PDA

View Full Version : 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th edition dnd?



ridly
2009-03-05, 05:32 PM
I kmow i like 3rded but i want to take a poll.

what do you think is better 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, or 4th edition dnd?:roach:

Kurald Galain
2009-03-05, 05:34 PM
Chocolate.

NecroRebel
2009-03-05, 05:37 PM
Strawberry! The real question depends on what you want to do. 1ed and 2ed are more open, in that they have fewer rules, 3.Xed is the most simulationist of them, and 4ed is most gamist. I tend to prefer gamism, myself, due mostly to rule of cool.

ridly
2009-03-05, 05:39 PM
STOP WITH THE RANDOM WORDS!:smallfurious:

Assassin89
2009-03-05, 05:41 PM
Now for some more random words.
Vanilla! I have only played 1st, 3.5 and 4th, and out of those three I prefer 3.5.

Occasional Sage
2009-03-05, 05:43 PM
Frankly I'd play something else, like Nobilis (http://www.eos-press.com/products-nobilis.html), if I had any choice.

If I had to play D&D... 2nd, probably. It's coherent in a way 1st wasn't, and isn't designed for abuse the way 3rd ends up. I know nothing about 4th.

Oh, and check the white text of NecroRebel's post before getting too upset.

monty
2009-03-05, 05:43 PM
E. None of the above

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-05, 05:46 PM
Strawberry! :smallfurious: Curse you NecroRebel Ninja!

More seriously, each edition has different flavors. My two favorite and 2nd and 4th - mainly 'cause I only played one game of 1st (as a 10th level Wizard - totally pwn'd a courtyard of baddies with a Fireball :smallbiggrin:). 3rd is fine, but I really do find 4E to be a strictly better interpretation of the type of D&D WotC tried to make. But that's just me :smallsmile:

2E games are all about chance. You play your character as if you don't expect him to live to the end of the adventure, much less to the next level - all glory and derring do. Ultimately everyone is working towards "retiring" around level 10 when people start building keeps and getting followers; there are no prestige classes or fancy high-level powers to shoot for (Druids aside). For me, this is adventuring at its rawest.

4E games are all about "winning" - reaching level 30 and fulfilling your Epic Destiny. Adventurers do it for life, always seeking bigger and better quests while accumulating power and wealth. Unless things go terribly wrong, you should be able to live to the next level - and if you die, you can always be revived. There is a lot of investment in your character as you expect him to grow and change over 30 levels of play. You can tell really epic stories in 4E without worrying much about how the rules work, and without worrying about accidentally TPKing your party due to DM miscalculation.

NecroRebel
2009-03-05, 05:47 PM
STOP WITH THE RANDOM WORDS!:smallfurious:

Someone hasn't seen the ice cream-related thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106111)

The actual purpose of the aforementioned ice cream thread is to demonstrate how incredibly stupid edition wars are. One might as well argue about whether chocolate or strawberry ice cream is superior. While strawberry clearly is (because I say so, naturally), it doesn't really have any bearing on what someone likes or dislikes and telling someone that it does is just childish. And obviously, I am well aware of the hypocrism inherent in saying strawberry is better in that same sentence.

Project_Mayhem
2009-03-05, 05:47 PM
Vampire the Masquerade!





or I suppose 3.5. Maybe 1st

Totally Guy
2009-03-05, 05:48 PM
Cool, I call dibs on being the pompous Sorbet man again.

NPCMook
2009-03-05, 05:49 PM
4e Shadowrun

Occasional Sage
2009-03-05, 05:51 PM
Someone hasn't seen the ice cream-related thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106111)

The actual purpose of the aforementioned ice cream thread is to demonstrate how incredibly stupid edition wars are. One might as well argue about whether chocolate or strawberry ice cream is superior. While strawberry clearly is (because I say so, naturally), it doesn't really have any bearing on what someone likes or dislikes and telling someone that it does is just childish. And obviously, I am well aware of the hypocrism inherent in saying strawberry is better in that same sentence.

I hadn't actually clicked into that thread before. Thanks!

NecroRebel
2009-03-05, 05:54 PM
I hadn't actually clicked into that thread before. Thanks!

Yeah, it's hilarious. :smallbiggrin:

paigeoliver
2009-03-05, 05:58 PM
Of the Thaco based D&D versions I prefer Rules Cyclopedia D&D. Which you didn't list (the Non-Advanced version from the 80s-90s).

Of the D20 versions I'd say Castles and Crusades followed by 3.5 with 3.0 not considered a valid option.

Of the "Turn WoW into a boardgame versions" I prefer D&D miniatures with 4.0 a distant second.

