What is your favorite edition of D&D and why?

[Oryan77]

D&D 3.5 is my favorite edition.

It is what the kidnappers forced me to play and it was what helped me pass the time. I'm not sure if they wanted my family fortune, or if they were just desperate to get a 4th player. But we ended up having a great time.

Really, 3.5 is what works for me. I like the rules and they aren't overwhelming unless a player argues with the DM over interpretation issues (which I believe is a problem with the player, not the rules).

I prefer characters to be as unique as players want them to be, and 3.5 can accomplish that. I also think the rules in 3.5 make more sense in relation to the actual game world. I'm not a big fan of implementing rules that don't make sense in game world terms just to eliminate obstacles so players don't have to deal with it. I prefer to approach D&D with realism first and gamey aspects second. 3.5 seems to have been designed by thinking about game world realism first and figuring out how to make it work with gamey rules. The newer stuff seems to have been designed by thinking about gamey rules first and then figuring out how to explain why those rules work in the game world.

But really, I enjoy all editions and systems. Playing a character in D&D is all I care about. I can have fun in any system as long as I like playing my character. I've had a blast playing both my 2e and 4e characters and I wouldn't turn down a chance to play again.

 

[Gothmog]

No contest. After having played it for over a year, both as a DM and player, 4E is by far my favorite edition of D&D, and holds together the best during play for my groups.

As a DM, I love 4e for:
* Ease of preparation (and the DDI is a thing of beauty)
* Simplicity of NPC and monster stat blocks, but still with tons of interesting options during a fight
* Skill challenges (yes, I use them, and they work well especially if the DM uses some judgement)
* Focus on actually playing and running the game, rather than prepping for it
* MUCH harder for a player to munchkin powergame. It means my job as a DM is a ton easier not having to worry about appropriate encounters and challenges trashing some PCs while other PCs don't break a sweat
* The system is so robust and scales well through all levels of play
* XP budgeting system for encounter design
* New cosmology- it strongly mirrors the cosmology of my homebrew world, and I find the new cosmology far more evocative than the old one

As a player, I love 4e for:
* Easier organic character development (meaning I don't need to pre-select feats, skills, classes, etc out to level X to be able to qualify for something later), and retraining
* Focus on play mastery rather than system mastery
* Focus on working as a team, rather than lone-wolf tactics
* MUCH harder to munchkin powergame, and fewer one-trick pony PCs
* I can play ANY class and know I won't be a gimp or useless at any point during the character's progression
* The new multiclassing rules
* Powers are just a stupid amount of fun in play
* Caster class power is reigned in, but a smart caster with some prep time for rituals and careful power use can do some really incredible stuff
* Much less reliance on magic items for character progression and power

I've still got a soft spot for AD&D 1e/2e- 1e had such a great feel to it during play (which we have recaptured with 4e with a few minor tweaks), and 2e was where I spent most of my gaming years, and the settings were a lot of fun. We still play 1e or 2e a couple times a year as one-off games, and they are fun, but 4e has revolutionized and improved D&D so much, I don't think I could go back. Alas, I never really got to play much OD&D, but what I did play was fun. I won't mention the "edition that shall not be named" as my gaming group calls it, since this isn't an edition wars thread and nobody wants it to go there. A buddy of mine is going to run a Pathfinder game and wants me to play in it. I'm cautiously optomistic about it, but more for his DMing skills than any inherent strength of the system. We shall see.

 

[thedungeondelver]

AD&D. I prefer the aesthetics (AD&D has art that with little exception has yet to be matched by later editions (although there are some bad pieces)), Gary's writing style gives the game a life of its own, and the rules mechanics are "just right".

Combat:

I like how surprise works (even the off hand weird scenarios, such as a bugbear versus a high-dex and high-dex ranger both wearing leather armor only).

Group initiative. Spell casting times, charging, preparing to receive charges, etc. create a granular enough combat round that individual initiative isn't really required.

Simple melee resolution - I do not use 'THAC0' (and I wish one of my players would stop, he is generally one number off, and I have to talk him down every time by saying "The to-hit matrix is correct, and THAC0 did not originate as a player tool in 1e, it was there for quick and dirty monster hit die/level use only"). The combat matrices are quick and easy to use.

In and amongst that, and as mentioned before: spell casting time. Gives even the most powerful magic-user pause. Is disintegrate really what I want here? Last couple of rounds, some "glowing arrows" came racing our way - what if I'm struck by one? etc.

What is perceived as "imbalance" (compared to other editions) is actually a very fine balance unto its own: yes, yes, the 11th level magic-user is like unto a demi-god in his ability - for a few choice encounters. Then he's a useful magic-user again. For a few more encounters. Then...? Then the fighting-men shine. Sometimes, the thief is what the party's fate hinges on. Does he get that critical backstab in? Will he be able to open the lock here in the room rapidly filling with water/poison gas/alligators?

Gary realized to a greater or lesser extent that there were times when you might only have a 1 on 1 campaign or session, or 1 on 2 or whatever, and gave a different set of tools to use to accomplish the same ends with weapon specialization in UNEARTHED ARCANA but earlier with multi- and dual-classing.

