Your Favorite Version of D&D Is...

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

What is your favorite version of the D&D game? The poll allows for multiple answers. My personal favorite is B/X D&D (Moldvay version). I like the simple, elegant rules. I think it captures the essence of what makes D&D a great game, while leaving much of the fluff to DMs.

I'd rank the versions, in order of my personal preference, in the following way:

1. B/X (Moldvay)
2. BECMI (Mentzer)
3. AD&D 2e
4. AD&D
5. D&D 3e/3.5e
6. D&D 4e

I've never played OD&D.

[obryn]

4e and 1e here. Love both of them. Lean towards 4e for long campaigns, but I love running adventures in 1e, too. Burned out on 3.x and its derivatives for the time being, and 2e feels a lot more soulless to me than 1e.

-O

[doc]

3.5 for me, I never got into 4e. 2e was souless the whole player option thing was weird

[Hatter]

I've never been a fan of D&D, but 3e was the one I felt had the most potential.

[Janos]

In rough order for me:
1. 3.5
2. 3.0
3. 2.5 (Player's Option)
4. BECMI
5. B/X

The first two are based on system mechanics and system. #3 (2.5) is based on a combination of mechanics and fun memories. #4 & #5 are based entirely on memories, as I don't care for the mechanics much these days.

I find 1e and 2e too clunky for my tastes. They're still fun for nostalgia, but the rules just don't make any kind of sense to me. I'm not a fan of that anymore and generally avoid great settings if the rules bug me (looking at you Palladium).

[Varaj]

Kind of think they all suck but if I had to pick one it would be 4e, but I shudder at even that one.

[Radu]

I know it wasn't an option, but my favorite version of "DND" is Pathfinder.

[Ascarel]

To me this question is impossible to answer. I may have had my favorite D&D moments with versions that I consider "inferior" to another one that was released later. This goes to show how version warring is sometimes quite petty (for full disclosure, I do enjoy thrashing 4e nonetheless, so I admit my own occasional pettiness) and only tangentially relevant to just having fun.

[TiQuinn]

Player's Option, biatches! :winkgun:

[Kastil]

I liked the few times I played Rolemaster but there is so much you had to know. 4e I won't play and 1e is gone along with the forum I used to play it in. I'm sticking to 3/3.5e via Fantasy Grounds.

[Name Lips]

I know it wasn't an option, but my favorite version of "DND" is Pathfinder.

I'll go ahead and check 3.5. It IS published based on the 3.5 SRD and Open Gaming License, I believe.

[Dacke]

Of the ones listed, 3.5e (though I like Pathfinder better). Although the only ones I've actually played are 2e, 3e, 3.5e, and 4e - I'd like to give BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia a whirl sometime, but that doesn't seem likely to happen.

[Trainz]

2nd ed's books might be poor, but what i LOVE about 2nd ed is that it's core is so simple that's it's the easiest edition to tinker with. There's something I liked in ALL editions, and yes, even 4th ed (shudder...), but the core mechanics of 2nd ed makes for the fastest paced combat with the least headackes for the dm.

So I took a bit from 3rd ed and 4th ed, added it to 2nd ed, and now I have the Best Fantasy Role Playing Game In The World!

[obryn]

2nd ed's books might be poor, but what i LOVE about 2nd ed is that it's core is so simple that's it's the easiest edition to tinker with.
You know... that's probably the best explanation of a reason to play 2e that I can think of. It's also probably why I prefer 1e to 2e, because what I'm looking for in old-school D&D is the full-on Gygaxian monty. I love 1e because of all its weirdness and history, not in spite of it. I don't want to run 1e just as a system - I want to run it as an experience, if that makes sense.

-O

[Radu]

I've had fun with all the versions of DND I've played (smatterings of 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e) but just because you CAN have fun with a game doesn't mean the game itself is good.

Witness the board game, Talisman. Talisman is a game where pretty much everything boils down to "roll some dice, choose left or right." It's nigh impossible to win and incredibly frustrating in practice... but I've had fun playing it.

