What D&D is to me, in terms of editions.

[nightwyrm]

I guess my experience and view of D&D would be pretty unique because of my background. I started playing D&D in the mid to late 90s with 2nd edition in highschool. We were a bunch of recent HK immigrants to Canada so we weren't brought up with traditional Sword & Sorcery or LotR influences. Heck, I don't think we ever did a traditional Gygaxian dungeon crawl in our games because it never occurred to us that we should just go to an old tomb and rob it because we wanted to get rich. I didn't even know who Gygax was back then.

Instead, we were heavily influenced by anime, JRPGs and wuxia. We used the D&D system simply because it was the famous one, but we changed whatever we wanted in order to incorporate the cool stuff we were watching. If it was cool, we tried to make it work. We tried to make jedi classes, kungfu classes, etc. My paladin had the ability to turn hp into to hit and damage bonuses in order to emulate powers from DBZ.

So, as a result, I never thought of D&D being restricted to medieval fantasy. It was simply a system that allows me and my pals to escape reality and do fun things. We were never burdened with "this is the way D&D should run coz this is tradition and what D&D was made for." Instead, my gaming approach had always been: "If it's fun or cool, I'll try to make it work." Thus, when the anime/wuxia influenced ToB came out, I was happy. When 4e came out with slick powers and simplified rules, I was overjoyed. I had no sacred cows when it came to D&D. I have no problem with D&D incorporating whatever works from whatever source and getting rid of anything that was clunky or makes for poor play.

To me, D&D is simply a game where you and some friends play the hero who kills the dragon and saves the princess and have a good time. I both admire the comprehensive and all inclusive rules of 3.5 as well as the elegant math and speedy gameplay of 4e. I like to go to CharOps and analyze the math or go to other gaming forums to discuss the different aspects and rules of D&D. But at the end of the day when I sit down at the gaming table, it's just a game to relax and have fun. Whatever the rules, whatever the edition, it doesn't matter much to me.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I agree (with the OP) - there is one hell of a disconnect between 4th edition and all other editions of D&D, collectively.

That doesn't actually bother me, funnily enough. After all, I left AD&D for other RPGs, then came back to 3e, not because it is D&D, but despite that fact. It took a lot of persuasion to even get me to look at it.

My strong dislike for most aspects of 4e has nothing to do with the fact that it doesn't look like D&D at all. To me, that is. IMO and all that.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

If 3e was really a true spiritual sucessor of 2e + PO, as the OP suggested, then i´m so glad that 4e skipped the tracks. Because that is an influence i really don´t want to see in my D&D.
Anyway, it´s interesting how the line called "this is where it stops being D&D" is always nigh-identical with the line called "that´s what i like to play."

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I often wonder why more of the gamers who frequent places like Knights and Knaves or Dragonsfoot don't think more favorably of the mechanics of 4e, and I'm wondering if it's because they already have their favorite version of the game, and 4e seems to them like a continuation of more of the same from 3e.

I frequent both of those boards. My take on it is that 3e and 4e play and feel similar, and are dissimilar from the older editions I prefer (viz. OD&D, Holmes, and early AD&D 1e). I find that 3e and 4e both have a strong emphasis on tactical combat, mechanics, and PC skills/powers/details, which tends to emphasize those aspects of play. 3e and 4e provide a much more defined framework for running the game; many find that to be an improvement, but I don't. Mike Mearls commented on one way 4E differs significantly from OD&D; I think his comment is spot-on, and applies to 3E, as well.

I think 4E is a different game with the same name. I think that there are enough significant differences in its rules, fluff, and approach to push it over the line into "different game," much like Rolemaster is a different game that can still have a D&Dish feel in play. I realize that not all agree; so be it. (FWIW, I think the same thing about d20/3E, although perhaps not quite to the same extent.)

Today, if I want to play "D&D," my first choice would be one of the TSR editions; those provide the baseline for what D&D is, to me. I might play a d20-based game, but not for "D&D;" it would be a different thing. In the same way, I might play a 4E game, but not for "D&D;" it would be its own thing.

I think I'd pick 4E over 3E, if I were just examining them as something to play without regard to the "D&D" name/idea.

 

[Ranger REG]

If 3e was really a true spiritual sucessor of 2e + PO, as the OP suggested, then i´m so glad that 4e skipped the tracks.

I disagree, but for the simple fact that I didn't like 2eR + PO combo, though PO did get it somewhat on the right track when it comes improving the NWP system. But I'm glad they replaced the ambiguous character kit in favor of prestige class or alternate class feature options.

Nah, 3e is a different child altogether, yet retains some of the sacred cows of past editions.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

What the various editions mean to me...

BECMI--What got me started and hooked on RPGs.

1st Edition AD&D--What I missed out on.

2nd Edition AD&D--What drove me away from D&D and into the arms of other games.

3rd Edition--What brought me back to D&D

4th Edition--My favoritest edition of all.

 

[LostSoul]

For me D&D has always been a complicated but fun game where half the fun is the "crunchy bits" like intricate character creation and long spell lists. D&D to me was never a simple game, and to me doesn't feel like D&D without Vancian casting, without a skill system that gives me a lot of flexibility, without ample multiclassing, without so many things that I just took to be an assumed part of the D&D experience that apparently so deeply offended the designers at WotC as "not fun" (the marketing for 4e that insulted 3.5 and a lot of the things I liked as "not fun" did a lot to make a very bad first impression for me though, when I was already skeptical).

I'm not sure what you mean:

• It is a complex game.
• Each PC now has a "spell" list!
• It has a flexible skill system - more flexible than any other edition, in my opinion (Skill Challenges).
• It still has Vancian casting.
• It has multiclassing - what do you mean by "ample"?

If the designers of 4e thought these things were not fun, why did they leave them in?

 

[Verdande]

I always thought that one of the worst parts of D&D was the complexity. I don't want to have to crunch numbers and figure out optimal builds and whatnot, I really don't. I'll admit, sometimes it's pretty cool to play with numbers and see what's going on, but all in all, it's just as much fun to jump in with just the 6 stats and a class and see what's underneath the ground.

I'd certainly pick 4e, with its more fast-paced, interesting combat over the stand-there-and-punch banality of 3e. But I'd pick oD&D, in its Labyrinth Lord disguise, over it any day.

 

[jdrakeh]

For many people they have these hazy, nostalgic memories of simpler, better D&D, but not me.

For many people, these memories aren't hazy or nostalgic, because they are (and have been) regularly playing BD&D or OD&D since the initial release of said games.

4e may be a fun game for some people, and for some play styles it fits very well, but not for all of us.

So you don't like D&D 4e? Why didn't you just say that? Why the four paragraph justification process?