I am primarily a DM and Thaco D&D is the easiest to write for, so it is my favorite type in general. Followed by D20 versions, with the boardgame wow versions being a distant 3rd. (4th ed is no fun to GM at all. Go through the monster manual and look at the monsters carefully, almost none of them have any REAL options in combat and PC marking takes away even the option to pick who I fight, I might as well not even be there.).

Rettu Skcollob
2009-03-05, 05:58 PM
After reading the first 5 posts, I thought I'd stepped into /b/ by mistake, for a moment.

Sebastian
2009-03-05, 06:02 PM
My personal tastes goes toward second edition, then 3rd edition then way, way later 4th.
But there is to say that I know almost nothing of the previous editions.

amanamana
2009-03-05, 06:04 PM
Iron Heroes, any day of the week. If not, maybe 2nd edition.

Lamech
2009-03-05, 06:27 PM
3.5 I think is the best. May also be the only one I've played.

Also vanilla is the best ice cream. I saw your white text!

Salvonus
2009-03-05, 06:54 PM
Hedgehog.

(That's actually a type of ice cream [okay, okay, gelato] - chocolate and hazelnut, oh my!)

Also, if I must be on topic, I like 3.5e. Tried to make a character and play 4e, but I have to admit that I kinda lost interest. The mechanical side of things was just less interesting to me than Tome of Battle.

Lappy9000
2009-03-05, 06:59 PM
3.5 ia superior. All hail.

Strawberry > Chocolate

SimperingToad
2009-03-05, 08:03 PM
As others have pointed out, OD&D (1974) and the BECMI/RC line should be options as well.

Hadn't really noticed (or maybe had not cared to notice) before, but there is not an option to do a real click-to-vote poll? Odd that.

For meself, AD&D; no bloody 1, 2, 3, or 4. Though all have interesting points, I prefer things more on the free-wheeling/lighter-rules side.

ridly
2009-03-05, 08:18 PM
OH! i forgot about

ODnD
and ADnD:smalltongue:

Asbestos
2009-03-05, 08:44 PM
There is a frustrating amount of white text in this here thread...

4e, cause I DM and its way less taxing on me and I'm not made of time. Time to play is one thing (and really the only thing those selfish players care about) but time to set up is a whole other beast.

Chocolate + Hazelnut gelato? That is pure win right there.

Optimator
2009-03-05, 08:48 PM
Star Wars Saga Edition.

But seriously, 3.5 is where it's at.

Starbuck_II
2009-03-05, 08:50 PM
Both!

That is all.

Salvonus
2009-03-05, 08:56 PM
The real question depends on what you want to do. 1ed and 2ed are more open, in that they have fewer rules, 3.Xed is the most simulationist of them, and 4ed is most gamist. I tend to prefer gamism, myself, due mostly to rule of cool.

Hmm... Doesn't "rule of cool" really just depend on the way you want to play the game, rather than depend on the system itself (when it comes to D&D)? I didn't see anything in the 4e rules that lent themselves more to cool or creative scenes, at least not any more than 3e presented. Honestly, I'd say it just depends on how closely you follow the rules - if they're a guideline rather than doctrine, you're always going to have room for Rule of Cool. :smalltongue:

Oh, and seriously, in before pointless debate and nerd rage (not directed at you, but this seems to happen a lot): Neither system is particularly "easier" to have the Rule of Cool come into play. Neither of them actively discourages it. If someone "can't" play with Rule of Cool in one D&D system but can in another, I'd seriously suggest that They're Doing It Wrong and they've got some serious mental blocks going on. :smallwink:

I mean, if I wanted to play a game strictly by RAW, I'd just play a computer game. :smallwink:

I dunno, I'd say it really just comes down to the basic toolset you prefer. I personally prefer the 3.5 toolset, just 'cause it has a real flexibility to it in character creation and can make for some genuinely interesting homebrew. Other people prefer the 4e toolset as their base. There's way too much drama over it. :smalltongue: I'm not even sure what the point of these threads is. It'd be far more interesting to debate flavours of ice cream. :smallwink:

THAC0
2009-03-05, 08:57 PM
1 or 4. :smallbiggrin:

Surfing HalfOrc
2009-03-05, 09:01 PM
It depends...

Mostly 3.5, but I also love 1st Ed or B/X D&D (the Tom Moldvey/David Cook editions) B/X had a simplicity of action and adventure that almost no other edition has been able to match.

Labyrinth Lord is a pretty good clone of B/X, and is available for free! (Plus, there is a Gamma World clone called Mutant Future, also a freebie)

Starscream
2009-03-05, 09:33 PM
Picard. But that's an altogether other internet war.

In all seriousness, 3.5 followed by a tie between 2nd and 4th. Never really played 1st, he said shamefully.

Although if I could choose from any system, 3.5 would be tied with Mutants and Masterminds, and closely followed by Gurps and Star Wars Saga. And all signs point to me enjoying Call of Cthulu, although I've never played it.

