Ben Lehman shocked me with the fact that he likes all editions of D&D!

I don't know anyone else who feels this way! I love D&D as a whole, but I have strong preferences and dislikes. Here they are:

OD&D is not a good or a bad design, because it's first. If we had to pick one we would say wildly incoherent and incomplete rules set = bad, but I don't think it's that simple. I LOVE this game.

AD&D/1st edition is a sort of bad design - it clarifies things that were missing in OD&D, but not in a good way. I am AMBIVALENT about this game. Treated as an OD&D supplement, the AD&D books were on a level with the Arduin Grimoires as the best supplement ever produced for the old game. Taken as a new game, they generated some strange problems and difficulties that sucked some of the fun out of play for me.

"Basic D&D": 1977 J. Eric Holmes and the later 1980-ish Moldvay 'First Edition Basic' D&D is an incomplete game. It's a better design than the other early versions of the game from what's there, though, largely due to simplicity. The later Mentzer-Edited 'Second Edition Basic' and the Allston-edited 'Rules Compendium' follow-up is the best-designed version of D&D with the possible exception of 3e/3.5. I LIKE these rules.

2nd Edition AD&D is a crummy stewpot of multiple splatbooks and contradictory rulesets grafted onto rewrites of the Gygax books that solve none of their problems. This is a bad design. Plus, baatezu and tanar'ri. I HATE THESE RULES WITH A BRUTAL, VENGEFUL, BURNING PASSION.

'3rd Edition D&D' is a slick, high-functioning hardcore gamist design. 3.5 made it slicker still by working off some rough edges and taking all the D&D-influenced color out of the spell list in the name of systematic uniformity. The main problem with the design is long handling time at higher levels of play. The detail required to stat monsters and NPCs is prohibitive for the kind of gaming I like though. I HATE THESE RULES WITH A BRUTAL, VENGEFUL BURNING PASSION, PLUS MY HAT OF D20 KNOW NO LIMIT.

The idea of Hackmaster is cool, and some of the design is really interesting, plus there's the whole postmodern LARP angle. But this system is death on handling time. I FIND THESE RULES CHARMING BUT FUNCTIONALLY UNPLAYABLE.

Castles and Crusades is a pretty good effort at a rules-lite AD&D with a relatively modern universal task resolution system. IMO the game's only half-baked but it's going in a direction that I like. This is a solid and functional design. I LIKE these rules.

I love to play 3.5.

At the same time, I will never play as the DM, because its overheads are dreadful.

I have no love for the new edition, but I do respect it for being exactly as it advertises. It has never lied to me, unlike some bastard companies...

I do have a nostalgic love for the older editions though.

Castles and Crusades to me is like masturbation. It is entertaining and gets the job done, but it sure ain't fucking...

Keith

There are tools out there that GREATLY reduce the DM handling time for creating monsters, etc.

There are those who believe that one shouldn't need a computer program or spreadsheet to prepare for a game, but I'm not one of them.

With my current group I've taken a sort of "can't beat 'em, then join 'em" stance, and now I'm having an unbelievable amount of fun. I will probably never play Primetime Adventures or Dogs with them, but it's still a really good time.

Plus I think games like D&D, from the GM perspective, satisfy the part of me that probably would have been into model railroading 50 years ago.

I didn't care for Castles and Crusades, and I would choose not to play any edition previous to 3rd.

In my mind, prep time is a MAJOR issue, and hence a major impedement to my playing D&D. I've played a heavily modified AD&D as well as d20, player and GM, and tis a pain in the tukas.
When I was playing AD&D, it wasn't so bad- group I gamed with played about an hour a day at lunch, so we had regular sessions. Later stuff though? Tis pulling teeth to get anyone together, there is no consistancy in the groups that do pull together, so prep for group A is worthless when you're playing with group A-1 or group B+2. Hence, now, I prefer games that are quick and easy, which has also colored my design preference from highly statted to nearly statless and from several ideas to one core. Makes it easier for me to play at the drop of a hat.
Give me more time and a commited crew, probably see me in more D&D. Otherwise? Nope.

Dungeons and Dragons is definitely not for the casual gamer. If you can only get together now and again, it's a poor choice. Not so much for the DM overhead (as I've said, it's not a big issue) but for the player overhead. It takes a while to work up characters and figure out how they relate to each other, and get to the point where meaningful, fun RP is happening.

D&D is just so limited. Imagine how many more people would enjoy RPing and would be drawn to the hobby if a more flexible system like Primetime Adventures was the standard gateway.

I found/find most versions of interesting, but 3.0 and 3.5 are the first editions where I've reined in my fix-it habits and just encourage everyone to go with what's written. That may be because it's a better/ more seamless system... or it may be Forge influence.

Otherwise, I liked each Edition as it came out, though the "Basic" D&D versions (1-36+ immortals) was only for mining, not playing.

Scott

I actually have appreciation of all versions of D&D:

OD&D (3rd edition): Shrewd product concept of doling out more rules supplements by character level. Each new box unfolded a whole new mode of gameplay. Very newbie-friendly. The Elmore/Caldwell illos still strike me as much, much cooler "iconic" characters than the 3E gang.