I feel the same way about all iterations of DND prior to 3 and 3.5. Just because I've had fun EXPERIENCES with those systems doesn't mean they're fun GAMES. All the fun times I had in high school with 2e are because of the time spent hanging out with my friends and having shared fun times, not because of the games themselves.

[Harry]

nt

[Dr_Avalanche]

I started playing D&D with the 2nd edition, so for that reason alone it holds a special place in my heart. But I prefer 3rd and 3.5. Not that D&D is my system of choice, but still.

[cyphersmith]

Impossible for me to answer. I think it's been at least a decade since I played any version of D&D (I never played 3.5 or 4.0), and 3 or 4 years since I played D20 in any form.

[hobbiteer]

3.5! I do so love that version.

[Pigs in Space]

I had the most fun with 2e. Chopped down a castle with a vorpal sword once.


3e was also good times, felt like something new and big.


3.5e was the same bullshit as 3e, just they changed all the spells a bit so that everything you had learned wasn't quite right.


4e sucks big bags of Varaj dicks.

[Hatter]

4e sucks big bags of Varaj dicks.

Like all at once or in serial?

[Trainz]

Like all at once or in serial?

On a skewer.

[Trainz]

Oh, and for the record, AD&D 2nd ed has almost twice as much votes as 4th ed, so there.

:tongue:

[Hatter]

On a skewer.

Poor Varaj. :(

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Oh, and for the record, AD&D 2nd ed has almost twice as much votes as 4th ed, so there.

:tongue:

I'm going to say something a bit inflammatory, but I honestly believe it to be true... AD&D 2e is the last version of the game that I think is really, truly "D&D." To me, 3.x and 4e, while fine games, are radically different from D&D. They represent a fundamental break in philosophy, from prior versions, which emphasized character class as opposed to character optimization through skills/feats and so on. The result has been a watering down of the archetypes that were, in my opinion, a central thread through the early D&D versions. Classes now are de-emphasized in favor of "builds." I think the shift really started back with the Player's Option books, which of course were an influence on what would later come out in 3e. I think in a way, the Forgotten Realms setting also contributed to this, with it's emphasis on powerful NPCs lurking in every hamlet and po-dunk village, and it's plethora of multi-classed NPCs.

Now again, this is not to say that 3e and 4e are bad games... they aren't. They are good games. But to me they are very different games than what came before, and aren't the kind of experience I look for when gaming.

[Janos]

I'm going to say something a bit inflammatory, but I honestly believe it to be true... the Holmes/Moldavy is last version of the game that I think is really, truly "D&D".

To me, AD&D and later editions, while fine games, are radically different from D&D. They represent a fundamental break in philosophy, from prior versions, which emphasized a single role as opposed to character optimization through race and class, alignment, armor and weapon choices, etc.

The result has been a watering down of the archetypes that were, in my opinion, a central thread through the early D&D versions. Single identies are now are de-emphasized in favor of Bards, Druids, or even Elf Wizards instead of just Elves.

I think the shift really started back with the idea of "Advanced" D&D, which of course were an influence on what would later come out in 2e.

I think in a way, the Greyhawk setting also contributed to this, with it's emphasis on powerful NPCs lurking in every hamlet and po-dunk village, and it's plethora of PCs played through so many of Gygax and Arenson's campaigns.

Now again, this is not to say that 3e and 4e are bad games... they aren't. They are good games. But to me they are very different games than what came before, and aren't the kind of experience I look for when gaming.

[TiQuinn]

GEEK FIGHT! GEEK FIGHT! :slapfight:

[Bagpuss]

1. Basic\Expert
2= 4th Ed
2= AD&D 2nd Ed

50. 3rd Ed
100. 3.5 Ed

Although I suspect my voting for BD&D and 2nd Ed has much more to do with the DM and adventures we played at the time and the nostalgia effect of looking back on things than the rules themselves.

3rd Ed I kind of liked, but the picking over the rules that lead to 3.5 spoiled if for me, much like the constant updates to 4th Ed are starting to spoil that for me.

[Algolei]

Like all at once or in serial?

If you do it in serial they'll get soggy from the milk.