Hey you darn kids get off my edition!

[2D8HP]

Did you once make fun of oldtimers for not switching to an "up to date" edition of the game (D&D, Shadowrun, whatever)?
Is your favorite version now considered "obsolete"?
Tell the story!
Feel free to criticize versions of the game that aren't "the one true way" (edition wars are fun)!
Ever change your mind?

[TheIronGolem]

Every edition older than the one you play is a clumsy artifact that only grognards play because they can't handle change.

Every edition newer than the one you play is a dumbed-down video game on paper that only entitled kiddies play because they can't handle Real Roleplaying^TM.

That should just about cover things.

[oxybe]

playing since 2nd ed, went to 3rd & 4th as i found those to be upgrades to the version before.

5th though? I'm just not seeing the draw to it when compared to previous editions: if i wanted low-power and lethality, i have 2nd. if i wanted raw customization & options, i'll go with 3rd/pf. if i wanted a game that focused on action & adventuring and ease of GMing, i'd pick 4th.

yet while 5th ed isn't doing anything particularly offensive to my tastes, and the other editions mentioned all have a few thing that manage to get my goat, esp. 3rd ed, and i admit to not having the experience with 5th as i do with 2nd, 3rd or 4th, but i just don't feel anything for the game.

those other 3 editions all had something to grab me and still do to an extent despite (or in spite of) their flaws, but 5th ed is failing to draw me in... it's a very safe, almost vanilla edition, compared to what came before it and it's particular mix of gaming elements doesn't do much for me over what i already own.

it's not that i find 5th ed bad or offensive, just terribly bland for my taste.

[gadren]

playing since 2nd ed, went to 3rd & 4th as i found those to be upgrades to the version before.

5th though? I'm just not seeing the draw to it when compared to previous editions: if i wanted low-power and lethality, i have 2nd. if i wanted raw customization & options, i'll go with 3rd/pf. if i wanted a game that focused on action & adventuring and ease of GMing, i'd pick 4th.

yet while 5th ed isn't doing anything particularly offensive to my tastes, and the other editions mentioned all have a few thing that manage to get my goat, esp. 3rd ed, and i admit to not having the experience with 5th as i do with 2nd, 3rd or 4th, but i just don't feel anything for the game.

those other 3 editions all had something to grab me and still do to an extent despite (or in spite of) their flaws, but 5th ed is failing to draw me in... it's a very safe, almost vanilla edition, compared to what came before it and it's particular mix of gaming elements doesn't do much for me over what i already own.

it's not that i find 5th ed bad or offensive, just terribly bland for my taste.

Wow, you summed up my experience and stance almost entirely, the only difference being I started with OD&D.

My group playtested 5e when it first game out and basically it just bored us.

[Knaight]

Every edition older than the one you play is a clumsy artifact that only grognards play because they can't handle change.

Every edition newer than the one you play is a dumbed-down video game on paper that only entitled kiddies play because they can't handle Real Roleplaying^TM.

That should just about cover things.

Not really. For instance, I quite like Fudge, and am pretty neutral on Fate (which is a spinoff, not a successor) from a game design perspective. That Fate took a whole bunch of mechanics from Fudge and doesn't credit Fudge at all anymore? That gets on my nerves a bit.

Or, take Shadowrun. I don't particularly like SR 5, but none of the criticisms fit the dumbed down video game on paper that only entitled kiddies play model.

[Earthwalker]

At some stage someone really needs to get a way to make books stop working after a while. A few systems I dont switch up versions on, not becasue I don't think the new version is wrong or not to my tastes. Mainly becuase my old books still work and I can still play using them.

So I have like 20 or 30 Shadowrun 3e books. They still work and I can run the game. I don't feel the need to buy the same again in 4e or 5e. (Tho I have bought the main rule book for both)

i do still buy new games but these days I buy whole new systems.

I am probably not the customer the games industry needs.

[Vinyadan]

.

I am probably not the customer the games industry needs.

You might be the one it deserves ;)

[Âmesang]

Wow, you summed up my experience and stance almost entirely, the only difference being I started with OD&D.

My group playtested 5e when it first game out and basically it just bored us.

This, for the most part. I, too, found 5e to be rather bland and simple… but it's that simplicity (especially the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic) that endeared a lot of my fellow players.

