Describing the Different D&D Editions

[TarionzCousin]

How would you describe the different D&D editions in three sentences or less each?

For extra bonus points, try to describe each edition in one sentence.

Negative points for edition warring.


This question came up because someone asked me what the main differences were between AD&D and 2E and I was stumped. I played both, but that was a while ago. What were the main differences in playstyle?

 

[Jhaelen]

This question came up because someone asked me what the main differences were between AD&D and 2E and I was stumped. I played both, but that was a while ago. What were the main differences in playstyle?

Imho, there wasn't a noticable difference in actual play. We converted mid-campaign back then without any problems.

2e introduced non-weapon proficiencies and made a few changes to classes, most notably the ranger, iirc. Apart from that it was more like AD&D 1.5, i.e. it incorporated a lot of errata and balance changes.

Also, with 2e came a flood of campaign settings and class kits. It also had better psionic rules and excellent monster manual fluff.

 

[FEADIN]

ADD1: Hack and slash, DM ruling on so many points not covered by the rules (who said swimming?), so much fun but we were young....
ADD2 (and what we called 2.5): More rules, the skills, the kits, class customization by points.
ADD3 (and 3.5): A little feeling of computer gaming, clear rules inviting optimization and you have to be 4 to play the game
ADD4: Never played, read to few to comment.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

You can't adequately summarize the differences in a manner that's very true or informative with only one or two sentences.

 

[MortonStromgal]

OD&D = Gonzo Fun
AD&D = Gonzo Fun with a few new options and more non-combat stuff
2e = Rules all over the place, lots of add-ons, still gonzo fun
3.X/PF = Cleaned up the rules to be consistent but lost some gonzo fun in favor of trying to balance things out.
4e = Trying to bring back the gonzo fun while keeping things balanced.

 

[Uder]

OD&D - Fun, but a lot of work
Holmes - My first. Don't make me say bad things about my first.
B/X D&D - Complete, perfect for the DM, cookie-cutter for the players.
BECMI - As B/X, but sharp edges ground off for the Toys'R'Us crowd.

AD&D - Excellent monsters, items, and funky tables to use with B/X. Removes some of the cookie-cutter problems for players.
AD&D 2nd edition - As AD&D, but sharp edges ground off for the children of hippies. Didn't require B/X rules to make it playable. The one where they made the game more accessible by publishing 8,000 books for it.

D&D 3e - The gravy train, the one where every fan could pretend to be a game designer.
D&D 3.5 - The gravy train rolls on, with a big creaking load of supplements attached. Tried to outdo AD&D2 with splatbooks. Failed. Suffocated on its own fat. Took down thousands of would-be designers' credit scores with it.
C&C - Is to D&D3 what B/X was to OD&D. Perfect for the DM, not enough build options for the build-oriented.

D&D4 - Clear! Zzzzzap! Clear! ZZZZZZzzzap! I can't get a pulse!

D&D5 - Sooner than you think.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Trying to stick to the core rules of each edition...

OD&D: The rules are confusing and form a very loose framework. The DM has lots of freedom, but is required to fill in a lot of gaps.

Holmes Basic: Levels 1-3 of OD&D described in a much clearer way.

AD&D 1e: OD&D + All Supplements and stuff from Dragon Magazine. A much more "complete" game than OD&D, but it also suffers from a lack of clarity in the rules. Also, too much was added- there are several sections should have been either revised or left out of the core rules (psionics, bards, monks, etc.).

B/X D&D: A revised and expanded version of OD&D/Holmes without most of the supplements. Clear, concise, well-balanced, and easy to learn/run.

BECMI D&D: A revised and expanded version of B/X. The C & M parts upped the complexity of the game to rival AD&D. The I portion is interesting, but rarely used.

AD&D 2e: Revision of 1e. Cleared up the ruleset and removed some of the bad ideas from 1e (psionics, assassins, monks, almost all of Unearthed Arcana). Kept/introduced new bad ideas (THAC0, poorly revised bards, unbalanced priest spheres, non-weapon proficiencies).

D&D 3e: Revised "to-hit" rolls and introduced ascending armor class, which was a big improvement. Made high-level play even less viable than in previous editions. Made "character building" a key feature of the game (selling lots of splatbooks in the process). Made miniatures-and-grid the default method of play (selling lots of minis in the process). Tried to cover every conceivable possibility in the rules (Why do this if you have an impartial DM to make rulings?). Took the fun out of being a DM (IMO). Added a broken and fairly useless skill system.

D&D 3.5e: Basically the same as 3e with a few revisions. Generated a new burst of core rulebook sales.

D&D 4e: Reinvented the game. Slaughtered many sacred cows. Made minis-and-grid virtually required to play the game. Made D&D more of a wargame/tactical rpg. New core rulebooks released every year. Didn't fix the most glaring problems with 3e/3.5e (rules reduced but are still bloated, player entitlement rampant, skills still useless, being DM is easier but still isn't fun).

 

[Haxor295]

4e: turned the game into a game that mimic WoW. nerfed EVERYTHING, made it so anyone can play with little difficulty.

 

[Dandu]

4e: turned the game into a game that mimic WoW. nerfed EVERYTHING, made it so anyone can play with little difficulty.

Yes, and the NPCs all have gigantic exclamation marks over their heads.

Thanks for bringing up a tired and inaccurate comparison yet again.

 

[M.L. Martin]

OD&D: Chaotic Neutral
1E AD&D: Neutral (Lawful Evil)
2E AD&D: Neutral Good
BECMI: Chaotic Good
3E: Lawful Neutral
3.5E: Lawful Neutral (Evil)
4E: Unaligned

Treat the above post with all the seriousness and respect it deserves.