What's Your Favorite Edition of Dungeons and Dragons?
Monday, October 13, 2008 at 02:51PM An interesting conversation has surfaced as I was recently e-slapped upside my head for innocently posting in the comments over at Jeff's Gameblog. Jeff's blog is full of good information, and if you haven't already, I suggest you DMs read How to Awesome Up Your Players at the very least.
Anyway, the summary is that Jeff (and many of his readers) wish that Hasbro would release a "vintage" wood-box special edition of OD&D or the Basic set, and my comment was that it wouldn't interest me because I didn't play much of those editions, and I don't feel the nostalgia.
It looks like Jeff's readership is made up of ardent supporters of the older, pre-third editions, and that got me wondering about the preferences of the rest of you, especially those of you in the RPG Bloggers Network.
My favorite edition is 3E because it lets me create pretty much anything I can imagine in a fairly balanced framework (although from an encounter-design perspective I'm steadily appreciating 4E more and more). I think the older editions were often broken in terms of balance, but I still had a lot of fun playing my first AD&D campaigns.
While I'm sure this convo has been had many times before, it's worth revisiting. What's your favorite edition of Dungeons and Dragons, and why?
Reader Comments (17)
The D&D Rules Cyclopedia, 3.5e and 4e D&D - I love 'em all. Not AD&D or 2e AD&D though - they just never appealed.
I like Classic D&D's simplicity (and the RC's utter completeness), the sheer volume of awesomeness that 3e and the OGL produced, and the bright new future that 4e promises to deliver - and also it's GM friendliness :)
I'll second the Cyclopedia... it's still among my favorite gaming books. It contains so *much* stuff.
I also really, really enjoy 4e. Designing monsters and encounters has never been this easy.
I run a blog about 2nd Edition, which, of course, is my preferred ruleset, though I incorporate a lot of 1st Edition rules to my prep and behind the scenes prep. I find 2e easy to prep with, and control. It is a challenge to DM, but at the same time very fun. I know these rules, and I know them backwards and forwards. CHANGE IS BAD! FEAR CHANGE! :)
Hmmm... Moldvay/Cook BXD&D, Rules Cyclopedia, and... 3.x I guess. In that order.
BX beats out RC by just a hair cause it was my first, but they both beat 3 by a country mile. Concise if not complete, extremely open ended, and with the emphasis on player ability over character ability and numbers on a sheet. The older the edition the more freedom the DM had. 3 is exhaustively complete. I prefer the former as a DM and the latter as a player.
All that said, the edition I'm playing at the moment is Pathfinder and the one I'm tinkering with in my spare time is BFRPG. I have yet to play 4e, so no opinion there. But, I have my moldvay/cook books and 3 PHBs (1,2, & 3.5). Have dice, will play!
Pretty much a toss up between 1st & 2nd ed AD&D. Lots of fun memories playing those games
I like the different editions for different things, same as I have no "favourite" system, just different tools for different campaigns. I grew up on 1st ed, so I'll always have some love for how rediculous it was. I haven't played a lot of 3.5, but I enjoy Iron Heroes immensely. I like 4e for the flashy magic and the ease of putting together encounters. And I make fun of people who play other editions than those three, just on principle.
I'm torn between "e and the old cyclopedia. In fact if I had to choose it would actually be my mashup of both sets of rules with the weaponmastery and occasionally the stronghold rules from the cyclopedia mixed in with the 2e system.
Original (white box) D&D, since it's what introduced me to the hobby, although I wouldn't want to play it any more. I would happily play Mentzer's Basic/Expert, at least as a change of pace, but my regular group of players isn't that fond of it (mostly I think because of how fragile low-level characters are).
I've played a fair amount of 3/3.5 and I just can't stand it, and 4e doesn't appeal to me at all.
I really love GMing the Rules Cyclopedia for people. It is just really a lot of fun. I cut my teeth on the basic and expert sets and moved right into AD&D. The most fun I had playing was 2nd edition. I hated GMing the 3.X versions and so far have enjoyed GMing 4e. I haven't had a chance to play in 13 years- I GM only, but overall I would say the Rules Cyclopedia takes it all. (Though 4e to me seems to be a return to that kind of feel so I am having fun with that.)
Nice. Eight opinions may not be indicative of the whole feeling out there, but I think it's really interesting that there's a preponderance of players favouring stuff that was released more than 30 years ago.
Are you all DMs, and it's design that used to be better, not necessarily play?