I started with 3e and still prefer it, but oddly enough I had no problem with 4e (though I still only have the core books ). To be a bit contradictory I would also like to play AD&D just to see where it all started (so to speak, at least until I can grab a-hold of pre-1e rules).

[Delwugor]

Old fart here.
Started with Basic and Advanced and then other old games like Palladium, Marvel, Traveller, etc., years of 3.x and a bit of Mathfinder.
About 10 years ago, I got bored with the same old I had been doing for so long and started looking around. Since then I've played many good games: Mutants and Masterminds, Fate (many types), AW, Savage Worlds and others. I just played Monster of the Week for the first time and it's the best take on AW I've seen.

I stopped GMing D&D games for many years because frankly I couldn't stand WotC rules heavy games any more. But last year I was drafted into a 5E game and was pleasantly surprised at how well it worked with simplified mechanics. Now this Sat. I will be GMing my first D&D game in probably 5 years using 5E.

For me it's not being loyal to an old system, but matching the system (and genre) to what I'm interested in playing and running.

[Quertus]

[QUOTE=Knaight;20630500Or, take Shadowrun. I don't particularly like SR 5, but none of the criticisms fit the dumbed down video game on paper that only entitled kiddies play model.[/QUOTE]

What don't you like about shadowrun 5e?

--------

As to me... with what games have I noticed and cared about the differences between different editions? Hmmm...

Shadowrun: when I first played, fast characters were fast. A super fast street samurai could get, say, a 36 on init. So he'd go on 36, then on 26, then on 16, then some of the normal folks might get to go before he took his last action of the turn on 6.

But in newer editions I've looked at, everybody gets to go once before anyone gets their second action. They took what was the most special, wonderful, unique part of that game, and threw it away. :(

The systems formerly all known as World of Darkness: this one's tricky. I hate losing options on "upgrade". Most of the WoD lines are... diminished... compared to their origins.

I have mixed feelings about the move to fixed DC in the various d10 systems (not necessarily WoD). On the one hand, it's simpler - just a single slider (number of successes required) to worry about, making it easier to make things consistent, and probably making the games more approachable to new players. On the other hand, I like the fiddly bits of Computer Aptitude and Strong Willed, that care about and interact with the difficulty system

In older editions, the "semi auto CAD cam" was one of the ultimate spells any mage could aspire for - kinda like Wish or Polymorph Any Object in D&D. Actually, very much like them. In newer editions, it's something a starting character can do. Just imagine, for a moment, if 6th edition D&D made Wish and Polymorph Any Object into first level spells. Let that sink in.

Oh, and I hate the Atlantis theme.

D&D: I love the... balance? flow?... of 2e, the customization and ease of play of 3e. I like the idea of the CR system, and the expected WBL, but I don't like magic item Wal-Mart, or characters feeling irrelevant in higher level or higher optimization parties. I don't like how "save or die" has become the norm, rather than the exception. I'm glad that resurrection has scaled with the proliferation of SoD, yet I can't help but feel that the whole "bang, you're dead" / "no, I'm not" somehow cheapens the experience.

Speaking of which - these kids these days, and their instant gratification! Getting all this cheap experience, and leveling about 100x faster than we used to. Levels used to mean something!

Now, where was I? Ah, right D&D editions. See, the problem is, they haven't published my ideal edition of D&D.

My ideal version of D&D would have, in roughly the order of importance,
* an intuitive base system (high numbers are good, add your modifier to a.d20)
* lots of options, like 3.x
* simple character creation mini game, like older editions
* good guidelines on what monsters might be balanced against what party, kinda like 3e, but with no expectation that the world needs to be at your level, like older editions
* the balance of older editions, where level and optimization level meant something, but didn't completely obsolete other characters

... And more I don't have time to explain right now.

[Clistenes]

playing since 2nd ed, went to 3rd & 4th as i found those to be upgrades to the version before.

5th though? I'm just not seeing the draw to it when compared to previous editions: if i wanted low-power and lethality, i have 2nd. if i wanted raw customization & options, i'll go with 3rd/pf. if i wanted a game that focused on action & adventuring and ease of GMing, i'd pick 4th.

yet while 5th ed isn't doing anything particularly offensive to my tastes, and the other editions mentioned all have a few thing that manage to get my goat, esp. 3rd ed, and i admit to not having the experience with 5th as i do with 2nd, 3rd or 4th, but i just don't feel anything for the game.

those other 3 editions all had something to grab me and still do to an extent despite (or in spite of) their flaws, but 5th ed is failing to draw me in... it's a very safe, almost vanilla edition, compared to what came before it and it's particular mix of gaming elements doesn't do much for me over what i already own.

it's not that i find 5th ed bad or offensive, just terribly bland for my taste.

