I've figured it out.

[Panthanas]

I had to choose 'Other' since I started playing a few months after 2E was released. I didn't have any knowledge of the previous edition, other than their was one...since I was starting with the second edition .

The people that introduced me to the game had been playing for some time and switched to 2E though.

 

[WayneLigon]

We switched almost at once, with great relief. 2E brought us back to D&D for some time. We never had anyone play a monk, no-one was allowed to play an assassin, and no-one ever played a half-orc, so we hardly noticed those changes. We all thought that 2E was a big improvement. Now, looking back, I can see it wasn't the level of improvement that was needed, but it was good enough at the time. We never did use kits and we never used the Option books that came later.

 

[pogre]

We left D&D to play Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay for 10+ years. I never owned a 2E rulebook, but purchased many adventures and the Al-Qadim material. We picked up 3E to play the original adventure line and have stuck with it. I am looking forward to the new WFRP though - playtesting it was a lot of fun.

 

[Maliki]

I switched over right away, I was still fairly new to the game and knew nothing of all the corperate goings on. I enjoyed every minute of 2nd edition and played until the release of 3rd edition, then 3.5. I have since moved on to C&C(I found I hated 3rd edition),

 

[Mercule]

I started a new campaign (college, every year's a new game) using 1E. I don't remember exactly why, but 2E didn't much thrill me. I always said I was running a 1E campaign using some house rulse from 2E (thief skills, sneaky rangers, and customizable priests).

In short order, the default PH was 2E, the DMG was 1E, and MM and suppliments were whatever I felt like. When I really got a sour taste in my mouth was when the splatbooks started coming out. I dropped D&D -- and pitched all my papers, etc. -- when TSR started harassing people for using the words "Hit Points" on newsgroups. That wasn't a sole cause to leave, but it was enough of a last straw for me to vow to never buy another product from TSR -- and I didn't.

Since I moved very rapidly from "Basic" D&D to AD&D, my mind really recognizes 1)Proto-AD&D (Diaglo's favorite); 2) 1E; 3) 3E; and 4) a morass of bungled rules, poor corporate PR, and Forgotten Realms that existed between #2 and #3.

The stuff that eventually became the Cyclopedia, I can see as a sister game, but it's not part of the same series, IMO.

 

[ivocaliban]

Unlike so many folks here I don't have a D&D chronology etched into my brain. When people say "I started with the Fuschia Box" or what have you, that doesn't mean anything to me. Very few people use dates in this thread, so I have to assume that either A) you're all much older than me, B) you started playing right out of the womb, or C) there was a college course on the Evolution of D&D that I missed out on as an elective.

I started playing in 1991 with the Rules Cyclopedia and the Black Basic Set. I believe this was a couple of years after AD&D 2nd edition came along, so I answered that I wasn't born yet.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I went screaming from 2e to Alternity (which solved my 2e problems, especially problems related to stats and skills) to 3e somewhat reluctantly (it's popular) to D20 Modern (solves about 80% of my problems with 3e). Right now I only GM for Modern, but I'll still play 3e.

So, maybe I'll be quick to jump to 4e when it comes out, but it would have to be very different from 3e to peel me away from D20 Modern.

 

[BOZ]

i'm rather surprised by the results of the poll, what with the regular and near-constant 2E bashing i see around here.

and i hadn't really considered what grodog posted before - and i could see why a change like that would turn someone away from the new version of the game. it didn't do that for me, as i started D&D with 2E, but i was surprised and disappointed myself when i started to think about it. i remember seeing vague mentionings in the PHB and DMG about demons and devils (not referred to that way), such as in the clerical turning section where it lists that "creatures from other planes" or somesuch can be affected... and to tell the truth, i was never thrilled when the Monstrous Compendium series Outer Planes appendix re-introduced them as Baatezu, Tanar'ri, and Yugoloths... and was happy that 3E restored them somewhat.

the www.tsr.com site used to have that Preview as a free download. it may still be there, but i haven't looked for it recently.

that's a redirect to the Wizards website.

 

[Virel]

Some of you may know this already, but I've been struggling with this. Reading all these threads about the various edition, I think I've finally come up with a reasonable theory as to why people tend to hate 2nd edition, but love 3rd edition.

Fast forward 12 years when 3rd edition comes out. Now, almost unanimously, people love this game. Why? Because those original campaigns aren't being run anymore. *Most* people don't have campaigns that span 12,13, 14+ years. So, people could start fresh with 3rd edition, and be ok with it. Plus - hey, it has the monk and barbarian, so it must be good. Ignoring the fact that 3rd edition is to 1st edition like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is to a hamburger.


This is my theory. Any thoughts?

We stole what was worth stealing from 2ed and kept playing 1st ed AD&D. Several new players entered the game just as the 2nd materials came out and the 1st ed ones weren't in the stores anymore. My campaing started in 1980 was still going strong in 1989 and I wasn't about to redo it for 2nd. There are many things I detest in 2nd ed to this day because it would have changed the nature of my campaign. We stoppedin late 1995 and the Greyhawk Celene campaign had ran for a little over 15 years.

When we started playing again in Aug of 2004, I mentioned switching to 3e and we talked about it. Yet in the end the old campaign had much player history and it was my old game group reforming. There was no way I was going to take the time to convert 15 years + of stuff to 3e. Being the DM most of the time, 3e didn't fit very well with my campaign and looked time intensive to develop new encounters, NPC's etc. Being that I don't use many printed modules and like to develop stuff, 3e as DM rubbed me the wrong way right fromt he start. The core books were boring. The 1st ed ones were inspiring. The players were less than impressed with 3e after they looked at the books. I think someone in the group owes at least one copy of everything printed for OD&D, OAD&D & 2nd ed AD&D.

The old OAD&D campaign is back with a vengence with 3 adventure groups, 9 players and 28 PC's. I don't even want to think that that would be like book keeping in 3e. Since much of the gaming has been player directed since the 1980's being flexiable on the fly and fast is key. The rules in 3e work against this. Many will be reading this thinking oh 3e is just to hard for you. Not really, 3e is joke as far as complexity goes compared to the wargames I've played. The record keepin in 3e isn't something I like very much.

While I'm always happy to play 3e, as DM I find the system - slow and clumsy. Combat in 3e crawls compared to combat in other editions. This works against pace. We had the Celene Campaign take on a life of it's own many times, fast pace has always been a key factor in making this occur.

I what I did like about 3e and part of the reason I wanted the players to consider it was since it was the "new" system, I felt it might give the group that "I just played for the first time" feeling again.

So in short the old Greyhawk campaign derailed 2nd ed and 3e as well.

Just my .02 on the topic.

 

[grodog]

Unlike so many folks here I don't have a D&D chronology etched into my brain. When people say "I started with the Fuschia Box" or what have you, that doesn't mean anything to me. Very few people use dates in this thread, so I have to assume that either A) you're all much older than me, B) you started playing right out of the womb, or C) there was a college course on the Evolution of D&D that I missed out on as an elective.

I started playing in 1991 with the Rules Cyclopedia and the Black Basic Set. I believe this was a couple of years after AD&D 2nd edition came along, so I answered that I wasn't born yet.

For reference, ivcaliban, you can always check the Acaeum at www.acaeum.com or Adrian Newman's TSR Archive at http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/

Then you too can reference the first printing of the Holmes basic set with impunity