Favorite versions of D&D?

[crpgguy]

I mostly like about anything TSR created, I started with 2E and Classic (BECMI/Cyclopedia versions). But I'll have to say of AD&D 1E is my favorite, and BECMI/Cyclopedia from classic is my favorite from that game line.

[rredmond]

I like AD&D 1E the best. I like its rules light nature. I don't really like adding anything from UA, though I like the pieces that OSRIC added in. So I'll use weapon specialization at times and definitely the expanded demihuman rules, such as higher level limits and expanded ability to be different classes such as Clerics.
Though a lot of times I like to use just the three core books.
--Ron--

[Scott308]

I started with the Moldvay Basic set, but don't really care for race as class. I have played some 2nd edition and enjoyed it. I have played far more 1st edition than any other, and that would be my favorite. I do really like 5E and I want to play more of it. That could eventually overtake 1E, but not right now. I have never played editions 3.0, 3.5, 3.75, or 4.0 so can't compare, although from what I have seen I am not interested. I would be willing to try them if I could find someone running a one-shot.

[GreyWolfVT]

I started with 2e before the revised PHB that is what I knew for most of my life and I've not grown found of any other version more than it. Aside from the fact that I think I like AD&D 1e just as much as AD&D 2e.

[Keehnelf]

My preference for edition is, in order: B/X, 1e, 4e, 5e, 2e, 3e

I like the old stuff, and I like the new stuff that pushes some interesting boundaries, and the stuff in the middle generally leaves me cold. I played a LOT of 2e in middle school and into high school and even after years I never really warmed to it. Same with 3e at a later time.

[dmw71]

I grew up playing almost 1e exclusively (with some BX and BECMI on occasion), but have discovered, after returning to D&D, that I really like (and probably prefer) 2e to 1e. The two editions feel very, very similar, but 2e feels like a cleaner, more streamlined set of rules (but I do miss half-orcs as characters).

As a player, I will gladly try any edition. As a DM, I feel there are probably too few rules in BX or BECMI, and probably too many in the d20 editions. For me, 2e and 1e, in that order, are the sweet spot in terms of a rule set to base a game upon.

[crpgguy]

I grew up playing almost 1e exclusively (with some BX and BECMI on occasion), but have discovered, after returning to D&D, that I really like (and probably prefer) 2e to 1e. The two editions feel very, very similar, but 2e feels like a cleaner, more streamlined set of rules (but I do miss half-orcs as characters).

As a player, I will gladly try any edition. As a DM, I feel there are probably too few rules in BX or BECMI, and probably too many in the d20 editions. For me, 2e and 1e, in that order, are the sweet spot in terms of a rule set to base a game upon.

Looking back in hindsight, I don't like all the stuff 2E cut out from the previous version (psionics, etc), only to make them entire books you have to buy extra. When they were in 1E by default.

[GreyWolfVT]

Based upon the last two replies about 2e. Do folks not remember there are tons of "splat" books in 2e that do provide Half-Orc's as a race as well as many many other races, kits, subraces, classes etc..

[dmw71]

Looking back in hindsight, I don't like all the stuff 2E cut out from the previous version (psionics, etc), only to make them entire books you have to buy extra. When they were in 1E by default.

I get that.

There are definitely a few changes between the two editions that probably slant favorably towards 1e. For instance, I'm not a huge fan of the "splat" books, and class kits. As for psionics not being included in the core rules, at least in my experience, they were underused, if not outright ignored, that it didn't even factor for me... but I could see why it may for others. Then there's my brother's biggest argument against 2e... the exclusion of angels, demons, and devils from the Monstrous Manual, at least in name (not that we actually used them, but because he (perhaps rightfully?) believes TSR caved to public pressure).

Then there are the things that I do prefer in 2e, in no particular order:

1. The surprise and initiative system,
2. Thief skill determination,
3. THAC0 instead of to-hit charts,
4. Demi-human level limits,
5. The eight specialist wizards instead of just the illusionist.

I'm sure there are points from each edition that I'm missing, or not thinking of at the moment, but the changes I've listed favoring 2e (namely, the first two I listed), are more substantial, and, I think, outweigh any negatives against it.


These, of course, are just my opinions, and everyone is entitled to their own.

[dmw71]

Based upon the last two replies about 2e. Do folks not remember there are tons of "splat" books in 2e that do provide Half-Orc's as a race as well as many many other races, kits, subraces, classes etc..

Many of the "splat" books are... well, in my opinion, too much. I can probably pick and choose a few things I like from most of them, but would gladly discard the rest.

The fact that half-orcs were excluded from the core rules is my complaint.

[crpgguy]

2E in comparison by default going by the 3 core books seemed less "complete" than 1E as an overall package looking back anyway. Not a knock or anything just my perception now as I own both sets. Looking back it's nice to have psionics and half-orcs, etc in the core books rather than having to buy something else. Especially since a previous version had said things, 2E should have also IMO.

[Keehnelf]

Yeah, 2e's splat books were one of the main reasons I listed it so low.

[Zhym]

Part of the charm of 1e, for me, is that it's almost like having Gary Gygax's DM notes for his own campaign, with all that implies: messy organization, esoteric tables you'll probably never use, diatribes on gaming philosophy, and illustrations that aren't that far from a middle schooler's notebook drawings. In other words, 1e is chock full of history and character.