5th edition is a good system, but they need to make it more attractive and engaging. They need some shiny stuff to awaken our interest and imagination. More setting soucebooks, more options, whatever.

However, the current stance of WotC seem to be that keeping it simple will help them attract more players, but I'm not sure... If older gamers stick to 2nd and 3.5 editions and don't introduce the new players to the game, who will do it?

[johnbragg]

When I was in high school (in the early days of 2E), there was a younger group that played BECMI Basic. I did not understand.

[Delwugor]

However, the current stance of WotC seem to be that keeping it simple will help them attract more players, but I'm not sure...

I think it is a good strategy. Pathfinder has the market cornered on expansion books, multitude of classes archetypes and I can't count how many feats. But it seems like PF mainly makes money on adventure path.
So WotC with a simpler system doesn't have to compete with PF on the mechanics, but can put their effort into competing where the money is. I think they learned alot from the relative failure (money making wise) of 4E and want to gain back the customer they lost to PF or other systems.

[2D8HP]

Now, where was I? Ah, right D&D editions.

Speaking of which - these kids these days, and their instant gratification! Getting all this cheap experience, and leveling about 100x faster than we used to. Levels used to mean something!

Amen! Preach it!

[Aran nu tasar]

5th edition is a good system, but they need to make it more attractive and engaging. They need some shiny stuff to awaken our interest and imagination. More setting soucebooks, more options, whatever.

However, the current stance of WotC seem to be that keeping it simple will help them attract more players, but I'm not sure... If older gamers stick to 2nd and 3.5 editions and don't introduce the new players to the game, who will do it?

Honestly, I like the current approach. One of my issues with 3.5 was the absurd feature bloat, and it seems like WotC is trying to avoid that. More options are nice, I will admit, and they are coming out with new options- SCAG, for instance, had a bunch of fun stuff, as did the EE book. But they are putting them out at a slower pace, which I personally think is good. I was always one of the people who read through all three thousand sourcebooks to find the synergies that were just right for my build, but I saw a lot of new players getting overwhelmed by massive tables of feats and hundreds of pages of prestige classes. Plus the feature bloat lead to power creep and led to a lot of unintended bugs (Nightstick Divine Metamagic Persist Spell, I'm looking at you) that couldn't all be caught before the release of the relevant books, since there was simply too much stuff to check every possible source of shenanigannery. A return to (relative) simplicity is good in my book.

[Aliquid]

When I was in high school (in the early days of 2E), there was a younger group that played BECMI Basic. I did not understand.

That was me...

[johnbragg]

That was me...

Played in the cafeteria at Stuyvesant?

[Tiktakkat]

Did you once make fun of oldtimers for not switching to an "up to date" edition of the game (D&D, Shadowrun, whatever)?

No.

Is your favorite version now considered "obsolete"?

Yes.

Tell the story!

Way back when I was at a gaming convention when they focused on wargames rather than RPGs or CCGs, and I saw all the kids with Magic cards sitting on the carpet, playing on the sides.
And I thought "How utterly stupid."
This was a few years after the first LARPers had been let back into the cons after getting kicked out for harassing bystanders. Not nastily, just walking up to ordinary people on vacation and asking if the LARPers could drink their blood.
So my opinion of people in other modes of gaming was rather low in general.

Then about five years after that I walked in my FLGS and looked around, contemplating what was on the shelves.
As I did, I realized that the wargames and RPGs had been there . . . well, forever.
So I walked up to the store manager and started gossiping:
"So . . . CCGs?"
"Yeah, they sell really well."
"Well enough they pay the bills while that other stuff just takes up space."
"Yup."
"Thought so."
And with that I stopped hating on the weirdo CCGers and LARPers and just accepted their presence as essential to keeping the FLGS open.
A few years after that I realized that they at least kept people near to RPGs (and what little wargaming I still did), at least making it possible to recruit them. So I went from tolerating them to embracing them as fellow hobbyists.
I might not play CCGs or LARP, but they are gamers just like me.

