{Hypothetical Thought Exercise} A cosmic being annihilates your favorite version of D&D...

[Celebrim]

My favorite edition is my homebrew version of 3.0e, which I'm playing now.

In the event the Cosmic Entity causes 3.0e to cease to exist, then I'm going to play some 3.X derivative - which will very rapidly evolve back to my current 3.0e house rules.

If all the 3.X derivatives also cease to exist because 3.0e having never existed, they had no source of inspiration, then I'm going to be playing probably a variant of my 1e house rules that included critical hits, attacks of opportunity, iterative attacks for all classes, scent, monsters with ability scores, and so forth and as such by this year 2013 I'd expect those rules to have evolved in to something that closely resembles my current 3.0e house rules.

In short, the Cosmic Entity has a problem, because I'm not hidebound to any edition and my current rules set deals with problems with the game that I've had with every edition in ways that I prefer to deal with them. To keep me from playing the way I like, he can't simply destroy someone else's work.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

No favorite version, so I win!

But let's say I had one ... I write my own replacement, I win!

 

[The Human Target]

HAHAHAHAHAHAH

Old School Gamers for the WIN!!

So, if you kill 1e, I play 2e core...and the best thing...it's at least close enough to 1e that it's almost the same thing!!!

Much closer than any of these other "editions" that came later.

BX and BECMI also have this advantage...sure it might not be exactly the same, but close enough that you can basically play the same game with BECMI that you were playing with BX overall.

What a charmer.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Losing one edition of D&D would not slow me down at all. I play several different ones right now, and all are good.

 

[GreyLord]

What a charmer.

Absolutely.

The point is that when discussing this topic, it make a far larger impact when talking about the later editions rather than the earlier editions.

If you count the earlier editions like AD&D how it did...you may even count individual printings as different editions (in some of their minds) which means the question of losing one is even less of an impact.

Hence, this question really is more of one that applies to anything after the turn of the millennium in my opinion...and if your favorite edition is prior to that...the impact is a LOT less then if discussing what happens if you lose 4e, or 3.x edition.

 

[Tovec]

My favorite edition is my homebrew version of 3.0e, which I'm playing now.

In the event the Cosmic Entity causes 3.0e to cease to exist, then I'm going to play some 3.X derivative - which will very rapidly evolve back to my current 3.0e house rules.

Really? 3.0 (classic)? I'm not saying it isn't a good game (I've never really played just 3.0 - I've done 3.5 stuff with 3.0 to fill in some holes). Is there a reason why you play 3.0 over 3.5 or PF for example? I'm curious if it is a specific mechanical thing that convinces you 3.0 is better, or if it is just cost (didn't feel like spending the money again on basically the same game)?

 

[Serendipity]

Really? 3.0 (classic)? I'm not saying it isn't a good game (I've never really played just 3.0 - I've done 3.5 stuff with 3.0 to fill in some holes). Is there a reason why you play 3.0 over 3.5 or PF for example? I'm curious if it is a specific mechanical thing that convinces you 3.0 is better, or if it is just cost (didn't feel like spending the money again on basically the same game)?

I can't speak for the poster in question, but if I had to play a WotC iteration I'd prefer to play 3.0 as well. I ran a 3.0 game for several years and I quite prefer it to 3.5 et. al. (Prefer in the sense of never changed over to 3.5.) It's IMO, looser, less fiddly, less grid oriented, and doesn't see the need to stack a pile of extra abilities at every level (which is more a pathfinder thing, but whatever). I would make the case that it plays more like older editions as well, but I'm fairly certain that's because of the people at the table and not the rules.

 

[DMKastmaria]

If 1e disappeared, I'll assume OSRIC would be gone as well. So, let's see.

Swords & Wizardry would be my go-to. With DCC & LL/AEC as back-ups.

Maybe squeeze in some Empire of the Petal Throne, if I'm feeling particularly retro-pretentious: http://jrients.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-got-your-threefold-model-right-here.html

 

[DMKastmaria]

I can't speak for the poster in question, but if I had to play a WotC iteration I'd prefer to play 3.0 as well. I ran a 3.0 game for several years and I quite prefer it to 3.5 et. al. (Prefer in the sense of never changed over to 3.5.) It's IMO, looser, less fiddly, less grid oriented, and doesn't see the need to stack a pile of extra abilities at every level (which is more a pathfinder thing, but whatever). I would make the case that it plays more like older editions as well, but I'm fairly certain that's because of the people at the table and not the rules.

Yeah, if I were to go back to a 3.x variation, it would be 3.0. Core only. Maybe run the Realms and use the stuff from the FR 3.0 setting book. But, that's all!

Though, I still kinda want to run Mongoose's Conan d20, one day. However, I'll probably end up using BoL for my as yet unrealized Hyborian Campaign.

 

[Umbran]

Absolutely.

The point is that when discussing this topic, it make a far larger impact when talking about the later editions rather than the earlier editions.

Yeah, that may have been a reasonable thing to point out, but you phrased in terms of win and loss for a group - which looks less like reasoned analysis, and more like edition partisanship. By needlessly coloring the comment, you reduced its ability to make the point.

As compared to, say, "I think earlier editions are more similar in design, such that losing one of them means there's more close relatives to choose from. Later editions don't have may similar games to move to."