2e is superior in many ways. The mechanics are mostly similar, and 2e does clean up a lot of what's messy, contradictory, or missing in 1e. But 2e also marked when TSR went more corporate and, whether for good reason or not, pushed Gary out of the business. If 1e is like reading Gary's DM notes, 2e is like reading a particularly dry software manual. The exclusion of demons, devils, etc. that Dave mentioned is another facet of the corporatization of AD&D during the 2e era: removing those aspects because of the "D&D = devil worship" hysteria makes total sense from a business perspective but rubbed players the wrong way. And then there are all the splat books, which seemed mostly like a way to keep shoving out product (often of very low quality) that players could buy after they'd already picked up the core rule books.

That said, the players in a game are much more important than whether the rules are 1e vs. 2e. I've played in great 2e games and crummy 1e games, and the difference was the people at the table. Fun people make for fun games.

As for other editions: I really dig OD&D as a system to get going quick and not worry about rules. I only played 3.0/3.5 in the Neverwinter Nights computer game. That was fun and seemed to have some good ideas in it, including being able to choose which class to level in.

[crpgguy]

Part of the charm of 1e, for me, is that it's almost like having Gary Gygax's DM notes for his own campaign, with all that implies: messy organization, esoteric tables you'll probably never use, diatribes on gaming philosophy, and illustrations that aren't that far from a middle schooler's notebook drawings. In other words, 1e is chock full of history and character.

2e is superior in many ways. The mechanics are mostly similar, and 2e does clean up a lot of what's messy, contradictory, or missing in 1e. But 2e also marked when TSR went more corporate and, whether for good reason or not, pushed Gary out of the business. If 1e is like reading Gary's DM notes, 2e is like reading a particularly dry software manual. The exclusion of demons, devils, etc. that Dave mentioned is another facet of the corporatization of AD&D during the 2e era: removing those aspects because of the "D&D = devil worship" hysteria makes total sense from a business perspective but rubbed players the wrong way. And then there are all the splat books, which seemed mostly like a way to keep shoving out product (often of very low quality) that players could buy after they'd already picked up the core rule books.

That said, the players in a game are much more important than whether the rules are 1e vs. 2e. I've played in great 2e games and crummy 1e games, and the difference was the people at the table. Fun people make for fun games.

As for other editions: I really dig OD&D as a system to get going quick and not worry about rules. I only played 3.0/3.5 in the Neverwinter Nights computer game. That was fun and seemed to have some good ideas in it, including being able to choose which class to level in.

I'd really like to try OD&D sometime if only by a clone or whatever, never have played it. And speaking of NWN, just installed my gog version this morning.

[GreyWolfVT]

Very well then..... oddly enough even not having Half-Orc's in the core rules never stopped me and my friends from making and playing them we didn't even have the splat book for the correct information we just remembered what it was from 1e and went with that. Psionics never interested me so it was never a cause for concern to me. Same with some of those additional concerns of other folks not here like devils and angels not in the MM lol I never once had an encounter with those. The way I look at the splat books as most of us call them is that to me they are rules that they cut out of the "core" rules that they later then wanted to reincorporate into the system. To boot if all of these were in the core rules can you picture the size of the book?

[Keehnelf]

Very well then..... oddly enough even not having Half-Orc's in the core rules never stopped me and my friends from making and playing them we didn't even have the splat book for the correct information we just remembered what it was from 1e and went with that. Psionics never interested me so it was never a cause for concern to me. Same with some of those additional concerns of other folks not here like devils and angels not in the MM lol I never once had an encounter with those. The way I look at the splat books as most of us call them is that to me they are rules that they cut out of the "core" rules that they later then wanted to reincorporate into the system. To boot if all of these were in the core rules can you picture the size of the book?

That many rules is a huge turn-off for me. Making the argument that way only cements my distaste for splat books

[dmw71]

Very well then..... oddly enough even not having Half-Orc's in the core rules never stopped me and my friends from making and playing them we didn't even have the splat book for the correct information we just remembered what it was from 1e and went with that.

Which is very easy to accomplish.

Probably the single greatest reason I prefer 2e to 1e are the improved surprise/initiative mechanics. But, honestly, you could play 1e and house rule surprise/initiative (and I also really like how thief skills work in 2e); or play 2e and house rule half-orcs and psionics. Either way, you're going to be playing a very, very similar and familiar game.

[hedgeknight]

Same as Ed > if the rules didn't have something my friends and I liked, we just added it or tweaked the rules to accommodate our gaming tastes. Somebody was playing a Half-Orc regardless of the edition and demons and devils plagued us (and ate us) throughout 1E & 2E and I use them a lot as much as I can regardless of the edition I'm using.
My preference is probably 2E...but I really love 1E too. I have also ran some really fun 3.5 games online; Red Hand of Doom being a favorite as well as a couple of sandbox adventures (one lasted 6 years, the other 4 years).
Currently running a 1E game on another site and a 5E game here. 5E is fun without all of the skills, feats, character builds of 3.5.

[GreyWolfVT]

I would have to add the only thing I did like from some of the newer editions were the different classes available to all races that used to be strictly restricted to one or few classes where as now they can have a Dwarf Monk in 5e. Though I can think of ways to make that possible in almost any edition.

[Inferno]

Fascinating thread.
For me, the golden age of D&D is 15. I can embrace all systems that existed when I was 15 (AD&D 1e and earlier ones). And I reject all those that follow. This is just due to nostalgia. 1e desperately needs editing, organization and streamlining, but that's a small price to pay for being able to cozy up to all those powerful, iconic, memory-triggering images and tables. Trampier, Dee, Otus, Roslof, etc. The books are like an old friend.

I'm the same way with music. Except its golden age is 18. I can accept most musical genres that existed when I was 18. And I reject all genres that were invented after. Can't help it.