Feel free to criticize versions of the game that aren't "the one true way" (edition wars are fun)!

No they aren't.
They are just as stupid and useless as setting wars, something I also abandoned.

Ever change your mind?

See above.
I gave up setting wars when watching people praise a particular piece of edition war drivel yet again (GH vs FR) and decided to give it a partial fisking.
Half of the points contradicted the other half, with all of them being simply wrong. And by "wrong" I mean "completely ignoring actual products available and the actual content within those products", including elements that were highlighted by the internal contradictions that were simply ignored.
I realized I had no time for such silliness. I like a particular setting. If you don't, oh well. It in no way takes anything away from my game for you to play something different. If the company chooses to put out setting product for you to buy but not me, it just saves me money.

I've just gotten well beyond the point where differences in form of gaming, version of a particular game, or setting within a game is something I need to get upset over.
I'll happily discuss the differences and my preferences, but taunting someone for gaming differently than me is not something I need to waste time on.

[BayardSPSR]

5th though? I'm just not seeing the draw to it when compared to previous editions: if i wanted low-power and lethality, i have 2nd. if i wanted raw customization & options, i'll go with 3rd/pf. if i wanted a game that focused on action & adventuring and ease of GMing, i'd pick 4th.

yet while 5th ed isn't doing anything particularly offensive to my tastes, and the other editions mentioned all have a few thing that manage to get my goat, esp. 3rd ed, and i admit to not having the experience with 5th as i do with 2nd, 3rd or 4th, but i just don't feel anything for the game.

those other 3 editions all had something to grab me and still do to an extent despite (or in spite of) their flaws, but 5th ed is failing to draw me in... it's a very safe, almost vanilla edition, compared to what came before it and it's particular mix of gaming elements doesn't do much for me over what i already own.

it's not that i find 5th ed bad or offensive, just terribly bland for my taste.

I haven't played it "properly," but I participated in the playtesting and in the discussion of the playtesting, and if I remember correctly that's the intention of 5e's design: to hit the median of all the other editions, without really standing out from them. I was critical of that objective at the time of the playtest, but now that it's out I'm glad that the designers achieved their goal and that people who like that goal seem to appreciate the game.

"So . . . CCGs?"
"Yeah, they sell really well."
"Well enough they pay the bills while that other stuff just takes up space."
"Yup."
"Thought so."
And with that I stopped hating on the weirdo CCGers and LARPers and just accepted their presence as essential to keeping the FLGS open.

RPGs do seem like an absolutely terrible way to make money - one book to let an arbitrary number of people play forever, even before you account for PDFs, SRDs, and homebrewing... I'm glad it's cheap, as a consumer, but I do pity the people trying to live off it.

[2D8HP]

Since it now seems to match this thread, from a different thread-

From the 1977 Holmes "Basic" rules, I miss:
Being able to know all the rules. How enchanting the box illustration looked. How quickly characters could be created.
From the 1974 to 1977 OD&D rules and supplements I miss:
The charm of a creation of "amateurs" (done for love), not "professionals" (done for money). "Guidelines" rather than "rules" (5e kind of brings this back).
From 1e AD&D I miss:
The authorial voice. How completely awesome 1e Rangers were!
That the characters stayed human scale longer (not quickly becoming comic book style superheroes). How "Appendix N" and "Deities and Demigods" inspired my reading.
What I don't miss about 1970's D&D:
How hard it was to create and get a character to survive more than a few sessions (but man was it gratifying when they did!).
How feeble magic users were at first level (in retrospect we should have just started classes at different levels, but that seemed like "cheating").
How much magic users overshadowed the other classes at high levels (in retrospect just tweak the level advancement, and give latter edition like benefits to the other classes). That I was never able to roll ability scores high enough to create a Ranger (and get 2D8 hit points at first level)!
From 1985's "Unearthed Arcana" I miss:
The initial excitement of the "Barbarian" and "Cavalier" classes.
I don't miss:
What an unbalanced rule changing mess it made of the game (I later skipped 2e thinking it would be more of the same, also the artwork turned me off, just say no to helmet horns!).
3e, what I miss:
The initial excitement of the diversity of characters that could be created. That they brought back the Greyhawk setting! That more classes were viable and could survive first level!
What I don't miss about 3e:
The oversized mess it became (just say no to infinite "feats" and "prestige classes)! How quickly 3.5 and 4e replaced it (no more than one edition per decade please)! How quickly the characters became unhumanly "epic".
Two weapon wielding Rangers, that's not Aragorn!
What I like abou 5e:
Not as bloated as 3e yet, but it retains much that I liked about it.
What I may not like:
It seems like PC's get too powerful and pile on extra abilities, too fast,
All that said, if the game features a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon and you play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a warrior in armor, wielding a longbow, just like the picture on the box I picked up in 1978, whatever the edition, I want to play that game!