NecroRebel
2009-03-05, 09:34 PM
Hmm... Doesn't "rule of cool" really just depend on the way you want to play the game, rather than depend on the system itself (when it comes to D&D)? I didn't see anything in the 4e rules that lent themselves more to cool or creative scenes, at least not any more than 3e presented. Honestly, I'd say it just depends on how closely you follow the rules - if they're a guideline rather than doctrine, you're always going to have room for Rule of Cool. :smalltongue:

Oh, and seriously, in before pointless debate and nerd rage (not directed at you, but this seems to happen a lot): Neither system is particularly "easier" to have the Rule of Cool come into play. Neither of them actively discourages it. If someone "can't" play with Rule of Cool in one D&D system but can in another, I'd seriously suggest that They're Doing It Wrong and they've got some serious mental blocks going on. :smallwink:

I mean, if I wanted to play a game strictly by RAW, I'd just play a computer game. :smallwink:

I dunno, I'd say it really just comes down to the basic toolset you prefer. I personally prefer the 3.5 toolset, just 'cause it has a real flexibility to it in character creation and can make for some genuinely interesting homebrew. Other people prefer the 4e toolset as their base. There's way too much drama over it. :smalltongue: I'm not even sure what the point of these threads is. It'd be far more interesting to debate flavours of ice cream. :smallwink:

The way I see it, the fact that 3.x has more rules for doing stuff means that you're somewhat discouraged from ad libbing stuff. That, in turn, means that you're somewhat discouraged from ad libbing cool stuff, so it is slightly more difficult to convince many DMs to let you do cool stuff. Of course, the fact that there aren't rules for a lot of neat stuff in 4E also increases the difficulty of doing stuff that isn't in the rules, so your mileage may vary.

In the end, gamism just encourages Rule of Cool because it's not expected to be realistic and/or gritty at all. Meh, it's my opinion, I don't really need to back it up with logic.



You should check out the We All Scream thread I linked earlier if you haven't already, though; discussion of ice cream is hilarious.

Inyssius Tor
2009-03-05, 09:57 PM
http://gmlc.typepad.com/good_morning_lowcountry/images/2007/05/03/icecream.jpg



4e, because I am a spineless neophile munchkin.

holywhippet
2009-03-05, 10:04 PM
If you want the raw flavour + mechanics then definetly 3rd edition. If you want balance between the classes then 4th edition. I'm undecided - I've only played a few games of 4E and there are a number of things I miss from 3E.

Mushroom Ninja
2009-03-05, 10:08 PM
I'd have to say 3.5 right now. But the others are loads of fun too.

Trodon
2009-03-06, 02:53 AM
3.5 4.0 is good for the fighters but the wizards suck ass if your a level 1 fighter you can deal 3d6+Str (maul 2d6 plus the brute strike power 3 weapon damage) while a level [B]29[B] wizard can only deal 6d6+Int wtf is that about?

AgentPaper
2009-03-06, 03:08 AM
4E, because I want the game to represent the world I create, not tell me how it works. Not to say I would refuse to play any other edition or RPG system, really, but 4E would be my first choice.

@Trodon
I think you have your numbers mixed up. What wizard power are you talking about? I have an inkling that it's meteor storm, which does 8d6. Not to mention that it covers a good area, has range, and only does half damage if you miss. The two are not really comparable. A better comparison might be No Mercy, a level 29 fighter daily, which would do 14d6, again to a single target. Meteor storm out-damages that as long as it hits 2 things, and if there's 4, it does more damage even if it misses every single one of them. Of course, a rogue or ranger will put both of these to shame.

FatR
2009-03-06, 03:10 AM
3/3.5 for my typical style of play. Both versions of 3rd edition have their good and bad points, so I prefer to mix and match as a part of houserules. I have some nostalgic feeling for AD&D 2 and it suits lower-powered, lower-magic games somewhat better, but I feel that generally it is inferior.

Jerthanis
2009-03-06, 03:16 AM
I wish I played less D&D, but if I had to, 2nd or 4th. 2nd for a short game with a story of limited or personal scope, 4th for a more serious game intended for teeth to be sunk into.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-06, 03:57 AM
I wish I played less D&D

Now that begs for some elaboration, sir!

arguskos
2009-03-06, 03:58 AM
Picard. But that's an altogether other internet war.
KIRK IS THE ONLY REAL CAPTAIN YOU HEATHEN FIEND!!!

Nah, Picard all the way. But, at least he's not Sisko... *shudders*

Darkfalle
2009-03-06, 04:26 AM
For me, 2nd will always be my favorite. Why? I've always felt that 3 and 3.5 lend themselves far too well to powergaming (although a good DM could keep this under control) and 1st was, well, 1st was stupid. As for 4th, I know very little about it, but from what I've heard about it (the MMO like elements), I very much doubt I would enjoy it.

