Do you like D&D?

[Arnwyn]

However, I hate the fact that it killed or neutered all of the game worlds and their storylines. The flavor and fluff was much stronger back in 2E, and I miss that.

Yes, exactly that. It's why I voted "like current edition slightly more than all the previous editions".

So let's try to keep posts in this thread to discussion of the poll rather than arguments about the subject of the poll, for as long as possible.

The lines on the poll are, uh, different colored, and, uh...

 

[Voadam]

I moderately prefer.

I like a lot about the current edition. But I'd be happy playing in a game of a previous edition: basic D&D, 1e, 2e, or homebrew (possibly even hackmaster or C&C which I don't own). As a DM in some ways it was a lot easier running a game in earlier editions.

 

[Rashak Mani]

Played all editions... only a little of 1st edition though.

The 2nd edition is surely the worst. The 1st edition was good... but the 3.5 seems more complete and balanced. I prefer it over all others.

 

[mcrow]

Well a few months back our group decided to give 1E D&D a run for old times sake. Before this point I had nver played 1e before and played a good amount of 2 & 3E. We played for about an hour and finally I said "wow! This game sucks!" and we decided to play something else. Most of the other players in my group are a about 5-8 year older than me so theystarted playing during the 1e days while picked it up in 2e. They all pretty much said "yeah, this does suck. RPGs have come a long way". D&D has ,without a doubt, improved 100% since 1ED and improved almost as much from 2ED.

 

[Ourph]

This is an excellent community. A large number of people here do have open minds and are willing to talk about other systems from time to time.

For those who have asked, this is exactly why I'm here even though I don't particularly like 3.X D&D.

Unfortunately, it seems like a few posters who insist on making absurb inflammatory statements about 3.X D&D have salted the fields of reasonable discussion for others who might be interested in talking about (but not necessarily proseletyzing) other games.

 

[mmadsen]

It seems that there are a lot of folks here who actively, or at least vocally, dislike the current edition of D&D.

It's easy to conflate constructive criticism with attack though, and we often see "defenders of the faith" counterattack anyone who dares to suggest that D&D could be better (by adopting elements of the older game, by adopting bits of other RPGs, by taking the 3E design philosophy to the next step, etc.).

Certainly some people do goad fans of the current game with petty insults, but many other people try to discuss the game constructively.

 

[Desdichado]

I can see things inspired by D&D in d20, but that doesn't make it simply the "latest edition" of the game. Again, BD&D and AD&D were two seperate games. Acknowledging this isn't casting aspersions on either. Neither should it be considered such to point out that "D&D 3.x" is actually a wholly seperate game from what was before known as "D&D."

Yes, it does make it the latest edition of the game. By virtue of the fact that the owners of the trademark say so, and print that name right there on the book.

I'm not arguing that OD&D, BD&D, AD&D and D&D3.x aren't all different games, to varying degrees, but refusing to call D&D D&D and instead calling it d20 makes no sense whatsoever, and is technically wrong. Maybe you've got a really good reason for doing so that I can't see, but the only one I can think of is to cast subtle aspersions against the current edition.

 

[Faraer]

The spirit of 3E D&D is different from that of earlier D&D games. If it seems different enough to a particular person, if the parts of the D&D spirit that were most important to them have been dropped, if it seems to be an abrupt shift in tone and philosophy, they might reasonably say that the current game was, to them, not D&D. I think that's reasonable; it's more meaningful than going by the mere legal fact of who owns the trademark.

 

[fredramsey]

If it were presented in that spirit, I would agree. However, the bold part of your statement below defies good sense, IMO.

Perhaps if you had added, "to that person" it would have made sense.

The spirit of 3E D&D is different from that of earlier D&D games. If it seems different enough to a particular person, if the parts of the D&D spirit that were most important to them have been dropped, if it seems to be an abrupt shift in tone and philosophy, they might reasonably say that the current game was, to them, not D&D. I think that's reasonable; it's more meaningful than going by the mere legal fact of who owns the trademark.

 

[Quasqueton]

Sort of like an old WWI pilot looking at an F-22 and telling its pilot, "That ain't a fighter plane."

Quasqueton