[JAL_1138]

(The following is purely personal opinion and not intended to spawn any edition-warring over which is "objectively better" or any such nonsense. The very things I hated about one edition might be the things someone else didn't mind or even loved to pieces, and vice-versa, and neither one is wrong.)

Never played OD&D, Holmes Basic, B/X, BECMI, or RC, though I've played a couple B/X and BECMI modules with 2e classes and rules. What little I've read of B/X and BECMI look like there's a lot I'd like and some I'd dislike, though. I can't properly comment on them; I didn't know much of anything of them beyond that they existed until I got copies of HB, B/X, and BECMI recently. Never made fun of people playing them largely because I didn't know anyone who did (and certainly wouldn't now, because they look nifty and I'd like to try them).

Never made fun of the 1e crowd either, exactly, it was just too clunky for me to wrap my head around. Trying to play it "by the book" (a'la ADDICT) makes my eyes cross--but I liked a lot of the material besides the combat rules, like the few setting box sets it had and the modules, and played them with 2e combat rules (which, believe it or not, were massively streamlined in comparison. Yes, even in spite of THAC0, which (along with modern roll+bonus, too) is harder to use in some ways than to-hit tables).

Started in 2e (with a fair bit of 1e non-rules material thrown in) and loved the heck out of it. It wasn't perfect (and for all the slew of amazingly awesome setting material it had, messed up Greyhawk with the From The Ashes box set and the Vecna modules), but it was awesomely fun.

Didn't like Players' Options rules for character building or combat (although the crit tables were nifty) for 2e, though; they were overcomplicated, frequently broken, slow, fiddly, and felt like a different game entirely.

Didn't like 3e; it felt like they took everything I didn't like in Players' Options and built the game out of those, then went further and wrecked what little balance TSR-era D&D had with the boost to casters, made character creation overcomplicated and full of trap options (and into something that didn't "feel" like the D&D I liked, with the changes to multiclassing, explosion of classes, templates, feats, etc.), then made monsters extra-complicated and prep extremely time-consuming to boot.

4e was unrecognizeable as D&D to me; as far as I was concerned it was another game with D&D names tacked on, with padded-sumo gameplay that took ages for a single fight, dissociated mechanics, way too much emphasis on positioning and repositioning (often in nonsensical or too-artificial-seeming ways), a treadmill effect with items (3e had the same problem up 'till the casters got good at crafting, then it just broke), utility magic (via rituals) that was too costly to be useful nine times out of ten, and dozens of samey-feeling options thst led to option-paralysis, many of which were effectively trap options (in the sense that there was likely another power that did nearly the same thing but a little bit better, rather than the 3e trap options where your character didn't work worth a dang anymore compared to others of the same level).

Then 5e came along, threw out most of the things I had an issue with in 3rd and 4th, took the few good bits of them, and tried to rebuild AD&D out of that, to a pleasantly-surprising degree of success. It's overcomplicated in some places and overly-streamlined in others, but works much better than I initially thought it would. Still not as good as 2e--and I wish it were easily cross-compatible with TSR-era material, like 2e was compatible with 1e and BECMI/RC with practically no effort--but with some advantages over 2e in terms of newbie-friendliness, class balance, ease of use, and DM advice for balancing encounters. Easily my second-favorite and one I'm enjoying quite a bit, even if I needle the "dagnabbed whippersnappers" from time to time about how "back in MY day" a first-level wizard had 1d4 HP that you had to roll for and one spell per day with no cantrips.

[Psyren]

Every edition older than the one you play is a clumsy artifact that only grognards play because they can't handle change.

Every edition newer than the one you play is a dumbed-down video game on paper that only entitled kiddies play because they can't handle Real Roleplaying^TM.

That should just about cover things.