The way different classes level (differently) is most appealing to me. How should a magic-user learn from a massive brawl where he wasn't really involved beyond hanging back with bandages? Likewise, with fighters fending off summoned monsters, protecting the aforementioned spell-caster, how do they benefit from a largely thaumaturigcal battle? A cleric gains different knowledge and insight (differently) during the epic battle against the H.A.R.D. (Huge Ancient Red Dragon) than do the fighting-men or the thieves, and he applies it differently.

I like the uncertainty of things - the world at large is a dangerous place! Is that a cloak of protection or a poison cloak? Pity the magic-user who must find out! How many charges are on that wand of enemy detection? You can only be sure within a range.

The humanocentric viewpoint of the game, although I do like the raising of the level caps somewhat in UNEARTHED ARCANA. Gary did mention once that in "his" 2e, he would have made a different class for each race as their "unlimited". I'd have liked to have seen that.

Overall, the sense of danger of it all. The no-guarantee of success. Meeting the DM eye to eye not as a fellow story-teller, but as the force of the implacable universe, set against you. The uncertainty, the mystery, the danger - who hasn't fought until they had but a mere hit-point standing between themselves and oblivion, knowing that the cleric was out of healing spells, that the magic-user was reduced to staff and darts, and that the other fighters in the party were just as bad off as you were and felt a rush as they faced the last few orcs? No do-overs, no power ups, and the epic heroism coming from thinking on one's feet, relying on your own wits and gameplay!

That's the feel I get from AD&D. That's why I prefer it to all others. I don't get that feel from them at all.

 

[Mallus]

For one thing, there are almost no rules. It's all rulings.

Another big reason is that the game can be tailored to each Ref, and even with a single Ref to each setting.

I try to bring these two things to every D&D campaign I run, regardless of edition (though I admit to getting caught up in a needless rulebook flipping when running later editions -- it's a habit I'm trying to break).

 

[D&D]

Well...as I mentioned in another thread I just started, 3.5.

This is, however, after giving it up out of frustration a year ago, doing the retro-clone marathon, and finally, coming back to it tonight...and having a really good time.

Hmmm...since I didn't answer your question fully before, I'll do so now (sort of).

Why I like 3.5...
I re-learned to like 3.5 as a DM because I learned to say "no". All those optional books are just that, optional. Also, from my time in the retro-clone camp, I realized that houserules are a great thing (especially for the DM). Once I stopped letting my players dictate the power level of my game and houseruled/took-a-nerf-bat-to various mechanics, I started having a grand ol' time.

IMO...3.5 only gets as out of hand as you let it.

 

[Greatfrito]

Bearing in mind that I've only yet experienced 3.0/3.5/4th in any extensive sense...

I prefer 4th, and as others have said, that's largely a result of getting stuck in the "I'm the only one willing to DM" rut.

Left Brain:
Even after playing 3.0 for 3 years, then running (and occasionally getting a chance to play - I much prefer playing) it for another 5, I find it easier to run a 4th Edition game. It's not any particular fault I find with 3.X. I think it's just a preference for a "uniform" system of mechanics, where I feel that I need relatively few rules "memorized" in order to run the game properly.

On the "player" side of things, I must admit that merely having Fighters feel more "powerful" is enough to sell me on it (over the few other editions I've played and read).

Right Brain:
Aesthetically I feel like 4th hits the right nerves. It has more of an "action / adventure" vibe built into it (at least it seems so to me), and less of a "traditional fantasy" (not that I think it's not traditional fantasy - I just think it feels more open, thematically).

Eberron drew me (heck, all of my gaming group back in college too) in because of this same aesthetic, during 3.5.

 

[Corathon]

AD&D 1E is my favorite.

 

[billd91]

My favorite edition is 3.5 though Pathfinder is moving in as I find more time to work with it.

Why?
I like the toolkit aspect of it in which a character can be as diversely detailed (or not) as a player wishes. Extremely flexible in character and NPC development without giving up all hope of defining structure. Plus, I like most of the mechanics they devised.

I also appreciate how the designers (and this now includes the PF designers) took new ideas and integrated them into the bodies of work that went before them, becoming part of the tradition. It not only made the transition to the new rules easier because I could see how a character concept in the previous edition mapped out to the new one, but it was also more of a process of looking at the 2e version of a character and comparing it to how it worked out in 3.0 and then weighing which character I liked better. The intent to change as little of the core feel as they could, I think, made this possible.

I also appreciated that the open game philosophy 3.x embraced enabled players and publisher to not only customize their games for home use (we were already doing that) but also share our changes and adaptations publically, even professionally, in ways we really couldn't before. People got really creative with the old exercise "How many ways can I use X," bringing us awesome games like Mutants and Masterminds, a retooling of the OGL that I never would have expected.

 

[kitsune9]

You should try Mutants and Masterminds for D&D-style fantasy (especially if you like the 'infinite options' angle -- it's the crowning achievement of the d20 system, IMNSHO).

Green Ronin came out with a fantasy supplement for M&M, correct? I thought about picking up M&M and I do have True20 which I really dig.

 

[kitsune9]

If I'm going to play or run anything 3.5 related it would have to be Arcana Evolved/Ptolus.

Arcana Evolved is a good book. I have the PDF and had the Arcana Unearthed book. Really enjoyed the variant stuff that Malhavoc had put out.