Which edition of D&D gets the most heated discussions?

[Bedrockgames]

Not saying 2e was a bad game (had fun playing it and a BGII fan as well), but 3e seemed to me to be an obvious evolution in the game and was quickly and almost universally accepted. There's no Pathfinder for 2e (no OGL obviously). I am sure there will be people with different sentiments and recollections.
.

I may be wrong on this, because my exposure to the game is striclty through the Castle Robinloft module, but I believe the Hackmaster System was basically 2E. If I am wrong, someone feel free to let me know. But if that is the case, 2E was carried on in some way.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I wasn't around at the time, but I bet when D&D first picked up speed, a lot of wargamers turned up their noses at the Tolkien fantasy upstarts and their dumbed down, unrealistic rules.

My historical understanding is that the original gaming grognards were historical-wargamers critical of D&D.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I may be wrong on this, because my exposure to the game is striclty through the Castle Robinloft module, but I believe the Hackmaster System was basically 2E. If I am wrong, someone feel free to let me know. But if that is the case, 2E was carried on in some way.

HACKMASTER was a 1e/2e hybrid with lots of Kenzer innovations thrown in.

 

[jaerdaph]

I'm think I'm going to vote "5e".

You know that shizzle is coming down the nizzle in 2011, BEE-otches!!!

 

[Oni]

Most heated? Surely that goes to 4e, it seems like that edition sent a small segment of people (both for and against) right off the deep end into crazy land.

However I don't believe your observation is without merit, though I don't think it is limited to 1e in general. The scripture like treatment of older gaming text in the old school community is definitely there, and to me is weird and off putting in its own way. For instance I read Grognardia fairly regularly and I think there is so much good stuff there, but every time James Maliszewski refers to the "Old Ways" in religious like tones I cringe inside because it just feeds the worst aspects of the OSR community. I have a real love/hate relationship with the OSR community, the games themselves I think are fascinating, and there is a lot of interesting and intelligent thought and game theory to discover in that quarter. However a notable and vocal segment of that community is so insular, elitist, condescending, and close minded that it just kills my enthusiasm sometimes.

Also quoting Gygax does not automatically make your approach right, the only one, or unassailable. Especially when Gygax has probably contradicted that quote somewhere else.

 

[Remathilis]

Each edition gets its own special variant of NerdRage(TM).

OD&Ders argue over supplements vs. non-supplement, how later rules only served to bloat the system, and/or about the inherent superiority of the original vs. "poor imitations of the Real Thing".

BD&Ders debate whether the Original Holmes/Cook boxsets were better (in design and play style) to the later BECMI/Metzner sets, as well as proving their game wasn't a "kiddie-version" of the Real Game.

AD&D1er's argue 1e is Gary's True Vision and everything else (sometimes including Unearthed Arcana) ruined it while simultaneously griping about rule X, Y, and Z and how they ignored/house-ruled it.

AD&D2er's fight an endless war for acceptance; viewed as the bastard step-child by older players (who scoff at it as a dilution of Gary's Vision by She-who-must-not-be-named) and by newer players (who believe its system shows off the antiquity of a ruleset designed during the era of 8-tracks and disco with little attempt to majorly overhaul it.)

D&D3er's debate the necessity of the 3.5 revision, the legitimate successor to the game (4e, Pathfinder, or some other d20 variant) and still fight the Old-school/New-school wars to prove flipping the AC upwards didn't dumb down the game.

D&D4er's are in a fight for life trying to convince everyone else that "Itz zeh same game!" and that the changes done to the system were necessary and worthwhile.

Everyone's got a fight inside the community, and against the other editions. Right now 4e's got the hold-spot sinces its new kid, but you'll find people willing to argue with you for/against any edition if you look hard enough.

 

[Nikosandros]

Unless you specify a time period, this is difficult to answer. What is happening right now is different from what was happening a few months ago, is different from what has been happening over the past year, and so on.

Humans have a drive to separate the world into Them and Us. Gamers are not different in this regard. First off, it was simply Gamers vs non-Gamers.

Then, White Wolf Games got rolling. The D&D vs White Wolf animosity was pretty strong, and it grew when White Wolf brought out live action rules. Then the comparisons between games gave rise to GNS theory, so there were Gamist vs Simulationist vs Narrativist style arguments. Skipping over time, more recently, we've had 3e vs 4e. That has since mutated - we have New School vs Old School, Sandbox vs Tailored, and so on.

I suspect the heat you see this moment on 1e is merely the current front for the same dynamic.

Full agreement. Currently, there is quite a bit of talk about 1e and so, naturally, there is more contentiousness about it. But in the recent past, I've seen some pretty heated and nasty arguments about 4e.

Besides, as Umbran correctly points out, this kind of divisiveness is incredibly pervasive and not only among RPGers...

Mac vs PC, XBOX vs PS, miniature wargames vs hex-and-counters and going back to when I was a kid, Commodore vs Spectrum...

 

[lutecius]

I don't think any edition gets more discussion than 4e here, heated or otherwise.

Then again I tend to ignore old-school threads. AD&D1 was the first rpg I played, I have fond memories of it but i don't see much point in debating its merits today.

I see AD&D threads popping up from time to time but they're nothing compared to the "4e vs everything else" of the last two years or the "3.5 vs 3.0" discussions back then.

 

[Dice4Hire]

but you'll find people willing to argue with you for/against any edition if you look hard enough.

And looking hard enough at Enworld, unfortunately, means putting any post about any edition in this forum.

 

[Ariosto]

Its publication was the shot heard 'round the RPG world, the event of the year three years in a row. Good, bad, or indifferent -- and "on a scale of 1 to 10, this is 11" was par for the course -- the original MM, PHB and DMG were as close to ubiquitous as anything in the field.

It is with a certain measure of pride that we at TSR bring you this second part** of the new DUNGEONS & DRAGONS releases, the long-awaited MONSTER MANUAL for ADVANCED D & D. We are doubly proud of the format of this book -- i.e., its special hard cover, a "first" in the gaming world and another step in our continuing quest for top quality products.

** The first part was the boxed "basic" D&D set edited by J. Eric Holmes.