Not really. For instance, I quite like Fudge, and am pretty neutral on Fate (which is a spinoff, not a successor) from a game design perspective. That Fate took a whole bunch of mechanics from Fudge and doesn't credit Fudge at all anymore? That gets on my nerves a bit.

Or, take Shadowrun. I don't particularly like SR 5, but none of the criticisms fit the dumbed down video game on paper that only entitled kiddies play model.

Also, most folks would agree that 4e -> 5e meant being less video-gamey, not more.

[Anonymouswizard]

However, the current stance of WotC seem to be that keeping it simple will help them attract more players, but I'm not sure... If older gamers stick to 2nd and 3.5 editions and don't introduce the new players to the game, who will do it?

Eh, RPGs will always be hard to get into (I've previously had to supply dice for an entire group, due to nobody being willing to spend £5, not fun, and I'm certain I used to have another 5 d10s), especially as lots of people are so unwilling to be the GM (which is the main problem).

Not introducing new players to D&D I can live with. The only editions I actually like anymore are 4e and 2e, and those have their own challenges. I'm apathetic towards the rest.

Then 5e came along, threw out most of the things I had an issue with in 3rd and 4th, took the few good bits of them, and tried to rebuild AD&D out of that, to a pleasantly-surprising degree of success. It's overcomplicated in some places and overly-streamlined in others, but works much better than I initially thought it would. Still not as good as 2e--and I wish it were easily cross-compatible with TSR-era material, like 2e was compatible with 1e and BECMI/RC with practically no effort--but with some advantages over 2e in terms of newbie-friendliness, class balance, ease of use, and DM advice for balancing encounters. Easily my second-favorite and one I'm enjoying quite a bit, even if I needle the "dagnabbed whippersnappers" from time to time about how "back in MY day" a first-level wizard had 1d4 HP that you had to roll for and one spell per day with no cantrips.

You see, my problems with 5e mount up, going from barely there narrative mechanics, far too few rules in the rulebook, far too many prepackaged spells, far too many classes (what happened to the version where Sorcerer and Wizard were going to be Mage subclasses? That sounded great), a horrible skill system, and so on. Comparing the 5e player's handbook to the Fate Core System book I can see:

• Both have roughly the same number of pages, although Fate uses a smaller size.
• Fate feels like it uses better quality paper.
• Fate cost less than two-thirds the price of the 5ePhB
• Fate gives me a complete game in one tone, with GM advice in addition to player rules.
• Fate includes narrative mechanics from step 1 of character creation, and they are actively influenced by the players instead of waiting for GM handouts.
• Fate streamlines characters and removes the elements that would just be similar (such as gear)
• Fate allows me to represent the difference between a wizard who has studied Arcana all his life, and a hedge mage who kinda knows how to distinguish spells.
• Fate gives me advice on homebrewing for my game and encourages it (in the Skills section where it talks about making skill lists and stunts, to the extras section)
• I actually just prefer Fate as a game, due to the mechanics encouraging player/GM cooperation.

I feel like Fate is just a better designed and fun game, especially for fantasy adventuring (although I'm not fond of dungeons, I want a plot). I know that many people do like 5e, and I'm not saying that they are wrong (my female half-orc swashbuckler Lore Bard in a silly hat is going to be played), but I just can't like it as a game (although I don't dislike it, I have an intense burning apathy).

[2D8HP]

The following is purely personal opinion and not intended to spawn any edition-warring over which is "objectively better" or any such nonsense. The very things I hated about one edition might be the things someone else didn't mind or even loved to pieces, and vice-versa, and neither one is wrong.
Started in 2e, it was awesomely fun.
Then 5e came along. Easily my second-favorite and one I'm enjoying quite a bit, even if I needle the "dagnabbed whippersnappers" from time to time about how "back in MY day" a first-level wizard had 1d4 HP that you had to roll for and one spell per day with no cantrips.

JAL (and others),
I really like your post, it says it all (I shortened the quote a bit for length as I'm sure you can see). Your love for the game shines through, I skipped past 2e "back in the day" but I would love to pull up a seat at your table and try it out.
When I read of what people love about the editions I never played I get more eager to play them. Strangely peoples criticisms of other editions makes me want to play then to (a lot of what people say they don't like in some editions sound like what we wished for a little of back in the 1970's)!
My son recently turned the same age I was when I discovered D&D, and since 5e is what is in the stores now I got it for him (didn't work he prefers "Magic: The Gathering"). Had he had been born just a little earlier I would have gotten 4e instead.
Don't get me wrong, I think "edition wars" are great fun, and I will happily bad mouth what I perceive as an editions flaws (I also like political arguments as well). But if someone invites me to play that edition? Yes! I will gladly take a seat (DMing it, however is another story. It must be the "one true game")!
Don't get me started on "Katanas and Trenchcoats"!

