?"

Now, when I look at 3e, I see fixes for things that no longer appear broken. I find fuel for my rule-lawyer habit. (Which I no longer see as a good thing.)

Nostalgia. Being older & having less time & finding the simpler game fits in my life better. A change in my tastes in general. Those are a few of the reasons. See my website for more...

 

[orsal]

I used to play a lot in the days of 1/e AD&D (started with Basic but switched very quickly), gave it up, and recently started playing again (3.5). I have no firm loyalty to either version -- there's a lot that I prefer about each. Acutally, what I like most about the current version is exactly the same as what I dislike most about the current version: the many options involved in character creation. I like it, because my characters aren't all shoehorned into narrow archetypes. There's so much more creativity involved for a player. At the same time, I miss the characters that fit on 4"x6" filecards. It was so much easier to introduce a new player to the game back then -- guide them through character creation, and in 10-15 minutes they're ready to start playing. When the character creation process is so complex, though, it becomes a lot less enticing.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

The great things about the various editions as published are:
1e: The adventures
2e: The settings
3e: The rules

Eloquently put. Although there have been some very good settings and adventures for 3e, too.

For me, it's a lot easier to roll 1e and 2e into 3e than the other direction.

 

[Valdur]

Not inferior/superior, just different.

I prefer B/X D&D and 1e AD&D to 3e for various reasons, but none of that really matters. My group currently plays 1e because we have a darn good time doing so and that's the best reason of all.

What he said.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

My favorite bits of the different editions....

1e(basic): Taking the red Erol Otis artworked book to 3rd grade and trying to make sense of obscure words like initiative and periapt.

1e(advance): I never owned these, I only read them when I could borrow them from friends. I had no idea that it was not the "same" game as 1e(basic), I just thought it was more info. I LOVED to read the monster books.

2e: The first version I actually played, as opposed to read. What we played in HS and I have plenty of fond memories. I always hated the fighter in this edition because I could never figure out who in their right mind would want to be one instead of a Paladin or Ranger. Has the best monster book ever made (the black covered Monstrous Encyclopedia with the ecologies in it).

3e: Took me out of my Warhammer 40k phase. Heck of a lot cheaper to adopt. Loved the effort made to "balance" everything. Being a 40k player I liked the tactical wargame focus of the new edition, it made combats much more than "I attack".

4e: Looking forward to the future, if I had to chart a course I would say....merge some skills...simplify running higher level games somehow...remember to include some good fluff with the cruch. I think that the Forgotten Realms campaign book is one of the best books written so far because its something I can actually sit and read 10 or more pages and not see a table or chart, only storyline.

DS

 

[DanielSchenstrom]

I prefer AD&D 2nd ed because my players and I find it the simplest version in actual play. Like many others I take what's best from the other editions and include them into my game like the roll-high-only-system from 3e, and the extra detail like the age groups from 1st ed.
I use the DMG from 1e as inspiration for almost all my fantasy campaigns.

When I play red box D&D I use only the boxed rules sets and take nothing from AD&D to use with it.

 

[Odhanan]

If so, why do you still play the old versions of D&D and in what way do you think they are superior/inferior to the other versions?

Well, I haven't played older versions of D&D for a while, but I will do it again eventually (more sooner than later, I think). Why? Because the feel and type of entertainment you get changes with each edition. And it's good to vary. The AD&D 2nd Edition rules set is the one I appreciate the less.

If I was to run an old timer's game tomorrow, I'd be using the Rules Cyclopedia.

 

[Vartan]

why do you still play the old versions of D&D and in what way do you think they are superior/inferior to the other versions?

I'm not taking this from an "edition wars" standpoint: I've played 3E and it is all-around a more elegant, fun, intuitive and robust system than those that came before. A lot of the classic gamer syndrome (with which I'm severely afflicted) stems from nostalgia.

For me, I still like to run 2E because I'm so familiar with it. I know it like the back of my hand, I own a ton of the books, and I can easily make it sing and dance without too much effort. The same goes for my core group of players. We cut our teeth on the Basic/Expert sets at the age off 11, and came into our own with 2E from the age of 12 onwards. We're all in our late 20s now, so it's easy to understand that we're a bit stuck in our ways. It's easier (and cheaper) for us to play 2E than it is for us to learn a new system inside-out. I know enough about 3E that I can sit down every week with another group, but I couldn't DM it in good faith. So, 2E for me, at least for a while longer