1st Ed.: Very much infused with Gygax's personality. The DMG has a wonderful mystique as a How To Play God manual. A crazy patchwork of task-resolution systems pieced together over the years. Not one game -- a dozen mini-games. Fighting! Exploring! Thieving! Magicking! Psionicing! Climbing! Shopping! Avoiding Sudden Death! Pummelling/Overbearing/Grappling! (Okay, I never ONCE used that last one, but it had its own blank on the character sheet.)

Does there actually exist anyone who played a Bard from level 1 without fudging?

2nd Ed.: Played a lot of this. A noble effort at streamlining all the disseparate rules from 1st ed., but then they went and cut its balls off. Many apologetics in the text about why said neutering was in fact The Best Way. Then they came out with an assload of splatbooks which completely undermined the streamlining.

The green Historical Reference splatbooks were really pretty good, though.

3rd Ed.: Holy crap, there's a consistent rules mechanic in this one! Tactical combat is actually supported without requiring a whole pile of house rules. Finally, I will never need to buy another edition of D&D.

The iconic characters have the distinction of being the most personality-free fantasy PCs every imagined.

Unpleasant thing I've noticed every DM converting from 2e to 3e not realize: Combat against more than four enemies really, really drags ass in this system. But really, what fantasy system shouldn't be able to handle a goblin horde?

3.5: All the rules fixes I never asked for! You want me to shell out $90 for rulebooks I just bought, because all future support material will be subtly incompatible? Hmm, they must attend mixers with Microsoft employees.

Best package for new consumers -- er, players -- though. Nicely refocused on tactical miniatures battles, i.e. customers that are willing to buy more crap.

Okay, so actually I pretty much hate 3.5.

This version, that version, whatever.

The best and most important thing about Dungeons and Dragons was, is, and ever shall be... the dungeons. The idea of this "role playing" stuff was revolutionary, but the idea of bizarre underground labyrinths/zoos/ruins/contraptions as the ideal setting for role playing games was truly ingenious.

And it just kind of came out of nowhere. There were individual scenes in the prototype literature that were clearly borrowed from: the Mines of Moria in LotR, Smaug's and Gollum's lairs in the Hobbit, Journey to the Center of the Earth, the Minotuar myth, adventure serials featuring Egyptian tombs, prison escape stories going back to the Count of Monte Cristo, a few key bits in the Arabian Nights, even a few of the more memorable Scrooge McDuck adventures by Barks. But the whole muddled melange of monsters, doors, traps, treasure, maps, pits, magic, and dragons was something novel and special. Indiana Jones and Lara Croft are its descendents, not it's ancestors. The dungeon setting is as contrived and artificial as a Petri dish, and exactly what role playing needed to incubate in.

Railroading, Illusionism, the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, Gamist versus Sim Creative Agendas... they're all non-issues in dungeon crawls. To the limited extent that a dungeon adventure requires plot structure, the dungeon walls provide it.

The problem with D&D is and has always been that it refuses to stay in the dungeon where it belongs. Right from the start it had to have cities where the thieves have guilds, and characters with backgrounds, and feudal kingdoms on the verge of war, and epic adventures. None of which the fundamental game concepts evolved for dungeons ("dungeons" here meaning not only the type of setting but also the type of plot structure) could either handle or help the players handle. Ever, in any version.

On the other hand, D&D's greatest strength in every version is that it at least keeps a foothold in the dungeons, while other major systems rush to dissociate themselves from them. The simple wisdom of comtaining the infinite choices of role playing in a stylistic mode whose nature is to greatly constrain choices will always have a place in role playing, and will sustain D&D for as long as it continues to embrace it as an important aspect of play.

- Walt

I've only ever played Basic/Expert and 1st ed. Advanced. They're both cool. To me, 1st ed. Advanced is classic. It's what I mean when I say D&D. And it will always have a place in my heart.

I loved the unpolished look, the pages and pages of rules, the weird notations (i.e., cf., e.g.). To me, it hit its zenith with the release of Unearthed Arcana. Everything after that left me cold. I used to love to create dungeons and populate them with traps and monster lairs. I loved making magic swords, too. It still amazes me that during that whole period I was unaware of Howard or Moorcock. I knew Tolkein through the cartoons, but I only got a handle on the Hobbit.

I loved making characters in 1st. Geez. I spent a whole Summer playing D&D, once. It was a blur. I never really understood the story elements in the published modules. I just looked at the pictures and made stuff up.

Another cool thing was Dragon magazine articles. I really liked trying out the rules supplements and alternate character classes. Very few ever made it into play, but it was fun to visualize the concepts.

D&D has always been like an abusive relationship for me. I keep coming back, and I keep getting burned. Nothing quite "fits right" for me with it. I have to say I like a lot of the simplicity of the older versions, but at the same time, I love the multiclassing thing with 3.0+.

It has me beginning what I'm calling the "10 level Heresy", where I rewrite all the classes the way I like'em, stopping at the 10th level, and making everything(including spells) as class abilities, and throwing in T&T's... er C&C's attribute checks.

Walt Freitag wrote:
On the other hand, D&D's greatest strength in every version is that it at least keeps a foothold in the dungeons...

bcook1971 wrote: (i.e., cf., e.g.).

Vaxalon wrote: You'll be glad to know that of late, DnD publishers have been very much returning to the dungeons. Have you heard of "World's Largest Dungeon"?

James Holloway wrote: Are these really "weird?"