[digiman619]

Well, edition wars can be fun, but Spoony's EPIC two-part rant about how 5th Edition really turned me off of it. He complained the 5th wasn't 2nd Edition again like how he wanted, and how modern gamers were huge p*****s because of the lowered lethality of the game and how obviously better 2nd Edition was, but Pathfinder's his current fave (figure THAT out). Because having level 1 characters, even the martials, be at risk at being one-shotted even by low level enemies is clearly the better system. What's worse, he comes off as though it's OUR fault that 5th isn't the perfect system it deserves to be. I like Spoony, but that rant had me stop watching him for a few months.

[oxybe]

spoony is an odd duck.

i like hearing him talk about his gamer stories (the shadowrun squirtgun wars is probably the funniest example of GM/Player arms race and it is something i can see happening in shadowrun) and the oddballs he's put up with, but we have such a difference in play & gming styles, i would never want to play with the guy in anything resembling a campaign.

[Bohandas]

I've criticized people because hey did update. Does that count?[

[JAL_1138]

JAL (and others),
I really like your post, it says it all (I shortened the quote a bit for length as I'm sure you can see). Your love for the game shines through, I skipped past 2e "back in the day" but I would love to pull up a seat at your table and try it out.
When I read of what people love about the editions I never played I get more eager to play them. Strangely peoples criticisms of other editions makes me want to play then to (a lot of what people say they don't like in some editions sound like what we wished for a little of back in the 1970's)!
My son recently turned the same age I was when I discovered D&D, and since 5e is what is in the stores now I got it for him (didn't work he prefers "Magic: The Gathering"). Had he had been born just a little earlier I would have gotten 4e instead.
Don't get me wrong, I think "edition wars" are great fun, and I will happily bad mouth what I perceive as an editions flaws (I also like political arguments as well). But if someone invites me to play that edition? Yes! I will gladly take a seat (DMing it, however is another story. It must be the "one true game")!
Don't get me started on "Katanas and Trenchcoats"!

Thanks!

Likewise, sometimes the criticisms are what pull me in. I heard complaints about 5th that it stripped out a lot of the granularity, power-level, and character-creation options of 3rd, and stripped out a lot of the tactical positioning and combat-role emphasis. These were things I didn't like, so the amount of rage over them that came up from really, really diehard fans of those editions got me a little more interested in it.

Complaining is an underrated and entirely-valid hobby in its own right, IMO, but it can get troublesome on forums. Thought I'd best post a disclaimer

I'm likewise much more willing to jump in as a player than a DM. A game has to be low on prep time, something I already understand really well, and something I really enjoy as a system (not just because of a particular setting or adventure I had fun in, or because of good fluff, but mechanically) before I'll consider DMing it.

I've come to the conclusion I can't really evaluate something until I've actually played it for a few sessions--unless I can't figure out how to play it, or it doesn't have published bestiaries (I hate building monsters from scratch), or it has a crunch level that makes my eyes cross, at least. I didn't think I'd like 5e nearly as well as I do when I first read it.

[2D8HP]

I actually just prefer Fate as a game, due to the mechanics encouraging player/GM cooperation.
I feel like Fate is just a better designed and fun game, especially for fantasy adventuring (although I'm not fond of dungeons, I want a plot). I know that many people do like 5e, and I'm not saying that they are wrong (my female half-orc swashbuckler Lore Bard in a silly hat is going to be played), but I just can't like it as a game (although I don't dislike it, I have an intense burning apathy).

Dagnabbit!
Now I want to try FATE (and FUDGE) as well!
(angry muttering while counting money in wallet follows)

[JAL_1138]

Player/DM cooperation? What sort of newfangled hippie nonsense is that? The DM's job is to try to kill the players fair and square (i.e., not using DM omnipotence to guarantee they'll die), and the players' job is to both try to live and annoy the living heck out of the DM with shenanigans. Dagnabbed whippersnappers! Back in MY day...