Why did you stay with an earlier edition?

[scadgrad]

I went with rules. My group had left the 3.X fold before 4E was ever announced. I bought in, ran it for about 5 or 6 months, until I got to the point where I didn't feel like I was playing D&D anymore, but something more like Descent with much better rules, but uglier tiles.

Somewhere around that time I found out about all the OSR clones and rather than going back to C&C (which we had been play testers for and really enjoyed), we went back to B/X via LL, eventually adding the AEC bits. Since then, I've enjoyed 70s style D&D again via S&W Whitebox and 1E AD&D. I've played Pathfinder a couple of times and think it's a fine game, just too complex and dependent on miniatures to really scratch my D&D itch. Oddly enough, I find the new board games of 4E that WotC produced to be a lot of fun.

 

[NotZenon]

we played the new edition for 6 months, then switched back. I think it just ran its course faster than the old edition did.

 

[Janaxstrus]

We switched from 1 to 2, from 2 to 3 and 3 to 3.5....but no one would make the switch to 4.

4, in our group's opinion, was not D&D. It was Advanced Worlds and Warcrafts. Giant swords that were ridiculous looking, no Vancian magic, everything had spikes (I think the armor spikes had armor spikes on them), even adopting MMO style terminology for controllers and DPS.

We stuck with 3.5 and Pathfinder. If D&D Next continues down that MMO feel, we won't switch then either.

 

[Dornam]

Rules here too.

We tried 4e for 4 months but didn't like the table top battle format. Almost all the powers (even the utility ones) are only useful for tactical battle mat combat.

When we switched to Pathfinder we had the "old D&D feel" back where the combat rules where more a vehicle for imagination and fights again saw daring moves like swinging from a chandelier.

If 5e will have powers that read "shift 2 squares" we will likely not switch away from Pathfinder.

 

[kiltedyaksman]

I played basic, AD&D, 2E, (missed 3.0), returned with 3.5 just as 4e was coming out. Gave 3.5 a year before deciding it was way too complicated in the DM prep area, esp. making your own adventures and the stat blocks. Bought, looked at, played a little 4E and disliked it strongly. Not D&D in the Gygaxian sense. I much prefer TSR D&D for the ease and simplicity of gameplay vis a vis my available leisure time. Have been playing Labyrinth Lord with the Advanced Edition Companion for a few years now. If 5e isn't as easy (or easier) to run I can't see myself being involved with it. Apart from rules, if the art is all heroic looking that would also be a major turn off.

 

[paladinm]

Is LL with AEC any different than 1e/OSRIC? Is LL with OEC much different than OD&D/S&W?

Right now my "studious" attention seems to be on the Greybook (OD&D+supplements+SR articles), the Rules Cyclopedia, and Holmes and B/X. I Wish we could get the B/X Companion on PDF!!!

Has anyone looked at the AD&D3 project from Chris Perkins? I find that I Really like what he's done, using C&C as a basis, adding all the cool stuff from 3.5 and not much of the stuff that complicated the game.

 

[avin]

I'm not a conservative man, and trying out a new RPG system or edition is a joy, even if you dislike it at the end, at least you tried.

 

[Weregrognard]

My name is Androlphas, and I'm Chaotic Neutral

"I have always adopted the latest version of D&D as soon as it came out."
Since starting with BECMI in 91, I've always gone with the newest edition because I felt it was an improvement on the previous one. But I'm starting to rethink this stance.

"I stayed with an older edition because I felt the new rules weren't as good as the old."
I fear this might be a problem with D&D Next. Although it seems the designers honestly want to make a game that will reunite the fan base, I fear that they will tinker with the rules so much that the end result will be less of a "best of" edition and more of a new game entirely. I do not want this, but I will wait for it before I judge

"Unabashed Nostalgia. I fell in love with a particular edition."
I'm looking back at BECMI, 1e, and 2e in a new light. I'm reading the rules and feel I'm understanding the underlying principles of what you may call "classic" D&D in a way I've never understood before. The void is staring back and it tells me: "These games were just fine the way they were."

"I stayed with an older edtion because I've invested enough in it and didn't want to buy new books."
I have a decent library of D&D books from BECMI to 4e; more books than I will ever need in a lifetime, and I'm starting to realize this.

In closing, I think I might not be the right customer for D&D Next. Then again, I'm Chaotic Neutral and things are subject to change without notice

 

[Ferrous]

I have bought and played every edition of D&D so far. I ditched 4th edition after trying to make it work for a year. I am now playing Pathfinder and Fantasy Quest.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'll adopt a new edition if it's better than the old. That's always been true, right up until Essentials (which isn't even a real ed) ended the streak.

I don't hold out much hope it'll be true of 5e.

It might also be interesting to think of it in reverse. Why do you adopt a new edition? Like I said, if it's better. But, D&D tends to degrade as an edition ages and it gets choked with excessive numbers of supplements...

So if a new ed launches too soon, the old ed will be harder to beat. 4e launched a little too soon, and 5e is set to launch years to soon.