Are you all gamers who drew their first swords in those earliest editions, and as Ripper X mentioned, change is bad?
As "mature" gamers, do you just care enough to vote where the young'uns of the RPGB Network, with their fancy feats and powers, are too busy to leave a comment?
Maybe. Preferences in design philosophy and fond memories go a long way, but I have trouble believing it's only a matter of nostalgia or familiarity--I moved away from AD&D in the blink of an eye when 3E came out because I thought it was better. I expect that you guys stuck with the older editions for so long for the same reasons.
I think I'd better order some of those books many of you mentioned so I can see what I missed, and maybe I'll design a critter or two to broaden my horizons.
I also think it's awesome that not one of you prefers 3.X over the others (and many of you dislike it). It's me vs. the world, but that's the wrong way of looking at such a fantastic hobby where you can literally create your own rules as you play. :)
Good stuff, everyone, and thanks..
THE THREE CORE BOOKS - i don't care what edition - is all I need or want. I hate all the supplements and the splatbook / corerules treadmilling from every edition of the game. Give me adventures. Give me quarterly or monthly magazines - but please for the love of god please stop producing so many damn supplements!
Every edition of D&D supports roleplaying - and that is what matters. As for the the differences in editions 0 well, they are all just variations on the same core mechanic crunch - toll a d20; see if it beats some number. The rest of it is all just different flavors of crunch for the same game. Isn't it?
Word to that. I am SO tired of all those supplements. There's the extra cost involved, the power creep, the common need for the DM to review those rules before they make it into the game, and in the games I play, they do little but add more options to people who haven't explored those wonderful core books. I say to supplements, bah!
On a side note, running this blog is making me feel more and more like an old codger shaking my first at "those punk kids..."
I don't entirely agree with your second comment, JJ, or more accurately, the spirit I think is behind it. The edition definitely matters when that different flavour is a big part of what you crave about D&D, and then there's how well it jives with your sensibilities about character options, design preferences, and real-world simulation. While I'm sure there's a fair bit of fear of change or attachment to the familiar, I still think the strongest incentive to play one system over another is that it offers something to you that the others don't.
Or at least that's my take, and I'm often the odd-man out when it comes ot game-style tastes. Hypothetical situation: your DM is planning to start a brand new D&D campaign and he asks you which which edition you should run. Do you really have NO preference at all?
I think I prefer the older editions because I actually miss the days when the rules at every table were different. It felt more like different worlds to me then. Back then my favorite class was the Ranger; it always seemed to be a welcome addition to any party. I never got into organized or tournament play much. I played one RPGA game with 3.5 and that single experience makes me appreciate the importance of an exhaustively complete set of rules for that kind of play. For that I think 3.5 is superior to older editions; it's just more consistent.
When I play though, I love plotting my feats, looking at prestige classes... 3.5 loved the player.
3.5 loved the player.
I hadn't looked at it like that before, but I think that's the sort of pithy, succinct thought that I will probably glom on to for years to come. I can already see the raised eyebrows and introspective nods as I deftly swirl and sip my brandy... is that what clever people do? ;)
You've nailed the consistency issue, too. I'm sure some people would complain that having exhaustive rules lets you turn off your brain, or is too hand-held, but that simply isn't true; the rules are a framework that let us interact in meaningful ways, and you build your ideal game around that, regardless of how tall or wide or deep it is.
As a player, consistency is often paramount to game enjoyment, and happy players are paramount to game enjoyment as a DM. I should think that consistency, and the ability to maintain it, would be as important to most DMs as having all the right dice. I don't think lighter editions encourage that.
Thanks, Dr. Checkmate!
*bows*
de nada. Thanks for making me think it through.
2.0 is still the best
The idea of d20 is appealing over the first & second die rolls. (I rolled a twelve, now was it over or under that I needed???) I never really got into the 3 series, but the idea of 4 is over the top. I think that monsters and characters should be kept seperate, and if I want to play that style of game, I'll stick to mmorpg's.
Hey Pauli,
I don't want to seem like too much of a dope, but I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying. Are you referring to the idea of "roaming" armo classes and saving throw rolls that I know some DMs use in their games? If so, I'm pretty sure that way of playing isn't standard, and I would hope that reason alone isn't keeping you away from the depth of 3X or the streamlined combat in 4E.
If you're willing, I'd love it if you would explain your comment a bit more for me. Thanks!