FoE
2009-03-06, 04:28 AM
Nah, Picard all the way. But, at least he's not Sisko... *shudders*

What the hell is wrong with Sisko? Now, if you'd said "Janeway" or "Archer", I could forgive, but Sisko?

I'm a 1E baby, so I'll go with 1E. But honestly, I haven't experienced enough 4E yet to make a good decision. (I never played 2E and I never warmed to 3.5E, for those who are curious.)

arguskos
2009-03-06, 04:38 AM
What the hell is wrong with Sisko? Now, if you'd said "Janeway" or "Archer", I could forgive, but Sisko?

I'm a 1E baby, so I'll go with 1E. But honestly, I haven't experienced enough 4E yet to make a good decision. (I never played 2E and I never warmed to 3.5E, for those who are curious.)
Response spoiler'd for on-topic-ness
Ok, ok, let me clarify: post-Prophet Sisko is what I was referencing. Star Trek had (ironically enough) avoided the Mary Sues pretty decently until post-Prophet Sisko. Pre-prophet, he was alright, nothing amazing, but fun enough.

Oh, and yes, the ONE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED. Everyone, Janeway included, trumps him. :smallannoyed:

On-topic, really I can dig any edition of D&D... save 4e, which hasn't clicked with me yet, and I sincerely doubt is going to. I got a set of OD&D rules a few months ago, found them fun, but a little unusual to get used to. I grew up on 2nd Ed, which is great fun, but I find I prefer 3.5's ruleset to all of the above. It's just my thing.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-06, 04:39 AM
For me, 2nd will always be my favorite. Why? I've always felt that 3 and 3.5 lend themselves far too well to powergaming (although a good DM could keep this under control) and 1st was, well, 1st was stupid. As for 4th, I know very little about it, but from what I've heard about it (the MMO like elements), I very much doubt I would enjoy it.

You'd be surprised.

I've found strong similarities between certain 2E aesthetics and 4E; a strong class system, difficult magic, simple skill system, and others. I'd say flip through a PHB at a bookstore and see how that feels to you.

And of course, if you have any particular concerns I'm sure folks around here would be willing to address them. I've never understood the "MMO" comments personally - what exactly are they objecting to? Obviously you are playing a pen & paper game with a living DM to interpret your actions; the standard limitations of computer games just aren't there.

EDIT: Oh! To not derail this thread completely, here's the latest Edition Warz thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104812). Just throw a post there with your concerns and someone will pipe up.

Don't bother reading the rest of the thread - it'll give you headaches :smalltongue:

Kaiyanwang
2009-03-06, 04:42 AM
3rd as a whole, but I had a lot of fun even with Basic and Advanced.

4th edition is not yadda yadda yadda the usual things I say to bash 4th edition.

bosssmiley
2009-03-06, 04:58 AM
What Which do you think is better; 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, or 4th edition dnd?

Any edition that's not on your list. :smalltongue:

*simultaneous xkcd ref (http://xkcd.com/468/), nod to TVTropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitle6cd1cskka05i), and sneer at people knowing not the heritage of their own hobby (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/12/d-family-tree.html), followed by a spring, a double backflip, and a back somersault with twist and transvestism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBPjhB9d3jc)*

And remember: 4E = 10E :smallbiggrin:

Khatoblepas
2009-03-06, 05:02 AM
I like a lot of systems, none are better x3
4e - For kick in the door, generally being awesome dungeon crawls. I'd want to play 4e for one-shots.
M&M - For a more customisable d20 style play.
3.5 - For fun builds and lots of options. (and very very nice with Psionics and Tome of Battle. Quite balanced.)
2e - For what I feel is a more traditional game, especially with all the idiosynchrocies and cool campaign settings.

BRP - For easily playing the game. Hurray for roll under skill games :D I love it.

Though, a little off topic, but concerning taking the best of every game:

If I had my way, I'd combine 3.5's action system, detailed monsters [so we can play AS them, but probably make them at the 2e power level] and someof the more obscure base classes, 2e's base ability [Hell yes I like odd tables]/class/magic/save system [different XP for different classes was genius for me], and BRP's percentile skill system, to give everyone "thief" points. Of course, you'd have class skills and hobby skills to replace NWP (that is to say, while a Mage can't take Hide in Shadows, there's no reason they can't take Boating, Magical Lore or Language - Ancient Suelese), and the proficiency system would still be there. Best of all worlds, for me. YMMV.

Morty
2009-03-06, 09:00 AM
Apples. And salty crackers.
In all seriousness though, 3.5. Which, while fun, I play mostly because I've failed to find any appropriately gritty system except Warhammer.

Roland St. Jude
2009-03-06, 09:13 AM
Sheriff of Moddingham: I'm sure there's another edition thread somewhere.